« Hong Kong | Main | Why isn't The Wall Street Journal free on-line? »
Agreeing on unions?
Ezra Klein has an interesting post on union elections, favoring greater unionization; Jane Galt is not persuaded. [Addendum: Mark Thoma has more.]
I propose a deal. I'll agree that unions, in the best natural experiments we have, boost wages by about 10 to 20 percent. On the other hand, will Ezra (and others) agree that unions are mostly detrimental to the rate of economic growth?
If so, the utilitarian evaluation will boil down to the choice of discount rate, keeping in mind that under the left-wing account the gains follow mostly from redistribution more than from wealth creation.
Admittedly the empirical literature on unions and economic growth is murky. But it does seem that in non-socialist societies, more unionization lowers the growth rate. (In socialist societies, it may be that economy-wide unions internalize some poliitical externalities and lead to better policy, a'la Mancur Olson.) These papers are easy enough to criticize, so I'll admit I am more convinced by simple theory here than by any empirics. Unionization raises the cost of many growth-enhancing business decisions, such as layoffs or implementing technical progress.
Union supporters? Do we have an epistemic deal about how you are willing to lower the growth rate? And can we pull your true discount rate from the Stern/global warming debates? (I recall Jane once writing that a zero discount rate would require her to revise everything she believed, but I think the opposite is sooner true.)
Oh, did I mention that the union wage premium, especially for private sector employees, has been declining and may be disappearing altogether?
And no, I will not be moved by sarcastic attempted reductios which pretend that enslaving the workers would raise the growth rate too. Figure out yourself what is wrong with that.
Addendum: Johan Richter asked for: "Your preferred policy towards unions," so I'm calling this #12 out of 50. My preferred policy is laissez-faire, noting I have never been a right-wing, union basher, Morgan Reynolds sort of guy. But I see encouraging unions through the law as a relatively short-sighted solution to the problems of labor and the desire to raise living standards.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on March 4, 2007 at 07:32 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
If so, the utilitarian evaluation will boil down to the choice of discount rate
Sir Nicholas Stern has got one you can borrow.
Posted by: Paul Zrimsek at Mar 4, 2007 8:26:48 AM
As I posted elsewhere:
We are in the era of globalization - the Flat Planet.
Labor at ALL levels is now or is going to be a competitive market.
We have already seen the movement of the jobs related to assembly in factories. We have seen businesses that rely on telecommunications (eg computer Help Desk) migrate to low cost providers. We are seeing engineering and computer programming become global professions.
I believe that the flow of money will also affect who owns what businesses and how much CEOs get paid.
but... back to the subject: Unions.
A Union in the USA is almost a joke if the industry is global. Unions need to go forth to the world and raise up the working conditions and wages of the 75-80% of the planet that is so much lower than the USA, Europe, Japan et al _OR_ they can simply unionize here and watch as the jobs go elsewhere.
A second issue I have with Unions is: entrenchment. Many unions seem to have been in place for so long their mission is no longer to right-a-Wrong which may have existed when the union was formed but rather to preserve the tenure and power of the Union itself.
Posted by: anon at Mar 4, 2007 9:13:13 AM
As a card carrying Union Member, personal experience leads me to believe that Unions are bad for everyone in the long run.
Unions discourage people from broadening their skills (only do your job or else!).
Unions encourage people to rely on seniority as opposed to effort to advance themselves.
How can this be good for anyone?
On the other hand, if unions performed a signaling function, they might have some use. In other words, if belonging to union indicated that you were a hard worker and knew your stuff, they would benefit everyone. It would save employers on screening costs and save employees effort in trying to prove their true worth to potential employers.
Posted by: The Chieftain of Seir at Mar 4, 2007 9:13:54 AM
I hope you'd agree, though, that growth _as such_ isn't something most people should care about. It's like (and usually isn't much different from) a move to a more Kaldor-Hicks efficient state. Why should those who don't benefit care about it? If crushing unions would lead to higher growth, but the majority of that gain would go to management, making workers less well off, why in the world would they think that's good? This sort of agregate utilitarianism just has no obvious noramtive force at all.
Posted by: Matt at Mar 4, 2007 9:49:21 AM
"But I see encouraging unions through the law as a relatively short-sighted solution to the problems of labor and the desire to raise living standards."
