It appears that, notwithstanding all the strong challenges to rational action theory in law, there is still at least some rational action when it comes to reproductive choices. As the economy has plunged, it turns out there is one silver lining at the local market: condom (and OTC female contraceptive) dollar sales are up 10%. (Unit sales are up somewhat less, suggesting that stores are taking advantage of heightened, and perhaps inelastic (as it were), demand.)
What explains this? Two possibilities are suggested in the Time Magazine article. One is that people are looking to keep down household expenses by avoiding having babies. This one is empirically testable, I suppose: we can look back and see if there was a drop in the birth rate during this period. Another is that people don't have the money to go out, so they're seeking fun at home. This too is plausible, and one imagines that we'd actually see a rise in birth rates if it's accurate.
It strikes me that one likely benefit, overall, is that this might help reduce HIV transmission rates. If more people who were having sex condomless are now joining the Latex Generation, it seems likely that there will be some HIV transmission advantages...even if they're limited
One thing's sure, and nothing surer, the rich get richer and the poor get...children? Notwithstanding the lyrics by Raymond Egan and Gus Kahn, they didn't get them during the Depression...and it's not clear they will now. It just wouldn't be rational!
Comments