Prostitutes Make Bank For Few Hours Work
Apparently high class prostitutes make a butt load money because they work so few hours.
And here I thought it was because they charged ridiculous sums of money for a blow job:
Seven Levitt and Stephen Dubner have written a new book, Superfreakonomics, in which they explain the paradox of how high-class prostitutes make a crap load of money by not working very long hours.
First, Dubner and Levitt examined a study by sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh of prostitutes in inner-city South Side Chicago who earned roughly $27 an hour, performed 10 sex acts a week, and took home about $350 each week.
Next, they examined Allie, a high-class prostitute who charges $300 an hour, $500 for two hours, or $2,400 for a 12-hour sleepover.
Why the hell, they wondered, is there such a disparity?
The authors point out how in Ye Olden Tymes, lower-end prostitutes earned today’s equivalent of $78,000 per year. Comparatively, that’s a lot more than the Chicago ladies in Venkatesh’s study. But 100 years ago (the time period Levitt and Dubner based their calculations on), premarital sex, casual sex and “friends with benefits” didn’t exist. Generally speaking, if a man in 1909 wanted to have premarital sex, visiting a prostitute was an enticing option, so prostitutes could earn a pretty penny off of it. But since premarital sex isn’t taboo anymore, Dubner and Levitt argue that nowadays men who want sex can just sleep with one of their friends or f**k buddies or whatever.
Still, that doesn’t explain why a high-class prostitute like Allie can still charge $300 an hour for doing something prostitutes on the South Side of Chicago do for less than thirty bucks.
The South Side prostitutes lived in an impoverished neighborhood controlled by a gang and admitted to stealing from their clients or accepting drugs in lieu of cash; I’ll venture a guess that the clients who visit these Chicago prostitutes can get free sex elsewhere. Allie, on the other hand, specifically described her clientele as “middle-aged white men, 80% of whom were married, and they found it easier to slip off during work hours than explain an evening absence.” Levitt and Dubner’s analysis is that these married, middle-aged men actually have a lot in common with the randy young fellows of 1909. The only free sex these guys get is with their wives, so their “taboo” paid sex drives up the price a prostitute can get away with charging.
Hmm…I personally beleive the Freakonomics guys are full of shit most of the time. They’re kind of like the show “Numbers”: Math can explain a lot of ish, but it can’t explain everything.
However, while their theory has some holes in it, the basic idea that when you’re dealing with a clientele that doesn’t have easy access to free sex you can drive up the price seems relatively sound.
Sex is, like most other things in the free market, susceptible to supply and demand. Lesson to be learned: If you’re going to be a prostitute appeal to a clientele who can’t get sex easily and even if they good the risks outweigh the benefits, so they’re best pay and least chance of suffering any major risks is to pay for it.
SaveTags: Prostitution Sexuality