A Gallup survey on dining suggests that it's the middle class which is doing the most to cut back on its discretionary expenditures.
Note that the frequency of dining out is essentially unchanged among American households making more than $75,000 per year, as well as those making less than $20,000 per year. Americans in the middle income brackets, however, appear to be dining out 15-20 percent less frequently.
Caveats: the sample size on this survey is relatively small (about 1,000 persons) and restaurant meals are obviously just category from among a large universe of consumer expenditures. Still, if one of the goals of the stimulus is to craft tax policy so as to entice consumption, it is important to know just who needs to be stimulated.
12.31.2008
More Evidence on Middle-Class Belt Tightening
@ 1:04 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
65 comments
Indict Norm Coleman!!
@Nate: McDonald's and Burger King are doing very well, thank you, as is Wal*Mart. These are also a sign of the times.
Then again, maybe the middle class is finally getting the message about healthy dining, while the working class thinks a value meal is a value.
Hmm, I think the biggest drawback to this survey is how broad the catagory was: one or more nights in the past week? So if someone used to dine out five nights a week but has now cut back to just one night a week they would show no change in this survey.
Rillion's point is critical. This survey really yields very little info from which to draw any inferences (unless there were some related survey items that you did not report). Perhaps what it tells us, if anything, is that the median number of times eaten out per week by people in the $20-29,000 range is close to 1 and therefore, they are likely to show the biggest change. The poorest folks actually increased their dining out slightly---they must be doing so well that they need no stimulus!
Really, Nate, your analysis is usually terrific, but this post is just sloppy.
Danny-
I find the conclusion clear. We could hope for better data, but don't blame Nate for that.
I also agree with Nate's take home - that the folks in the middle need the stimulus and the folks at the bottom need more money.
The cheapest source of calories in the country is at McDonald's or Burger King and if you count that as eating out then the fact that the lowest incomegroups are eating out more could actually indicate a squeeze, just a thought.
OFF TOPIC
I just wanted to do three things.
ONE - To congratulate you and the team on their magnificent work during the election and the run up there to.
TWO - To congratulate you and the team on your great work, and your transition to "peace in our time" "post election" work! Bravo!
THREE - To wish you and the team - and all your families - a healthy, love filled 2009! Many thanks for letting me enjoy the journey with you and a most Happy New Year to you all.
PS Happy New Year to all your readers and contributors too - even the dunderheads. Without them we'd never have known what the "other side" were thinking - or not thinking as the case may be...
Gosh that was sweet! And a Happy New Year to every visitor to this site.
This maiden voyage of 538 has been a major and pleasant surprise.
wv: imahs (female Muslim clergy?)
ok Nate and 538'staff.
Reading this post looks like things are not going fine for regular people.
Anyway,this is new year'eve so let me tell you:
I wish you all to have a better 2009.
Actually,for the entire world this 2009 will start in January the 20th at noon,when Obama will be the president in charge.
I am also preparing,for that blessed day,to flush the toilet...just a simbol to get rid of GWB.
It's dinner time here in Italy,and I will enjoy a very fine "lasagna" and following plates.
Hope you can do the same.
wv:brain !!!!!!!!!
(almost incredibile,but that's it.
Brain:something that Bush can't afford )
greetings from Italy.
:)
p.s.
and thanks,yet again 538's for the incredible job.
Another thing to look at would be how much people are spending when they do go out.
"Still, if one of the goals of the stimulus is to craft tax policy so as to entice consumption, ..."
In other words:
Tax "bads", not goods.
If your or going to delve into taxation, then you really ought to get your former (I think) prof. Steven D. Levitt to directly comment on whether the land value tax would be the best of all possible taxes.
You're a quasi part of the press: So interview him! And tell us what he thinks.
Also from the Gallup poll:
"Generationally, the biggest shift in dining out is seen among young adults, who are no longer the most ardent restaurant goers. Whereas three years ago, 81% of adults 18 to 29 years of age reported eating out in the past week, today that figure is just 62%. However, there has been no significant decline since 2005 in reported dining out among any of the older adult groupings."
