Hard times push more women to strip clubs

Strippers had the advantage during the boom, now us customers have the advantage during the recession. Milk it for all it's worth!

I love the recession. There is a never-ending stream of hot young talent at the clubs. It's also increasing the attractiveness of the girls at the massage parlor. Last time I visited there, I ended up with a 22 year old Italian girl who was a solid 8. 5'8" 115 pounds and cute.

A few years ago she would have had other options.

Well, I guess obama's policies have accomplished one good thing, at least for those that still home any money left or still have a job.

Clubber, the recession began and the stock market tanked while Bush was still president.

Priapus: What's your point? Please review:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_er…

Didn't Playboy have a pictorial on women who had left Wall Street for nude modeling careers? Seems the downturn on Wall Street forced some of the younger brokers and hedge fund managers to find another way to make the big money--so these babes went nude.

Priapus,

Yes he was and it started right when the demoncrats took control of Congress. Since most are ignorant of the workings of our Constitutional government, I'll let you in on a secret. A President can NOT spend a dime or make any law under normal conditions. CONGRESS does that. And even if the President vetoes their idiocy, they may override. Learn how the US government works before you make any more stupid comments!

Clubber, are you saying Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget but that it was Newt Gingrich and the 104th Congress?

I love true history.

This was one of the more realistic articles abut the SC industry I've seen. No bias, just reporting. And it does reflect the downturn that most of us are witnessing and/or benefiting from, depending on your circumstances.

This Angelina Spencer used to be in Cleveland and was married to the guy who owned the Circus in the Flats, which eventually became a Larry Flint's Hustler Club (now torm down for a development project). I've heard some people question her educational credentials, but regardless of that, obviously they've funded an economic impact study her trade group can use to advocate for/defend (??) the industry. Seems they could do a better job, given what's going on in Ohio and other places.

Less cash being spent in the clubs means survival of the sexiest. The hottest girls make tip-out, the uglies are quickly weeded out of the business. I hate being constantly harrassed for dances by uglies when visiting a club.

PAS,

clinton signed a balanced budget sent to him by Congress. But if you think that he would have done the same had not the Republicans taken back the House for the first time in four decades, I have some nice land to sell you in South West Florida! :)

Balanced budgets are based on projections, not reality.

"Yes he was and it started right when the demoncrats took control of Congress."

Ugh...and the Right-wing lies continue from this proven idiot...

Our most recent recession started in December 2007 & officially ended at the end of 2009. The Dems took back Congress in early 2007.

In this recession, the subprime mortgage crisis (caused by the pushing of ARMs by both the Bush Regime & Alan Greenspan as well as GOP-led deregulation of the financial system) led to the collapse of the U.S. housing bubble. Falling housing-related assets contributed to a global financial crisis. This crisis led to the failure or collapse of many of the U.S.'s largest financial institutions as well as another crisis in the automobile industry. The federal govt. responded with an unprecedented $700 billion bank bailout in late 2008 & a $787 billion fiscal stimulus package in early 2009 which helped, in part, to avert another global depression. As is often the case at the end of a recession, unemployment was still high and/or rising, since it is almost always a lagging economic indicator.

--------------------------------

"Clubber, are you saying Bill Clinton didn't balance the budget but that it was Newt Gingrich and the 104th Congress?"

I wouldn't be surprised if he was (even though he's also tried to deny the simple FACT that the Clinton budget surplus did exist in the first place!), since he's a proven Right-wing liar, but, unfortunately for him, that wouldn't be true either.

"WHY IS THE FEDERAL BUDGET BALANCED?"

"Soon after May surplus projections were released, the Majority Party issued a flurry of press releases making the claim that so-called `Balanced Budget' legislation and other bills enacted by Congress last year are responsible for this turnabout. Such claims are simply not credible. Just as it took years of fiscal imprudence in the 1980's and early 1990's to build up a $290 billion deficit by 1992, it took years of adhering to disciplined and responsible fiscal and monetary policies since 1992 to dig out of this deficit position."

