Right now, employers only have to pay 1.45% of an employee's wages to cover all people in this country over the age of 65 -- an age cohort that has very high medical expenses as compared to younger people.

3 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

There is the issue of lower birthrates after 2000, but there is also the issue of very high health care costs for professional employees.  No doubt the admissions staff and administrators of these small liberal arts schools are bloated, and they are forced to pay sky-high insurance premiums to retain professional staff. 

 

Education at all levels must pay for health care in the United States.  Not sure why people aren't louder about reducing health care costs and switching to a public system for this reason alone.   

The lower birthrates are cyclical and stem primarily from Gen X.

Go back to the 1930s depression era. There were fewer births because of the depression and then the war so it was a smaller generation.

After the war you had the baby boom, everyone had kids and it was normal to have 5-6 or more kids in a family. This was the largest generation at that time.

When the depression era kids who went to HS in the 1950s and early 60s started having kids, they created Gen X. They were already a small generation to begin with and the Gen X kids were typically born into families of 1-3 kids. Birth control introduced in the 60s and the divorce rate skyrocketed leading to smaller family sizes. Gen X was a small generation and also known as the "baby bust"

The boomers an extremely large group went on to have children and they created the millennials. Typical family sizes were 2-3 kids but given that the baby boom generation was so large, having 2-3 kids led to the largest generation of kids being born. Basic laws of compounding. Now millennials are now in their late 20s and 30s and having their own kids.

So come 2000, you have Gen X. They are now having kids. An already small generation having 2-3 kids max will naturally lead to a decline in the birth-rate. Now that Gen Z is coming of age to enter college.

When the millennial children go to college, it will again lead to the largest generation and mass influx of students into college in about 15-17 more years.

 

The high cost of healthcare may play somewhat of a role, but the bigger thing is the varying sizes of the generations, and this cycle originated in the 30s and early 40s.

The when is as important as the number of children.  If two women have one child and one has hers at age 20 and the other has hers at age 40, well those are two completely different things from a demographic standpoint.  The population-shrinking effects of lower birthrates are magnified by women having children later. 

 

I offhandedly brought up this topic one time with my grandmother and she became thoroughly confused, then upset.  She has never had to work with numbers in her life (she can write checks and program a VCR, unlike my other grandmother) but thought I was orchestrating some sort of pro-abortion argument.  

 

 

 

Certainly, the older mothers are when they have kids plays a role. Part of that is the reason for lower birthrates because there is less time to have 6-7 or 8 kids.

7 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

The when is as important as the number of children.  If two women have one child and one has hers at age 20 and the other has hers at age 40, well those are two completely different things from a demographic standpoint.  The population-shrinking effects of lower birthrates are magnified by women having children later. 

 

I offhandedly brought up this topic one time with my grandmother and she became thoroughly confused, then upset.  She has never had to work with numbers in her life (she can write checks and program a VCR, unlike my other grandmother) but thought I was orchestrating some sort of pro-abortion argument.

 

And this compounds enormously over time.  If a mother and her daughter each have their first child at age 35, then the grandmother is 70, and probably 72-73 by the time the daughter is old enough to really form a relationship with her.  If a mother and daughter each have their first child at 21, the grandmother is still 42.  If the younger generation were to continue, the younger grandmother could even be a great-grandmother at 63.  This is a form of human capital that has largely been replaced by financial capital among the professional classes--people establish themselves in careers and build up savings and investments before having children.  (The child born to an age-35 mother is obviously likely to come home to a wealthier household than the child born to an age-21 mother, even if the age-35 mother isn't in any kind of elite profession.)  And, as you noted, it also affects total population growth even if the overwhelming majority of women don't have more than 3 kids.

 

Of course, there has also been a significant rise in the number of people having zero children, too.  That obviously will be felt by colleges over time (and, of course, by the retirement system and other elements of our society that are outside the scope of this thread).

Even the most shoeless hillbillies aren't having 6 kids anymore, but they still have their first at much younger younger age than average.

2 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Even the most shoeless hillbillies aren't having 6 kids anymore, but they still have their first at much younger younger age than average.

 

I know a girl who just had 5 before age 25 and a guy who had 7 by age 27.  I also know a guy with 10, including two sons with the same first name by different women. 