Is this indicative of there greater debt load, or the more layoffs in the group?
Nate, you just got mad props from Vanity Fair (as did the awesome Rachel Maddow).
I hope next year surpasses 2008 for you and this site. Thanks for keeping us sane and entertained. Happy New Year to all!
I am sooo jealous of the VF article.
I want Cate Blanchett's sandals and Kate Winslet's curves.
Whaaaaaaaaa
If you factor in all the Starbucks that closed in 2008, you have fewer middle class types spending $4 for a cup of coffee. They're still drinking coffee, just a cheaper cup at Mickey D's.
A "poll" for Nate shred:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-friedman/military-times-damages-cr_b_154406.html
I'm willing to wager that a large percentage of the <$20,000 group are college students
This light-weight make-weight thread was started just in time to end Nate's embarassment over his legal reasoning and flamboyant (and subsequently edited) language asserting his legal positions in the last thread.
I like Nate, this site and the contributors, but Nate needs someone to help him with the legal stuff. He's a great statistician, and probably a good tactician, but he still needs to bone up on his law and politics.
Despite the shortcomings from time to time, and the fig leafing, I'd like to thank Nate for hosting us. And I'd like to wish everyone a Happy New Year. Except Mule Rider. Next year will not be perfect enough for him to endorse.
Nate also made the breakout starts list at thedailybeast.com HERE!
I don't like Tina Brown.
Plus, her blog is a rip off of Huffington Post.
Why is "greater than $75k" the top category? That seems really odd to me, since it doesn't take much for a two-income household to make more than $75k, and I'd guess there's going to be more variation in spending habits between a $75k family and a $1m+ family than between a $75k family and a $50k family.
And Rillion's point, too.
"The cheapest source of calories in the country is at McDonald's or Burger King and if you count that as eating out then the fact that the lowest income groups are eating out more could actually indicate a squeeze, just a thought."
FFS, would you run your grocery budget through a calculator. This assumption is and always has been false. I eat very well at home for about the same as it would cost to eat fast food for every meal. If I were in a financial squeeze, I'd cook more frugally, not go to a fast food restaurant.
I'm not saying that people don't eat more fast food when finances are tight, just they're doing it because of an oft-repeated misconception, not because it's actually cheaper.
I definitely went from several times a month to maybe once a month. I fall in that "middle class" category.
I'd say the quality of the writing on thedailybeast is a heck of a lot better than huffington post.
Anyways.
Someone find out who's got the Blair House booked out preventing the Obama's from moving in.
Inquiring minds want to know!
I don't think Blair House is even booked. Laura has some going away parties scheduled there (I think), and well, she is the First Lady, right?
Updated | 3:12 p.m. CHICAGO—The White House has turned down a request from the family of President-elect Barack Obama to move into Blair House in early January so that his daughters can start school on Jan. 5.
The Obamas were told that Blair House, where incoming presidents usually stay in the five days before Inauguration Day, is booked in early January, a spokesperson to the Obama transition said. “We explored the idea so that the girls could start school on schedule,’ the spokesperson said. “But, there were previously scheduled events and guests that couldn’t be displaced.”
It remained unclear who on Bushes guest list outranked the incoming President.
“It’s not a public schedule,” said Sally McDonough, spokeswoman for First Lady Laura Bush, in refusing to disclose who was staying at Blair House. “It’s not a question of outranking the Obamas. Blair House will be available to them on January 15.”
Ms. McDonough said “there’s nothing more to say other than that it’s not available and won’t be available until January 15.” She added that “you’re trying to make a story out of something that’s not a story.”
A State Department official said he didn’t know of any foreign dignitaries staying at Blair House in early January.
A White House official said that Mr. Bush does not have family or friends from Texas staying at Blair House during the period which the Obamas requested. But Blair House, the official said, has been booked for “receptions and gatherings” by members of the outgoing Bush administration. Those receptions, the official said, “don’t make it suitable for full-time occupancy by the Obamas yet.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/sorry-were-booked-white-house-tells-obamas/
Bush, going out in the arrogant style one might expect.
