Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

entertainment.timesonline.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 200 posts

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#171

Post by brc »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #162
brc wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - if anything, being a stay-at-home mother is seen as a luxurious option these days. Most of the mothers I know dream of the time they can quit their job and just be a mother, instead of having to juggle work and kids.

>Most of the mothers I know dream of the time they can quit their job and just be a mother, instead of having to juggle work and kids. I'm a bloke, but we (my wife and I) share running of our business and care of the children (one toddler, one infant) pretty close to 50-50. Effectively between us we're SAH parenting. How? Those who say they envy us aren't prepared to live in poverty in order to look after their own k…

Well I'm in the same boat as you - living on a reduced (and uncertain) income and both SAH running the business (though it's more like 95% me, 5% her).

I should have qualified my statement - it's a luxury to stay at home and be a mother and maintain the same standard of living. Ie, having a husband with a high income.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#172

Post by duairc »

gaius wrote: post #80
duairc wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is inaccurate and a strawman. Feminism is about destroying the concept of gender.

If that were true it would be called "equalism".

There is certainly an argument to be made that "feminism" is not the best name for itself, but regardless, that is its name and it certainly is true that that is what feminism is. It is not about trying to get more rights for womyn while ignoring the areas of society where men are oppressed. That's total nonsense and completely ignoring the real problem. But that's not what feminism is. Feminism exists to challenge and ultimately destroy the mental programming we've been subjected to that causes us to assign specific roles and rights to people based on what we perceive their gender to be in the first place. This idea of gender is something that oppresses all of us, male, female or whatever, and feminism is a movement to destroy it. Seriously, that really is what it's about, regardless of the impressions you might get from the name.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#173

Post by duairc »

gaius wrote: post #118
parenthesis wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If `civil rights' means `equal (to whites) rights for non-whites' and `gay rights' means `equal (to straights) rights for gays', then the civil rights and gay rights movements are both `equalism'. A group which sees itself as oppressed can't just wishy-washily campaign under a banner of `equalism' if it wants to effect change. It must first identify itself as a group of people with something in common, and which is s…

But civil rights is not "black rights", do you see? -isms, generally, exist to advance the interests of their sponsors, to the detriment of society as a whole.

Civil rights is not "black rights", you're right, and feminism is a questionable name for itself.

But that generalisation about -isms is intellectually vacuous nonsense.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#174

Post by zeteo »

_pius wrote: post #147
zeteo wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My quotation was "a single person on full-time minimum wage can easily feed and house a family of four". This you confirmed, and it says nothing about other desirable expenses, such as savings, nice clothing and health insurance. The straw man you made out of it is "I was just debunking the idea that a family of four can live "easily" on a single minimum wage income". That's BS, my friend.

Wow, this has become petty thread crapping on your part and I'm not going to help. I'm done.

Yeah, well - you started it. yummyfajitas and I were having a nice off-topic exchange when you decided to barge in without reading the point properly.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#175

Post by philwelch »

tptacek wrote: post #154
sprout wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally the ideal is co-op; that's what my parents did. I know it's somewhat a radical idea, but you can make friends with other parents. Even with two or three families your individual responsibilities become much more manageable. Each parent can take off early once a week and 7-8 children come over to hang out. You do it right and they won't even really need supervision. And since you've fostered relationships wi…

I'm on a first-name, share-an-occasional-beer basis with every parent on my block (and there are many), and my perception is that this kind of arrangement is not as common or simple as you're making it out to be. It seems fraught; taking care of someone else's children is a serious commitment. If you screw up your schedule, people lose half a day of work. After-school child care just isn't expensive enough to be wort…

This isn't meant personally, but from a wide anthropological perspective, I suspect "giving certified professionals money to take care of your children" is farther from the norm than "having trusted friends in your community take care of your children". Just a small aside, possibly worth some thought.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#176

Post by philwelch »

chmike wrote: post #24
olalonde wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw it coming at "pretty much focused on food and sex".

Bonobo monkeys have been seen trading food (fruits) for sex. What is new for me here is that they adopted a currency.

Quibble: bonobos are apes, not monkeys.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#177

Post by philwelch »

erikstarck wrote: post #161
wan23 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]

I only have links in Swedish but there was a report published a few years ago about prostitution in the Nordics saying that 2.0% of all men and 1.6% of all women had ever sold sex: http://nyheter24.se/nyheter/utrikes/160704-fler-man-an-kvinn... It also concluded that most of these men were homosexual. Here's the report (actually it's in Norwegian): http://kilden.forskningsradet.no/publikasjon/vis.html?tid=58...

You have what percentage of each gender have ever been prostitutes, but what are the comparative market shares of either gender? What percentage of paid sex in a given year is satisfied by female prostitutes, and which percentage by males?

Maybe that 1.6% of women sell way, way, way more sex than that 2.0% of men. It's certainly plausible, since there's a higher demand for heterosexual sex than homosexual sex. So while more prostitutes seem to be men, perhaps most prostitution still involves female prostitutes.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#178

Post by philwelch »

hugh3 wrote: post #97
ryanlchan wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this true for just about every professional services field. Hiring a lawyer, an accountant, a doctor, or a consultant often comes at a rate multiple times their own salaries. But the difference is that the lawyer was probably working 50-60 billable hours a week, whereas an escort (or a business coach, presumably) will work significantly less than that.

If you can bill $craploads per hour, why work 50-60 hours a week? I'd work 30. Maybe 20.

Yes, this is what economists call the "backwards-bending supply curve for labor". Turns out if you pay people craploads per hour, you get fewer hours out of them, not more. This is unlike every other supply curve--if you pay $1,000 per hour of labor you get less labor than if you pay $100 per hour of labor, but if you pay $1,000 per gross of self-sealing stem bolts you get way, way, way more self-sealing stem bolts than if you pay $100 per gross of self-sealing stem bolts.

The worst you get from ordinary supply curves is diminishing returns. If you paid $1,000,000 per bushel of apples, well, you're just throwing away money--I'm sure we'd max out the earth's apple-growing capacity well before $500,000 per bushel. Labor's the only supply curve that actually bends back.

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#179

Post by chmike »

philwelch wrote: post #176
chmike wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bonobo monkeys have been seen trading food (fruits) for sex. What is new for me here is that they adopted a currency.

Quibble: bonobos are apes, not monkeys.

Sorry, I don't understand your comment. I'm speaking french. What is the difference between apes and monkeys ?

Re: How a call girl can earn far more by actually working far less

#180

Post by philwelch »

chmike wrote: post #179
philwelch wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quibble: bonobos are apes, not monkeys.

Sorry, I don't understand your comment. I'm speaking french. What is the difference between apes and monkeys ?

Bonobos, gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans are apes. Apes are very closely related to humans.

Capuchins, marmosets, tamarins, baboons, and a host of other species are monkeys. Monkeys are more distantly related to humans.

English and French are both imprecise languages. In formal classification, monkeys, apes, and humans are all primates. Furthermore, they are all of suborder Haplorrhini, infraorder Simiiformes. "New world monkeys" are of parvorder Platyrrhini, "old world monkeys", apes, and humans are of parvorder Catarrhini. Old world monkeys are within superfamily Cercopithecoidea, apes and humans are within superfamily Hominoidea.

If you wanted to map the taxonomy to English, you'd probably say Platyrrhini and Cercopithecoidea are monkeys, while Hominoidea are apes. This implies that humans are apes, which is, at least scientifically, fairly accurate. Humans are not, however, monkeys.

Post reply on HN