Yes, Viliam made an extremely poor example. No, this doesn’t affect his main point, because he could have made a better example instead. Sweatshops do exist and yet AFAIK nobody’s ever proposed to ban selling clothes for money.
Prostitution has an unusual feature: for a given level of need for money, the ratio of “how much would most people who have X have to get paid in order to be willing to sell X” to “how much money would X get if sold on the market” is extremely large, compared to a similar ratio for, say, selling one’s labor as a janitor. The dynamics of things with large ratios of this type lead to slavery and mistreatment much more often than the dynamics of things with smaller ratios of this type.
That doesn’t mean that people in other jobs can’t be mistreated; obviously, sweatshops do exist. But it does mean that mistreatment is less central for those other jobs, and is less relevant to banning them.
The dynamics of things with large ratios of this type lead to slavery and mistreatment much more often than the dynamics of things with smaller ratios of this type.
I don’t see why this is so.
Note that in your setup there is a market and that market, presumably, clears. This means that at the prevailing price point the supply and the demand are balanced. The observation that there could be a lot more supply at a much higher price seems irrelevant to me.
In my setup the market “clears” by there being no sales by most of the people who have X, because they are not willing to sell X at its market price. As the need for money increases, the price at which people are willing to sell X goes down, but on the average, janitorial work (for instance) reaches the point where sales happen long before prostitution does.
In my setup the market “clears” by there being no sales by most of the people who have X
Any particular reason for the quotes around “clears”? The market does clear, it’s not a metaphor or anything.
Besides, consider e.g. long-range truck drivers. Most people can be one (there is no high barrier to entry) and yet very few people actually want to be one and/or work as one.
In economics terms you are talking about supply elasticity and pointing out that the supply of sex in exchange for money is locally inelastic, that is, the supply does not increase much in response to non-huge changes in price. Yeah, sure, so what? I still don’t see how you get from here to enslavement and mistreatment.
Any particular reason for the quotes around “clears”?
Yes, a market clearing by there not being any sales is a very non-central example of clearing.
Besides, consider e.g. long-range truck drivers. Most people can be one (there is no high barrier to entry) and yet very few people actually want to be one and/or work as one.
Most people’s loathing of being a truck driver is much less than their loathing of being a prostitute.
Except that there are sales. Are you saying prostitution does not exist??
There are no sales for most of the people who have it.
Most people’s loathing of being a truck driver is much less than their loathing of being a prostitute.
I’m not sure how this is relevant to your argument.
The ratio I described is a way of formalizing “people loathe selling X, compared to Y”. If, at a given level of need for money, the ratio between the asking price for X and the market price is large for X compared to Y, then people loathe selling X compared to Y.
Not all mosts are the same. “Most of the people” won’t sell sex is a much stronger “most” than “most of the people won’t sell janitorial work”, for the reason I stated.
Yes, Viliam made an extremely poor example. No, this doesn’t affect his main point, because he could have made a better example instead. Sweatshops do exist and yet AFAIK nobody’s ever proposed to ban selling clothes for money.
Prostitution has an unusual feature: for a given level of need for money, the ratio of “how much would most people who have X have to get paid in order to be willing to sell X” to “how much money would X get if sold on the market” is extremely large, compared to a similar ratio for, say, selling one’s labor as a janitor. The dynamics of things with large ratios of this type lead to slavery and mistreatment much more often than the dynamics of things with smaller ratios of this type.
That doesn’t mean that people in other jobs can’t be mistreated; obviously, sweatshops do exist. But it does mean that mistreatment is less central for those other jobs, and is less relevant to banning them.
I don’t see why this is so.
Note that in your setup there is a market and that market, presumably, clears. This means that at the prevailing price point the supply and the demand are balanced. The observation that there could be a lot more supply at a much higher price seems irrelevant to me.
In my setup the market “clears” by there being no sales by most of the people who have X, because they are not willing to sell X at its market price. As the need for money increases, the price at which people are willing to sell X goes down, but on the average, janitorial work (for instance) reaches the point where sales happen long before prostitution does.
Any particular reason for the quotes around “clears”? The market does clear, it’s not a metaphor or anything.
Besides, consider e.g. long-range truck drivers. Most people can be one (there is no high barrier to entry) and yet very few people actually want to be one and/or work as one.
In economics terms you are talking about supply elasticity and pointing out that the supply of sex in exchange for money is locally inelastic, that is, the supply does not increase much in response to non-huge changes in price. Yeah, sure, so what? I still don’t see how you get from here to enslavement and mistreatment.
Yes, a market clearing by there not being any sales is a very non-central example of clearing.
Most people’s loathing of being a truck driver is much less than their loathing of being a prostitute.
Except that there are sales. Are you saying prostitution does not exist??
I’m not sure how this is relevant to your argument.
There are no sales for most of the people who have it.
The ratio I described is a way of formalizing “people loathe selling X, compared to Y”. If, at a given level of need for money, the ratio between the asking price for X and the market price is large for X compared to Y, then people loathe selling X compared to Y.
This is getting stupid.
Tap.
This is true for most things most of the time, and in itself hardly seems reason for the scare-quotes around “clears”.
Not all mosts are the same. “Most of the people” won’t sell sex is a much stronger “most” than “most of the people won’t sell janitorial work”, for the reason I stated.