They're using Blair House to sweet talk the BIG donors to the Bush Library.
Oh, how the press would be screaming if this was Clinton.
Geez Louise, Sidwell Friends School is so anal that the kids can't start school because they don't have their residency yet? Arrogant for the Obamas to have their nose out of joint for not being able to poach early. Stay in his apartment, for cryin' out loud. Or get a hotel room. This isn't rocket science.
IMHO Bush just didn't want to feel crowded by having Obama sleeping next door. No matter that it would have been a courtesy, especially considering that Obama's daughters are starting school on January 5.
So the Obama family will encamp in the Hay-Adams hotel and presumably move into the White House on inauguration day.
I hope that allows time to disinfect the WH after all those creepy crawly Bushies are finished scurrying around erasing and burning records -- or carting them off to the G. W. Bush Library, otherwise to be known as the "Chamber of American Horrors, 2001-2008." (h/t to Nathaniel West)
"They're using Blair House to sweet talk the BIG donors to the Bush Library."
I bet you are exactly right hill.tops. I read that they are having fund raising problems.
Bush library is a white elephant:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5404121.ece
"So far, fundraising has been “very modest”, according to Dan Bartlett, a former senior White House aide and spokesman for the library. "
2009 hope it is fine
Great job Nate! in 2008
A Gallup survey on dining suggests that it's the middle class which is doing the most to cut back on its discretionary expenditures.
How totally non-surprising (and a waste of time to print and discuss) when you realize the rich don't have to cut back and the poor have nothing to cut back from.
Anyhow,a Happy New Year to all (except,of course,the trolls AND NORM COLEMAN).
I started coming to this site for great data crunching during the primary season.
This "survey" does not live up to the high standards set during the election.
How does Gallop define "middle class"? Those whose household income is under $75,000? My wife and I make over $100,000 combined, but don't consider ourselves rich by any means. (We also live in Hawaii and both have big student loan debt.)
Drawing any conclusions from this poor survey is a tenuous process at best. Not that I would argue with the basic premise that lower income earners need more economic stimulation, but c'mon, there are better ways of demonstrating this fact.
Ummm, did the last two posters read the post? It is titled as more evidence of a spending downturn.
Keep in mind Nate is really just killing time right now before the 2010 race polling begins.
did my own informal survey at the beach here in central FL today. more picture perfect weather once again [73 & sunny].
decent crowds on the beach [unlike last week when before Xmas the beaches were empty]
but mostly day-trippers from inland areas who parked on the beach [free this month] & brought there own food & drinks.
condos, timeshares, hotels & restaurants have lots of vacancies - which is just plain wrong for the holidays with great beach weather.
tourism in FL is way off, sales tax receipts are extremely low [meaning the schools will suffer even more cuts], and tourist bed taxes are at their lowest level.
restaurants & shops going out of business left & right
unemployment in Volusia County is the highest on record as are foreclosures.
people are moving out of FL - net out migration
oh, but they are doing just fine at the local thrift shops & WalMarts [something like 12 locally with 3 more super-centers coming] & McDonalds - that is about it
had dinner outside tonight at a usually popular local beachside cafe [which should have been crowded] to enjoy the great weather & watch a gorgeous sunset - only 2 tables occupied, although they were 'hoping' for a rush later... the owner was waiting tables to hold down expenses since he had to lay off most of the help
I think maybe I agree with Norm Coleman for the first time ever. He is now petitioning the Minnesota Supreme Court on the absentee ballot issue. He complains that there is no statewide standard for deciding that an absentee ballot was WRONGLY rejected. He wants ballots sent to the SOS for a determination.
The Minnesota Supreme Court's decision to allow political campaigns to reject valid ballots was crazy from the start. The local boards should send any wrongly rejected ballot to a central site, with the accompanying documentation, for a final review. The central site can set uniform standards. For example, do the witness's date and the voter's date have to match? Yes or No, it would be the same for everyone statewide. If someone was rejected as not registered, they could send a copy of the voter's registration, etc.
