"Market" says strippers overvalued - empty clubs prove it

Hi David9999,

I don't think low volume necessarily means the services are currently priced beyond fair valuation. For example, if lap dances were priced at $1 per dance and customers were lined up to buy all the dances that were available does that in your opinion mean that the "fair valuation" of dances is $1?

I think what you are talking about is the optimal price, which is really a different issue.



Here is an example. In the used book business if I sell books at 10 cents a book (the books are donated, btw) I can keep the store crowded. And, I can make a profit because my other costs like rent are so cheap. So in your opinion that would be "fair valuation" for the books because my store is crowded and I'm making a profit?

I really don't care for crowds. One obnoxious SOB after another. I raise the average price to $3 per book. The crowded book store looks empty. :) You know what? In this particular example you make a lot more money. You won't get rich by any means, but that ain't the issue. :) Is $3 per book a "fair valuation"? I mean the store now appears to be dead compared to the crowds at 10 cents per book.

The basic point is that more volume or less volume of paying customers doesn't equate to "fair valuation." In the extreme it may make more sense to increase prices to $100,000 per dance even if that meant the number of paying customers was reduced by 99%.


This is truly an issue that deserves some thought, imo.




BTW, I'm huge fan of Milton Friedman. As genius as he is he did make what I consider to be huge errors in his book Free to Choose, which I loved--btw. :)

Yes, I've oversimplified it a bit, however I believe strip club prices will soon have to drop, given (among other things) the very high odds of an extended recession in the United States - basically the flip side of the real estate boom.

In the United States at least the (arguably easy money) strip club market was itself propped up by an easy money general credit economy for the past 10 to 15 yrs years, which to a large extent was fueled by foreign investment in american consumption.

The hit on the U.S. dollars is now part of that correction.

Some of us have little if any debt, however one might plausibly suggest that asian savers (in effect) were to some degree financing the often high income levels of american strippers.

Add to this the multi-decade media's relentless and often exaggerated campaign in regards to the transmissibility of STDs, and its the reason why strip clubs often tend to be of particular interest to married patrons, and AMPs and escort services -usually of lower interest - with the later 2 categories appearing to offer more accurate (true) market based values.

Long term the market itself determines the proper pricing, however I think with strip clubs there has been a high degree of market disequilibrium for many years -and that will force prices to be lowered to match supply with the upcoming demand.

Strip clubs do offer what I would call an X factor, a sort of socialiization factor of going to a club now and then and knowing and being familiar with and sometimes talking with/dancing with a certain group of dancers at a particular club. The value of that can be hard to measure for certain customers, and its something AMPs or escorts (from what I understand about them) - do not offer to the same degree.

Hi David9999,

Very interesting post as far as level of thought and could definitely be right on the money overall. It is really making my head spin. :)

Usually that is good, but it is just a little bit of an overload because like the "science" of economics it is making assumptions. The assumptions sound reasonable, but that doesn't make them correct.

For example, "long term the market itself determines the proper pricing," sounds very reasonable . . . But, I have a strong feeling it just isn't the case depending on how we break it down. What does "long term" mean? Ten years? Fifty years? What does "market" mean? Yeah, that should be obvious, but it ain't in that it depends on the legal or other structures of society. I'm *assuming* you're talking about the free market, which doesn't really exist in the "sex" trade here in the U.S. If not, then "market" depends on laws and enforcement capacity and willingness to enforce and "long term" really doesn't come into play that much----btw, doesn't seem like much of a "market" unless you considered the Soviets to have "markets," which to a limited very limited extent they did. "Proper pricing" that is a doozy. :)



I don't know if the above is clear. Let me try again. If the governments decided to leave the strip clubs alone completely, then that would be a very different market. If the governments decided to ban alcohol where there is a hint of nudity, then that would be a very different market. If the government decided to require some insane wildly expensive insurance (think $10 million in annual premiums and up), then that would be a very different market. With the changing "structure" long term really doesn't come into it because your mixing apples and oranges. One day Angels is allowed to make payoffs to the police in order to stay in business and the next day dancers and or customers could be being thrown in jail for any reason.

What is that statement? In the long term we are all dead. :)

Strip clubs are in a very specialized market and its sometimes hard to quantify exactly what is occuring, so one has to rely upon anedotal information -and what triggered my post was a visit I made to a club late Sunday afternoon that I hadn't been to in 3 months. Now I never previously had been at this club on a Sunday. This is one of the better gentlemens clubs in the area, very well located, a very highly regarded club very well designed etc, one of the best in the city.

This was late Sunday afternoon, and while Sundays I would guess can be slow, I would think this time of year (with many spouses busy with shopping etc) and also this happened to be 3 to 4 hours ahead of the big local NFL game Sunday night game - that potential patrons would or should be able have an excuse to get out to a club like this

This club however was a GHOST TOWN. It was early enough or because it was Sunday that there is was no door fee etc however the doorman/bouncer/manager - I think he was doing all 3 roles yesterday actually thanked me for coming, not normally what occurs at this club. Usually they say nothing when you enter at this club.

One of the dancers I knew from last summer (would now and then have dances with but not an ATF level deal) I ran into and she was laying it out to me how bad the situation was over the past 3 months

I am not sure how pricing changes would impact patronage, and no doubt these clubs will just as soon keep pricing etc the same until at least the spring, because by then one should truely know what's happening with alot of these clubs of whether they are getting hit or not by the economy.

Hi David9999,

There's an old saying something like "You're screwed if you turn to the right, you're screwed if you turn to the left, you're screwed if you go straight ahead, you're just plain screwed. :( " If the economy crashes hard enough, then it wont make much difference if the pussy is a $1 a pop. And, sometimes you can't see the "hidden" fixed/semi-fixed costs like taxes and payoffs and electric and etc. that basically create a make or break situation. Clubs do close. Over at Angels a dancer fee just to work part of the night shift was $160 and this is for a $5 club. That is a hell of a lot of dances before the poor girl even breaks even-- assuming asshole customers pay her for the dances agreed to. But, who knows what pressure the club is under from the government--that $160 might be needed for all manner of payoffs---police, legal, taxes, mandated insurance (yes, it is a racket--imo. :) ), permits, licenses, etc.

Sundays were usually dead around here in Miami and in fact many clubs didn't open at all.


Yes, I know I'm rambling a little or a lot. :) And, I've also given up to a large extent. A buddy is super pro-America and pro-democracy. He is actually fairly sharp and financially comfortable. He has this mantra that the only thing necessary for "evil" to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing. I don't believe that even a little bit. :) In fact, I think the "good" men who are active cause much of the "evil." I gave President Bush as example that many people consider him to be a "good" man and he actively promoting his concept of "good." My buddy has convinced himself that President Bush isn't acting of his own free will because nobody could be that "evil" or "stupid" and President Bush is a good man that is the victim of some powerful hidden force. It would be funny and I'd just dismiss it, but the man is fairly sharp and his heart is in the right place and he does try to improve the system that he loves so much. Anyway, the twisted reasoning which I see again and again everywhere basically just says to me forget reason and logic. :)


Anyway, it was nice seeing some interesting posts that caused me to think and think some more. :)

I agree with David that a lot of clubs, maybe most, are overpriced. As a result IMO strip clubs in general have been losing market share (of the whole sex industry) for years.

But what has always puzzled me is, why isn't there more price competition between clubs? Are they all owned by the same people? Or are the owners colluding? I can't think of another business where demand was falling but prices were stable or rising over a fairly long period of time, except for businesses like the auto industry where government regulations imposed increased costs on everyone.

What am I missing here? What makes strip clubs different from an economic point of view?

Count me in on AGREEMENT. I see it here all the time in the Ohio clubs. My FAV club in Columbus is really slow, but standard LD prices remain. However, being a semi-regular, I can get 2fers easy.

If dance prices don't start coming down, I believe most dancers will start accepting 2fer prices or undercut their rivals, by lowering their LD prices. This is normally accepted as a NO-NO amoung dancers, but I see it happening more and more.

I also see more dancers switching clubs, trying to find busier clubs to work at.

Uncle Bones' Recommendations: Start bartering on the LD prices. Slow down or cut out the inflated dancers drinks. Tip only the better looking stage dancers that show appreciation.

