Are Fewer Dancers Working in Your Area Than in Prior Years?
Club_Goer_Seattle
Seattle, Washington
It seems that is the case in the Puget Sound Region. There are nine Deja Vu clubs in Washington State. Eight are in the Puget Sound Region. On the websites for the individual Deja Vu clubs, the stage names of the various dancers are listed. Over the past year, I've kept track of the number of dancers working at each club. The results are:
Number of dancers shown as two dates: 10/7/2011 and 9/13/2012
Club #1 - 106 and 93 dancers
Club #2 - 146 and 87
Club #3 - 91 and 59
Club #4 - 57 and 39
Club #5 - 107 and 71
Club #6 - 112 and 89
(Clubs 7 and 8 don't provide this information)
I sense that the non-Deja Vu clubs are down in their numbers too, but I can't easily confirm that. I think there are a couple of specific reasons for this trend, which I'll elaborate on, upon request. Has anyone else noticed this trend where you go clubbing?
Number of dancers shown as two dates: 10/7/2011 and 9/13/2012
Club #1 - 106 and 93 dancers
Club #2 - 146 and 87
Club #3 - 91 and 59
Club #4 - 57 and 39
Club #5 - 107 and 71
Club #6 - 112 and 89
(Clubs 7 and 8 don't provide this information)
I sense that the non-Deja Vu clubs are down in their numbers too, but I can't easily confirm that. I think there are a couple of specific reasons for this trend, which I'll elaborate on, upon request. Has anyone else noticed this trend where you go clubbing?
20 comments
However, in my limited experience, I would say that the supply of dancers remains fairly constant.
Now if numbers were increasing I can see how it would seem like there were less hot dancers. I personally have not noticed a trend in less good looking ladies.
Of course, economic factors in a given area will affect the overall strip club dollars in a particular area. While people keep blaming the economy for every business problem, I doubt it has had much of a negative effect on strip clubs. Sure, the unemployment rate is close to 10% and for those 10% things are definately bad. But most of the other 90% are employed and probably making more than they ever have. Those of the 90% who are inclined to go to strip clubs will probably go more often and spend more than they ever have.
Also, with the tight employment picture, especially for young people, I suspect the lure of easy money will bring in more, not less, dancers in most cities.
But, compared to 5 or more years ago, I'd say there's been a slight dropoff in some places, notably on the customary SRO nights. In some clubs I can think of, they'd start to get packed at 9p, now it is more like after 10p that they do.
I assume that OP's numbers quoted mean total dancers on roster. Even that number is suspect, as some (many?) clubs don't update their site, or dancer lineup that well.(I saw one CA club that still had dancer pic of one who hadn't danced there in 4 years !) Coupled with high dancer turnover just makes those figures more suspect. The real metric should be how many dancers are available on shift at any given moment. The lower 2012 numbers could mean that more dancers are sticking around, and there are less transits. Or club is doing a better job at updating their website.
We definitely have two schools of thought going on about my question:
1. In some areas of the country members feel that there are more dancers now due to the down economy.
2. Others feel as I do. Here in Seattle, I don't think customers are spending nearly as much in strip clubs as they did a few years ago. Hence, there are fewer dancers now, in response to the lower demand level.
However, no clubs have closed due to poor performance, although I can name three here that should. The only clubs that have closed in recent years were due to LE action.
Economy sucks, and more girls in the workforce than years ago. Which means more girls get laid off when things are bad, therefore more girls available and wanting to work at strip clubs, where presumably anyone can get a job if they're decent looking. But that doesn't seem to be the case. You go into a club and there are 4 average looking girls on shift. Huh? Bad economy?
Economy sucks, therefore more dancers are more eager to make a buck, so they're much more attentive to customers, and work harder while on shift? Not even close. Seems like even more the girls are sitting on their asses texting, or screwing off in the dressing room all shift.
I recall a local club, probably the best around, years ago was offering super high mileage, $20 laps with some hot girls. It pretty much had the market cornered. Excellent place. Then the owners decided to install a $150 VIP section, and make the laps just a warm up/teaser for the VIP. Economy going south, I figured it wouldn't last more than 6 months before they went back to the old setup. And now, many years later, it's still going strong. Go figure. Some guys will lay out $150 like it's candy, even with a crappy economy.
Presumably the negative stigma associated with stripping has lessened as women get more independent and people in general become less "religious". But I'm not seeing it. You'd think the cream of the crop would be out looking for work, and pushing out the less attractive dancers. You'd think it would be a customer's market right now. Nope.
I just don't get it. Any of it.
Sure, the money the strippers are getting is less than years ago. But in a crappy economy, what's their other choice? Everyone is scrambling for jobs, right? High unemployment and all, right? So you either work at the club for less money, or what? Sell pencils on the street corner?
Someone explain it to me. Please.
Turns out there are about 13 million people combined in LA and Orange counties, and about 10% of them are females aged 18 to 24, which I figure is "stripper age". Pretty good sleuthing, huh?
Now, the unemployment rate for teens (aged 16 to 19) in California is around a whopping 34%. For the state as a whole, it's around 10%. So I threw a dart and came up with the 18 to 24 age group unemployment at around 25%. Which means that there are about 325,000 unemployed females in that age group, and for each change of 1% in unemployment there are about 13,000 more females of that age group walking the streeet. Figuratively, of course.
Now, I figure there are something like 85 active strip clubs (out of a total of about 100) in the LA/Orange county area, based on a count from the TUSCL list, and a little handwaving to account for inactive/useless clubs.
So what does that mean? Well, for each 1% increase in unemployment, there are potentially something like 150 girls per club looking for work.
Now, in reality, only a small fraction of those would even consider being strippers. And then only a fraction of those are hot enough. And then only a fraction of those would last more than a week after trying it. And whatever other stuff that I'm not considering.
So what's the point? Hell, I still have no idea. Other than when you think about it, (and as someone else mentioned earlier in this thread and I should have listened to), just because there's a spike in unemployment, that doesn't necessarily mean a lot more girls are available or looking to work at clubs, or things are that bad overall. Though with a 25% unemployment for girls in that age range, that's still pretty bad.
But 13,000 more girls unemployed for every 1% increase in unemployment doesn't seem like all that much, when you figure it's the whole of LA and Orange counties.