 

Meanwhile, I have three siblings over 30 and just 1 kid between the four of us. 

 

 

 

College: the ultimate contraceptive and Grad School the Sterilizer

who knew Rob Lowe's son went to Stanford? But at the risk of "throwing shade" on him, it probably helped to have a parent who's a rich celebrity. ? After all, the most elite colleges get many more highly qualified candidates than they can accommodate. 

 

Rob Lowe Throws Shade at Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman

 

https://www.eonline.com/news/1022993/rob-lowe-throws-shade-at-lori-loughlin-and-felicity-huffman

 

 

?

 

the best thing about this scandal is that now when someone tells you they went to an elite college, it gives permission to legitimately question them as to their qualifications to gain admission, without seeming to rudely mock them, even though that's exactly what you're doing?

 

 

Now I remember a girl online was messaging me about 15 years ago bragging about how she went to college with the twin boys that played her kids on Full House.

Student Debt Is Transforming the American Family

The cost of a degree—and the “open future” that supposedly comes with it—has become one of the defining forces of middle-class life.

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/09/student-debt-is-transforming-the-american-family

 

Since 2012, Zaloom has spent a lot of time with families like Kimberly’s. They all fall into America’s middle class—an amorphous category, defined more by sensibility or aspirational identity than by a strict income threshold. (Households with an annual income of anywhere from forty thousand dollars to a quarter of a million dollars view themselves as middle class.) In “Indebted: How Families Make College Work at Any Cost” (Princeton), Zaloom considers how the challenge of paying for college has become one of the organizing forces of middle-class family life. She and her team conducted interviews with a hundred and sixty families across the country, all of whom make too much to qualify for Pell Grants (reserved for households that earn below fifty thousand dollars) but too little to pay for tuition outright. These families are committed to providing their children with an “open future,” in which passions can be pursued. They have done all the things you’re supposed to, like investing and saving, and not racking up too much debt. Some parents are almost neurotically responsible, passing down a sense of penny-pinching thrift as though it were an heirloom; others prize idealism, encouraging their children to follow their dreams. What actually unites them, from a military family in Florida to a dual-Ph.D. household in Michigan, is that the children are part of a generation where debt—the financial and psychological state of being indebted—will shadow them for much of their adult lives.

 

=========================================

 

Not to state the obvious too bluntly, but in terms of defining the "middle class," there's a huge difference in the tuition a family with a $250,000 income can afford without debt and what a family with a $40,000 income can afford without debt, and that's without even taking the second significant and obvious variable of family size into account.  So I'm glad that she narrowed that to beyond the Pell grant threshold but below the ability to pay full tuition.  But I wish I knew what limiting factors on "ability to pay full tuition" she used, too.  If my kids get into The Ohio State University, we're on track to be able to fund full tuition for them.  If they insist on going to Kenyon, the picture is dramatically different.

If the Rs want babies all over the place so badly, they should forgive student loans. There will be way more babies from that than banning abortion.

 

But to your point about which schools to pick e.g. OSU vs. Kenyon, I wouldn't be surprised if the little schools are already at a huge disadvantage among future students reputationally as places where if you go there you'll be totally on your own finding a job unless it is in healthcare.

Edited September 4, 20195 yr by GCrites80s

In many R circles, the main issue about higher education and student loans is whether the absurd increases in sticker prices described in that article (and many others) are in part (and if so, in how large a part) driven by the easy availability of federally-guaranteed credit.  It's something of a Rorschach test because of how many variables go into determining tuition, but there is a considerable body of conservative think tank work arguing that colleges would be able to cut a lot of administrative, recreational, housing, and other non-instructional expenses if the spigot of federally guaranteed money were cut off.

 

That said, under the current system, regardless of how it might be changed in the future, I'm not at all arguing against the position that high student loan burdens are delaying family formation and other markers of the transition into full adulthood.  How could I?  Average age of marriage and first childbirth is increasing (particularly among the college-educated), family sizes are decreasing, average age of first home purchase is increasing.