"Conspicuously absent from CBO's analysis of reasons for the 1998 surplus is the fiscal effect of laws enacted by Republican congresses between 1995 and the present date. The reason for this is that the CBO actually totes up legislation enacted in the period that Republican have been in control of Congress as raising the deficit by more than it cut in 1998. The sum total of laws passed by the 104th and 105th Republican congresses will cost the Treasury roughly $11,000,000,000 more in FY 1998 than they saved."

"Despite claims to the contrary, CBO data show that the combined fiscal effect of the laws enacted by the 104th and 105th Republican Congresses is to add $11,000,000,000 more to the deficit than it cut in Fiscal Year 1998.

Clearly the CBO numbers confirm that the major credit for creating the 1998 surplus must go to actions of the 103rd Democratic Congress, which not only produced real net savings of $141 billion, but created the conditions necessary to adopt pro-growth monetary policies that have been very successful. The centerpiece of this effort, the deficit reduction bill passed in 1993, was described as follows by Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan: `There's no question that the impact of bringing the deficit down [through the 1993 budget bill] set in place a series of events--a virtuous cycle, if I may put it that way--which has led us to where we are.'"

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&…

Of course, we've been over & over & over these FACTS time & again by now, but clubber will never learn to stop making silly, uninformed, drive-by comments in a futile attempt to "drop some knowledge" on the so-called "ignorant". Physician heal thyself...

"clinton signed a balanced budget sent to him by Congress."

AHA! And the Right-wing liar spins on his heels & finally *admits* that the federal budget was, in fact, balanced under Bill Clinton! How sweet it is...lol...pwned again old man...just like always...LMAO!

--------------------------------------------
"Balanced budgets are based on projections, not reality"

...in your own warped mind that is...lol...

The Democrats had a much bigger role in the housing/sub prime fiasco than the Republicans. You really need to take off the blinders.

The U.S. has basically been operating with a budget deficit for the past 40 years or so. No party has had a balanced budget outside of projections.

"The Democrats had a much bigger role in the housing/sub prime fiasco than the Republicans."

No, they really didn't, and there's been ZERO objective evidence of that at all.

"The U.S. has basically been operating with a budget deficit for the past 40 years or so. No party has had a balanced budget outside of projections."

Nonsense. The last two times that the U.S. federal debt has been cut as a percentage of GDP (which is a favorite measure of the GOP BTW) was under a Democratic President (Carter & Clinton). The last two times that the federal budget was balanced was under a Democratic President (Clinton & LBJ). The FACTS of the matter offer a much different story than you are trying to spin, period.

Clinton did not have a surplus of $230B in the year 2000 because he had to borrow $246.5 From numerous other off budget funds. Clinton NEVER ran a surplus during his 8 years in office, he just borrowed yearly from different budgets, (primarily the SS budget) to offset the general fund losses. In 2000 the following funds were borrowed which resulted in a $16.5 deficit.

$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

The last time the federal government ran a true suplus was 1969, the total surplus was $3.2B and before that was $1960, $.3 B


Pasted from WikiAnswers, and endorsed by hundreds of economists of both party affiliations.

"Clinton did not have a surplus of $230B in the year 2000 because he had to borrow $246.5 From numerous other off budget funds."

Upset at the concept of a "unified budget"? Then blame LBJ. Other than that, your argument is meaningless. The federal govt. took in more money than it was spending by the end of Clinton's term, period.

"The last time the federal government ran a true suplus was 1969"

...under a budget issued by LBJ.

Thanx for proving my points!

The creative budget accounting is really no different than Enron accounting.

And growth during the early Clinton years was a carry over from the prior Bush years/policies. Barring catastrophe, the economy is like a large ocean tanker, it does not turn on a dime.

And under LBJ, we did not have nearly the liberal wasteful spending the Democrats impose now.