What are the better, non-union solutions?
Posted by: Brian at Mar 4, 2007 10:13:51 AM
Tyler,
I think you miss the point if you think that the main benefit of a union is wages. I spent years in union jobs in nuclear power plants (operations) and oil refineries (hf acid alkylation). While I was glad that I got reasonable wages, I cared equally about job security and safety. It was a comforting thought when the reactor had tripped and I was trying to bring it back on line that I wouldn't be fired if I wasn't fast enough in carrying out the reactivity calculations. In the refinery, I knew that the union would back me up if I felt that we needed to do more to safe out an acid pump for maintenance.
I know that professors are unused to the sensation of being employed at the bosses whim, but that is the case for most people.
Posted by: Robb Lutton at Mar 4, 2007 10:16:00 AM
Robb,
Didn't you know that Tyler's as much a mystic as a scientist?
Got to keep the faith, dude....
Posted by: Martin at Mar 4, 2007 11:10:45 AM
Echoing Robb, I generally think there's a good point that unions may be able to protect stockholders (and others) by monitoring managers. Generally, it's not in the interests of stockholders to have managers that act like feudal lords.
I think, however, that unions are just as likely to team with managers to screw stockholders, or that managers buy off the unions in exchange for the opportunity to screw stockholders. And unions often oppose productivity-boosting changes that lead to firings, and that's not so good. I think unions still seem locked into a silly 1930s mindset about labor relations.
I think unions would make themselves more useful and would focus on ways in which they improve workers conditions by helping make the company more profitable if they didn't have certain special legal protections. I also think we should re-eaxamine the Wagner Act and startallowing company unions. This would allow more stockholder-worker alliances.
Posted by: Keith at Mar 4, 2007 11:14:45 AM
The first unions were not only about wages, they were about safety. I remember seeing stories on how, before unions, electrical workers would routinely die because the companies refused to implement safety rules.
Unions also help raise the quality of life of union members. My granmother worked in the sweat shops of the Lower East Side. I would want that for no-one. Yes, that could not happen today because of government regulations, but, do you really think we would have the regulations had the unions not been there?
Unions also are essential to the rise of the United States. While it may be true that unions can slow productivity, that is just the supply side of the equation. By raising wages and ensuring job security, unions enable workers to be confident that they will continue to receive wages and will purchase more.
So, rather than being a net negative on the economy, it may be that unionization is a net gain for the economy and benefit the nation as a whole.
Posted by: Allan at Mar 4, 2007 11:27:56 AM
I'm hardly a huge union booster, but I am a member of one, and I do work at a power plant--I'm going to echo what's being said in the last few comments to a certain extent, though I think "essential" is a massive overstatement.
People don't bargain correctly for individual risk. I can give you pages of examples of people underestimating, or misestimating, their individual risk. When in a relatively dangerous environment, such as a factory or power plant, collective bargaining improves (as far as I can tell, at any rate) the ability of the bargaining unit to assess risk, because it allows reasonable application of statistics by reasonably well informed people. It's much easier to look at a 600 person bargaining unit working in a mine and say "you know, *someone* here is going to need a really good health plan within the next 3 years" than it is for an individual 25-year-old to accurately consider their chance of ending up in the hospital.
That being said, I think there are a lot of negatives. The only person who benefits from a seniority system is the less qualified person who happened to get in the door early. I personally think it's a huge mistake to reward those people, and the vast majority of union-negotiated contracts have seniority provisions. I don't need a union to make me confident of finding or keeping employment--that's *my* job, by continuing to improve my skills and knowledge. Placing the burden of keeping me employed on someone else is just asking for a rude awakening.
Posted by: Steve Sandvik at Mar 4, 2007 12:06:12 PM
sandvik above makes a good point regarding the assesment of risk. It seems to be an under-explored idea when discussing unions.