 

I could add all kinds of other factors that dovetail well into things UO is quite familiar with, of course.  Better jobs tend to be clustered in more expensive cities; young professionals want to go to those cities both for the jobs and for the culture; rural communities are struggling to replace any decent jobs (blue collar or white collar) that leave.  I even have law school classmates that graduated $300k+ in debt, after undergrad at places like Notre Dame followed by law school; they moved to NYC and DC for the elite firm jobs there that make those kinds of debts manageable, but housing prices there mean that many of them are still renters, and we all graduated well over a decade ago now.  Meanwhile, my wife and I don't make that kind of money, but housing prices in Akron mean that we have 3 kids and have no financial constraints on having a fourth if we choose to go that route, we have a 10-year mortgage that will actually mean my mortgage is paid off before my student loans (unless we move out of Akron proper into a more expensive suburb, of course), and I can effectively roll my eyes at those classmates who dare say "yeah, but you're living in Akron," considering what UOers are well aware of about the quality of urban living not just in Akron, but in Cleveland (not so far away on I-77 outside of rush hour) as well. 

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

In many R circles, the main issue about higher education and student loans is whether the absurd increases in sticker prices described in that article (and many others) are in part (and if so, in how large a part) driven by the easy availability of federally-guaranteed credit.  It's something of a Rorschach test because of how many variables go into determining tuition, but there is a considerable body of conservative think tank work arguing that colleges would be able to cut a lot of administrative, recreational, housing, and other non-instructional expenses if the spigot of federally guaranteed money were cut off.

 

That said, under the current system, regardless of how it might be changed in the future, I'm not at all arguing against the position that high student loan burdens are delaying family formation and other markers of the transition into full adulthood.  How could I?  Average age of marriage and first childbirth is increasing (particularly among the college-educated), family sizes are decreasing, average age of first home purchase is increasing.

 

I could add all kinds of other factors that dovetail well into things UO is quite familiar with, of course.  Better jobs tend to be clustered in more expensive cities; young professionals want to go to those cities both for the jobs and for the culture; rural communities are struggling to replace any decent jobs (blue collar or white collar) that leave.  I even have law school classmates that graduated $300k+ in debt, after undergrad at places like Notre Dame followed by law school; they moved to NYC and DC for the elite firm jobs there that make those kinds of debts manageable, but housing prices there mean that many of them are still renters, and we all graduated well over a decade ago now.  Meanwhile, my wife and I don't make that kind of money, but housing prices in Akron mean that we have 3 kids and have no financial constraints on having a fourth if we choose to go that route, we have a 10-year mortgage that will actually mean my mortgage is paid off before my student loans (unless we move out of Akron proper into a more expensive suburb, of course), and I can effectively roll my eyes at those classmates who dare say "yeah, but you're living in Akron," considering what UOers are well aware of about the quality of urban living not just in Akron, but in Cleveland (not so far away on I-77 outside of rush hour) as well. 

 

If one believes in the free market, one almost has to take it as a given that the availability of money both increased the prices of quality options and led to an expansion of cheaper ones of dubious value. 

 

There's been some talk in conservative circles of tying $ availability and/or interest rates to choice of major.   One can easily guess this would favor those in STEM fields that aren't already close to saturated, and not be so great for Oppression Studies majors.   Hell, this could hurt Oberlin more than the lawsuit LOL 

Few people who don't plan on becoming teachers study the evil humanities. So the funding wouldn't change much as far as that goes. One degree that business would push for heavily under this system is the Sales Management track, which almost no one pursues on their own. Most people study STEM or Business already anyway.

UC has not given adjuncts a raise since 2003:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/09/25/adjunct-pay-concerning-those-participating-uc-demonstration/2387302001/

8 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

UC has not given adjuncts a raise since 2003:

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2019/09/25/adjunct-pay-concerning-those-participating-uc-demonstration/2387302001/

 

Interesting.  According to the Cleveland Fed., in 2003 the state budget included about 10.5% ($5.1B) for higher education out of $49.1B.

https://www.clevelandfed.org/~/media/content/newsroom and events/publications/economic trends/2003/et 20030301 the ohio budget pdf.pdf

 

Fast-forward to the 2018-2019 budget, and Ohio now spends less than 4.5% ($2.9B-$3.4B depending on which chart you look at) on higher education out of $72.1B.

https://interactivebudget.ohio.gov/Budgets/default.aspx

 

