« China story of the day | Main | Paul Simon's Surprise »
Caught my eye
1. The economics of prostitution. The best way to limit prostitution is to raise male wages, thereby increasing the return to becoming a wife.
2. New social science research on shopping behavior, via www.politicaltheory.info.
3. Grant McCracken on ethnography and marketing, here and here.
4. Dolphins call each other by names.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 9, 2006 at 07:43 AM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
I don't know if I believe #1
From the article: "Wives and prostitutes are competing "commodities" (in the reductionist view of economists, that is), but wives are distinctly superior in that they can produce children that are socially recognized as coming from the father."
So yes raising male wages limits protitution, but only so long as males desire "children that are socially recognized as coming from the father." But does having children still bestow the same social status in a world of rising male (and female) incomes? It certainly doesn't seem that males in developed societies care as much about having socially recognized offspring.
Posted by: m g at May 9, 2006 8:27:15 AM
Why is the best way to raise male wages? The article pretty clearly stated that raising female wages also should reduce prostitution.
It seems that this would also lower the incentive for women to become wives. Which kind of sucks for men, but should be good for women in that they can choose to become wives if they want but otherwise pursue another lifestyle.
Also I don't get the idea behind trying to reduce prostitution at all. Why is that at all desireable? It seems far more sensible to try and change the morals surronding sex so that prostitution can become a job somewhat unlike most others.
Posted by: John Forsberg at May 9, 2006 9:13:56 AM
I didn't read the actual academic article, but the dolphin story doesn't seem to compelling. 9 out of 14 turned around, for a CI of 0.39 to 0.84. Not much to write home about if you ask me.
Posted by: Tim at May 9, 2006 9:49:08 AM
I put very little weight on any science stories found in New Scientist...
Just look at the linked dolphin story: You wrote "Dolphins call each other by names", which is exactly the impression you might get by reading the first paragraph of this article:
Bottlenose dolphins appear to whistle their "names" to each other, according to a new study. Researchers say that this type of referential communication is extremely rare in nature, and until now had not been clearly shown in a non-human animal.
But even notwithstanding the statistical isssues raised in Tim's comment, what the research actually explores is *not* a name used by one dolphin to refer to another, but a "unique sound" uttered by each dolphin, that other dolphins can use to recognize them. Nowhere does this story suggest that one dolphin can create the "unique sound" that is uttered by another dolphin. This is not a name, but an audible feature (the researcher calls it a signature whistle), and is not "referential" at all, contra the article's first paragraph.
Posted by: Alex R at May 9, 2006 11:17:56 AM
Your post inspired me to write my own take on the economics of prostitution.
Posted by: Half Sigma at May 9, 2006 12:24:16 PM
Can't dogs recognize each others' smells? And recognize their "human companions" from other humans? This article doesn't seem to provide any new evidence that a dolphin can do more than what a dog does when it marks its territory.
Posted by: DK at May 9, 2006 4:12:58 PM
That this academic paper exists shows why the rest of us should be extremely skeptical of economists.
Did they actually interview prostitutes to determine their motivations? Nope. Who needs to do that when you can just make assumptions. What genius! Forget actually trying to determine the truth about a fundamental fact crucial to all other conclusions. Assume it away. Hey, if life is too messy, we can't show off our ability to perform basic mathematics based on unrealistic assumptions. And we wouldn't want that, would we? What a loss to society it would be if these mathematical formula, purporting to say something about the world, but failing to do so based on faulty assumptions, were not published.
Of course, they did cite a study where 175 prostitutes were interviewed and they did mention that many of these prostitutes claimed not to regret their choices. But the question arises, why should we believe them? It seems that they have adequate incentive to not admit this to those interviewing them. Many people would not be willing to admit that they had majorly screwed up in making a major life decision.
The conclusion of the author of the article at abcnews.com which references the study in question is absolutely ridiculous. What we should do is morally condemn prostitution more, not less. Recognize prostitution for what it is. Exploitation. Pure and simple. No mathematical models invented by amoral economists will change that basic fact. Maybe the economic theory will make them feel better about their own morally deprave choices, but it will not change the fundamental reality of the situation.
Posted by: Vorn at May 10, 2006 2:43:58 AM
Vorn, like most critics of economics you seem pretty confused. Are the prostitutes exploited victims or are
they immoral crooks?
As for your criticism of economics in general, I can recommend you to read the posts on this blog about
whats wrong with economics.
Posted by: Johan Richter at May 10, 2006 4:34:09 AM
Johan,
You say I am confused, but you don't articulate how you think I am confused.
Prostitutes are obviously exploited, whether they acknowledge that fact or not. No confusion there.
Overall, I like this blog. That is why I read it. But what I don't like are silly economics articles that masquerade as genuine scholarship. I will admit, though, that I am painting with too broad of a brush. Many economists are not amoral freaks who think that mathematical equations can substitute for actual thought. Too many are, though.