Wow, did this thread ever go horribly awry.

From the author of "the best reviewed book on the bailouts":

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/02/cau…

Causation Analysis: What “But Fors” Caused the Crisis?
By Barry Ritholtz - February 3rd, 2010, 7:15AM

They’re back!

The usual crowd of ne’er-do-wells are seeking to divert attention from their own roles in the crisis, and shift blame elsewhere. These people make up a big chunk of the Its All Fannie’s Fault! crew. By muddying the waters, they hope to avoid retribution for their own roles in what occurred. As the mid-term election approaches, we should expect to hear more from this crowd.

The reality of crisis causation is far more complex and nuanced. Looking at the many factors that independently contributed to the collapse, and prioritizing them by degree of causation is not easy. A sophisticated approach is required to separate the prime and secondary factors.

Rather, than just repeat my list of factors what were the causal factors, today I want to try a different approach. Let’s do a “Causation Analysis” of the biggest factors to see if we can determine not just the various elements that contributed to the credit collapse, but which factors actually caused it to occur and what merely exacerbated the collapse, making it worse.

Understand that this is a theoretical discussion based on counter-factuals — what is likely to have occurred if various elements leading up to the crisis were different. We are trying to discern the differences between primary and secondary factors, separating the causes from the exacerbators.

Whenever someone asserts as a cause an event or force relative to a particular outcome, you should always ask: “Is this a “BUT FOR cause of that outcome?” In terms of a specific result or outcome, “But for” this factor, how would the outcome have changed? Would the result have been the same or different?

My top 3 list of crisis “BUT FORs” are:

1) Ultra low rates;
2) Unregulated, non bank, subprime lenders;
3) Ratings agencies slapping AAA on junk paper.

Why are these “But Fors?” But for these things occurring, the crisis would not have happened:

-If it wasn’t for ultra low rates, the housing boom would likely have been much more modest; further, bond managers would not have been scrambling for yield, and searching for alternative products to low yielding Treasuries;

-If it wasn’t for the sub-prime lenders, the credit bubble would not have inflated; further, millions of unqualified borrowers would not have been able to purchase homes they could not afford;

-If it wasn’t for the ratings agency fraud, the enormous market for this high yielding junk paper — mislabeled as AAA — would not have existed; further, the primary purchasers were firms that were only permitted to buy investment grade bonds. No A+ or better rating, no sale.

Hence, these factors are huge causative elements — BUT FOR them, there is no boom and bust, no crisis and collapse. Bond managers could not have owned all of these securitized sub-prime mortgages; the credit default swap market would have been much smaller, perhaps 1/10 its size; Sovereign wealth funds around the world could not have purchased all this bad paper; Iceland does not collapse. That is these are the big 3 — why I label them the prime cause of the crisis.


There is a secondary list of things that might or might not be prime causal factors; at the very least, they made the crisis significantly worse:

1) The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000
2) Net Cap Rule Change of 2004 (aka Bear Stearns exemption)
3) Repeal of Glass Steagall (1998)

Lets look at each of these:

1) The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) exempted derivatives from all oversight and regulation. It allowed derivatives to be traded in the shadows, unreserved for, off exchanges, no disclosures of counter parties, no capital requirements. Did that cause the crisis? I do not think it is the primary cause, but I am not sure.

-It certainly allowed AIG FP to destroy the parent company;
-Did it make things much worse? Definitely!
-Is it a “But For”? Would the collapse have happened without this? I believe its inconclusive, and could easily go either way.

We can easily accept that the collapse of AIG was a major cause of the crisis, but if you were to argue that it didn’t cause it, but only served to make mattes much worse, I’m not sure I really disagree with you.

2) The 2004 Net Cap rule exemption that allowed banks to go from 12 to 1 leverage to 25, 35 even 40 to 1 leverage — again, I am unsure if it is a direct causation of the credit freeze. The basic argument pro is that BSC and LEH might not have been in as dire straits BUT FOR this leverage, and each might have survived, this making the crisis more manageable. No doubt that the increased leverage certainly made the damages much greater.