The government doesn't impose high costs on strip clubs? The government doesn't limit new competition and try and close small clubs? News to me.

Is demand falling or is income becoming more stratified between the haves and have nots? Perhaps prices need to rise much more sharply like what happened with the used book store. You have posted that the quality of life is improving income wise. And, that is true in some areas. In other areas like insurance, health care, education, taxes, legal fees, corruption, debt and the ability to get a fresh start, regulations, mandates, etc. things aren't so rosy, imo. I think there are more customers who can afford to pay more, but many who need a much cheaper form of entertainment such as watching TV---iows even if you slashed the prices to the bone these customers can basically afford to watch TV. It makes NO sense to try and cater to them. Stripclubs can't "afford" these low income customers thanks to government, imo.

Was demand for used books decreased? I'm not sure. The price did go from 10 cents per book average to $3 per book average (overnight, btw), but it didn't make any difference really what the demand was. Fix costs were set to rise drastically so if drastic price increases killed demand so what? The customer demand had zero to do with the radical price increase. Government mandates and taxes had everthing to do with the price increase. So the store swims or sinks with the new prices, but customer demand one way or the other had nothing to do with whether the price would increase or decrease. The government rules and that is that. :)

There were definitely many complaints from the "poor" customers . . . so what are they going to pay the "hidden" fixed costs that were soaring? Nope, they needed to hang out at the library or stop reading books or whatever. They weren't any benefit to the book store under the new framework laid out by the governments. And, if higher income customers wouldn't or couldn't increase spending dramatically for the same product or less then the book store goes under. Big fucking deal. May be some government job would have been available at higher compensation. As it turned out, the higher income customers paid a lot more for the same product or a lot more for lesser products. :) I guess the owner of the store should thank the two bit government? I mean he did make more money and that is what life is all about, right?

The "Uncle Bones" mentality may kill the rest of the small clubs. "Uncle Bones" probably can't comprehend that there are fixed costs that have to be paid and cutting dance prices may not be an option. I don't know it might be option. You really need to look behind the scenes and see what is happening. Otherwise the idea that lap dance prices will magically fall just because many customers are getting poorer doesn't make any sense at all. The government successfully put down a bunch of small clubs here in Miami. Angels did cut prices years back and it did increase volume drastically (and the other clubs being shut down helped too), but I have a feeling that the fixed and semi-fixed costs for Angels are set to soar ever higher. At that point cutting dance prices is counter productive and prices may have to increase radically. If it goes under, then so what? It just died a few years later than all the other little clubs along W. Dixie Hwy. The government once again will have been successful. Hail the so called "free market." LOL!

BTW, the price increase from 10 cents per book average to $3 per book average wasn't a random choice. The sales curve is sort or interesting in that it forces a dramatic price increase rather than a more reasonable increase. Some people have the mistaken notion that if government increase your costs by a mere 10 percent, then all you need do is raise your prices a mere 10 percent and everybody is a happy camper. :) It doesn't work that in all markets. Sometimes a 10 percent government mandate will force prices to rise a few hundred percent in order for the business to survive. It is really a question of working the numbers and it some cases the business can't pass along the extra costs to consumers--sometimes the owner or employees of the business get to eat it. All of this takes a lot of thinking, but it is very interesting--at least to me. :)

Jablake, do you really own or manage a used book store in the Miami area? I spend a lot of time in used book stores, mostly looking for modern mystery firsts in good condition (hardbacks only.) If you carry a goood selection of anything like that (especially John D. MacDonald), send me an email and let's talk. Thanks.

Incidently, jablake, selling a service is different than selling a product, because there's no fixed amount of product to sell. When you sell a book, that's one fewer book you have to sell. But when a girl sells a lap dance, she still has just as many left to sell as she did before. So cutting prices may increase her revenue, not decrease it, if the additional volume created is a greater percentage than the price cut.

Hi FONDL,

The store has moved and is now called Trader Johns its on Hollywood Blvd near Young's Circle. I believe John is still running the show even though it was been many many years since he took over. He is a great guy in that he really cares about helping people who are down and out. It just amazed me how he would spend time and money helping people who really weren't that wonderful and had too many problems. A very special person. :) The reason that I think he is still business is that I spoke with a customer from the old days about a week ago and he was telling me John was still busy trying to improve people's lives. I would have thought he'd have learned his lesson after all these years and all the assholes he dealt with. Another pro-government man, btw. :)

Oh yes, John D. MacDonald. I did have an excellent selection of his books but that was years ago. John isn't much in the way of running an organized shop and I don't think he has much interest in profits.

There wasn't a shortage of books. People kept donating them to me. In fact, I have a garage filled with "garbage" books. I say "garbage" because I don't have the strength to sell them and yet I can't let them go because my poverty background is seared into my mind. The waste not want not.

I think girls do run out of lap dances, btw. At least some do. :) It is draining, imo, for most girls. And, another problem with the theory she has more to sell is

the bell rings. :)

Aside from all the economic mumbo-jumbo in which the preceding gentlemen are certainly entitled to indulge, and with which they are certainly more adept than I, I have the following to add.

For my entire strip-clubbing life the cost of dances, like the cost of an undergraduate education, has been skyrocketing. Much greater increase than the average cost of living, or than the average income of the average worker. In 1980 a good liberal arts college could set you back an amount that was roughly 1/5th of a middle income father of two for one year of tuition. Now it's more like 9/10ths of that same fellow's income.

Same with lappers. In 1985 or so you could get 'em at about minimum wage -- one dance cost then what one hour of work at McDonald's would earn. Now it's more like about six times minimum wage.

What gives? Some sectors of the economy are free to skyrocket independent of surrounding economic context? I'd appreciate an explanation. In fact, you could forgo the dang explanation and just give me a remedy, to get my lapper prices back down where I want them to be, but I'm willing to bet you don't have access to THAT kind of economic information. :)

Jablake, the bell will ring at exactly the same time whether she sells 10 lappers or ten thousand. And if you know where I can get some MacDonald firsts, please let me know - I have a pretty good collection (including his first 2 original hardback novels which I have no idea what they might be worth because I've never seen them advertised anywhere for sale, they must be very very rare - I found them in a little local store maybe 10 years ago, one was $10, the other $25, and the bookseller looked at me funny when I bought them obviously wondering if maybe he made a big mistake, which of course is what browsing used bookstores is all about - kinda like finding that diamond in the rough in a tiny strip club) that I put together some time ago but I'm missing a few and I'm hoping that prices have declined since there are fewer people around who ever heard of him. He's my all-time favorite author. Long live Travis McGee.

is that while she is wasting a bunch of time doing $5 dances she could be catering to a gentleman who thinks $25 a dance or $500 for conversation is cheap.

That country bumpkin from Nebraska didn't think dropping $400 just for the dancer at Secrets was a big deal at all. He thought it was very reasonable and planned (was eager) on coming back. Now, if the dancer had been wasting time with me at $5 a dance then she would have missed out on a man who can really afford to treat her well. Even better is the bumpkin is a nicer person than I am, and better looking, and younger! :) She especially liked that he was very happy with everything she was doing---he was a freaking smiler. OK, at least I win a round against Mr. Richie Rich Country Bumpkin. You won't catch me smiling left right and center. :)

"What gives? Some sectors of the economy are free to skyrocket independent of surrounding economic context? I'd appreciate an explanation. In fact, you could forgo the dang explanation and just give me a remedy, to get my lapper prices back down where I want them to be, but I'm willing to bet you don't have access to THAT kind of economic information. :)"

Sure I do. It's called competition. When the little strip clubs along W. Dixie Hwy, were attacked by the government one by one the variety and options dwindled big time. Before the government made its usual mess of things there was a lot of choice and a lot of prices. And, the dancer fees that the clubs could charge were rock bottom cause there were so many clubs. Now the dancers are getting financially raped because the options are a lot fewer so the clubs take a F you attitude with the dancers. Allow new small clubs to be opened the game changes real quick. :)

I still remember the pea brains at The Trap who didn't think their fun club would change do to the government attacks on W. Dixie Hwy. That has nothing to do with us, they yelped! What type of blanking idiocy is that? Where did they think those strip club customers were going to go? Unfortunately, they ended up at The Trap and that isn't a fun club, anymore. And the girls went from hot to dogs. And, the prices went thru the roof. What a mess. :( And it is a club that will die and then another won't be allowed to open.