So the overall budget increased nearly 50% but we have cut what we spend on higher education by more than 30%.  And inflation has cut into that even more (about 30% from 2003-2018)

 

The reduction in spending is not because of a reduction in enrollment.  The number of students in higher education has slightly increased about 7% from about 457,000 in 2003

http://regents.ohio.gov/hei/reports/prelimhc2003final.pdf

 

to about 490,000 in 2018.  

https://www.ohiohighered.org/sites/ohiohighered.org/files/uploads/hei/data-updates/PH_2018.PDF

 

The budget proposed for 2020-2021 includes a further decrease to around $2.8B.  So expect more adjuncts and more grad students teaching and fewer and fewer tenured faculty.  And more students choosing to go out of state (and taking their talents to jobs out of state too, no doubt)

 

 

^It's completely insane.  It's almost impossible for an adjunct to gross over $30,000 per year in Ohio, and most are struggling to reach $20,000.  

11 days!  ELEVEN!  I know people who have had longer Edging sessions!'

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/celebrity/felicity-huffman-released-prison-end-14-day-sentence-n1071921

 

 

 

 

^way to put it.

 

Anyway,

 

A record number of colleges drop SAT/ACT admissions requirement amid growing disenchantment with standardized tests

 

For students who fear they can’t get into college with mediocre SAT or ACT scores, the tide is turning at a record number of schools that have decided to accept all or most of their freshmen without requiring test results.

Meanwhile, two Ivy League schools have decided that many of their graduate school programs do not need a test score for admissions, fresh evidence of growing disenchantment among educational institutions with using high-stakes tests as a factor in accepting and rejecting students.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/10/18/record-number-colleges-drop-satact-admissions-requirement-amid-growing-disenchantment-with-standardized-tests/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

On 3/13/2019 at 12:58 PM, jmecklenborg said:

 

I know a girl who just had 5 before age 25 and a guy who had 7 by age 27.  I also know a guy with 10, including two sons with the same first name by different women. 

 

Meanwhile, I have three siblings over 30 and just 1 kid between the four of us. 

 

 

 

 

Another example of your "interesting" associates.  You really need to write a book or at least a blog.

 

The woman (not girl) who has 5 children, do all the children have the same father?  The man who has 7 children, are they all with the same woman?

 

 

10 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

^way to put it.

 

Did I lie?  LOL

I don't think Lori Loughlin is going to get off so easily

 

 

I had no idea you could go to prison that long for that sort of thing.

14 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

I don't think Lori Loughlin is going to get off so easily

 

 

 

And she shouldn't   She, her cheating husband and those untalented kids should go to jail and be assigned cells right next to Trump Associates.

 

She and her husband had the opportunity to tell their side of the story.

 

I hope they get the maximum.

22 minutes ago, MyTwoSense said:

 

And she shouldn't   She, her cheating husband and those untalented kids should go to jail and be assigned cells right next to Trump Associates.

 

She and her husband had the opportunity to tell their side of the story.

 

I hope they get the maximum.

 

but if the kids of these parents had nothing to do with it, why should they be punished? And since when did USC become such a competitive, elite school?!?  I once worked at a firm where there were two USC alumni, one (older) whose father had been a Disney executive, and a woman who grew up in Beverly Hills (but totally unpretentious and not snobby--she must have been from the "poorer" part.  lol). And for some reason NYU is now also regarded with the same reverence, like it's part of the Ivy League. It's ridiculous.

Edited October 26, 20195 yr by eastvillagedon

^That's because larger schools in major cities are almost all very important now because of jobs.

2 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

^That's because larger schools in major cities are almost all very important now because of jobs.

 

I think USC and NYU also have excellent marketing and PR departments

2 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

The woman (not girl) who has 5 children, do all the children have the same father?  The man who has 7 children, are they all with the same woman?

 

 

 

No, there were two, and daddy #2 ended up in prison for molesting one of the other dad's kids.  I don't know if he's still in or not.  I've met the mom a few times in passing (she comes to the workplace to see her dad occasionally).  What's crazy is that neither she nor the dad have a vehicle big enough (a van or minivan) to move everyone at once.  People wonder how people grow up never having seen a mountain or the ocean and never been on an elevator or escalator and you better understand it when it's just absolutely no priority to have a way of physically going on vacation. 

