Sex during bad economy complicated, News Record Column

A sour economy provides interesting twists in social behavior, with the latest fascination of many media outlets being the rise in condom sales during the recession.

Theories for this rise include sex drive being immune to the recession, at-home entertainment being cheaper than out-of-home entertainment and an increased rationality about having an extra dependant in the budget, said William Saletan of Slate magaine.

But what really constitutes the rise in condom sales? For one, condoms are cheaper than birth control pills; 23 percent of women are having a harder time affording birth control, according to a Washington Post survey.

The problem there exists with reliability: Statistically, condoms are a tad more risky than birth control, but is that extra risk worth the extra cost of birth control?

Let?s be clear: More condom sales does not necessarily translate to more sex.
?In this economy, even sex doesn?t sell,? said The Los Angeles Times in reference to plummeting profits of Nevada brothels.

It?s also worth noting adult entertainment mogul Larry Flint did request a government bailout, even though his industry, as he puts it, is ?in no fear of collapse.?

Sex may be a cheap form of entertainment, but stress and other factors specific to each couple probably determine the sex drive.

Couples are looking to save money now, so they purchase the cheapest method of preventing pregnancy. Increased use and sales of protection could also be tied to the expense of raising children.

Having one more child can put a middle class home down a rung on the financial ladder. Not only is the amount of time a burden, but the cost of education is huge. We do not need extra hands on the farm today; the return of investment on a child is far less than ever.

Parents are decreasingly relying on their children to take care of them into old age, so why would having many children be a top priority? What once was just one extra mouth to feed in exchange for 10 years of labor has now become a huge expense with no financial benefits.

The estimated cost of raising a child born in 2007 to the age of 18 soared from about $25,000 in 1960 to $205,000, according to the Time magazine article, ?Million dollar babies.?

And that does not include a college education, which, if paid for by parents, can make children even more expensive.

People make quick, intuitive decisions: Buying condoms in the short term is cheap compared to the little bit of extra risk added by switching from birth control. But, the increase in sales could also be a result of how expensive children have become.

More couples could be purchasing protection that were not before and spending a tad more in the short term to avoid a huge cost for life.

Our generation will most likely continue the trend of fewer children per couple. We will use more protection as a result of an extra bill our parents may not have had: the college loan payment.

Thousands of variables can be used to measure a difference in couple?s love lives, but too much complexity is a weakness.

Almost everyone measures cost-benefit in the blink of an eye, and in one blink the cost of contraception compared to the cost of a child could easily cause the 5 percent increase in condom sales for last quarter.

Where Do We Draw the Line?

After the election of 1800, Aaron Burr wanted to continue practicing law while holding the title of Vice President of the United States, he was not allowed by Thomas Jefferson. Imagine the poor fellow who would be defending someone or something against the Vice President of the United States. The office is held in high regard and surely no jury would go against the Vice President in a court decision.

Today, the President of the United States wrote (or had someone write) an article in the New York Times, "Why We Need Health Care Reform." Currently sitting as the number two read article in the paper and soon to be number one.

Does anyone else find it appalling that the president can use his office in order to deliberately sway the public after being elected? There has to be as John Goodman in the film The Big Lebowski mentions, "a line in the sand".......could anyone not in favor of the Presidents health care reform get an article published this week in the New York Times rebuking the President?

It is bad enough to see the millions of dollars thrown around for competing advertisements and graft among senators. Does the president also have to participate? If so, may he be called the King and addressed as "his highness?" The power of the office is a great army to confront. This army of sway power much like Aaron Burr's in a court room in 1801 should not be allowed.

Something's Gotta Give.

As we fall deeper and deeper into debt, things are going to change. The old business strategy of "expand, expand, expand" may turn into one of, "lets just make sure our long term debt = 0."

Considering a future America that must change and become more efficient, I wonder about the USPS. Yes, the postal service, the monopoly, third largest employer of people in the country (700,000+ employees) and single largest vehicle owner. Productivity has increased at USPS over the last eight years, but their long term debt is over 6 billion dollars. Eventually they are going to have to make a move and hopefully not become the next GM.......could they sell all mailing rights to UPS and FedEx for 10 billion and fulfill all their long term debt obligations (like 7.5 billion in pension)?

Either way, somethings gotta give, employee pensions or postal services (or both)......by the way don't expect mail on Saturdays anymore. And if you live off the road 100 miles, shouldn't you have to pay more for someone to spend the time to deliver you something than the guy who lives in the city?

There are better solutions than shuttering the joint that is the USPS, their website still gets over one hundred million hits a year......

Poor decisions, no change in decision makers.....

My hometown of Cincinnati is in a 20-40 million dollar deficit, there was a financial crisis people get hopped up and make some bad decisions, and BANG there goes 40 mil.....no big deal

But, some decisions are just too poor to blame on a crisis. A perfect example of poor decision making can be seen in a near 4,000 square foot 20 bus stop station built beneath second street in 2003 (above). It cost 23 million dollars and it is housing for a few bums who can get past the chain lock......those of you who live here have probably seen the entrance which looks like it leads to a subway and is across from the stadiums.