If Tootsies becomes my only real choice, then screw it and the strip club scene.

Hi Fondl,

You like those innocent sweet dancers? Well, I do also. If she is doing a mass number of dances then generally she will start losing that appeal as the business grinds her down. Yes, some girls don't get ground down, but I think that is the exception.

So yes, there is a depreciation/loss, imo, when dances are sold generally speaking. The dancers in general who I've gotten closest to are those I met when they were first starting. Also, those who don't seek dances and are shy even after being in the business a while are good bets--for me. Other customer probably don't give a damn except will she spread her legs or do extras--like now!

As I said there are always exceptions. But, I think if I was doing dances for old ladies the volume would definitely start to wear on me. I think I'd rather make less money and do fewer dances. Of course, I feel the same way about most work nowadays because I have a bad attitude toward work. I used to believe in hard honest work. Now, I think pretty much everything is a scam and fraud. :(

We have to have gas for our cars and SUV's. So when it hits $4 a gallon this winter, we will bitch and pay. We don't have to go to clubs as often or spend as much, so when dances go to $30 with a required minimum of 2 dances this winter, we will go less frequently and the clubs will face death.

I too think lap dances are vastly overpriced in the purely economic sence. The standard fare seems to average $20 for a single dance. Since that lasts less than 5 minutes a girl could conseivably do 8-10 of these per hour grossing 200/hr. or 1000+ for a good night. I realize some clubs take a cut of this and most clubs have a tipout or other fee imposed on the girls but I am presenting these numbers just for illustration purposes. Keep in mind, most dancers with any degree of skill and/or beauty will be able to supplement their night's income with tip/extras money. In any case, I think we can all agree that most of them have the potential to make FAR more than they could in most any private sector job. Even at 1/2 the current price we are paying I think most, if not all, would continue to dance rather than seek traditional employment. Some might have to reduce their lavish spending habits or might have to dump a lazy boyfriend whom they support , but I don't think they would give up the gig if the average dance price went to $10. I would agree with some of the previous comments that a vibrant economy the past 6 years has provided many strip club patrons with ample funds to sustain the $20 average. I suspect as the economy winds down, as it almost certainly is doing, we will see some downward pressure on dances as well as other strip club charges. I know Platinum Plus in Columbia, at least in the afternoon, is more customer friendly in terms of price and consequently seems to have a much larger crowd than most clubs during the daytime. While most of us don't get the rock bottom price that Shadowcat gets, it is still a much better deal than most others. My point is that other clubs may find themselves and their dancers reducing prices when the economy declines. Hopefully this will occur and we will see some reason return to the currently inflated lap dance prices.

Most dancers would rather sit on their asses than work hard at 10 dollars per song, even it they could make 100 to 200 dollars an hour or more. What I've noticed is that a very high percentage of american dancers are addicted to cigarettes(compare this to typical Brazilian dancers) so that may help explain both the reluctance to dance (they are easily winded) and also their often lazy ass/low energy level of their dances, and that includes times when they are even makeing 20 to 30 dollars per dance

Many stripper have gotten used to high pay with relatively little effort.

To many of these dancers 200 dollars a shift (probably mostly tax free) is crap and they don't want to "bust ass for such a lowly amount. That would in fact would be dream wages for a Walmart worker and many other typical service jobs, and how many Walmart workers are spending 1/2 the shift boozing and socializing.

A beginning lawyer or CPA would have to make 60 to 80k per year pre tax to match what that stripper is making even assuming all her (lets say) 5 shifts per week average out to this lousy 200 bucks. Plus the lawyer or CPA wouldn't be working 40 hours a week - it would be more like 60 to 70 hrs per week, and that's not even counting (often) huge student loans

Here's a real world example from Pink site today how stripper's have been spoiled with the wage structure in their business.

"Interesting thread for me right now. I'm currently considering trying other clubs because the one I'm at has been slooooow since the beginning of October, and not getting any better. A bad night used to be anything under $300. Girls now bust ass to break $200. Other than that, I like my club a lot, though, so it's a tough decision. It's a very low-hassle, low-bullshit place to work, and the management has always been good to me." quoting XoxoGRACExoxo from pink site

I'm actually paying less money for lap dances than I was in North Carolina many years ago. I once paid about 20 bucks for a single lap dance. Now I routinely pay only 10 to 15 per dance for most dancers. I may not be visiting as much but that's only because I've been very busy. I'm not couting free dances thrown in occasionally. I do enjoy free dances if the dancer isn't sure about the number of songs or would rather dance than talk. Some dancers do a terrific job of acting like they are really enjoying dancing for me.

It seems like many strip clubs in my area that I visit are about as crowded as ever. I'm usually more concerned about not being able to find an empty table to sit at.

"To many of these dancers 200 dollars a shift (probably mostly tax free) is crap and they don't want to "bust ass for such a lowly amount. That would in fact would be dream wages for a Walmart worker and many other typical service jobs, and how many Walmart workers are spending 1/2 the shift boozing and socializing."

Well, too many nice girls don't even last a week. They'd rather work at Walmart. :( For some girls it really is a rough job. Either the sex part is more than they bargained for or the customers are too abusive. For other dancers it is a party and they handle themselves very well. Still others fall somewhere in between. The point being when you have women who try it and then leave the "easy" money for Walmart type wages, then maybe it isn't so "easy" depending on your makeup. Some guys think roofing is "easy" while others can't last a day or two in the heat. Some guys think being a crook is "easy" while others can't accept ripping people off.



As a guy getting groped for money by ugly old women for excellent, imo, pay wouldn't be bad at all because I'm a money grubber and contact doesn't bother me. Kissing? That is definitely not appealing when we talking ugly and old. Extras? Maybe, but it doesn't sound like fun.

Burke Mills. The asset value (comprised mainly of real estate) after liabilities was supposedly conservatively worth $15 dollars a share, the trading value assuming you could get someone dumb enough to buy it was 50 cents a share. Like this old wealthy successful investor told Lieba Geft (sp?) on FNN the asset value of a company is totally meaningless. She was stunned and didn't believe it. He explained there had to be a reasonable way of extracting the "value" and he wouldn't trust the courts and it had turned (thanks to changes in law) into a very difficult problem to extract the value for investors. Then he gave some extreme examples where if you could force a sale of assets then current share prices were just pennies on the dollar for many companies.

Just showing a typical problem of relying on the "free" market to determine "value." I would also take with a grain of salt that the stock market is a wonderful deal . . . it may be . . . but sometimes the media isn't completely honest.

Another example of the "free" market at work: Here in Miami-Dade County there are code enforcement liens sometimes totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars---including penalties and interest. So I see a propery worth approximately $200,000 that can be acquired for around $40,000 cash. Total code enforcement liens are about $150,000. Doesn't look like much value there does it? The $40,000 cash plus the $150,000 in code enforcement liens almost equals the market value of the property. Well, code enforcement liens can be negotiated downward depending on who you are . . . so I ask what type of reduction I could receive and was told that the liens would be reduced to $100,000 (some people can't even get that good an offer). I complained that the fair reduction would be to $20,000 and that this wasn't "fair" as Ms. M told me she is free to do whatever she wants. She says you're an educated man you are going to trust the courts? I don't think so.

Anyway, I kept track of the property. It was purchased for $40,000 cash and the code enforcement liens were reduced to about $15,000. Remember I had offered to pay $20,000 just as a starting offer and it was rejected. Like Ms. M says she can do whatever she wants because she doesn't think the courts will do anything and besides it is way to expensive to try. The wonderful "free" market at work, yet again. If I could find some honest judges, then there is definitely money to be made. When I say honest. I mean you go to 3 or 4 attorneys who are experts in that area of law. Each independently gives you essentially the same legal advice that the law gives you these rights. And, what will the honest judge do? Well, I like to think he would agree with the experts especially when it is fairly clear cut. It doesn't work that way. The excuses are that oh the judge is from the criminal division and he doesn't have

the bell tolls again

the experience in civil matters. Or, the judge had a bad day. Anyway it is one mindless excuse or another.

