I thought that was their primary raison d'être? (The strippers)
Thankfully these days you're not going to find any lady of the night with pubes, so it's not really an issue.
Or so I'm told...
Never know what sorts of "fetish" someone may have. Used to be "fetish" to want shaved, now it's "fetish" to want someone with pubes. **shrug** I don't judge (about this), just spreading the word of caution.
I think you undervalue that women also has an appetite...sex is not just a thing for satisfying men...so no, I don't agree with you...sometimes I make my lady real comfortable and then she has to pay me
Only? I think he undervalue all women to compare them to prostitute of one form or an other.
Pft! From a business perspective prostitutes are extremely valuable.
1. Good shelf life.
2. The same "goods" can be cleaned and resold many times.
3. Always in demand.
4. Sold repeatedly but ownership never changes.
Does your hubby get the same "value" from his investment in you?
P.S. I'm kidding. I've never been particularly fond of prostitution mostly because of the collateral damage.
Love, respect, support, friendship, faithful, joy, laugh, happiness, 2 beautiful kids and a long life commitment for each other.
And a nice ass (that's what he says)
It's priceless.
These can't put food on the table.
But this could.
That's because there are no goods sold. Prostitution is a service... if they are valuable depends on the profitability - which typically depends on the competition.
Looking at the competitive forces does it look a bit like this:
Threat of new entrants: You bet. There will be new girls all the time.
Threat of substitute services: very low.
Rivalry among existing competitors: Purely based on the amount of ladies walking up and down the Sihlquay - probably pretty high.
Bargaining power of buyers: no idea.
Bargaining power of suppliers: not really applicable.
All in all do I expect the average prostitution business in Zurich to be pretty competitive and therefore not as profitable as in other places. From a marketing perspective does this mean that in order to make good money, you will need to offer something the others do not have... some USP customers are willing to pay for. Like for example underage girls.
Wives count economically as depreciating assets .
Why would a woman sell her body in the first place? No supply, no demand!
This last post by Treverus reminds me of 'The Wire', when Stringer Bell went to Economics classes to learn how to move more dope
Could prostitution be Switzerland's only "cheep" service?
Sure. In case you have not read Freakonomics: Selling drugs is a shit job. Probably even prostitution is better...
You prefer blokes? I'm not judging.
Definitely it undervalues all women to compare them to prostitutes. That being said, there's quite the correlation to a male's amount of disposable income when being in a relationship or not. I'm not to familiar with the similar trend with females (if anything the inverse). Also, there is a definite trend for women to desire a mate who can provide/has a good job/good income ability. Not quite the requirement when a male is choosing a partner. Interesting enough it parallels the seller-buyer requirement for the industry of ill repute. Of course these aren't cut-and-dry correlation, but one must be fairly naive to believe these ideals aren't still very strong in today's society.
Prostitutes on average tend to be more conscientious about their health and cleanliness if anything (street junkies and crackwhores excluded).
I would be more concerned about picking up a "free" girl in terms of health and safety.
I wonder why economists use diagrams to explain something trivial like this. Surely it would be simpler to say, "there are five factors that influence bla bla, These five factors are: bla bla". Diagrams like this just baffle the more scienitifically minded viewer like myself who start off by wondering if there is any meaning to the fact that two pairs of arrows point in opposite directions (maybe cancelling one another out) and the other two are perpendicular (thus unable to cancel the others), and whether maybe there is a way to express this interaction with vectors or something, only to realise that the interpretation is much more trivial than that. But then I guess economics is all about shrouding the trivial in mystery.
As in, if she can't find a mate who is a strong supplier, then tapping into a large number of weak suppliers and summing the takings is better that binding herself to a single weak supplier? With the added advantage that she retains her freedom?
It may sound tempting as a theory but I don't think it flies.