The SuperFreakonomics of Prostitution: Levitt and Dubner in Trouble Again

November 16, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (5)

The long-awaited sequel to the best-seller Freakonomics is out, and you've almost certainly read about the controversies surrounding the book's chapter on global warming. But, before the book was even released, authors Levitt and Dubner caught some flak for the very first chapter in the book, which dares to ask the question, "Why aren't more women prostitutes?"

Portions of this chapter have been critcized for romanticizing prostitution and portraying it as a valid career choice. Now that I've read the chapter in full, I can say I walked away with a much different impression. Levitt and Dubner have some economic insights that, if fully considered, explain how society could make prostitution a less common profession.

They begin the chapter with evidence that one hundred years ago, prostitution was a much more popular profession than it is today—and as a result, much more lucrative. In the 1910s, apparently 1 out of every 50 American women worked as a prostitute. The low end of pay for a prostitute was $25,000 a year in today's dollars, and women working at the most expensive brothel in Chicago made over $430,000 annually. How does that compare to today? Using data gathered from in-the-field research, Levitt and Dubner found that an average prostitute in Chicago has a wage premium that "pales in comparison to the one enjoyed by even the low-rent prostitutes from a hundred years ago."

Why did their wages decline? Levitt and Dubner point to the fact that demand for sexual services declined. The liberalization of sexual mores meant that men no longer found a need to pay for sex as frequently (one example of the many interesting statistics in the book is that for 20 percent of American men born between 1933 and 1942, their first sexual encounter was with a prostitute).

So one might conclude that today, prostitution is only a realm for the desperate, poor, and drug-addicted. Levitt and Dubner get into trouble because they paint a slightly different picture. Most of the latter half of the chapter focuses on the modern-day story of one high-end escort, Allie, who at one point charged $500 an hour and made well over $200,000 a year. According to the authors, she did not pursue this work because she had to, but because she saw the money-making opportunities. This, to me, is perhaps the primary insight of the chapter: Even when it comes to selling sex, incentives matter. Higher wages for prostitutes mean more prostitution.

This incentive effect seems to be true even when we're not talking about the high end of the scale. The title of the chapter asks, "how is a street prostitute like a department-store Santa?" A department-store Santa is someone who does something else most of the year, but during this one period of spiked demand for jolly bearded men, takes up another job. According to Levitt and Dubner's research, street prostitution in the poor Chicago neighborhood of Washington Park works the same way: during the busy Fourth of July weekend, demand for prostiution "skyrockets," and as a result, a number of part-time prostitutes crop up for this one busy time of year. These women are able to get by the vast majority of the year without resorting to prostitution, but on this one weekend, the opportunity for high wages makes a difference.

Here's why Levitt and Dubner are getting an unfair rap: they've revealed something valuable for people who want to reduce prostitution and the negative effects it has on women. If the number of prostitutes is really responsive to the profitability of the profession, as Levitt and Dubner seem to show, then lower wages will mean fewer prostitutes.

As previously mentioned, sexual mores have softened. So what's keeping wages up? Here's what the authors of SuperFreakonomics say about Allie:

The truth is she would be distraught if prostitution were legalized, because her stratospherically high wages stem from the fact that the service she provides cannot be gotten legally.

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Duh. A whole page for that obvious conclusion?

Hood of ME 9:12PM April 30, 2013

A full time companion for 4 years and while she took a vacation once in a while with another user, we had a very strong relationship until I could not take the sexual jealously anymore. there were other reasons; age difference being the major one. But we loved each other a lot for 4 years. And I wish her the very best as she continues on in her search for a lifelong partner in the escort business. No more sexual jealous for me, at least.

jamie of NY 8:40PM April 24, 2010

Actually, Allison, I am a woman who worked as a call girl and was never beaten by a pimp (didn't have one, unless you consider the IRS one) or a client (John is a term used by those who don't respect what we do) and am happily married to a man I am madly in love with and have been with for 34 years. Perhaps in your sad world women are treated like that, but I found it a much different experience, where my clients treated me better then men I used to date for free. And it was the best job I ever had.

For most married women, the risk of having a husband who abuses them is greater than a sex worker having a client who does so... Except for those who work on the street... but that is like being a taxi driver, which is the most dangerous profession of all because you are dealing entirely with strangers who can 'hit and run.' Only 10% of prostitutes work on the street- the rest work off street where we can better control our working environment.

And Adam of NJ, you are right, there are many male sex workers and always left out of the discussion. Perhaps women like Allison of UT believe that men can only rape and not be 'raped' and therefore aren't worth talking about.

Sex worker activists like myself want consenting adult commercial sex decriminalized rather than legalized. But we do not believe that the prices will come down that much if it were not a crime, so Allee doesn't have anything to worry about. What will change is not having the cops force us to either be informants, give them free sex and or money, or get arrested for non cooperation and be "rescued."

The shameful part is that people like Allison will never listen to us, because they have their own warped fantasy of what our work is like and refuse to give it up regardless of how many of us there are who say our work is not "rent a rape." These are the people who infantilize us, who think women who become sex workers are incapable of making informed choices, so they want to impose their own views and values on us regardless of what WE want. They use subjective, emotional arguments to influence legislators and legislation which continues to make us criminals.

People like Allison will not debate us because they know they have no rational argument to defend their irrational position. Instead they make ill-informed proclamations about "daily beatings" by pimps and johns, to make us appear as chronic victims who must be on drugs to survive. Do some prostitutes use drugs? Of course, as do some athletes, musicians, actors, lawyers and even cops. And, just like there are wives who are victims of domestic violence, there are prostitutes who are abused by their pimps- if they have one, but why don't we treat such victims the same way we treat victims of spousal abuse? Do we arrest the person who is the victim or do we arrest the perpetrator? Most likely, because the Allisons of the world wish to punish us for selling what we could otherwise legally give away!

Norma Jean of CA 12:44PM November 17, 2009

Capital Commerce

U.S. News business reporter Matthew Bandyk examines the issues, people, and debates that shape the nexus of political and economic life in the nation's capital.

advertisement

advertisement