Case law? That's a joke. The statutory law? That's a joke as well. The constitutional law? That's definitely a joke.

My rights? Well, it is probably according to most people better than in other countries. That might be true.

The Wall Street Journal years back did this big story about how wonderful the federal government was because it cracked down on some government crooks down here in South Florida. The story was very interesting, but not because the federal government was so wonderful about protecting people's rights from crooks that wasn't the interesting part. The interesting part was why the federal government decided to go after these government crooks. That was very interesting. See people had been complaining for over a decade (probably decades) about the government corruption. There wasn't anything that could be done thru normal channels by normal people. These government crooks were free to do whatever they wished.

So why did the federal government finally decide to take action? Protecting some little old lady? Or, perhaps coming to the rescue of a war veteran? Naw, Unisys (sp?) was facing normal government extortion and they ***complained as many others before them had done***. The difference was Unisys had the right ties; the "top" man at Unisys was good friends with the "top" man at the federal government. Friendship between two "top" men got a few government crooks doing prison time. The corruption is still there. And, the "wonderful" federal government may again take action in 30 or 40 years. But, generally the government crooks are safe and sound.

The point of all this rambling besides stress relief is that all this corruption does help determine "value" in the "free" market. Even without the government meddling or corruption, it seems dubious to equate "market value" with real value. That is a logics problem, imo. :) And, an interesting one if you like economics, which I do. :)

Whatever...I'm paying the same price I was paying for a lap dance now that I was ten years ago and I'm making a significantly better living so value doesn't really enter in to it for me.
If I go less or stay for a shorter period of time it's because the quality of dancers has declined and the pressure has increased leaving me less apt to stick around if a fav is not working.

There is definitely some collusion among club owners in local areas. I have talked about it first hand with employees in Providence area clubs. That doesn't mean some owners won't do stupid things on their own to try and make more money...

Just one recent example - the last club that I visited on a regular basis (Gentlemen's Gold Club in Baltimore) is a really fancy GC, easily the fanciest place I've ever been in. It used to be a real nice neighborhood club, then they shut down for a year or so and enlarged and totally remodeled inside and out. So when it reopened I stopped in out of curiousity to see what it was like. And wouldn't you know it, I met this drop-dead gorgeous spectacular girl - the only perfect 10 in every way I've ever met - who I just had to see again and again and ...

The regular dances there really suck - $30 a dance, girl fully clothed, and you have to sit on your hands. That's done on purpose to force you to buy a VIP. Which I did the first few visits, the cheapest was something like $150 per half hour (they have 4 different VIP rooms all at different prices) with the girl expecting a tip too because the house takes most of the up-front money. But it was OK because the girl wore much less and you could do a lot more.

Then they raised prices and I quit buying dances. After that I just sat and talked with the girl and then tipped her and left. Which was still expensive because the tiny dancer drinks are $10. Anyway she didn't like it very much that I stopped buying VIPs so we ultimately went our separate ways.

I can see the club's point in raising pricess if they're doing a lot of business at night, but this was during the day when the place was nearly empty and few of the people who were there were buying any kind of private dances at all. Anyway they lost my business because of their price increase.

I suggested several times on their online discussion board that they try lowering prices during the day - they erased my comments. That was 2.5 years ago. I recently received some emails from the club that they're now running specials during the day. Very amusing, must be a new manager.

Jablake: I'm on the same page as you about the whole market-value thing. I've always found the academic high-and-mighty types pretty silly when they holler about creating a free society by means of our current market system. Where exactly IS there a free market going on?

Well, actually, in strip clubs there's probably more of a true laissez-faire situation than in many other locations. It's largely unregulated because so much of it is cash, illegal or borderline against-regulations, and engaged in between people who aren't going to be writing it down. Folks know that the other person isn't going to be making tax returns agree with the bill afterwards, so they're more free to just fudge on the price, moment by moment.

Does that mean that the prices went down? Well, no. Even though there's evidently a nearly never-ending supply of lap dances -- the practicioners themselves are essentially utterly replaceable, the world's most renewable resource, frivolous young women. And the service itself requires very little other than time -- there's little to no initial outlay for infrastructure, education and training, or equipment. So, it should be roughly like Scotch pebbles (read your Adam Smith!) in that the commodity itself is quite close to "free" to the seller. Therefore, we should be able to readily assess its value in terms of the market alone. More people want it? Price can go up. Fewer people willing to pay that high a price? Price goes down. Etc.

But it doesn't seem to work out that way. In one of the most fundamentalist swings of America's political pendulum, at a period when we can rightly view that THE LEAST number of people are probably willing to pay for a lap dance than ever before, the price SKYROCKETS. Price shoudl go down when demand is down. But noooo ... .

Maybe this has something to do with the utter replaceability (is that a word?) of the performers. If they don't get what they want, then they just move on. This means they aren't wedded to selling their Scotch pebbles, and therefore either take their high price or no price.

Maybe it has something to do with the near illegality of the actions. Since we aren't talking about picking up pretty rocks on the seashore, but instead engaging in activities that lead to potential social sanctions against the participants, there is a perceived "risk factor" which people are willing to pay for. This doesn't make much sense. If sex were something we weren't embarrassed about, would the price of a one-night-stand drop to the cost of a Coca Cola? But since it's something we aren't really supposed to talk about, does that mean the price goes upwards? So what we've got here is that essentially we're paying "hush money"?

I wonder. I think Jablake can enlighten me on these issues.

Then I want him to apply the same analysis to the high cost of tuition. There was a letter in the U of Chicago alumni magazine that arrived just today, on this very subject. Basically, "elite" private schools are paying for things they don't need -- tenured faculty to instruct in German 101, for example; particle accelerators. The "real" cost of educating someone, and educating them well -- and no, don't worry about it, that can mean "technical training in job skills" OR "humanities-oriented non-useful enlightenment and mind-opening liberal studies" -- is actually a LOT lower than the expenses that private colleges undertake in order to compete with one another. We've got a marine biology tank, we've got a rocketry launch pad, we've got dormitories with five-star concierge service, we've got a private air field. Etc. None of which has anything to do with whether the kids understand basic differential equations or Latin. How much can a black board and a bunch of desks really cost? But the schools spend spend spend, then pass the cost on to the "consumer" -- mom and dad, trying to get little Billy an education. Public institutions are largely following suit, in their own way, as prices there increase as well.

I don't mind prices going up if wages do, too. (Obviously.) What I mind is the discrepancy between increased prices in one sector (lap dances; college tuition) versus the general increase in prices/wages/salaries/costs. Our economy has inflated only a little bit; but some things are nevertheless free to inflate A LOT, and I would like to know why. Why don't other things inflate over-bearingly, to an unreasonable or misrepresentative or non-compatible degree, too? Why aren't burgers, or fries, or car washes, suddenly a higher percent of an average man's pay? What things go up in relative terms, which things go down, which go up a little and which (we know of two) a lot, relative to "average salary" and so forth?

Would love to learn some of this stuff. I'm dreadful at economics. The whole laissez-faire-Moonies thing just puts me off.

The interesting thing about strip clubs is that they seem to raise prices when they are slow, not busy...Chalk it up to typical dumb-ass thinking but I just don't understand it. I favored a club for years that got $20 for topless dances. They moved to a new building and raised the price to $25 which was a drag but business was good and people got used to it. A few years ago when things got really slow they raised the dances to $30 and pretty much killed the club...After about a year of empty chairs and dancers bailing for greener pastures the club lowered the price back down to $25 and does two for $20 dances all day and night on Monday and Tuesday...

Lap dance pricing is probably a lot more complex than we think it is. For example, probably some of the dancers make more when prices go up, even if the club as a whole sells fewer dances. And maybe the club benefits too. I remember once asking my ATF why she didn't try to maximize her income (she spent a lot of time sitting and talking) and she replied, what makes you think I don't? We don't see the tips that change hands.

And Book Guy, please don't get me going on college tuition, which I think is the most outrageous and immoral practice that's tolerated in our society. Suffice it to say that the reason the price can keep going up at double digit rates is that so few people actually pay it. If you do pay full price (like I did for my kids) you're actually paying for other people's kids too, it's built into the list price. It would be like going to buy a new car, asking what the price is, and being told that the price depends on how much you earn. College administrators feel that it is their responsibility to transfer money from the well off to those less well off. Can you imagine if a private corporation tried to do that - the CEO would go to jail. Which is where a lot of college presidents and administrators belong.