Posted by: sa at Mar 4, 2007 12:17:01 PM
The points about unionism, safety, and the inner dynamics of organization are well taken. I would ask you to consider yet another possibility: unions frame the economic choices facing workers in a way that
Think about the limited-liability corporation. Looking purely at the essence of this legal construct -- limited liability -- one might be deeply puzzled as to why limiting entrepreneurial liability is a good thing. The theory behind it implies that, given rational entrepreneurs and investors, when the government limits their legal and financial liability the entrepreneurs will take on inefficiently high levels of risk. But I don't think that is what happens in practice -- in practice, limited liability corporations are a phenomenal way of coordinating economic activity by focusing confused, boundedly rational agents on solving real problems, rather than anxiously avoiding disaster.
Does that make sense? So the theory of, say, limited liability, doesn't quite capture the difference between the social role of an investor who can stick to limited liability entities, and the social role of an investor who cannot. Similarly, the choices and life paths available to a teenager who is quick but not brilliant are quite different in contexts where he will probably be in a unionized job, and where he will probably have a series of non-unionized jobs. His incentives to learn a particular craft, trade or profession, his incentives to select certain jobs over others, his incentives to voice concerns about the way he is being managed, are all deeply important.
This is not a *convincing* defense of unions, but I hope it explains why we should not be too sure about the economic theory of unions. (I imagine you are referring to monopsony.) There are theoretical points on either side of the debate -- we need to make the empirics less murky, rather than entrusting ourselves to pure theory and a few regressions.
Posted by: interestring at Mar 4, 2007 3:10:18 PM
Thanks for the reply. Just a clarification. Laissez-faire would mean that an employer can fire workers for joining unions, allowing employment contracts that prohibits strikes etc?
Posted by: Johan Richter at Mar 4, 2007 4:49:39 PM
I sure hope that's what he means by laissez-faire.
Posted by: R. S. Porter at Mar 4, 2007 4:59:53 PM
Much of the anti-union arguments revolve around economics (e.g. expense, efficiency). Much of the pro-union arguments revolve around social justice (e.g. safety, equitability). There is no hope for common understanding if the sides are approaching this from disparate ground. Economics doesn't trump social justice and vice versa.
Corporations are merely fictitious entities given legal status by society. Viewing business and society strictly through economic terms is both unnatural and can lead to devastating social consequences. Unions are another fictitious entity given legal status to balance influence and goals of corporations.
Economists have a way to view this situation, if only they would use it. Instead of looking for equilibria which maximize profit or efficiency, seek equilibria which best balance competing concerns, both economic and social.
Posted by: squik at Mar 4, 2007 5:05:43 PM
If you see encouraging union through the law as a bad thing, would you also agree that discouraging unions through the law is a bad thing?
So the question is how do you make the law neutral?
Is the current proposal to require secret ballots neutral?
Seeing who favors it and who opposes it would suggest that it is not a neutral law.
Posted by: spencer at Mar 4, 2007 5:20:32 PM
Mr. Cowen is underestimating the effects of unionization. While periods of increasing and decreasing union membership show no correlation to overall economic growth, they do correlate to increasing and decreasing income equity. One should not ignore the fact that union membership peaked around 1980, about the time that middle and lower middle wage began to stagnate. Since then, union membership has declined and worker wages have not kept up with the growth of income for the upper percentiles. Americans may not like to think of themselves as union labor, but they were better off when they were.
Posted by: Mike at Mar 4, 2007 5:22:37 PM
Johan Richter raises an important point.
Without, at a minimum, job protection for organizers and union members it would be close to impossible to form a union. So a complete "laissez-faire" approach is in effect opposition to unions.
To say that one favors that approach, without qualifying it somehow, is not taking a neutral position.
Posted by: bernard Yomtov at Mar 4, 2007 6:35:19 PM
I'm torn about unions. I recall having some heated arguments with my dad, who was a member of a union. However, when the company he worked for went bankrupt after his death, the union did nothing to protect the widowers and widows - they only cared about dues paying members. Eventually, the widowers and widows went to court and won their case. Pensions were maintained. That event verified my opinion of unions.
Fast forward 20 years. The overwhelming majority of my working life has been in non-union employment, though about half of it was and is in a unionized environment. Currently, I work as a non-union professional for a municipal government. In about a month's time or so, I will be a unionized professional.
Due to massive personnel changes in senior management, half-hearted attempts at corporate reorganization, questions about secondments and new hires, a '40 hour' work week that varied from 35 hours to 44 hours per week depending on your position, lack of communication between non-union employees and senior management and a general distrust of senior management, the non-union employees decided to form an independent trade union.
