Brutus_buckeye

The WANT is the biggest thing. Go back 40 years ago or longer and you had a lot more families who desired to be larger for numerous reasons. I think a good part of that is that people married earlier and started having kids earlier. Younger marriages meant more opportunity to have children. Despite all the advances in science, they have not been able to stop the biological clock. While more people delay in their families now, older age makes pregnancy more expensive for older parents, it makes the opportunities to start families fewer as people will try and squeeze 2-3 kids in over an 8 year period now instead of having 15-20 childbearing years to spread out more kids. Also, more dual income houses diminishes the amount of kids people have. People can make policy arguments about family leave or free child care all day, but the one thing that having a dual income household does is it creates less time. Parents are busier than ever with both trying to juggle a career today. Affordability and desire aside, a lot of parents are left to say I just do not have the energy to work and juggle another child. Anecdotally, i know a number of couples with larger families around me, many came from dual income professional households. Oftentimes, you see after 2 kids both parents keep working full time, by the 4th kid most mother's start to stay home and then certainly after 5+ kids the mother quits her fairly high powered job to stay home. To your point, I do not think enough parents want to do that today in order to juggle more children.

I think the cold water thrown on the Union terminal route is interesting. I was a bit surprised by Schieder's assessment of Walnut Hills, but I get his point about the increased bus service really limiting the potential ROI. Route 1 is obviously the biggest No Brainer. Going through Newport and Covington would really connect the downtown region in a way it is not currently and allow people to move throughout the urban core better than most cities. The challenge is if the political will is there in Kentucky to make it happen. My guess is no. Route 4 - going to the West Side is intriguing and I can completely see how he is thinking. The Mohawk neighborhood down there is almost on a bit of an island. Connecting that and making it viable again would offer a strong ROI for expanding the line that direction. Being able to offer such amenities and update the housing stock in that area will provide the ability to attract a maybe a couple thousand new residents to an untapped neighborhood. You can't achieve that as easily going to Walnut Hills (because it is already been tapped into by developers) and you do not get that as much going west to Union Terminal because (TQL will spur a lot of the development and it is too industrial on the West Side of 75) . It is clear that Schneider is looking at it from a development play specifically and not so much transportation oriented play. It totally makes sense his perspective when thinking about it in terms of what will get the biggest bang for the buck.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35674176/joe-burrow-jason-derulo-co-owners-pro-volleyball-team The ESPN story indicates that he will co-Own with Derulo (or the Burrow family will)

They may be smaller partners with Derulo. All the news reports out of Cincinnati talk about how they are working to bring the team to Omaha.

Joe Burrow and his family own the Omaha team.

That would be a for flight attendants, not pilots, correct?

My guess is that it would end up at CVG. Besides better weather, it likely has a bigger pilot talent pool. PSA Airlines has a talent base there plus DHL, Atlas Air, and Amazon all have pilot bases there which offers a lot of ability to pull new talent. I am not sure if Cleveland still has a United base or not, but you would think they would go where there are additional pilot synergies.

Like anything, it is a matter of building relationships, whether it be with the government officer in charge of making the purchasing decision or the private company that is the government contractor who is seeking out sub contractors. Getting a government contract is similar in the sense to get a private contract, with the exception is there is a lot more red tape and a lot more of the hurry up and wait mentality. You have to want to do business with the government to make it worth playing that game because they are an absolute pain to deal with. Unfortunately, for small contractors you get jerked around a lot more by the government than you do the the rest of private secto and you often know where you stand better in the private sector.

That was for Moeller.

St. Louis isn't accurate. They did not build the new Busch on the footprint of the old one. IT was next to it. St. Louis played in the old one up until they moved to the new stadium. I also think Pittsburgh did a good job on replacing 3 Rivers. It is partially a parking lot now but they have done some nice infill between Heinz and PNC in that space. Also, you have to recognize Minneapolis, taking an old suburban stadium (at the time before such areas were redeveloped) and building the Mall of America. Finally, even though it took like 15 years to do something with it, it just seem appropriate that the old Siverdome is turned into an Amazon distribution center.

Government contracts are fully of cronyism. They will not tell you that because they need to see bidders but to play the game you need to know who is going to win the contract and connect with them to try and work as a sub contractor under them. To your point, they are still written specifically for the party they want to get the bid, which makes it impossible for anyone else to comply profitably in order to win the bid on their own. What these RFP's do is offer smaller contractors to try and connect with the preferred bidder (if they can find them) and network with them so that the preferred bidder can check some of the boxes for diversity, small business owner, etc. that the government wants to see. But make no mistake, the main construction companies on this project are already known and working on it prior to the RFP

Cant wait for the crosstown showdown in football between Xavier and UC University of Dayton.

When do they hope to announce this program?

What I am saying, good, bad or indifferent, is that the biological clock is real. As people delay starting families until they are in their 30's or later, it is more difficult to have children, they often has less children due to age, and oftentimes, it is more expensive to conceive as many couples need to resort to fertility treatments and other methods to conceive. If more women were conceiving in their 20s it would allow more time to have more children, it would reduce the cost of having a child as the need for fertility treatments would likely be in less demand when the mother is younger. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but it should be recognized as a societal tradeoff that has occurred as fewer young adults are coupling up in their 20's and starting families. It is just one thing that is ignored in the equation. So, who is having children? to your point, It generally is the 1) poor have the most, 2) Rich will often have 3 it seems (but they are by far the smallest group) and middle class (the largest group) have the fewest if any. So how do you grow your population? Well, you don't look to Europe as they clearly don't have it figured out. China screwed that pooch a long time ago and is going to be paying the price for their idiotic policies for the last 50 years. The only easy answer is immigration. Despite what Donald Trump may say, immigration is the only way out of this. Expanding legal immigration to allow more immigrants opportunities in the US will ultimately solve a lot of the problems (including decreasing inflation). Immigration will be the fastest and easiest way to at least keep up population growth in countries. If you are looking for policies that can help. Promoting opportunities for mothers to stay home with their kids would be beneficial (for those who desire it). Promoting policiies that encourage people to have multiple children would also be beneficial. However, these are very long term plays and would often take a generation to bear much fruit. In the short term, immigration is the best way.