Hi Book Guy,

Well the market participants *may* not be well informed or educated or etc. Dances were $10 at Angels. Despite the other little clubs getting killed off and more customers wasting the dancers time very few customers were willing to part with $10. That is or was BIG money for the area especially for a single dance. I sure as heck wasn't willing to pay $10 unless the girl was going to spend the night with me! ;) Angels was in deep trouble because their "hidden" costs were skyrocketing while revenue was fairly stagnant. You couldn't clobber the dancers with more fees because $10 dances were hard to sell and it took real work usually on the dancer's part just to make a sale.

It looked like the government would be successful in killing Angels. You have raids which costs money. You taxes going up. You have inspections. And, where is the "fresh" money to pay for all of this garbage? The club was on its death bed. :(

The manager asked my opinion because he considered me to be a brain. And, he was also disappointed that I wouldn't buy dances. I advised him to lower prices to $5 per dance. He says NO, NO, the poor girls and they're really sweet are already starving. They can't take a pay cut because they're really hurting. I explained that if they could go thru the initial transition phase that the dancers would make MORE money at $5 a dance overall than they are by charging $10 a dance. He says that makes NO sense. You can't cut prices and make more money. You have to put yourself in the girls' shoes. You're supposed to be bright! He wasn't a happy camper, but he kept listening (which is impressive) and suddenly a light bulb went on in his head. $5 dances became the standard. Needless to say I wasn't a popular white "boy" with the dancers. :( One dancer was telling me about the "meeting" and she says one white says something and the whole world has to change. You're tearing this club apart with your insanity. She says I told 'em "white don't mean bright." Unfortunately, cause you're white you have them convinced that you're some type of brain. She says I don't buy it even a little bit. If you were black, then nobody would pay you any mind. I tried to explain to her and she says I don't want to hear it. She says I hope you are proud of yourself taking away what little money we were making. :(

So if the people in the business are hurting and they genuinely believe cutting prices will take away what little money they're making, then what are the chances they will cut their prices?

When I was under attack, I put my prices thru the roof. There wasn't a choice. The government made the choice for me and for the customers. They don't pay, then the bookstore closes. It was that simple.


So there are 2-main-ways-pricewise to try and save the day if income isn't were you need it to be. You can slash prices if volume will increase sufficiently and you have a good margin to work with. With Angels I was very confident many poor guys would love to get at least 1 $5 dance and after that who knows; thus I knew that I was advocating the correct course action to benefit everyone. Or, you can raise prices thru the roof and hope there enough price insensitive customers to result in an increase in overall profits.

IOWs, low demand sure as hell doesn't necessarily mean falling prices especially if there are enough price insensitive customers. I have buddies who think a $100 is a joke. Given their wealth, yes $100 shouldn't have much value to them. Heck, they might enjoy the experience more if they were paying $1,000.

Bottom Line: Don't expect that those in charge to necessarily understand that less can mean more. A wonderful example is tax rates. The government *may* collect much more in taxes at a tax rate of 15% than a at a tax rate of 75%. For most people, that is just beyond their comprehension. A higher tax must equal more $$$ for the government and a lower tax rate must equal less $$$ for the government. Thus, if someone advocates cutting taxes the cry may be heard that you have to "pay" for the tax cut since the government must lose revenue if tax rates are cut. Funny these same people who claim that a tax cut must equal less revenue for the government do often understand that a sale will often result in more overall profits for a business. Depending on how it is done a tax cut can be like a sale in that the government collects more revenue.


I hope that was somewhat clear. :)

"Then I want him to apply the same analysis to the high cost of tuition."

Donald Trump, who I consider to be fairly shrewd, wrote the value of his Wharton (I think that's the name) business school degree had very little to do with the quality of teaching and in his opinion other business schools offered a better learning experience (as far as the classroom instruction) at a much lower cost. Wharton is an elite business school so how in the world could "lesser" business schools offer a better learning experience (as far as the classroom instruction) at a much lower price? For most people that is just beyond their comprehension. The elite school *has* to provide better education that is why their elite and charge so much!

Trump also added that although tutition for Wharton was extremely expensive and didn't really offer the best learning experience it was a freaking BARGAIN! Again, that is just beyond most people's comprehension. They'll often just close their ears at that point, which I believe is normal.

So why in the world was it a BARGAIN according to Trump? Well, he wrote or maybe said that 2 things really stood out in his mind about Wharton. 1. The quality of its students. Quality as measure by the student's family's wealth and quality in that generally the students were intelligent i.e. teachable and thinking. Why is the quality of students important to a prospective student or graduate? Reputation and future business contacts. He said those contacts with wealthy students gave him a lot of lucrative business once he graduated and they were out in the world together. 2. The prestige/reputation of Wharton business school. He said or wrote that, unfortunately many important people are more interested in prestige or reputation rather than actual substance i.e. knowledge and ability. He gave as an example of some bankers who he was working his tail off to get a loan from. He was showing them the business plan and the valuations and was getting nowhere. These bankers just seemed brain dead, but he kept pushing and pushing. BOOM! A break thru. One of the bankers wanted to know his education. That surprised him. We're talking about a multi-million dollar loan and you want to know my education? That's crazy. Everything is spelled out before you. Once it came out that he had a degree from Wharton the whole game changed suddenly,,, and the bankers thought he was the greatest. Wharton only graduates the best, in their opinion. Business plans? Whatever as long as we know your from an elite school then that's what's important.

Bottom Line (according to Trump): He wasn't paying big bucks for an education that was truly beside the point. It would have been stupid to pay BIG bucks to Wharton just to get an education when for a much lesser cost you can (in his opinion) get the same or better education at a much cheaper business school. Hanging with and making friends with the richy rich kids was of extreme value in that it opened doors! The reputation of Wharton was of extreme value in that it got him his multi-million dollar loan from the brain dead bankers, for exampl. The education wasn't anything special and was more like a commodity (in his opinion).



So that is just the first part of the story concerning high tuition rates. The education itself is often just a commodity that could be cheaply provided. What value for contacts/friends that can help you financially throughout your life? What value for being able to close a multi-million dollar business deal thanks to the reputation/prestige of Wharton? The expensive tuition is a BARGAIN! Just remember it isn't really the education that you're paying for. :)


Still interested? :)

Agreed on several points: that an "elite" school can provide "prestige" and "connections" and "community." This is something I'm quite disappointed with, about my supposedly elite liberal arts school experience -- they cut me and the rest of the alumni off the instant we left (bad plan; from me they only get $1 a year for the annual fund), and I wasn't old and experienced enough to "make connections" while I was there. I have my buds, but they all went into journalism or non-profiteering. Here I am bright and extremely well educated making under 20 grand a year. Ridiculous. My college "should" come through for me. But noooo ...

And we paid "top dollar" too. At the time I was only 17, what did I know? But my dad put it thusly to the financial aid counselor when I was applying: "So, if I take all that money out of the savings account that we put together for my kid to save for his college tuition, and we bought him the most expensive car we could find, you'd give us the tuition money for free. But if I leave the money in the bank account and DON'T buy him a car and he has to take the bus every day, then you won't give us the money, and we'll have to give it to you instead?" The answer was affirmative. But I didn't get a car. So my dad was REALLY a determinedly self-immolating member of the lower class, I guess. Rich doctors and lawyers from wealthy suburbs could afford to buy the services of accountants and lawyers and hide their money, so that the school "had to" pay them to send their kids there. Me, too poor to get any financial aid.

Anyway, back to your points. So yeah, I see why it's possible that in an isolated instance (the Angels example) a given manager or stripper won't understand that lower prices can increase volume and therefore increase total revenue rather than reduce it. I don't see why that single misunderstanding is perpetuated across the strip-club industry, but not across (for example) the baseball bat industry. Are strip-club managers peculiarly prone to raising tuition costs? What exactly IS the correlation between college tuition and lap dances?

Harrumph.