It wasn't always like this. Their was an informal agreement between the association representing the non-union employees (a voluntary social association) and senior management, that the non-union employees received the same wage increases and benefits as the union employees. In return, we worked during strikes by union employees, worked longer hours and were willing to discuss with senior management any budgetary and labour issues. Flexibility was assumed.
Unions bad? Unions good? I'll let you know after we negotiate our first contract.
Posted by: Vincent Clement at Mar 4, 2007 8:51:56 PM
I hesitate to bring up this anecdote because I can't prove that it happened, but I was told the story by one of the people involved, with whom I had a relatively long working relation who was a member of the involved union but was [he had to be] but who didn't like everything they did.
At the time, ca. 1977, I was doing some contract programming for a major east coast electric utility. Utilities have energy control centers, which are places where the supervisory control gear is concentrated and the operators make changes to meet the needs of power generation and and transmission and distribution. I worked for this company: http://www.qeiinc.com/ .
It would be embarassing to say the least if the energy control center didn't work during a power outage, so they had backup generators that took a few minutes to get online -- and they had batteries, two rooms full of impressively large lead/acid batteries, each of which could keep the place running for about an hour with enough power left over to get the generators started. [I presume they're using more refined battery technologies now, but this was thirty years ago.]
Lead acid batteries don't last forever, even when they float, so once a month someone was supposed to take a dummy load [a fan-cooled resistance element] and bridge it across each cell in turn for a few minutes, and write down the voltage. This chore took about an hour or two. Things were designed so that if there was a power failure while the battery bank was being tested the batteries would still deliver.
One battery room was routinely "checked" by one particular worker -- adjacent to his lunch hour. Apparently he "checked" the batteries by writing down plausible benign voltages in the log book and taking an early lunch. After a while a supervisor noticed that one battery room was wearing out a cell every so often, as expected, but that the other never seemed to need any replacements. He [the supervisor] did the test himself and found out that all h*ll would have broken loose if there had been a power failure and the redundancy of having two battery rooms turned out to be needed because the other one wouldn't come online, say because some relay didn't do its job.
Naturally, the utility tried to fire the guy. The union hired expensive legal talent and succeeded in making it not happen. The question of why the union traded away raises the diligent employees could have had in return for contract clauses that made it possible to prevent an employee who was not doing his job and could have caused a fifteen minute glitch to turn into a nightmare for a major utility is left as an exercise for the reader.
-dk
Posted by: Dick King at Mar 4, 2007 11:07:29 PM
I apologize for the double posting. For some reason the last paragraph-and-a-half got chopped off my previous attempt to post this story. I hope I haven't exceeded some length limit!
I hesitate to bring up this anecdote because I can't prove that it happened, but I was told the story by one of the people involved, with whom I had a relatively long working relation who was a member of the involved union but was [he had to be] but who didn't like everything they did.
At the time, ca. 1977, I was doing some contract programming for a major east coast electric utility. Utilities have energy control centers, which are places where the supervisory control gear is concentrated and the operators make changes to meet the needs of power generation and and transmission and distribution. I worked for this company: http://www.qeiinc.com/ .
It would be embarassing to say the least if the energy control center didn't work during a power outage, so they had backup generators that took a few minutes to get online -- and they had batteries, two rooms full of impressively large lead/acid batteries, each of which could keep the place running for about an hour with enough power left over to get the generators started. [I presume they're using more refined battery technologies now, but this was thirty years ago.]
Lead acid batteries don't last forever, even when they float, so once a month someone was supposed to take a dummy load, a fan-cooled resistance element, and bridge it across each cell in turn for a few minutes and write down the voltage. This chore took about an hour or two.
One battery room was routinely "checked" by one particular worker -- adjacent to his lunch hour. Apparently he "checked" the batteries by writing down plausible benign voltages in the log book and taking an early lunch. After a while a supervisor noticed that one battery room was wearing out a cell every so often, but the other never seemed to need anything. He did the test himself and found out that all h*ll would have broken loose if there had been a power failure and the redundancy of having two battery rooms turned out to be needed because the other one wouldn't come online, say because some relay didn't do its job.