Is it a BUT FOR? I have a hard time deciding, as it can go either way . . .

3) The repeal of Glass Steagall allowed banks to get much bigger than they would have — which made their losses that much bigger; Another maybe/maybe not on whether it is a BUT FOR.

Citi, Bank of America, and the rest of the TARP recipients would have losses — but for Glass Steagall repeal, they most likely would have been much smaller.

~~~

Here’s the kicker — when I do the same BUT FOR analysis on Fannie/Freddie, It get different results.

-Were they an accounting fraud run by weasels? Yes.
-Did they securitze mortgages? Yes, for decades.
-What about securitizing sub-prime mortgages? Primarily after late 2005. By then, the die had been cast.

So are Fannie & Freddie a “BUT FOR” ?

I don’t see how. Wall Street had been securitizing most of the sub-prime mortgages for years without the GSEs — Fannie and Freddie jumped in very late because they were losing market share. Their timing was perfect they started doing nonconforming mortgages just as the market peaked.

And if Fannie & Freddie didn’t exist, mortgage securitization would have happened anyway, the way it did in areas where their were no GSEs — securitized credit card receivables, auto loans, small biz loans, etc. took place without GSEs. I assume there would likely have been a private sector version for conforming loans, the way there was a private sector securitizing response to the demand for non-conforming (sub-prime) loans.

That’s how I end up saying they were not a prime cause of the crisis.

Of course, they certainly made things worse — but so did a lot of other entities. But the key question for the blame Fannie/Freddie crowd is “Would the crisis has happened without them?” The answer is yes — FRE/FNM were not BUT FORs, because all of this was happening anyway, prior to their participation in subprimes late 2005.
=====================================================================
And if you liked that, here's what the author made:

Bookonomics (or, why writers barely make min. wage)
By Barry Ritholtz - February 6th, 2010, 12:30PM

One of the questions I get all the time is about the economics of the book: How much did it sell, what was your advance, what did it cost to produce. I was thinking about this as I prepare for April 15th, so I did a quick run down of costs.

Here is the skinny: The initial advance for Bailout Nation from McGraw Hill was $50k. You get half upon signing, and the other half when there is an “accepted manuscript” by the publisher.

Recall that there was a small problem with McGraw Hill over my treatment of their S&P division and the rest of the criminally corrupt rating agencies (gee, why did they object to that?). My publishing contract with them gave me final edit, so when they balked at what I had written, I exercised my right to buy the back my manuscript. Once I signed with another publisher (Wiley), I was obligated to return the $25k (which I of course did).

The Wiley contract was a $100k advance, plus back end royalties. The old joke is your agent should insure you never see royalties (i.e., get it all up front). I think I need to sell another 40 -50,000 copies before any royalties come in.

Now, $100k sounds like a lot of money, but in Bookanomics terms, its not much at all. There are all sorts of costs, and they come right off of the top. I ended up with about a fifth of that.

20%? How does THAT happen? Well, right off the bat the agent takes 15%. (That’s gross; my next book deal will be net). That takes us down to $85k. I had to return $25k to McGraw Hill, bringing the net to $60k.

Aaron, who was much more of a collaborator than an editor, was paid $15k. I paid my team of researchers over $10k for their work. (That brings us down to $35k).

I paid for all the cartoons in the book ($3,000) The artwork for the cover (under $1,000), and a few other small incidentals (also ~$1,000). That doesn’t include all of the blog readers who contributed research, artwork, ideas, notes, editing, reading drafts — all for free.

The final tally:

Revenue:
Advance $100,000

Costs:
Return prior advance $25,000
Agent $15,000
Editor $15,000
Research $10,000
Artwork $4,000
Other $1,000
———————
Pretax net: $30k
After tax: ~$20k

Pretty astonishing when you see it in black and white.