FONDL: yeah, college administrators, financial aid, etc. etc., what a shell game. When I went to college (see above) I selected the best education. I DID get an excellent undergrad education. I got straight As from a school harder to get into than Harvard is. In fact, I turned down the opportunity to go to Harvard in order to go to that school instead. Now I wish I'd gone to Harvard. Sure, I'd be like all the other asian math whizzes from there, I'd just have facility with quick pointless problem-solving for the daily sudoku puzzle and I would never have had to work for any of my grades because they would have automatically given me As, but I'd have a FAMOUS DEGREE (cf. Trump re: Wharton) and so I wouldn't be in this danged "impoverished professional" trap where I've been for about two decades.

Eh, anyway. I'm going to law school next fall. The LSAT is this Saturday. With my undergrad grades, a decent application, and my current LSAT diagnostic practice test scores, I ought to be able to get in to some place even YOU codgers have heard of. Then I'll ... maybe ... make a living wage.

It's damned ridiculous. I see a link between strippers and bad pricing strategies; college tuition and the "elite" snobbery of poorly priced institutions; and my inability to get a decent job. There's something in there about figuring it out, working for a living, having a link in to the better life. Someone knows something I don't know ... yet. >:] (that's supposed to be an evil grin)

FONDL: check out this letter to the editor (second item on the page) and associated mention of writer's book:

http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0701/every_…

Right up your alley. The idea of raising tuition out of the reach of the common American -- whether at a public school (which rightly ought to make it accessible to ALL high school graduates in that state) or private (which, I guess, has different issues about control and elitism).

"Basically, 'elite' private schools are paying for things they don't need -- tenured faculty to instruct in German 101, for example; particle accelerators. The 'real' cost of educating someone, and educating them well -- and no, don't worry about it, that can mean 'technical training in job skills' OR 'humanities-oriented non-useful enlightenment and mind-opening liberal studies' -- is actually a LOT lower than the expenses that private colleges undertake in order to compete with one another. We've got a marine biology tank, we've got a rocketry launch pad, we've got dormitories with five-star concierge service, we've got a private air field. Etc. None of which has anything to do with whether the kids understand basic differential equations or Latin. How much can a black board and a bunch of desks really cost? But the schools spend spend spend, . . . "


I think Trump had it right in that it really isn't the education you're paying for. A relative of mine got a job fresh out of school with Ford paying over $100,000 plus a truck load of benefits. She got the money because she had the credentials as far as graduating from a prestigous school and having good grades. Was the real education anything special? Not according to her. It is who you get to meet at the school (rich kids and very bright kids) as well as who wants to meet you once you graduate. Actual education really wasn't important, with Ford telling her that for the first year she would basically be getting an education from them. They were willing to pay her a large salary (including housing I think) so she could learn on the job. In her opinion not only wasn't the education she received anything special, but it really didn't even lay a foundation for what Ford wanted her to learn. I believe also that the person doing the hiring graduated from the same school----so it was a just keep in the "family," dealy. :)

Spending all this money on stuff that really has nothing to do with providing an excellent education is important on several fronts. Some activities such as sports can actually help getting $$$ in the form of getting former students to keep interest in the school and donating. Other activities add prestige. Very important, moreso than educating. :)

High tuition is also important on several fronts. Prestige for one. Too often, wayyyyy too often I hear the garbage that you get what you pay for. And, some people genuinely believe that just as some people actually believe the nonsense that if you have to ask the price then you can't afford it. Another important point, is that it acts as nice filtering device to keep out much of the riff raff i.e. poor and middle income students unless they're "gifted." Less known and more controversial is that keeping people deeply in debt is a powerful weapon to keep people silent, working, and obedient!

To that end, keeping people obedient, the wonderful government has done a number of little scams. One scam was "reforming" the bankruptcy code to keep people from getting a fresh start. No fresh starts for those in financial agony---just let the interest and penalities continue to mount. And, pile on fraudulent attorneys' fees. :) Another scam involved student loans. The more money the government is willing to make available directly or indirectly the more the schools can charge! A win/win for the government and schools and bankers and attorneys. Of course, the students not only are faced with inflated tuition prices, put they'll be paying a pretty penny in interest too. And, this debt has new special teeth as I understand it so not even the student's social security or pension or maybe even their home will be safe. And, of course there are provisions for "reasonable" attorneys' fees. That means a judge can award basically any amount he wishes to his buddy buddy buddy attorney pals.

That is the way the cookie crumbles and most people are either too dumb to understand, ignorant as to the true facts, and or don't care as long as they ain't getting screwed.

"Are strip-club managers peculiarly prone to raising tuition costs? What exactly IS the correlation between college tuition and lap dances?"

The "correlation" is that don't expect the markets to necessarily act rationally. Do people act rationally? Sometimes yes, sometimes no, and sometimes it depends on your perspective.

With the lap dances at Angels the prices could have skyrocketed to meet stagnant demand or the prices could have been slashed (the solution taken), but the prices could not have remained the same, unless going out of business was the idea, because "hidden" costs were skyrocketing. To the casual observer it wouldn't seem rational to raise prices because the girls were already getting major NOs over the "high" price of dances and also you couldn't cut the prices because the girls were already starving. Thus, obey the government and go out of business! :)



In your question about tuition it almost seemed like you expect the market to behave rationally or maybe I'm just mistaken. And, it also seemed like you thought the cost of providing the education should for some reason have something to do with the tuition charged. It might or might not! A lot of this garbage you really have to take a very close look at and what is the point or points of the exercise?

Corrections:

With the lap dances at Angels the prices could have skyrocketed to ***address*** stagnant ***revenue*** or the prices could have been slashed (the solution taken), but the prices could not have remained the same, unless going out of business was the idea, because "hidden" costs were skyrocketing.

***The revenue had to increase one way or the other. Or, the business goes belly up!***

"It's damned ridiculous. I see a link between strippers and bad pricing strategies; college tuition and the "elite" snobbery of poorly priced institutions; and my inability to get a decent job. There's something in there about figuring it out, working for a living, having a link in to the better life."

I'm impressed for what little that's worth! :)

"Are strip-club managers peculiarly prone to raising tuition costs? What exactly IS the correlation between college tuition and lap dances?"

Another "correlation" is that you shouldn't necessarily make the obvious conclusion. In the Angel's lap dance pricing problem it was *obvious* to the dancers and management that dance prices couldn't be cut because the poor dancers were already starving. Another *obvious* that people often think is that if demand is falling then *obviously* prices should fall. It shouldn't be *obvious*, imo, it should take some thinking. :) Lower prices increase demand seems *obvious* to some people and, imo, it shouldn't be obvious. It should take some thinking. When silver or gold start rising there is a piling on that seems to occur as people rush to buy before the price goes up, yet again! Expensive art is another example where rising high prices may actually increase demand. Hookers are a good example, also imo, that a higher price may sometimes increase demand. With the school to some it seems *obvious* that the cost to educate a student is related to the tution charged and again, imo, it shouldn't be *obvious* but should take some thought. :)

Remember real goals are often hidden for a reason. Results are often determined by that which is hidden. And, the "Zen" goes marching on . . . at least I think it was starting to sound Zen. :)

Yeah, I get ya. I didn't expect TRUE rationality anywhere anyplace. I think I did expect that my undergrad experience would put me closer to the situation in which your friend with the job at Ford was in, and instead I ended up essentially in a situation identical to the people who deal drugs on the street corner: no "marketable" characteristics, no connections, living with mom and dad. Sure, I enjoyed reading Homer, and that is a worthwhile memory. I haven't had TIME to read for pleasure in the twenty-odd years since I graduated from college because I'm so busy working two, three odd-jobs to cover the bills.

So, what did I do wrong, that your friend at Ford did right? I'm not entirely sure. I know that something about "connections" should have come into play. I did my best. All the teachers liked me. Students were hit or miss, like with anyone. But somehow THEY knew something I didn't know about creating "bonds" that would be lucrative. I couldn't have gone to Wharton and thus ended up anywhere NEAR to where Trump has ended up, largely because I wouldn't have known how to maximize the intangible benefits of Wharton. I'm still not even getting the call-backs for jobs that I'd like.