Naturally, the utility tried to fire the guy. The union hired expensive legal talent and succeeded in making it not happen. The question of why the union traded away raises the diligent employees could have had in return for contract clauses that made it possible to prevent an employee who was not doing his job and could have caused a fifteen minute glitch to turn into a nightmare for a major utility is left as an exercise for the reader.
-dk
Posted by: Dick King at Mar 4, 2007 11:10:21 PM
If providers of capital can group together to form companies, then its only fair that providers of labour be able to group together to form unions...
Posted by: Stephen at Mar 5, 2007 12:11:44 AM
The American debates about unions miss an important element: our law says that if a majority of workers want a union, then that union represents 100% of all workers. No worker is allowed to bargain separately with the employer. It's like if 51% of cookie buyers want Oreos, then none of us is allowed to purchase Chips Ahoy.
In practice, some workers want rigid work rules; others will accept some flexibility of job assignments for more cash; others would trade cash away for better benefits; others don't care so much about benefits, but want to be able to leave early on Wednesdays. Union contracts force workers into one-size-fits-all contracts.
In New Zealand, every worker has the right to select his/her own representative. Some join a union, others bargain for themselves, a few hire a representative to bargain for them. That system eliminates debates about "right to work" or card check vs. elections. It seems to me to be heavily rooted in the English right to contract.
Posted by: Bill Conerly at Mar 5, 2007 12:28:28 AM
A union within a laissez faire context is a cartel like any other. People within a free society should be free to form cartels. They should also be free to face the consequences of joining a cartel. The historical record in the United States shows that when businesses colude in order to fix prices somebody always crosses the line and lowers prices in order to gain advantage. Workers should be allowed the same privelage and owners should be allowed to hire whomever they want. Using the violence of the state to force owners to have to deal with union labor, and only union labor, is an acquiescence of special interest. Unions are only good for the members of the union. They are not good for the owners or the consumers who have to buy goods or services from a company that uses union labor. Bloviate all you like about the importance of unions. However, at the end of the day we are all consumers and labor prices are merely factors of final prices. I see unions as a form of cost shifting with negative effects on productivity.
Posted by: John Pertz at Mar 5, 2007 8:49:19 AM
John Pertz,
Should capital be allowed protection via incorporation?
Posted by: theCoach at Mar 5, 2007 9:34:15 AM
will Ezra (and others) agree that unions are mostly detrimental to the rate of economic growth?
No. I think they are most likely pro growth, and the model that you are proposing is, to my untrained eyes, shockingly too simple to even address the question.
The market fundamentalist pro growth theory falsely assumes a vibrant middle class that I think is a necessary precondition for growth.
Additionally, the productivity benefits from fuller employment are enormous, and unions potentially provide alternative, high employment alternatives to restraining inflation.
So on your side, you have a tradeoff between higher wages and slower growth, and on my side, depending as always on the details of how the unions are organized and run, is a win-win.
Posted by: theCoach at Mar 5, 2007 9:43:21 AM
In the end, for most workers in a given economy, what counts is not overall "growth" per se, but growth in their wages and/or quality of life.
Except to an economist, of what importance is economic "growth" in abstraction from its impact on most people who participate in that economy?
It hardly suffices, then, to present evidence or arguments that unions may do damage to economic "growth", abstractly defined. One would have to demonstrate that it affects the things most people might reasonably care about, including their own wages, job security, and health. It is certainly plausible that the presence of strong unions in an economy do much to promote those factors.
Posted by: frankly0 at Mar 5, 2007 11:47:36 AM
My uncle was in labor relations for GM for many years. So he saw the worst aspect of the unions supporting people who did not work.
As mentioned, good union shops can keep management honest. As not mentioned, good management can mitigate the impact of bad union shops. When both are bad, you see an industry that can no longer compete.
Safety is less of an issue today because of OSHA, Workman's Comp and the threat of lawsuit.
Wages are more depressed by the in-sourcing of millions of illegal workers than the lack of unionization.
Posted by: Robert at Mar 5, 2007 3:43:22 PM
Wouldn't a laissez-faire union policy essentially boil down to "no unions"? I have no familiarity with the models in this area but my intution is that a union derives all of its power from the ability to strike, and that in a legal environment where a striking worker could be fired, each worker has a strong incentive to cheat the cartel and not strike.
