| Or it could be that people are just tipped out. I hadn't been to a strip club in several years but I got dragged to one a few months back by a friend and I got to tell you the money that these girls wanted seem to astronomically high for the service that they were providing. Maybe people are just fed up with it and spending their discretionary income in other ways. The girls turn their nose up at a couple dollars on stage and are pushing for $500 private dances. It's just blew my mind. I'm not sure what the house take is but $500 for a private dance for an hour was insane. Senior consultants that solve million dollars problems don't charge that much per hour. I literally had to explain to one of these girls how insane the price was. Because for $500 from the USA if you live near any major airport hub you take a long weekend trip to several Central and South American countries where you can have a whole lot more fun than you can at one of these strip clubs, and you're all in for $500. If that's your chosen form of entertainment, it literally makes no economic sense to spend any money at these strip clubs. I think at one time using a stripper index as a proxy for a recession measurement would have been good. Nowadays I don't think that's a valid way. Too much has changed across the sex entertainment industry, and the attitudes of the customers have also changed because even if all you want to see is girls dancing there's better value for your money with the other options that are available. Many of those options you don't even have to leave your house. Maybe a better proxy for a recession measurement would be something like top golf earnings. Or some other discretionary entertainment place similar to that. Are people going on outings spending their discretionary income in that way or are they saving it or did they just not have it to spend. |
1) Maximum City is a book about various people in Mumbai around ~2000. One of them is a sort of stripper (she dances and sometimes dates in a transactional way; I don't remember how explicit it all is). Her analysis is that her clients are partially paying for her but more so for "winning" her over the other clients. The point isn't that one of them takes her shopping and gets to watch her choose handbags; the point is that nobody else gets to go.
2) I read a long article about economic strategies behind webcam shows (by a performer, maybe by Aella?) and the author made two points that I remember: one, it's good to have a stupidly high priced item that a whale can roll in and buy. Two, she had success having a high priced item that "saved" her, e.g., if you pay $X I won't have to eat this gross thing I made. Neither one of these is really about the thing, it's about the feeling of out-competing the other guys there.
So while you're $500 example makes sense if somebody is just looking for the dance (or whatever) itself, it doesn't make sense if that person actually wants to "win" over the other patrons (and doesn't view the poorer patrons in the poorer country as real competitors).