So, she has something I don't. I want it. I don't really care about lap-dance prices, in the longish run. I'm just using them as a case study of an oddity that could bear some investigation, I'm sure you understand. :) I am really surprised at how my undergrad school has cut all ties -- no responses from the career center when I ask whether my reco letters are still on file, for example. I don't mean, "Will get back to you later" or even, "Sorry, we're busy with undergrads right now." I mean, THEY DON'T EVER WRITE BACK AT ALL. If you pay a school what (today) amounts to an above-average worker's ANNUAL salary for tuition, you deserve more of an old-boy network than THAT. To sign up for such an "elite" institution, you kind of have expectations of a certain level of competence and prestige. Just what Trump was talking about.

Well, my school isn't filling the bill at all. Very frustrating. I have to re-tool. Which is a slow, painstaking process. I'm going about it as rationally as I can, but quite often I have painful emotional associations. I am definitely NOT free to "do what you want to do" with my life, and I'm beginning to feel I never will be, and the single mitigating factor is my lack of earning ability. Wouldn't have chosen a small liberal arts school if I'd know I'd be so in a hole so permanently.

"So, what did I do wrong, that your friend at Ford did right?"

My relative was trained/raised to be a money grubber. :) She was trained not to actually accept standard idiocy even if she bowed her head in agreement. She had the right looks. The right clothing. I think the law may have helped as well with her being a woman (minority) and all. A solider of conformity who is actually a non-believer. :) Perhaps hypocrite is the correct term of endearment? Naw, the "hypocrite" is a little more complex equation.

The immigrants that I know that are successful---work for themselves and value money! Too simplistic? Could be. The drug dealers even low level could be very successful, but lack the education. I'm not talking about education to get a job--which is a depressing situation, imo--education to understand the value of money and investing money and the system risks of having it (the bank ain't exactly a safe place for him unless he can show some legitimacy and even then . . . ). One drug profiteer (not a dealer) became known as Senior Crack among educated white collar friends. He was shrewd to get the hell out the business after a couple "scores" and got into small retail evolving into million dollar retail. Just as prohibition helped I think it was the Kennedy Klan and other "elite" families it is helping many families who take the risks and then go legit as fast as possible i.e. become an upstanding member of society or a politician. :)

(One negative regarding legalization is that it would be another source of revenue for the governments---it seems like most people see additional revenues for the government as a positive. :( )

To those of may object on "moral" grounds it is like hello, the society is built on corruption in case you've been sound asleep; and when in Rome it may be wise to do as the Romans.

In my opinion, a customer goes to a club with the intent to spend $90, will buy 3 dances if they are $30 each, or 9 if they are $10 each. The difference is if they are $30 each only one dancer will get the cash, and if they are $10 each 2 or 3 dancers will get the cash. The dancer getting the $90 will survive in the business for another month, but the 3 dancers making $20 or $30 each will soon leave the business. Thus, I see prices staying high and the less motivated and average looking dancers leaving the business.

The interesting question is how if any changing economics might impact quality of dancers, I personally have not noticed any drop per se in dancer looks, and I believe that is because the (non-stripping) jobs are tightening up also, so pretty girls are looking at (otherwise) unthinkable types of employment

Yes, average looking, especially 6 level and below, will increasingly be in trouble in this business, and I don't care how many chubby-chasers certain clubs can attract - the typical customer wants something he doesn't typically see walking in the door at Walmart

Just a few hours ago I saw a flat out (take-your breath away) 9/10 level tall (italian or latin not sure) brunnette leaving the private dance area, apparently a "new girl" (per my ATF's description) I'm not afraid to ask an AFT type to tell me the name of any girl I happen to spot, its not PC but strip clubs are not real world anyways. Of course visual cues by themselves only tell half the story - paraprhasing what I alluded to the ATF dancer I was with

I agree Chipitin but it's actually worse than that because when the guy can only get 3 LDs instead of 9 with his $90 he doesn't have as much fun so he won't be back as soon or as often. And personally I think it's the best dancers who are leaving the business because customers are increasingly demanding extras for the higher prices. The second-rate girls stay and suck it up (no pun intended.)

Book Guy, the concept of public and private colleges is a myth perpetuated by the once-private schools. They're all heavily supported by taxpayer dollars today. If they were truly private I wouldn't care about their tuition or their admission policies, it would be their own business. But they're using tax dollars to perpetuate their deceptive practives. We often talk about dancers and deception but dancers have nothing on college admissions officers. I once heard an ex-admissions officer explain how the process works - it made me want to throw up.

"In my opinion, a customer goes to a club with the intent to spend $90, will buy 3 dances if they are $30 each, or 9 if they are $10 each."

The Trap might be using that theory. Dances are now $15 for table and $25 for lap. The nice older wealthier customers disappeared not that long after the price increase (who knows why?). For the most part few customers are getting dances now. Yes, there was an exception. The special dancer from Angels, but there were still some of the wealthier old customers at that time.

One argument I kept hearing was the good guys went to Tootsies. BULLSHIT! Those old men loved seeing the same friendly attractive dancers day after day. And, they had friendships with other customers. Great guys to hang out with even if like me they're old. The other argument was why would the old men leave because they could easily afford higher prices as proven by generous tips. Well, I think most of these men felt the price was fair for one thing. Another issue was the friendly young guys who were very friendly and bought dances disappeared almost immediately. So it was like loosing good friends, and positive experiences went downward. Other people say they just died off!

What I do know is that it really isn't a happy club anymore. The dancer quality generally is garbage. Regular guys aren't buying dances for the most part. Those that do buy seem to buy less. The dancers have tried and failed to get the owner to go back to the old format. He won't using the argument that there is inflation everywhere so why shouldn't his prices go up also!

I can't relate to customers who don't care about the dance price unless they just never buy dances. Where a club has high dance prices, then it is 99% certain I will spend almost NO money. Lower the price and I go crazy and will even buy a mercy dance here and there.

A dancer that I didn't know wanted to sell me a $25 dollar dance. I said NO. She wanted to know why? I said too expensive she says, but it is only $25! I say yes and if your dances are good I'd want a minimum of 10 so it is actually $250 and I'd like to be visiting the club more than once a week. She is like well spend $250 then. I said sorry that is way out of my budget. She says so you're not going to spend any money because you can't afford a lot dances? I said exactly. She says that doesn't make any sense. One dance is better than none! Not to me, I replied.

Anyway, different customers have different needs. However, I think the $5 dance saved Angels and they went from not being able to clobber the dancers with high fees to hitting them without mercy and the club seems to be continually PACKED. PACKED to the point they're charging for parking and really at times raising the cover charge way up. Who knows maybe the $5 only had appeal to me and the other customers who started buying and coming had their reasons for going into spend, spend, spend mode. :) I also think the $25 dance may very well kill off The Trap. Not much of a loss I hate to say except that now the government won't let you replace it. Once it is gone that's it. Of course, plenty of guys prefer Tootsies so if they're happy that is all the counts . . . right?

Part of the problem with the reasoning that a customer such as myself would buy three $30 dances instead of getting 9 of the 10 dollar dances or six 15 dollar lap dances is that customers especially some guys I believe, are very resistant to big price increases. One club I know of I would to get dances routinely when lap dances were 2 for $30. They raised the price to 2 for $40 as a once an hour special with normal prices fixed at $40. I just thought to myself forget it. They had other restrictions too. Even though they offered free DVD's, t-shirts, etc. with the dance special, I wasn't willing to pay that for years. I did finally crack one night but only one time for one dancer. When a customer goes from being a routine lap buying customer to not getting any lap dances for years, the dancers are no longer making much money from me and I'm not spending it there anymore. I was wondering if a couple of dancers asked me about another club I go to. I pay less per dance but I buy a number of lap dances sometimes from the same dancer. It's like ok, you won't get me to pay 30 bucks for a lap dance even if you're talking the hottest smoking dancer in the southeast but take a nice looking dancer charging half as much per dance, I may spend 30, or 60, or even 90 on her in a short amount of time if she's doing some good lap dances and I like her.

Actually I remember passing up lap dances from two very hot dancers because they wanted 25 per lap dance or 2 for $50. I haven't ever paid that much and wasn't about to. Apparently I wasn't the only one though, they didn't work there too much longer. I guess some of the more money hungry dancers may be trying to work where the guys are willing to spend more money. Northeastern US maybe? At least that used to be my impression.