Personally I favor such a system. I have yet to hear a compelling argument, from economics or ethics, why an employer should not be able to fire a worker for any reason at any time.
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Mar 5, 2007 3:58:48 PM
I am confused by what is being discussed in the original post: a Platonic union concept, or U.S. government intervention in labor issues? What exactly retards growth: unions or the regulation surrounding labor relations?
If the former, I’m not sure we have real Unions , their activities are so regulated that they hardly resemble the truly free unions, like the old Wobblies. If we are discussing U.S. unions as operated under current law, then its not so much the union at issue as labor regulation. And if its labor regulation being discussed, we should identify both pro-employer and pro-employee related rules and then discuss each in turn instead of tilting at the amorphous concept of "unions."
For example, many unions cannot go on strike without permission, or only after a long delay. That erodes their primary leverage. Do Unions get “pro-growth” credit for smoothing labor relations?
Professor Cowen attempts to pre-empt the liberty argument by coloring it as an absurd slavery scenario, but employees, just like investors, may collectively negotiate and I'd be shocked if anyone really thinks the Constitution permits coercive intervention into such voluntary assocaitions. Just because you don't like certain voluntary associations of individuals, doesn't mean you should have access to government's guns and prisons to crush them; you should have a more compelling argument than marginally improving growth. We should mind liberty in proposing legislation.
To me, unions hardly merit a place at the table of what's wrong with modern economies. Analysts would be more helpful in, among many things, identifying and combating rent seeking legislation whereby established companies promote legislation that throw up barriers to entry for new businesses.
Posted by: guy in the veal calf office at Mar 5, 2007 7:35:24 PM
"By raising wages and ensuring job security, unions enable workers to be confident that they will continue to receive wages and will purchase more."
That doesn't seem to be the case with manufacturing unions (autos, steel) and airline unions. By raising wages above market rates, unions have undermined the competitiveness of their employers and, therefore, their own job security. The non-union employees of Toyota in Kentucky enjoy excellent job security, but the tens of thousands of ex-UAW ex-employees of Ford clearly don't.
Posted by: Slocum at Mar 5, 2007 9:09:33 PM
My own answer is here.
Posted by: sammler at Mar 7, 2007 10:01:30 AM
Here's the problem that those who prefer a laissez-faire policy should grapple with. The government has ALREADY interfered - on the side of capital - in the market for labor services: The government encourages capital to accumulate in corporations. AS A RESULT, the market for labor services does not have atomistic buyers. Consequently, have a market failure - an oligopsony.
Should the government try to compensate for the market distortion that was CAUSED by governmental intervention by encouraging a counterveiling market distortion, an aggregation of labor? THAT is the policy that Congress set more than 70 years ago. It has remained the official policy of the U.S. ever since.
It's not that two wrongs make a right, but that two counterveiling distortions will come closer to an ideal solution than just one distortion that favors capital.
Posted by: dogfacegeorge at Mar 9, 2007 4:05:14 PM
order generic viagra generic viagra online
order generic ultram generic ultram online
order generic soma generic soma online
order generic zocor generic zocor online
order generic propecia generic propecia online
Posted by: Bob at May 31, 2007 10:06:06 AM
Sex Toys Vibrators
Choosing an Online Adult Sex Toys Shop can be quite overwhelming. With literally thousands of online adult sex toy shop offering an abundance of adult sex toys it can be a very stressful process when all you are looking for is to relieve some stress. There are several key factors when choosing an adult sex toy shop. It's essential that you follow these adult sex toy buying tips to ensure your complete overall satisfaction. The first step in choosing an online adult sex toys shop is how many years has the company been in business.
sex toys vibrators
sex toys vibrators
sextoys vibrators
sextoys vibrators
Penis Extension sex toys
Penis Extension sex toys
sex toys Vibrators
sex toys Vibrators
waterproof vibrators
waterproof vibrators
sex toys vibrators
sex toys vibrators
Too many adult sex toys companies , like other companies are scams or are run by individuals. After being in the adult industry several years, I have personally discovered the better companies are the ones still around. A company's reputation is key, and if you don't mind discussing it with friends, it may not be a bad idea to get adult toy store recommendations so when you buy sex toys. Otherwise if you are too shy, I highly suggest ready adult forums, or adult sex toy forums. These adult toy store forums or adult sex toy blogs are great to get user recommendations. Next choose an adult sex toy shop that offers an abundance of adult products such n lubes, lotions, strap ons, anal sex toys, butt plugs, lingerie, vibrators, dildos etc.