This was always the only fair way. And it will prevent Norm Coleman from cherry picking which ballots to reject which was threatening Al Franken's count - as Nate pointed out. So it drags on a little longer. Lets do it right.
Happy New Year to a GREAT NATE.
Obsessed Observer.
One thing to keep in mind is how expensive it is to be poor. Let's just take a look at those who are newly homeless, or living in transition housing. Without access to a refrigerator/freezer, your grocery options are quite limited. Perishables won't last very long. So, as a result, you are forced to go to Subways, McD's and whatever else is already cooked for you. With foreclosures on the rise, more people are living in Motel 6 than ever. They don't have stoves, ovens or refrigerators. It's not rocket science.
Keep in mind Nate is really just killing time right now before the 2010 race polling begins.
Good point,fred.Poor Nate must feel under pressure to give his eager following (us) SOMETHING new to chew every day,even when there isn't anything meaty out there.
ABowers—
Actually it just means that the Coleman campaign has concluded they won't win if only the ballots given fifth pile status by the responsible county officials are counted because everything they know the Franken campaign also knows. Everything that's happened this week supports that read. The problem the Coleman campaign has now is that they agreed to this process. Contrary to the conventional wisdom here, the Minnesota Supreme Court laid a trap for a campaign that wouldn't find a way to settle this politically and it's closed on the Coleman campaign. Almost all that's left now is the counting.
Oh, and Burris, also now in court, won't be seated. Some "old-school" African-American politicians are about to find that change has indeed arrived.
All the best to everyone including the "trolls" in 2009. Thanks, Nate and, wherever you are, Sean.
Have people figured out that this nonsense thread was thrown up because Nate wanted to change the subject from his disastrous prior post (which he modified several times but still couldn't completely contain)? Hell of a way to end the year after so many triumphs.
Happy New Year everyone. Thanks, Nate for this site. Everyone is entitled to screw up once in a while.
Oh, and Burris, also now in court, won't be seated.
My 3 New Year's prophecies:
Unless he withdraws,Burris will be seated.
Franken is seated.
The Yankees finally win #27.
STepper: I was going to let this slide but you posted a second time. So, GET OVER IT. At the end of the day, this is a BLOG, not Matthew Bender. The earth does not stop turning on its axis depending on what Nate Silver posts on FiveThirtyEight.com. If he wants to write about his analysis of constitutional law, it's not like he's practicing law without a license.
People like you are the reason lawyers have a reputation as assholes. Go have a drink and try to regain some perspective.
STepper said...
(whatever)
Did it ever occur to you that attorneys, on the whole, 'win' only 1/2 their cases when they go to court? One attorney (or team of attorneys) wins the case, and one attorney (or team of attorneys) loses the case. One attorney may win every case they argue in court in their career, but that only means another attorney loses all his/her cases, or (more likely) that means many attorneys lose more cases than they win.
What does that mean?
Maybe that one attorney (or team of attorneys) is blowing smoke out of their nether regions in court, thus they lose a case or many cases (or because of the judges are stupid, that's why they win the case(s)? Which means they shouldn't be practicing law?
Or that there might be many opinions of what the facts actually are, and how the facts and law might be interpreted in court and in the court of public opinion? Which means the attorney(s) losing cases shouldn't be practicing law, otherwise they would be winning cases?
Or did you ever consider that the stereotype the public holds regarding attorneys just might be true? That stereotype is that most attorneys think of themselves as knowing everything and everyone else is road kill, therefore there is a propensity for attorneys to be braggarts, and tell everyone else to leave the interpretation of law to the lawyers, because only lawyers CAN know what the law says and should say. The stereotype also holds that many, or even most, attorneys are actually dumber than male bovine droppings, especially when it comes to that non-legal term labeled common sense.
Therefore, did it ever occur to you that the stereotype just might have some validity to it, especially when applied to some attorneys?