 

The guy with 7 has one "in Maryland" with her mom but the other 6 are here in Ohio.  Unfortunately one of them has serious medical problems and he has to miss work periodically because he gets a lot of care at Children's Hospital. 

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

No, there were two, and daddy #2 ended up in prison for molesting one of the other dad's kids.  I don't know if he's still in or not.  I've met the mom a few times in passing (she comes to the workplace to see her dad occasionally).  What's crazy is that neither she nor the dad have a vehicle big enough (a van or minivan) to move everyone at once.  People wonder how people grow up never having seen a mountain or the ocean and never been on an elevator or escalator and you better understand it when it's just absolutely no priority to have a way of physically going on vacation. 

 

The guy with 7 has one "in Maryland" with her mom but the other 6 are here in Ohio.  Unfortunately one of them has serious medical problems and he has to miss work periodically because he gets a lot of care at Children's Hospital. 

 

This is fascinating.

On ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 2:27 PM, MyTwoSense said:

 

This is fascinating.

 

Well his wife just brought the disabled 4-5 year-old daughter to work today to show off her Halloween costume.  Can't make this up - had her dressed as a wheelchair-bound Vietnam Vet.  

 

 

On 10/31/2019 at 1:02 PM, jmecklenborg said:

 

Well his wife just brought the disabled 4-5 year-old daughter to work today to show off her Halloween costume.  Can't make this up - had her dressed as a wheelchair-bound Vietnam Vet.  

 

 

 

Why is this not a reality show?  WHY?  I would watch.

4 hours ago, MyTwoSense said:

 

Why is this not a reality show?  WHY?  I would watch.

 

I had a major detail wrong, it was actually their son, not a daughter (I was confused by the wig).  I was so taken aback by the situation that I walked out of the office and so didn't get a good look or hear the full conversation.

 

Later I heard that they had the son dressed as Lt. Dan from Forest Gump.  I couldn't remember who this character was until I looked it up online since I hadn't seen the movie in 20~ years.  

 

They had the poor child's feet wrapped in cammo pants to make it look like he was missing his feet.  That of course isn't a practical costume for a child who can walk, but sadly this one can't. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

I had a major detail wrong, it was actually their son, not a daughter (I was confused by the wig).  I was so taken aback by the situation that I walked out of the office and so didn't get a good look or hear the full conversation.

 

Later I heard that they had the son dressed as Lt. Dan from Forest Gump.  I couldn't remember who this character was until I looked it up online since I hadn't seen the movie in 20~ years.  

 

They had the poor child's feet wrapped in cammo pants to make it look like he was missing his feet.  That of course isn't a practical costume for a child who can walk, but sadly this one can't. 

 

 

 

OMG  As the kids say, I can't.  I just can't!

America sure does hate education. Makes it easier for the oligarchs to rule....

 

Kindergarten Teachers Are Quitting, and Here Is Why

Comments from exasperated kindergarten teachers throughout the country.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/201912/kindergarten-teachers-are-quitting-and-here-is-why

Republicans only want one kind of thinker to advance in society -- learn rote facts quickly for the test but not retain the information long term AKA Human RAM. They do not want hard drives. They do not want processors. They do not want graphics cards or sound cards. No media drives. They only want RAM.

17 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Republicans only want one kind of thinker to advance in society -- learn rote facts quickly for the test but not retain the information long term AKA Human RAM. They do not want hard drives. They do not want processors. They do not want graphics cards or sound cards. No media drives. They only want RAM.

I see what you did there....

This article is pretty refreshing - parents Just Say No to the expensive east coast art schools:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/12/college-dreams-say-no-avoid-student-debt.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

 

It really illustrates the extent to which the non-STEM private schools, especially the "A" in STEAM programs, are inevitably the domain of trust funders and then a handful of tragic characters who accrue way over $100k in debt.   

 

I actually got into the same school described here - Pratt in Brooklyn - in the 1990s, and recall being a awarded a $4,000 scholarship when the cost of attending including room & board was $28,000 (the article now says it's $75,000).  I don't know why I even bothered applying to the expensive schools since the only way I was going to go is if I was one of the 2-3 kids who got the mysterious full scholarship. I suppose it was the high school guidance counselor who was told that all of us had to apply to 5+ schools or else we were losers. 

