Could you explain how allowing sex for rent or kidney sale would lead to an arms race that makes everyone worse off? Or is this just meant to be an argument for why allowing extra options isn’t necessarily good, that doesn’t apply to the specific examples in the post?
Unless new apartments are built, people auction off the existing ones. If they have more money, the rent gradually increases to match the increased supply of money.
Let’s assume that the old equilibrium was $500 for rent.
When some landlords change it to “$500 or sex”, it will increase the demand, because now some people who couldn’t afford the $500 but are willing to provide sex, can rent, too.
But unless more apartments are built, increased demand simply means increased prices. It is obvious how to increase that “$500” part, but what about the other one? It would depend on how exactly the contract was specified—whether it put a limit on how much sex, or just “whenever the landlord wants it”. But at some moment, presumably, the landlord is sexually satisfied. Which doesn’t mean that he wants to leave money on the table, right? So the new increased price may be “either $550, or sex and $50”.
Oh, and if too many people provide sex, the new equilibrium might also be “either $550, or sex and $400”. The poor girl who cannot afford to pay $500 may still choose the second option, but now it isn’t as attractive as it seemed first.
The thing about selling sex is that you can charge a lot for it precisely when the supply is low and illegal. When everyone is selling sex, as a way to survive, it gets much cheaper. You cannot just change one thing (the supply) and expect that everything else (the market price) stays the same.
Thanks, this is a great explanation and you changed my mind on this. This is probably the reason why most people have the intuition that legalizing these things makes things worse for everyone. There were many proposed explanations for that intuition in this thread, but none of the others made sense/seemed valid to me, so I was beginning to think the intuition was erroneous.
It is a tradeoff; both options have their specific bad consequences. It is not obvious which one is greater, and it may depend on the surrounding circumstances.
For example, alcohol was a disaster for Native Americans, but Prohibition in 20th century created a boom of organized crime (but also a decline of cirrhosis mortality). Should the alcohol be legal or not?
Similarly, illegal prostitution is a source of income for organized crime, but using sex as a legal method of payment would probably result in many people being forced to take this option. The exact outcome would depend e.g. on how many people actually live in poverty (so even exactly the same law could become a disaster e.g. in USA, and quite harmless in e.g. Sweden).
It is also difficult to predict how making sex selling a part of everyday life would impact people’s attitudes towards poverty. Would it be like “no one should become so poor that they literally have to sell sex or starve, that is a horrible thing and we should use our tax money to prevent it”, or would it be more like “obviously, poverty is a not a big problem, because those who can’t find a job still have an option to sell sex, and if they think their bodies are too precious and they would rather starve—it’s their choice; why should my tax money subsidize other people’s choices”?
There are already social security means-testing regimes that prod able-bodied applicants to apply for jobs and to spend their existing savings before granting them payments. If sex work and organ sales are fully normalized, these might get extended into denying social security payments until people have tried to support themselves by selling a kidney and doing sex work.
There are already countries where prostitution is legal including the Netherlands, the UK and the US state of Nevada. (Not a complete list, just the first three I thought of off the top of my head.) None of them require people to prostitute themselves rather than accessing public benefits.
Likewise, there are countries, including the USA where it’s legal to pay people for donating human eggs, and probably other body parts. So far as I know, no state in the US requires women to attempt that before accessing welfare, and the US welfare system is less generous than European ones.
Empirically, your concern seems not to have any basis in fact.
Could you explain how allowing sex for rent or kidney sale would lead to an arms race that makes everyone worse off? Or is this just meant to be an argument for why allowing extra options isn’t necessarily good, that doesn’t apply to the specific examples in the post?
Unless new apartments are built, people auction off the existing ones. If they have more money, the rent gradually increases to match the increased supply of money.
Let’s assume that the old equilibrium was $500 for rent.
When some landlords change it to “$500 or sex”, it will increase the demand, because now some people who couldn’t afford the $500 but are willing to provide sex, can rent, too.
But unless more apartments are built, increased demand simply means increased prices. It is obvious how to increase that “$500” part, but what about the other one? It would depend on how exactly the contract was specified—whether it put a limit on how much sex, or just “whenever the landlord wants it”. But at some moment, presumably, the landlord is sexually satisfied. Which doesn’t mean that he wants to leave money on the table, right? So the new increased price may be “either $550, or sex and $50”.
Oh, and if too many people provide sex, the new equilibrium might also be “either $550, or sex and $400”. The poor girl who cannot afford to pay $500 may still choose the second option, but now it isn’t as attractive as it seemed first.
The thing about selling sex is that you can charge a lot for it precisely when the supply is low and illegal. When everyone is selling sex, as a way to survive, it gets much cheaper. You cannot just change one thing (the supply) and expect that everything else (the market price) stays the same.
Thanks, this is a great explanation and you changed my mind on this. This is probably the reason why most people have the intuition that legalizing these things makes things worse for everyone. There were many proposed explanations for that intuition in this thread, but none of the others made sense/seemed valid to me, so I was beginning to think the intuition was erroneous.
It is a tradeoff; both options have their specific bad consequences. It is not obvious which one is greater, and it may depend on the surrounding circumstances.
For example, alcohol was a disaster for Native Americans, but Prohibition in 20th century created a boom of organized crime (but also a decline of cirrhosis mortality). Should the alcohol be legal or not?
Similarly, illegal prostitution is a source of income for organized crime, but using sex as a legal method of payment would probably result in many people being forced to take this option. The exact outcome would depend e.g. on how many people actually live in poverty (so even exactly the same law could become a disaster e.g. in USA, and quite harmless in e.g. Sweden).
It is also difficult to predict how making sex selling a part of everyday life would impact people’s attitudes towards poverty. Would it be like “no one should become so poor that they literally have to sell sex or starve, that is a horrible thing and we should use our tax money to prevent it”, or would it be more like “obviously, poverty is a not a big problem, because those who can’t find a job still have an option to sell sex, and if they think their bodies are too precious and they would rather starve—it’s their choice; why should my tax money subsidize other people’s choices”?
There are already social security means-testing regimes that prod able-bodied applicants to apply for jobs and to spend their existing savings before granting them payments. If sex work and organ sales are fully normalized, these might get extended into denying social security payments until people have tried to support themselves by selling a kidney and doing sex work.
There are already countries where prostitution is legal including the Netherlands, the UK and the US state of Nevada. (Not a complete list, just the first three I thought of off the top of my head.) None of them require people to prostitute themselves rather than accessing public benefits.
Likewise, there are countries, including the USA where it’s legal to pay people for donating human eggs, and probably other body parts. So far as I know, no state in the US requires women to attempt that before accessing welfare, and the US welfare system is less generous than European ones.
Empirically, your concern seems not to have any basis in fact.