Now when others make 23 million dollar mistakes at work, they get fired . Where is the new management? When things go wrong, that's ok, mistakes happen but fault needs to placed and new people need to step into the Cincinnati political machine. This was a 2003 mistake, same leadership today (rich peoples sons) that cannot get anything in Cincy rolling.

Hopefully Nick Lachey is panning a run for mayor.......40 million dollar deficits, 2 different stadiums for 2 losing teams (they can both play in one), failure to develop any riverfront property and seeing how cool Newport is, and lastly this bus station have to be reason for a change from the 9 person council system.

From a Friend, Ponder this....

I received this from a good friend, Thomas Schaefer the other day, he received it from a friend of his.........I could not fin the origination of the document, but its a good idea.

"The Proposal"

When a company falls on difficult times, one of the things that seems to happen is they reduce their staff and workers. The remaining workers must find ways to continue to do a good job or risk that their job would be eliminated as well.

Wall street, and the media normally congratulate the CEO for making this type of "tough decision", and his board of directors gives him a big bonus .

Our government should not be immune from similar risks. Therefore:

• Reduce the House of Representatives from the current 435 members to 218 members.
• Reduce Senate members from 100 to 50 (one per State).
• Then, reduce their staff by 25%.Accomplish this over the next 8 years(two steps/two elections) and of course this would require some redistricting.

Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:$44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267 members X $165,200 pay/member/ yr.)$97,175,000 for elimination of their staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of the House, and $3 Million in staff per each=2 0member of the Senate every year)$240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.

$7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates for total government pork earmarks are at $15 Billion/yr ).

The remaining Representatives would need to work smarter and improve efficiency. It might even be in their best interests to work together for the good of our country! We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even be easier to keep track of what your Representative is doing.Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it had back in 1911 when the current number of Representatives was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to name a few)Note: Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic problems. Also, we had 3 senators that were not doing their jobs for the 18+ months (on the campaign trail) and still they all have accepted full pay. These facts alone support a reduction in senators.

Summary of opportunity:

• $ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
• $282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member staff.
• $150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member staff.
• $59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house members.
• $37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate members.
• $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork added to bills by the reduction of congress members.

= around $8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings. (that's 8-BILLION just to start!)

Unemployment Rate, not the real issue.....

Freakonomics Blog poster Justin Wolfers poses and interesting and somewhat scary number that is more worrisome than unemployment. Aggregate working hours. The U.S. unemployment rate hit 9.5 percent today and will probably go much higher in the next year.

However, the real issue is total working hours in the United States (or the world), which have diminished severely. So, lets say one person is fired and is now unemployed, how many others work weeks were cut back to 30 or even 20 hours? The people working less hours are not as easily included into the unemployment lot.

The purple line (private total hours worked) dips the lowest whereas the black line is more a reflection of unemployment although it measures payrolls. Check out freakonomics.com for this graph and more in-depth information.

Getting a Beer in Bergen, Norway

Norway is an expensive country to say the least. The government grip is felt in a simple grocery reciept. I want to try to explain this process as compared to the United States......so I may ramble a bit.

Anyways, in the States, more specifically in Cincinnati OH, beer can be purchased at a variety of places; convenience stores, grocery stores, pharmacies, and even Chipotle. Not only that, but it can be purchased until 2 a.m. six days a week and until midnight on Sundays.

In Bergen, Norway beer can be purchased at.......... grocery stores. Liqor is sold at a seperate government owned entity, and I have yet to see one of these establishments. Beer can be purchased until 8 p.m. on weekdays and until 6 p.m. on Saturday............At what time does the average person start drinking? Well for me it's usually past the time you can buy beer in Bergen.
So, i've been in Bergen for about 2 weeks and I officialy have found their cheapest beer for sale. Its called Seidel and in runs 9.90 Kroner (about $1.65) for one. How do I know the price of one bottle of beer at the grocery? Well in Bergen, you can buy 1 beer at a time tearing one poor little beer away from its five other family members. Who would do such a thing? Since one beer in not enough for me, I purchased 8 for 87.20 Kroner and I later realized, 87.20 Kroner= $14.53 = 14.53/8 = $1.81 per beer.......how did 1.65 per ber turn into 1.81.....the bottling fee/tax is 25%!

So drinking here involves preparation, first get you beer early. Second, buy a bunch of individuals because there are no 18, 24, or 30 cases. And third, the beer I drink (the cheapest here I can guarentee you) doesn't come in any kind of carrying case, so get a bag to put them in. If you're in Cincy, think of me the next time your carrying a conveniently filled 30 case of your favorite cheap pilsner........I envy you. It's not all bad, every bottle returned in Bergen= $0.17.