Hyde Park is a great neighborhood and so is Oakley and Mt. Lookout, but those neighborhoods will always be strong. For light rail, I would run it N/S in between the 71 corridor and connect Downtown, Uptown, Kenwood and Blue Ash on a line as those areas are all major job centers in Hamilton County. At the same time you run it through Norwood, Kennedy Heights/Pleasant Ridge, Silverton and connect through Deer Park. This would give an economic jolt to those older neighborhoods.

I have heard about football coming back had not heard about the medical school. I would think medical school, or at least pure medical school where they do it alone is a difficult lift considering Xavier does not have an affiliation with a hospital. Maybe like NKU has a medical program with UK, but who would XU affiliate with? I know they have a very good nursing program and OT School. I could see them expanding on that into more PT (although MSJ and UC both have PT programs).

exactly. A lot of McDonalds and Wendy's and other fast food workers in Ohio are starting out at $12-$13/hr.

Nobody earns $7.25 anyway. the market determines the wage not the government. It is much more efficient that way and also leads to much better outcomes.

to your point, part of the fertility problem is that women are choosing to have children later in life than in the past. It is a lot easier for a woman to get pregnant (statistically speaking) at 25 vs 35. When you have people delaying starting a family until their mid 30s now instead of mid 20s like is was 30 years ago it also will add to fewer children, more difficulty having kids and more costs associated with trying to have a child. At the same time, it is the responsible decision of many women to delay childbirth until they are in a stable relationship and in a position where they have stability in their career or personal life. Anecdotally speaking, my wife had our youngest daughter in her late 30s after suffering 4-5 miscarriages along the way. Getting pregnant with our other kids when she was younger was much easier in that regard. Growing up, my mother had a miscarriage as she got older in her late 30s. So it is certainly more common that as women age, it is certainly more difficult to have children than it would have been if they were younger.

This shows that you have a very limited understanding of labor and labor markets. Google, E&Y, Amazon, etc are Fortune 100 firms. Many of the employees they hire are high earners and the companies earn billions of dollars a year. That is not the reality for the vast majority of the economy and employers. To treat them the same way and impose the same burden that a huge company paying their employees six figures would choose to offer would stifle the economy and innovation. You cite the minimum wage laws, as your prime example, but most economists would agree that minimum wage laws really do not work at actually increasing real wages for any sustainable period. If you notice, minimum wage laws are fairly pyrrhic in what they accomplish. Go to California or states like Illinois that set high minimum wage rates (and a long runway to achieve it), you see that given the current inflation, wages are naturally rising to above the minimum wage floor set by government to compensate employees for the additional cost burden created by the inflation. When the Federal government raises the minimum wage, have you ever noticed that it is still below what the average entry level fast food worker is currently earning? Minimum wage is a joke and has always been.

So you want government to mandate how a private company chooses to run their business? Essentially, all employees have an absolute right to work remote unless the employer offers expensive benefits like child care? That is a horrible idea. If companies want to offer an employee benefit of free childcare to attract and retain talent, that is their prerogative. It is not government's place to mandate this. Free childcare is not an employee right. It is not the McDonald's franchisee's responsibility to provide free childcare to the teenager who gets knocked up and cant come into her minimum wage job anymore. For one, these small employers could not afford this cost (given that it would probably cost more than the employee earns on the hour) and there could be issues if the employer chose not to retain the worker due to the family situation. This would just be ripe for abuse and trouble and horrible for small employers. They will earn what the market will bear. Also, what about landlords of these office spaces that do not wish to rent to day care facilities? Do these facilities have an absolute right to this space? What about when they don't pay their rent? SOme building owners may decide that daycare does not fit the space they want to rent and may choose to leave it vacant instead of renting it. There are certainly a lot of hurdles to overcome. One thing that would be beneficial as you point out is to make the licensing process a lot easier and smoother for daycares. Allow people to get licensed to host small day care centers out of their houses so they do it properly (a lot of people just do it anyway without getting licensed so to cut down the red tape would be beneficial to create some oversight). Also, it would be beneficial to allow in hoe nannies to be paid as 1099 workers instead of W2. For the average person who has a nanny, it is a pain in the butt to have to set up payroll withholding and file the tax forms just to have someone watch the kids during the day. Remove this tax burden. Even if unreported, this in-home staff is not really costing the treasury much anyway. Again it is the administrative burden.

They probably know the bidders who are likely to win, so it is more of a formality. They need to open the bidding to everyone but given it is a progressive bidding schedule, the people who are going to develop it have been likely working on this for months and it is a check the box type of RFP even though the winners have been predetermined already "guise" of open bidding is merely just checking the box, unless someone really comes in and surprises them, it pretty much is predetermined/

it is amusing how many people will rent a storage unit to store their furniture or belongings while they spend a year or two away and then when they come back to town, they still keep the storage unit full of their crap because the old furniture that they were storing does not fit the style of their new house. Even after realizing this, they still pay on the unit for years in some cases before they actually get rid of the belongings.

I do not think that is what he is trying to do. He is all for the study on the 3C rail line but he said the preference for business leaders is to expand service to Chicago first as that is a proven route that could be done immediately. He said if the study proves that it is viable, the 3C-D route would certainly also be welcome.

^ Not all in jest, I am semi serious about that post :)