Now consider this: Over the course of the year, I spent nights, weekends, vacations, and towards the final deadlines, days in the office working on this. My best estimate is I put in about 20-30 hours a week for 15 months (not counting promotional tour, which adds another few 100 hours). Let’s ballpark it and say ~2,000 hours.

So, my pay scale for writing what has been called the best reviewed book on the bailouts is a little better than the current minimum wage.

And a few other writers tell me how lucky I am, that very often, its a break even proposition or worse.

Of course, there are other benefits — People who otherwise wouldn’t have thought twice about you (Him? He’s an idiot!) suddenly start to take you seriously. You become “the guy who wrote the book.” Your speaking fees double, your regular business benefits. Other publishers start pitching you book ideas. In general, your personal brand becomes more valuable. My friend (and book agent) Lloyd Jassin says you write a book to “Build your Brand.” And their is much truth to that.

There are many intangible benefits as well (book groupies!). In my case, it was cathartic, as it was a productive outlet for all the righteous fury that had built up watching the whole disaster unfold in slow-motion. It helped to “quiet down the voices in my heads.”

But Bookonomics means that making a living writing books is something very few people seem to be able to do . . .

>

UPDATE: February 6, 2010, 2:37 pm

As several readers observed, the 1st advance/return was a wash (+$25k -$25k = 0). They are correct.

But as noted above, I am thinking in terms of this years taxes — since I already paid tax on the $25k in 2008, the $25k that went back in 2009 comes off the top of the income statement for this April 15th for 2009.

Ignoring the different years tax consequences for a moment, the total income for the book increases if you offset the $25. That makes the gross $125k, leaving me $55k after costs, with a net after NYS and federal taxes a gain of about ~$33k, which is better than a sharp stick in the eye.

This raises my pay scale from under $10 to to $16 per hour.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/02/boo…
=====================================================================

I bow to the greatness!

CTQWERTY, a thread gone horribly awry, yes. But all to our benefit from your insight and sharing. The facts trump all the cultural and partisan biases we've heard.

"The creative budget accounting is really no different than Enron accounting"

...in your own warped mind that is...lol...

"And growth during the early Clinton years was a carry over from the prior Bush years/policies."

Growth?? What growth?? We had just barely come out of a recession when Clinton took over!

"And under LBJ, we did not have nearly the liberal wasteful spending the Democrats impose now."

LOL...yea, because we have a HUGE federal debt & deficit (mostly accumulated when GOPers were in the White House) because of social spending...sure, sure...
------------------------------------

Ritholtz gives a pretty fair description of "how we got here", but I disagree just a tad on his Fannie/Freddie analysis. Subprime lending is basically defined as a loan that does not meet Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac underwriting guidelines in the first place. Also, it's well known by now that the super-vast majority of these kind of loans came from the private sector:

"Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis"
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/538…

Other than that minor tidbit, he gives a very fair analysis indeed...one, of course, that clubber should actually try & *read* before he apparently "bows" to it...lol...

But what about the strippers?

MOTHERF#CKER. I spent 45 minutes typing out a response and when I hit "post it", I was asked to sign in again. Well, I don't have that kind of time again. Anyways...

GK, Thanks! If you want a 'tell', look no further than the senate vote late last fall (November or December) to extend unemployment benefits at a cost of $5 billion. The bill was for $45 billion. Where did $33 billion go? The home builders. What was the senate vote? 98-0. NOT ONE VOTE AGAINST. My guess is everyone got a slice; either to use for a re-election campaign or golden parachute.

If you'd like to read "Bailout Nation", I'm sure your local library can get you a copy for free, or this link has new paperback editions available for $11.53: http://www.amazon.com/Bailout-Nation-Cor…

