> Prostitution lowers the price of sex with women. One of the biggest motivators of employment and productivity among men is the high price of marriage, monogamous sex with women.
Perhaps we don’t see more economic arguments for the status quo because they sound stilted and weird. Good lord, “the price of sex with women” is the most joyless thing I’ve ever read here. If someone seriously made that argument to me I’d be more distracted by how weird that sounds more than anything else.
(By the by I also think it’s a bad argument. It fails to understand why people get married, whether or not impressing a partner is actually economically important in aggregate, the differences between low attachment sex and marital sex, engage with the differences in marital rates before and after prostitution was made illegal, the impact of social expectations and norms on marriage, and the economic output of women among other issues).
Prostitution is an industry entirely built upon the price of sex with women.
You can do a thought exercise about what would happen if it was entirely legal with modern financial tools. it would be a bigger shift than just adding property tax in China. Everything would get repriced, from real estate to the wage gap in non prostitutional professions. These thought exercises are not for the faint of heart.
No they're not. Or at least they shouldn't be.
High employment is good because it means that everyone's getting some money to spend on things they want, productivity is good because it means we're making lots of things people want. At the end of the day, the entire economy is about making people's lives better, and things like "inefficiency" are referring to things that make us worse at making stuff people want.
If people want recreational drugs, and restricting access to them makes their lives worse, then restricting access to them is bad (ceteris paribus). Likewise for prostitution. Of course in both cases there are labour concerns, but in general not arresting people for doing non-violent work is a good start to worker enfranchisement.
I also strongly question at best reductive view, at worse highly sexist, view of personal relationships that your comment indicates.
I hate to break it to you. Maximum employment is the one thing the righty capitalistic federal reserve and the lefty communists have in common. if anything the socialists are more (in theory) while capitalists are more in practice.
I am so sick of this simplistic MBA style of thought. It ignores literally, figuratively, and morally the needs of humans who are under the rule of politicians, managers, and investors that simplify things into statments like this.
Most people are so detatched from the actual needs. Do you think if people that drink could socially use meth would be better off while they have paid sex with a legal prostitute high on meth and go back to with the next day to pay their morgage ?
Maybe if we were noy over taxes and living in precarious times .. People would beli3ve they have a future from their effort.
A lawmaker is not looking at prostitution from an economic lens, they are looking at how their constituents will react with horror at how the representative is enabling what they perceive as vice
Must take some cognitive dissonance to think my cold analysis is more disrespectful of women and relationships than prostitution itself.
Maximum employment and productivity are the highest economic policy goals.
Cannabis and recreational drugs reduce time, energy, and interest available towards employment.
Prostitution lowers the price of sex with women. One of the biggest motivators of employment and productivity among men is the high price of marriage, monogamous sex with women.