4 ms·

I wonder whether legislating a minimum rate paid for prostitution (e.g. 100 euros per hour), with violations criminal for the underpayer but not for the prostit

by Eliezer 12y ago

I wonder whether legislating a minimum rate paid for prostitution (e.g. 100 euros per hour), with violations criminal for the underpayer but not for the prostitute, would have resulted in a nicer-looking industry. In other words, whether it would have been practically possible to selectively legalize high-end sex work.

snitko 12y ago
So, you are essentially discriminating against ugly sex workers.
- jrockway 12y ago
  Kind of like how Hollywood discriminates against ugly actors?
nazgulnarsil 12y ago
This strategy has been tried with guns, i.e. create expensive hoops to jump through such that poor people can afford fewer guns. The additional violence from the blackmarket of gunrunning cheap guns to meet the demand probably offsets any gains.
capisce 12y ago
Or even better, pay them basic income - now women would no longer need to prostitute themselves out of desperation, and only the ones who really saw this as a lucrative career would choose it.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  Yeah, pay basic income then prices for everything goes up and you are back at sqiare1.
  - capisce 12y ago
    Source?
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      Source of what? Economic Principles?
      - capisce 12y ago
        I'm asking for the source of your claim that implementing basic income would make no difference whatsoever. Sure, some prices would rise. Basic income needs to be continuously calibrated relative to the cost of basic living. That said, I don't see any good reason to expect that the price of say food would rise beyond people's ability to buy. Western countries already produce way more food than is necessary, so supermarkets end up throwing a lot away. With increased demand there would be increased production of food, clothes, and other essential items. Market forces would still be in effect, so rent prices would reach a new equilibrium. As long as there are more apartments than people, rents would stay at a level that people could afford (or the empty apartments would lower rents until people could afford to live there). If there are not enough apartments, more would be built in cheap locations to satisfy demand. Sure, basic income wouldn't make everyone able to live in New York, but that's not the goal.
        ekianjo 12y ago
        No economic system is an island anymore. First, where do you get the supply of money to provide basic income to everyone? Seeing that most western countries and knee deep in debt, I guess you mean printing money then? Inflation would then go rampant, leading to rising prices, and rising commodity prices for everything that is not produced in the said country. Depending where you are that could have a very big impact on your daily purchasing power. And then you'd have to raise prices again because your "basic income" is not basic anymore to sustain paying for rents, for stuff more than bare minimum. In other words, more debts. That's a simplified explanation of what would be going on, but it gives a general idea of why it would not work so well in practice, and why it's not sustainable. By the way in most countries you have a "basic income" already for people who have no resources whatsoever (not for everyone in society) - it's very limited but that's enough to buy food usually. The idea is nothing new.
  - pinkyand 12y ago
    True - demand increases - prices rise. But than new factories should open and prices would return to normal.
- jensen123 12y ago
  Or marry out of desperation. But I wonder, though, if you give welfare to women, will that lead to financially responsible, but "dull" men having a hard time getting laid? While "fun", but financially reckless men getting most of the women? I suppose you may have meant a basic income scheme for both men and women, but the issue would still be there. Women get pregnant. Men don't. Thus men tend to be financially more successful than women, since they don't have to spend time being pregnant etc.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
That would just create a black market for cheaper sex workers. There will be people who can't afford the minimum price so a market will open to meet their demand.
mseebach 12y ago
As long as there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, the transaction will happen, you're just pushing it underground. The higher the price you're able to command for your services, the more likely you are to have your stuff together, so it's also the most vulnerable sex workers you're pushing underground, too.
tomjen3 12y ago
Then those who can't command premium prices will be forced to provide other, more risky, services like no-condom sex. Anyway what issue do you have with discount hookers?

by Eliezer 12y ago

snitko 12y ago

So, you are essentially discriminating against ugly sex workers.

jrockway 12y ago
Kind of like how Hollywood discriminates against ugly actors?

nazgulnarsil 12y ago

This strategy has been tried with guns, i.e. create expensive hoops to jump through such that poor people can afford fewer guns. The additional violence from the blackmarket of gunrunning cheap guns to meet the demand probably offsets any gains.

capisce 12y ago

Or even better, pay them basic income - now women would no longer need to prostitute themselves out of desperation, and only the ones who really saw this as a lucrative career would choose it.

ekianjo 12y ago
Yeah, pay basic income then prices for everything goes up and you are back at sqiare1.
- capisce 12y ago
  Source?
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    Source of what? Economic Principles?
    - capisce 12y ago
      I'm asking for the source of your claim that implementing basic income would make no difference whatsoever. Sure, some prices would rise. Basic income needs to be continuously calibrated relative to the cost of basic living. That said, I don't see any good reason to expect that the price of say food would rise beyond people's ability to buy. Western countries already produce way more food than is necessary, so supermarkets end up throwing a lot away. With increased demand there would be increased production of food, clothes, and other essential items. Market forces would still be in effect, so rent prices would reach a new equilibrium. As long as there are more apartments than people, rents would stay at a level that people could afford (or the empty apartments would lower rents until people could afford to live there). If there are not enough apartments, more would be built in cheap locations to satisfy demand. Sure, basic income wouldn't make everyone able to live in New York, but that's not the goal.
      - ekianjo 12y ago
        No economic system is an island anymore. First, where do you get the supply of money to provide basic income to everyone? Seeing that most western countries and knee deep in debt, I guess you mean printing money then? Inflation would then go rampant, leading to rising prices, and rising commodity prices for everything that is not produced in the said country. Depending where you are that could have a very big impact on your daily purchasing power. And then you'd have to raise prices again because your "basic income" is not basic anymore to sustain paying for rents, for stuff more than bare minimum. In other words, more debts. That's a simplified explanation of what would be going on, but it gives a general idea of why it would not work so well in practice, and why it's not sustainable. By the way in most countries you have a "basic income" already for people who have no resources whatsoever (not for everyone in society) - it's very limited but that's enough to buy food usually. The idea is nothing new.
- pinkyand 12y ago
  True - demand increases - prices rise. But than new factories should open and prices would return to normal.
jensen123 12y ago
Or marry out of desperation. But I wonder, though, if you give welfare to women, will that lead to financially responsible, but "dull" men having a hard time getting laid? While "fun", but financially reckless men getting most of the women? I suppose you may have meant a basic income scheme for both men and women, but the issue would still be there. Women get pregnant. Men don't. Thus men tend to be financially more successful than women, since they don't have to spend time being pregnant etc.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

That would just create a black market for cheaper sex workers. There will be people who can't afford the minimum price so a market will open to meet their demand.

mseebach 12y ago

As long as there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, the transaction will happen, you're just pushing it underground. The higher the price you're able to command for your services, the more likely you are to have your stuff together, so it's also the most vulnerable sex workers you're pushing underground, too.

tomjen3 12y ago

Then those who can't command premium prices will be forced to provide other, more risky, services like no-condom sex. Anyway what issue do you have with discount hookers?