Christmas Hacks - http://bit.ly/2h0fy8f
Subscribe To Chase - http://bit.ly/SubToGilroy
In this Christmas Holiday Pranks episode of How To Magic, Evan Era from EvanEraTV shows 7 EASY Holiday Magic Pranks to do on friends and family! Teaming up with Chase Gilroy from GilroyVlogs channel to bring you funny & easy to do magic tricks and magic pranks for the Holidays 2016! Each magic prank is laid out with step by step how to instructions for each magic trick tutorial. Some great ideas for gift box pranks, pranks for kids, and family fun stuff to do on Christmas or anytime of the year! Hope you have a wonderful holiday with your family, regardless of what you're celebrating! :) If you're new to this channel, be sure to hit that SUBSCRIBE button and welcome to our family! All are welcome! Remember that anything is possible as long as you stay positive, work hard, and [email protected]! Take care my friends :)
MY VLOGS: http://bit.ly/EvanVlogs
SEND MAIL TO:
PO BOX 943
Crestwood KY 40014
SHOP HERE - http://www.EvanEraTV.com
EMAIL: [email protected]
Magic Pranks Revealed in this Video:
1.) Flash Paper Fire Christmas Wish List Prank - 0:41
2.) Candy Cane Stripe Magic Trick Revealed - 1:47
3.) Funny Shaving Cream Santa in Mirror Prank - 2:55
4.) Magic Exploding Balloon Cake Prank Revealed - 4:27
5.) Live Animal in Gift Box Christmas Prank Idea - 6:10
6.) Cool Vanishing Candle Magic Trick Explanation - 7:14
7.) Surprise Snake Can Christmas Gift Magic Prank - 8:11
Bonus) Glass Christmas Tree Ornament Eating Prank - 9:16
GOOD LUCK in the FREE Magic Prank Prop GIVEAWAY!!
More Magic Pranks Here: http://bit.ly/2gPh3Bp
#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
NEW PRANKS!!! Hahaha thanks for all the amazing love on the channel here lately :) Be sure to check out www.EvanEraTV.com for new gear and shoot over to Gilroy's channel and SUBSCRIBE! Thanks again for everything #eraSQUAD // Stay positive and [email protected] my friends!!
✨🎈 you are so cool and awesome and you are the best person ever and all of my friends and family like you're videos and I want to be just like you when I grow up and do good magic tricks like you I thought when you bit the cookie and helled it I thought it was really good at doing magic and I love all of your videos expecly the mothers day prank itwas super dope and I did it to my mom and she was laughing super. Hard I did the flower prank and she was laughing like this😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😅😅😅😅😅🤣🤣🤣
Hey I am Maria and I love your videos so much I hope you win 1 million likes I hope you have a nice Christmas and I really wanted that light up finger I Watch your videos all the time they’re so good keep up the good work
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.