Getting off on the economics of hooking
The continuing post-Spitzer articles about why-high end escorts make so such money are, let's admit it, porn. Wonking about the economics of high-end sex and money is a great way to pretend there's nothing titillating about it. This week, Economist blogger Allison Schrager asks how these girls can charge so much — that is, she asks everyone but the escorts themselves.
Who does Schrager poll?
- Men in airport lounges
- Men she works with
- The male commenter who triggered the piece in the first place
Their consensus? Hookers are so unmarriageable after they leave the biz that they're calculating their retirement into their rates. True, no escort agency I know of offers 401(k). But after all her digging into the details of what the women who do this work look like and fuck like, she ignores the most basic Adam Smith answer: Supply and demand.
What makes a highly paid escort successful isn't mere ability to fake enjoyment on the job, but to convince the most boring hedge fund manager that he's James Bond — daring, sexy, and of a class above mere mortals. It's a luxury experience, one most women just can't deliver. You might as well ask why having Robin Williams keynote your conference costs so much.
Back to my original point: Why is it when journalists want to talk about hooking, they pass over the hookers themselves for a bunch of econ profs? It's not like there aren't any MBA or Ph.D. call girls out there that The Economist could have sourced. Seriously, Allison, how do you think they pay for those degrees?