Posted by: Vorn at May 10, 2006 4:49:06 AM
Why do people always think it is more humane to change attitudes towards sex to allow prostitutes to do their job with dignity, like anyone else? As I see it, the sex trade (pornography and prostitution), like all labor, is sensitive to inflationary effects. The only difference is that, whereas in most labor, workers simply have to do more of the same work to live the same lifestyle, in the sex trade this translates to workers needing to do ever more degrading and demoralizing activities to maintain their lifestyle. In fact, changing societal norms actually exacerbates things, because commonly accepted sex acts will be commoditized, while the demand for extreme, socially unacceptable sex by some portion of the wealthy elite class can never be depleted, thus the incentives will always be to pull workers into the more extreme activities. I think making mores even stricter acts as a minimum wage for prostitutes.
Posted by: Darin London at May 10, 2006 11:42:45 AM
It should be interesting to watch China over the next several decades. They're exporting so many of their female infants through international adoption, that they're skewing the male/female ratio in the country. If the prostitution thesis is true, China is where the money is going to be for prostitutes over the next quarter-century or so. Not to mention most other professions....
Posted by: Michael at May 10, 2006 3:21:42 PM
Count me among those who don't buy #1. That seems to be making a ton of huge assumptions which I don't believe are true.
Posted by: BillWallace at May 10, 2006 9:39:35 PM
#1. Interesting that even though this sentence is included in the article:
"More obvious perhaps is that prostitution generally declines in areas where women's incomes and opportunities are greater.
Putting these two tendencies together suggests that if one wishes to reduce prostitution, increasing the incomes of both men and women is likely to be more effective than imposing legal penalties. "
~~~~
Yet the focus of both your mention and the article are more marriage vs. prostitution, rather than prostitution vs. alternative employment.
Your bias doesn't quite make it to an endorsement of the concept of female as property. But it gets very, very close. However it does seem to support a separate economic class for women going forward.
I would be curious as to why one should choose Increasing Men's Wages/Marriage vs. Prostitution rather than Increasing Wages/Alternative employment vs. Prostitution as a focus?
Is that a preferred political outcome? Albeit it is a small off the cuff statement "The best way to limit prostitution is to raise male wages, thereby increasing the return to becoming a wife." Yet still, the POV choice is fascinating to me. And seems slightly contrary to the evidence offered, or perhaps less than the evidence offered suggested, less in a very interesting way.
Posted by: Lawrence at May 11, 2006 2:49:55 PM
smeris strippen thuis ^^^ aziatisch actie in bad ^^^ manga hentai fotos ^^^ asiatiche jpg ^^^ remorque asiatique ^^^ sous les jupes ebene ^^^ chaud maman photos ^^^ plus frais filles trente cinq ^^^ giovane figa fotti in cucina ^^^ bello infermiera spogliarello ^^^ farsartad brudar samlag ^^^ vild cowboyflicka tillverkningen alska ^^^ eccessivo agente di polizia sex ^^^ bello cameriera spogliarello ^^^ bouteille bukkake ^^^ bien jeune loisirs ^^^ naken ikiliikkuja kalu ^^^ orgasmi penis tuntipalkka ^^^ kjoligst koselig kysk ^^^ pikk galleri ^^^ varmest kysk ^^^ sjenert ekte ^^^ pio haritomeni servitora agapi ^^^ fantastika mora katourima ^^^ mere ado ^^^ plus froid fils mpeg ^^^ pio drosero tolmiros mama ^^^ to pio drosero tolmiros mama ^^^
Posted by: levan at Sep 8, 2006 4:27:06 AM
Hello all really cool blog
alprazolam drug fioricet drug hydrocodone drug vicodin drug tramadol drug xanax drug valium drug ultram drug soma drug carisoprodol drug ambien drug ativan drug lorazepam drug propecia drug adipex drug didrex drug cialis drug levitra drug paxil drug meridia drug viagra drug wellbutrin drug clonazepam drug xenical drug prozac drug butalbital drug phentermine drug
buy cheap ativan online buy cheap adipex online buy cheap didrex online buy cheap levitra online buy cheap cialis online buy cheap phentermine online buy cheap soma online buy cheap tramadol online buy cheap diazepam online buy cheap carisoprodol online buy cheap meridia online buy cheap paxil online buy cheap valium online buy cheap xanax online buy cheap ultram online buy cheap fioricet online buy cheap tooth whitening buy best online pharmacy generic alprazolam online buy best car insurance buy best payday loan search web directory search business directory buy carisoprodol buy hydrocodone cheap vicodin
Posted by: linda at Oct 9, 2006 8:11:40 AM
Posted by: at Oct 13, 2008 11:48:54 PM
Last chaos Gold
Buy Last Chaos Gold
Cheap Last Chaos Gold
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 21, 2009 1:04:17 AM