My money is on the stereotype explanation. You reinforce the stereotype with your baseless allegation of why Nate posted information about a Gallup poll
ESPECIALLY WHEN NATE MAKES COMMENTS ABOUT SOME OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THAT POLL.
A lighter version of the last post (all in good fun):
This is from a book called Disorder in the American Courts, and is an actual cross examination in court, word for word, taken down by a court reporter and now published. I pity the court reporter who had the torment of staying calm during this exchange.
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
STepper, why don't you start your own blog and post your legal analysis there since you're such a good attorney? I have nothing against healthy criticism but I think your comments on Nate's previous post are not constructive at all, you're just being nasty! I can't imagine the 08' election and my daily political reading without this blog and I'm really grateful to Nate for keeping it and posting every day. He's the most talented writer around so please leave him alone!!
Happy New Year to Nate and staff & everyone who reads this site!
What is 1000 attorneys at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start
...and 1000 more lawyer jokes.
http://www.ahajokes.com/lawyer_jokes.html
I am an attorney, but I fully understand why people hate some of us.
happy new year everybody and
why would they need donations for Bush's library? how much do a few copies of My Pet Goat cost?
Cheap joke, I know, but gotta make the most of the next 19 days before he's GONE!
The most important documents that belong in the Bush library will have been erased already, though perhaps archived somewhere. All those communications that are supposed to be part of the public record -- but deleted from Cheney's (and his underling's), Rove's, and others' e-mails are gone.
So now the Bush team is trying to salvage something of a legacy, and hoping that many tracks have been covered. Don't we all look forward to Alberto Gonzales's memoire? Could Dick Cheney write a tell-all book? I won't believe a word of either one without the real-time archive of communications and memoranda.
here's what a hostess at a Very popular tourist breakfast place (serves till 2-3pm) told me yesterday:
business may appear to be holding steady (cause of the lines -there is only so long people will wait) but actual receipts are down as most people are not ordering drinks anymore, just drinking free water .. this results in dramatically lower earnings for the restaurant/staff think she said it's something over 10% off from the same number of tables served in past years.
@300-450 tables/day
Nate, this is highly disappointing. Either its sloppy interpretation on your part, or its someone seeing what they want to see, not what the data says.
I'm fairly liberal, I see conservative blogs do it all the time, and its very disappointing to see you appear to exhibit the same behavior.
To try to use this data to say show that the middle class needs the economic stimulus more is just a personal interpretation and not anything the data actually says.
Its entirely possible that maybe the 30-50K group has dropped their average eating out from, say, 1.3 times per week to 1.02 times per week - leading to a drop of people says 'once or more' from mid-60s to mid-50s.
At the same time, its entirely possible that the $75K and over group has dropped their average eating out from, say, 3.5 times per week to 2.2 times per week. Only a small portion of which would have dropped under the 1 threshold, but yet a much larger change than the middle group (4x larger).
Is it also possible that very few of the $75K group and larger has changed their behavior at all? It certainly is, but this data does not tell us. And you using this data to try to reach that conclusion is disappointing - and sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
What is wrong with you...STepper, fredct. I would suggest you, and the rest of you naysayers, get back on your medication...except for the fact no medication exists that can cure jealousy.
Nate keep up the great work!
Well, it does seem we have some folks who wish all data was perfect data. It isn't and a good scientist can extrapolate from less than perfect data to plan the next experiment. Statisticians often believe no conclusion can be drawn or trend can be seen, when it really can and the data clearly says it. Is that the real difference between bench (e.g. real)scientists and stats guys? The ability to understand the data, and thus interpret it on a deeper level, than the blank faced stats guy? Sure, the data can't be published unless your gut reaction is correct, but some of us actually produce (or for myself, used to produce) real data and we had to plan the next experiment in the face of these naysayers and the data.
To the specific naysayers above - what do you think of the huge eating out drop I noted from the study in particular age groups? What is the most logical interpretation of the data? Does it matter that Gallup (the folks who produced the data) basically agrees with Nate and not you?
