In this Halloween Pranks episode of How To Magic, Evan Era from EvanEraTV shows how to do 10 Scary Magic Pranks for Halloween Trick or Treat 2016! Funny magic pranks, how to magic tricks perfect for trick or treating on Halloween night! Each magic prank comes with a step by step explanation on how to prank your friends and family with it! This Halloween everyone can be a prankster and a magician with these family friendly fun magic pranks and magic gags! Thanks for always showing so much love on these trick and prank videos #eraSQUAD I truly appreciate you from the bottom of my heart :) If you're new to the channel be sure to hit that SUBSCRIBE button on YouTube and welcome to the family :) [email protected] my friends!
MAGIC SHOP HERE - http://www.EvanEraTV.com
MY VLOG CHANNEL - http://bit.ly/EvanVlogs
SEND MAIL TO:
PO BOX 943
Crestwood KY 40014
EMAIL: [email protected]
Magic Pranks Revealed in this Video:
1.) Magic Trick Nail Thru Finger Prank - 0:51
2.) Bug Under Donut Halloween Prank - 1:30
3.) Finger Guillotine Chopper Magic Prank - 2:08
4.) Do Not Open Magic Spider Box Prank - 3:50
5.) Blood Needle Thru Arm Magic Prank - 4:44
6.) Haunted Trick or Treat Candy Bag Trick - 6:53
7.) Scary Spider In Halloween Candy Prank - 8:18
8.) Razor Blade Candy Magic Blood Prank - 9:11
9.) Magic Trick or Treat Confetti Bomb Prank - 10:15
10.) DIY Magic Silly String Spider Web Sprayer - 10:47
Bonus: Magic Haunted Spoon Bending Trick - 11:14
Bonus: Scary Glow Message on Mirror Prank - 12:25
GOOD LUCK in the Magic Spoon Bend FREE giveaway!
More Magic Pranks Here: http://bit.ly/2f6hRoU
#EvanEra #EvanEraTV #HowToMagic #eraSQUAD #LaughAtLife [email protected]
This channel provides awesome content in the form of magic, pranks, and other cool videos - SUBSCRIBE for weekly uploads!! :)
More Videos Here: http://www.youtube.com/EvanEraTV
I like how you grabbed the broken spoon with the plastic tube around the broken spoon and grabbed it with your fingers and when you let go of the plastic tube the pressure from it moved it in the other direction
To isolate the mobilization-induced labor supply shift, the authors exploit the fact that the fraction of males serving in the war was not uniform across states. For example, in Massachusetts, Oregon, and Utah, almost 55 percent of males between the ages of 18 and 44 left civilian work to serve in the war. In Georgia, the Dakotas, and the Carolinas, this number ranged between 40 and 45 percent. The state differences in war mobilization actually reflect a variety of factors. The Selective Services guidelines for deferments were based on marital status, fatherhood, essential skills for civilian war production, and temporary medical disabilities, but left considerable discretion to the local boards. Because of the importance of maintaining a strong food supply to support the war, an important consideration for deferment was farm employment.
States with a high percentage of farmers had substantially lower mobilization rates, and this explains a considerable share of the state variation in mobilization rates.
The authors show that in states with greater war mobilization of men, women worked more after the war and in 1950, but not in 1940. This differential does not appear to be explained by other cross-state differences or possible demand factors, and is not present in the 1940 data nor does a similar trend recur in the decade of the 1950s. The authors interpret these differentials as labor supply shifts induced by the War. Acemoglu, Autor, and Lyle believe these cross-state changes in female employment were caused by greater participation of women during the war years, with some of those women staying on. War changed womens preferences, opportunities, and information about available work.