Mr. G.: I unfortunately do not have time to look into your criticism. Maybe sometime in the future.

Steve, did "The Germans" really bomb Pearl Harbor?!

"Steve, did "The Germans" really bomb Pearl Harbor?!"

Hey, that's what Bluto said...lol...

INCORRECT!!!

Never saw the movie "Animal House" eh old man? Ugh...

I own it. and what Bluto said, was more along the lines of Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? His buddy then replied, Germans? Which was followed by leave him alone, he's on a roll. I paraphrase a bit, since I am not going to take the time to pull the movie then transcribe it just to prove that you are AGAIN wrong. You never admit you are wrong when the facts are presented and I do not expect you to apologize now, so why waste my time.

Now...


YAWN!

Yes, Steve's concern about the strippers made me channel Bluto for some reason... "Six years of pre-med down the drain."

clubber...give it up man...you *never* win these exchanges that we have over & over & over again...you're desperate...ugh...

"D-Day: War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: Over? Did you say 'over'? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard]
Bluto: the tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!"

Exactly what I paraphrased and not even close to your, ""Steve, did "The Germans" really bomb Pearl Harbor?!"

Hey, that's what Bluto said...lol...""

You are so idiotic, you are an embarrassment to idiots!

What's really embarrassing clubber is your desperate, repeated, pathetic attempts to "best" me by stooping to nick pick on minor things like whether or not CT was trying to quote "Animal House" in his response to Steve, which he WAS BTW. Your foolish behavior on here knows no bounds & you truly will NEVER learn...run along now old man...I look forward to pwning you over & over again for many years to come...lol...

Listen idiot, what I was doing had NOTHING to do with CT and steve, rather YOUR stupid statement. And like all liberals, when the TRUTH slaps them in the face, divert attention away from the FACTS at hand. You sure you don't wish to just blame all your stupid "writings" on George Bush?

"what I was doing had NOTHING to do with CT and steve"

Of course it did...you even quoted CT speaking to steve above, moron.

As is usually the case with you (and you'll *never* learn) clubber, you haven't brought ANY "facts" to the table in the first place!

Taken from YOUR posting on 2/11/10 as seen above, which is what I quoted...


""MisterGuy Send Private Message to MisterGuy says:
[ignore]
Posted: 02/11/10



"Steve, did "The Germans" really bomb Pearl Harbor?!"

Hey, that's what Bluto said...lol...""

OK idiot, try to explain that away when EVERYONE can plainly see I quoted YOU!!!

NOW, I really have to see what idiotic excuse you come up with this time. This should really be good since there is no wiggle room for you!

HELLO!!! Care to reply and show your true colors? I thought not!

"try to explain that away when EVERYONE can plainly see I quoted YOU"

...when I was quoting CT, moron. You're SO very desperate clubber...it's really a shame to see you spinning out of control, but you've earned it for sure!

Again,the idiot! You failed to mention the entire gist of this debate! SAID BY mg, "Hey, that's what Bluto said...lol... ". And I replied INCORRECT, which, of course, you were. Will you Man Up and admit you are, again, wrong.

As above, I thought not!

"You failed to mention the entire gist of this debate"

...which was whether or not CT was actually referring to "Animal House", which he was, moron...but keep spinning out of control anyways...it's fun to watch!

What you said was, and still is, INCORRECT, not that you will ever admit to being proven incorrect/wrong, over and over and over and over and over...

From the idiots keyboard...

Steve, did "The Germans" really bomb Pearl Harbor?!"

Hey, that's what Bluto said...lol...

DAMN, sure looks like you typed "Hey, that's what Bluto said...lol... ",
but I must be reading wrong according to the village idiot!

Maybe someone else can point out how I read that wrong.

LOL...and the spiral into madness for our resident old fool clubber continues...ugh...

Yes, once again, name calling, and you don't address (IE: admit you were wrong) the above, your INCORRECTNESS out in the open for everyone to acknowledge, except for you, of course!

I think strip clubs give men hard times.

LOL txtittyfan ^^