Fredct I am ashamed to share a name with you.
fredct said:
"Its entirely possible that maybe the 30-50K group has dropped their average eating out from, say, 1.3 times per week to 1.02 times per week - leading to a drop of people says 'once or more' from mid-60s to mid-50s.
At the same time, its entirely possible that the $75K and over group has dropped their average eating out from, say, 3.5 times per week to 2.2 times per week. Only a small portion of which would have dropped under the 1 threshold, but yet a much larger change than the middle group (4x larger).
Is it also possible that very few of the $75K group and larger has changed their behavior at all? It certainly is, but this data does not tell us. And you using this data to try to reach that conclusion is disappointing - and sloppy, sloppy, sloppy."
It is also possible that the three year difference significantly changed the kind of people in that cohort, it is also possible that little green men came from Mars and teleported people on the night of the Gallup poll and changed the cohort, it is also possible that you have never done a poll, and are a crazy asshole stats guy. Fred, are you really Zogby and are just jealous?
Think about it asshole - do you remember the number of the times you have eaten out for every week of the last four, where you ate, what you spent? I am sure that is the question they would like to ask and the data to collect, but there are two problems:
1) People don't remember, and
2) If they do they are likely to think are you overly prying and will either lie or not answer.
Stick to stats smart guy.
Smart guys -
Does all the anecdotal evidence in the rest of the economy, and the comments of the restaurant industry - that happens to agree 100% with Nate and not you - mean anything?
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/rockytalklive/archives/2008/07/bennigans_closes_are_you_dinin.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/nyregion/01resolutions.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/centralcoast/ci_11307399
"A new CNN poll finds that three-quarters of the American public thinks President-elect Obama is a strong and decisive leader, "the highest marks for a president-elect on that characteristic in nearly three decades."
Said pollster Keating Holland: "That's the best number an incoming president has gotten on that dimension since Ronald Reagan took office in 1981. The public's rating of his leadership skills is already as high as George W. Bush's was after 9/11 and easily beats the numbers that both Bush and Bill Clinton got at the start of their first terms in office." "
The above quote was from PoliticalWire.
Correlating data from restaurant proprietors and suppliers would be helpful. Even more-so, perhaps, data from the credit and debit processing networks, where even the low risk (of charge-back) restaurant category has 4 or 5 different rates depending on type of facility.
------------------------
"I strenuously object?" Is that how it works? Hm? "Objection." "Overruled." "Oh, no, no, no. No, I STRENUOUSLY object." "Oh. Well, if you strenuously object then I should take some time to reconsider."
Danny Boy is right: the chart (by itself) doesn't support Nate's claim that "it's the middle class which is doing the most to cut back on its discretionary expenditures." That's because the chart under-represents changes among diners who dine out more than the category threshold of one night out per week. As as result, the chart says little about the dining habits of upper-income households, who we would expect to dine out more frequently, and it should not lead us to conclude that "the frequency of dining out is essentially unchanged among American households making more than $75,000 per year." So while you can use the chart to draw conclusions about households near the category threshold, you can't reasonably use it to draw conclusions about upper-income households, nor should you use it to make class comparisons.
Note: Please understand that I am commenting only on Nate's claims about what the chart suggests, not upon the broader economic situation.
As a Manhattan resident, I have always found national income brackets rather astonishing in their inapplicability to my world.
Here, unskilled transit workers (the ones who sweep the platforms) make $68K, an immigrant friend of mine makes $80K as a non-union apartment painter, individual medical insurance costs $800+/month (we're a community rated state, so anyone can buy it), a really cheap studio apartment is over $1000/month, and if you can afford a car and Manhattan insurance rates, you cannot find a parking garage within walking distance for less than $450/month. (And that's the one that once lost my car. Real garages cost $550+.)
$30K here is close to poverty. $100K is middle class. Why aren't these surveys (not to mention federal tax rates) ever adjusted for regional cost of living??
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區
外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇 外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇
外遇
外遇 外遇外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 ,
外遇 外遇 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇 , 外遇
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,1
Post a Comment