Strap on dildos sex toys
Strap on dildos sex toys
sex toys dildos
sex toy dildos
huge dildos sex toy
huge dildos sex toy
Rabbit Vibrators sex toys
Rabbit Vibrators sex toys
lovedolls sex toys
lovedolls sex toys
This complete adult toy selection will allow you to compare products to ensure it's the perfect toy for you. Make sure you know the adult toy manufacturer names and is made by a reputable adult toy manufacturer. Two major adult toy store are Cal Exotic Novelties and Doc Johnson Sex toys. These two are one of the biggest and most respected names in the adult industry. While, there are others great manufacturers too at least make sure the adult toy store you are buying carries them. Don't get fooled by the price game when buying adult toys.
realistic dildos sex toy
realistic dildos sex toy
sex toy realistic vaginas
sex toy realistic vaginas
anus sex toy
anus sex toy
sex toy Penis Pumps
sex toy Penis Pumps
sex toy Cock Rings
sex toy Cock Rings
Blowjob sex toys
Blowjob sex toys
It's essential you choose an adult sex toys shop for the overall quality and completeness of the site. Make sure that a majority of the links work and are fast loading. This will show you how detailed oriented an adult sex toys shop may be. There you have it. Follow these little tips when buying your adult sex toys and you are on your way to some really great fun. SexToys Vibrators is the leading online adult sex toys shop. America's favorite place to buy sex toys. Sex Toys Vibrators is dedicated to provided the hottest selling adult sex toys and is 100% Discreet and committed to customer satisfaction.
sex toy Masturbators
Masturbators
anal sex toy
anal sex toy
sex toy butt plugs
butt plugs
adult Sex Games
adult Sex Games
adult Lubrication
adult Lubrication
condoms sex toys
condoms sex toys
myspace porn
myspace porn
myspace porn site
myspace porn site
adult myspace
adult myspace
adult myspace
adult myspace
adult social networking site
adult social networking site
adult social networking
adult social networking
adult social networking site
adult social networking site
adult social networking
adult social networking
adult friends
adult friends
adult community
adult community
adult blogs
adult blogs
adult chat
adult chat
adult social networking
adult social networking
adult auctions
adult auctions
adult auction
adult auction
adult online auction
adult online auction
adult video auction
adult video auction
adult toys auction
adult toys auction
adult movie auction
adult movie auction
adult website auction
adult website auction
adult website business
adult website business
turnkey adult website
turnkey adult website
start adult website
star adult website
adult website for sale
adult website for sale
own an adult web site
own an adult web site
auctions adult
auctions adult
erotic lingerie
erotic lingeie
erotic art
erotic art
adult jewlery
adult jewlery
adult novelties
adult novelties
adult books
adult books
used panties
used panties
mens clothing
mens clothing
adult magazines
adult magazines
adult business
adult business
adult services
adult services
tickets online
tickets online
live ticket broker
live ticket broker
sports ticket broker
sports ticket broker
available sports event tickets
available sports event tickets
book theater tickets
book theater tickets
concert ticket broker
concert ticket broker
live concert tickets
live concert tickets
buy concert tickets
buy concert tickets
concert tickets online
concert tickets online
broadway theater tickets
broadway theater tickets
broadway show theater tickets
broadway show theater tickets
sex shop
sex shop
sport tickets
sport tickets
adult toys
adult toys
adult sex toy
adult sex toy
buy adult sex toys
buy adult sex toys
Posted by: toy at Jun 10, 2007 3:08:59 AM
大家好，我是臺灣人，從臺灣一個人搬家來到美國，環境很陌生，感覺很孤單。以前在臺灣幾家知名的徵信社工作過，我是一個優秀的徵信工作者，希望早點找到適合自己的工作。希望通過貴站，認識更多的朋友。
Posted by: 謝文豪 at Apr 2, 2008 1:49:31 AM
