41–50 of 76 posts
Law of unintended consequences, maybe? California did something pretty bold, and only time will tell if it was a good idea or not. Seems like there's a lot of fallout though, so far. Anecdotally, I know a few people whose small businesses were impacted by the change; neither knew it was even an issue until one was sued by a contractor they'd been working with for a few years. I wonder what kind of due diligence the S…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because strip club owners are mostly assholes? They're going to take as much as they think they can get away with, which is probably a lot.
And if they can't get away with it, I suppose they'll have to raise wages to attract entertainers. Oh look, a free market!
I'm a capitalist. But I recognize that the difference between theory and reality is that in theory there is no difference.
The reality is the strippers have as much leverage as the other side doesn't (that's the hole concept of leverage). Club owners have the leverage of the cost of setting up a great club, and local regulations.
This then translates to: the more strip clubs in a city, the more they will have to compete. That is, if they aren't colluding * Which is a lot easier when the people controlling that side of the supply equation are likely less than a dozen sophisticated guys in a city (who tend to all know each other). While the supply of labor is likely in the 1000s or 10,000s (and mostly not-so-sophisticated and can't all know each other)
Essentially what's happening is that now the club owners have to pay a bunch of taxes they managed to avoid paying before. The dancers themselves were likely not paying as much in taxes as they were supposed to, but now, with paycheck withholding, they're probably paying more in taxes than they used to. The clubs, in order to compensate for all the "new" taxes, are only paying minimum wage, and are taking larger cuts…
If you haven't been offered cocaine or orgasms for money at the strip clubs you've been to, you're doing it wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt that most strip clubs will be unprofitable now. What I think is closer to the truth is that they were previously obscenely profitable, thanks in part to exploiting dancers and evading taxes, and will now be "merely" profitable along the same lines as any other service-based small business like a bar or restaurant.
> were previously obscenely profitable How can that be. Wouldn't that simply increase the supply of strip clubs, from more getting into something thats that profitable.
"This whole business will be completely ruined. The whole point about being a stripper is you go in, get fast cash, no one knows how you’re getting it, it’s not documented and it’s not taken from you." Sorry not sorry that you have to actually start paying taxes on your income like the rest of us. Some of these quotes are really helping to make the case for the law.
> Sorry not sorry that you have to actually start paying taxes on your income like the rest of us I am. Paying taxes on income (that is then taxed again when spent) is a terrible disincentive. Some states agree with me; I would rather see the standard move toward a model free of income taxation than toward universal taxation. Doubly so when the tone of your comment seems to point to the motivation being largely spite…
While I can understand opposing income based taxation, I don't understand why opponents of income based taxation would support specific industries evading existing income based taxation laws rather than working to change the taxation laws for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt that most strip clubs will be unprofitable now. What I think is closer to the truth is that they were previously obscenely profitable, thanks in part to exploiting dancers and evading taxes, and will now be "merely" profitable along the same lines as any other service-based small business like a bar or restaurant.
> were previously obscenely profitable How can that be. Wouldn't that simply increase the supply of strip clubs, from more getting into something thats that profitable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt that most strip clubs will be unprofitable now. What I think is closer to the truth is that they were previously obscenely profitable, thanks in part to exploiting dancers and evading taxes, and will now be "merely" profitable along the same lines as any other service-based small business like a bar or restaurant.
> were previously obscenely profitable How can that be. Wouldn't that simply increase the supply of strip clubs, from more getting into something thats that profitable.
I am confident that when it was first conceived, people sought to do well for individuals. Now, a month doesn't go by without a similar dispute affecting a new industry. The argument is always between individuals that want to become employees, and individuals that want to stay as contractors.
It is a shame that among our political candidate options nobody is really rethinking the system with an engineering mindset. To even begin to grasp the current model and its implications feels like jumping into a legacy project without hope, and that isn't right. It should be simpler.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if they can't get away with it, I suppose they'll have to raise wages to attract entertainers. Oh look, a free market!
Nah, once that happens we get news pieces on 'labor shortages'. I'm a capitalist. But I recognize that the difference between theory and reality is that in theory there is no difference. The reality is the strippers have as much leverage as the other side doesn't (that's the hole concept of leverage). Club owners have the leverage of the cost of setting up a great club, and local regulations. This then translates to:…