 

 

 I found this picture from the school in my old childhood neighborhood (not my actual school but a new one that replaced it). I remember the days when we had a field trip to see animals like this. What is this anyway, goat yoga??

 

 

 

Online college classes aren't working, for a variety of reasons. 

 

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/29/metro/bu-investigating-whether-students-cheated-online-exams/

Online tests are awful, especially in STEM related courses, in my opinion. There's no opportunity to "show your work" which ultimately hinders their value as a teaching tool, since the professor can't show you where you went wrong. 

I was google earthing around England, which led to some google streetviewing of Cambridge, which somehow led me to the following video...it's pretty amazing.  The dorms at Cambridge (at least at this college) barely have interior plumbing.  It sounds like each "staircase" only has a shared sink or two...to "use the bathroom" or take a shower, you need to walk outside and cross the courtyard.  I mean - imagine a college anywhere in the United States attempting to charge $9,000/semester to live on campus and the building doesn't even have toilets, let along showers.  

 

My grandfather told me that his grade school (which was also my grade school) installed interior plumbing the second year he was there, which  would have been around 1931 or 1932.  

 

Later in the video we pay a visit to the college's bar.  Unfortunately, America's campus bars were ravaged by MADD and their late 1980s reign of terror.  Around 1998 I did drink at an on-campus bar at Rice University.  The bar was situated in the basement of the chemistry building, and accessed through a door beneath the entrance staircase, meaning the main staircase constituted the bar's outdoor seating.    

 

Ohio University's old student center used to have two bars, The Front Room and The Bunch of Grapes.  Tipper Gore (or someone not dissimilar to Tipper Gore) put an end to the fun around 1989, and those poor spaces limped into the 2000s as havens for vegans, teetotalers, lesbian singer-songwriters, and other finger-waggers.   

yeah america and its relationship to booze is a mess.

 

i never did, but i think you could drink in the student union and offenhauer towers restaurant at bg.

 

i worked in there on breaks sometimes and i think we did serve some alcohol for groups who held conferences.

UC has had the Catskeller since 2006.

^ Apparently when UC was a city university, they were much more lax about alcohol. Once they became a state university, more strict rules were put into place. When I worked there in the early 2010s, I would occasionally go to a retirement party on campus for someone who had spent their entire career working for UC, and someone would make a comment, "Remember when we could have champaign at these retirement parties?"

 

I think the only places that could sell alcohol on campus when I was a student were the Catskeller (in the basement of TUC) and the "fancy" restaurant upstairs, which I think was called Mick and Mack's.

I don't know that I ever drank on campus when I was there (2008-2013) outside of the Catskeller or sports games, but I never thought it would be a problem if I had brought beer or something into a school building. I never worked in any offices or anything, so I have no concept of what those environments are like.

 

UC seemed to have a looser alcohol policy than most universities I've been to. I did drink in a university building on Short Vine (the Niehoff Urban Studio) and I know DAAP students had alcohol in their studios somewhat frequently.

Yeah but if you wanted to have something with a barbecue grill, you might as well assign someone working full-time for a month to get permission to use it.

1 hour ago, GCrites80s said:

Yeah but if you wanted to have something with a barbecue grill, you might as well assign someone working full-time for a month to get permission to use it.

 

I went to college soon after the drinking age was raised.  The bars only loosely enforced the Age 21 thing, and for live music they didn't do the X thing right away.  Originally they did some sort of colored stamp for people over 21, so the workaround was to get someone with the over 21 stamp to lick the back of their hand and then press it on yours.  At some point the bars got wise to that and the X thing swept the nation in the late 90s. 

 

My sources (i.e. my cousins) tell me that Daniel's Pub is still the UC bar that still serves underage, after all these years. 

 

Next level is the bar that serves under 18.  There was a place in Columbus just north of Lane that was serving the country high school girls who would drive up from Ironton or Lancaster.  I was assigned to take photos there one Wednesday night and the authorities had SHUT THEM DOWN.  I show up to the place and there were all of these high school kids looking lost out on the sidewalk.  This was well before smart phones so it wasn't like you could get the word that the place was permanently shut down until you drove 80 miles to get there.