Several month's ago I made several visits to a strip club in Myrtle Beach and over the course of both visits I had only 1 lap dance at a price I consider too high, $30. The one dance I got was good two way contact but no better than what I get for $20 or less at my regular places. Had the dances been less I'm sure I would have gotten more and spent a lot more in total, but I just feel $30 for 3/4 minutes is too much. The club was fairly crowded and I didn't see many patrons getting dances so my conclusion is that some of these places just don't have very good business sense. Since the house was getting a cut (10 I think) I'm sure they set the price structure, but are costing themselves and the girls money. As has been noted on this site before, strip clubs and their dancers often seem to be lacking when it comes to common business sense.

>"As has been noted on this site before, strip clubs and their dancers often seem to be lacking when it comes to common business sense."<

It's not just strip clubs. I was giving a piece of my mind to a Hollywood elected offical. I don't remember her title or name, but I was complaining about the nasty government and its attacks on small businesses. She says what attacks? We want to promote small business and large business to get more tax revenue. I practically yelled closing off Hollywood Blvd. is your idea of helping small businesses!!! Are you out of your MIND!!! Closing the street (Hollywood Blvd.) to traffic is killing the little businesses and the damn government needs to get the hell out of the way and stop these attacks!!! This damn government needs to be shut down. To her immense credit she remained calm and asked me to please calm down to see if we could arrive at a solution to the problem. I snapped the solution is open the damn road NO excuses NO tricks. She shocked me when she said yes, the road should never have been closed and she thought it was a very bad idea, but that the business owners on Hollywood Blvd. wanted the street closed! In a rage I jumped out my chair and yelled a handful of nitwit business owners want Hollywood Blvd. closed and you listened to them!!! She is like sir please calm down, it wasn't a handful of business owners along Hollywood Blvd. that wanted the street closed it was just overwhelming. I didn't even know there was a single business owner who thought it was a bad idea. She continued you probably initially thought it was a good idea too? Thru clenched teeth I said that is the stupidest story I've ever heard. There is NO WAY I'd ever think closing Hollywood Blvd. would help small business owners on Hollywood Blvd. I don't believe there is but a tiny minority of business owner who could be so stupid. I'm to going store to store and talk with the little business owners and I know that they had to be opposed to the indiocy of closing a major road! Miss, I'm just really furious and need to leave now, but if you're telling me the truth then I definitely owe you an apology big time. I will be very sorry for my behaviour and rudeness. She says with a smile I look forward to your apology. Her statement caught me off guard yet again.

She was RIGHT and I definitely did apologize to her profusely. It took work, but she helped to get Hollywood Blvd. reopened. :) Government to the rescue!!! :)

Those little store owners were so slow that it blew my mind. I understood their reasonings, but it was DUMB! DUMB! DUMB! At least these little business owners did have reasons and ideas, it was like ok you guys are capable of thought, but how and why are you so completely brain dead! And, one huge problem is even as they're going out of business they don't want to admit their mistake. That elected lady official really did some hard work to save them from themselves. And, she was actually very sharp and caring. I wish I'd remembered her name.

FONDL: agreed on the public-private-colleges myth. The "private" ones are taxpayer subsidized heavily too. The "socialism" that their admissions / tuition policies enact (rich subsidize the poor) isn't actually particularly abhorrent to me, in principle; but the subterfuge by which they accomplish it (pretending there's a sticker-price when there isn't, modifying it at whim), and the poor administration of it (taking the most from the middle class, who are less adept at hiding assets, pay more than the lower, who have none, or the upper, who have lots but hide them), THAT'S what bothers me. Like much of society, it's the middle-squeeze.

Book Guy, if it were only the poor who were being subsidized, that wouldn't bother me much either, but that's not how it works. Each department submits it's list of wants for the coming year - eg. maybe the football team needs some defensive backs and a couple huge offensive linemen; the baseball team needs some infielders; the basketball team needs a center; the music department needs some trombone players and violinists and a cello player or two; the thespian department needs a couple of minority actresses; the art department needs some sculptors; the language department needs a couple students fluent in Greek; and so it goes throughout the whole university. The concept is that the school doesn't especially want well-rounded students as we all thought, it wants a well-rounded student body, aka diversity. These quotas are the first slots filled, and the chosen ones are given scholarships to make sure they accept (smaller colleges typically aren't allowed to give athletic scholarships, but they can and do give need-based scholarships to athletes regardless of their actual need.) Then next come the racial quotas, who also get their scholarships. Then people from far away - foreign countries, far away states. The open slots that are left then get llocated based on some arcane formula that includes past attendance by parents, validictorians, highest marks on SATs, consistent grades in HS, etc. This last group of people, which is often fewer than half, all get to pay full price because by then all the scholarship money has been given away, which means that they subsidize eveyone else. In actual practice very few of the scholarships go to poor people, and many of them go to kids from well-to-do families who know how to game the system. It's outrageous, probably the biggest organized con game in the country. And it's standard practice. The actual average cost of educating a student is typically about half the full tuition price at many smaller prestigions schools.

One crucial part of the tuition scam, imo, is the government licensing laws that often require a degree and so manys years of study at an accredited college, inter alia, *before* you're permitted to sit for the exam.

I believe that by studying old Florida Bar Exams it would be easy for me to pass . . . I think the fee for the exam is now $4,000? I don't know. But, it would nice to be allowed to take the tests without "investing" large sums in an accredited school---not to mention all of the time "wasted." And, who knows the bar exam may not be as simple as I believe it to be. :)

Most states for many years, except states like Louisiana and I believe Iowa and perhaps a few others, have 2 parts to the exam - the multi-state exam and the local essay exam. The way it worked in some states if you scored super-high in the multi-state exam, what you do on the essay portion can be of little importance

Keep in mind while the multi-state exam is multiple choice, its very very difficult, because its a timed test and I believe it was 200 questions over 6 hours and you are required to very quickly read the factual paragraphs and various answers and then chose the "best" answer -effectively the least worst answer. However its well known performance on this test correlates very closely with IQ.

Here's the problem: if you rid of of the JD requirement, lets say from an ABA accredited school, people with very high IQ's could just study for the multi-state portion, and become lawyers in a few months. There is no shortage of lawyers in the USA, and this was cause a huge spike in supply

Does high IQ and the ability to knock off a test like the multi-state tell the person is qualified to practice? Probably not, and admittedly neither does the JD and 3 years of schooling and the exam, but the later is probably a better indicator, instead of just high IQ.


I think becoming an admitted member is a combination of the schooling and the exam, with the exam acting as a doublecheck.

So far most states had not cheapened the basic admission process, but many have tried, including ongoing affirmative action attempts by all sorts of groups

Also keep in mind that California (most difficult exam in the USA) a number of decades back tried to effectively come out with a 2 tiered grading system - one for regular applicants, and the 2nd for "hardship" applicants, basically people of color

This idea was pushed very heavily by (mostly) white liberal law school professors, who tried to claim that the exam HAD to be racist because in CAL only about 10 to 20% of blacks (a bit higher for hispanics) could pass the exam vs typically 40 to 50% of whites and asians

Strangely enough (or actually quite logically) it was BLACK ATTY associations of various kinds (among others) that shut down this idea, because this was the exact class of admitted members that would forever be stigmatized as a "hardship" admittee, even though they had passed the bar exam under the same conditions as everyone else.

Yeah, agreed on all counts. The subsidy to the rich-who-don't-need-it is particularly irksome. In my undergrad career it went this way. My middle-class dad couldn't afford an accountant and therefore didn't know how to effectively "hide" his money. We paid full sticker price. I wasn't ALLOWED to have an on-campus work contract because I was "too rich." So, if I needed spending money, the only legitimate places I was allowed to work were in undesirable jobs -- dish room, groundskeeping trash removal. The rich kids, whose families knew how to bilk the system, got "educational employment," such as the opportunity to work in the publications office to find out how magazines are made; or the chance to work with the chemistry stock room equipment to become a better bench scientist. Me, I was pre-determined to be lower class merely by merit of lacking the capacity to sneakily hide my assets. Children of doctors and lawyers from the best suburbs got to learn how to go be their own doctors and lawyers. Harrumph.

The other perverse side of this whole issue is that many (perhaps most) of those poor kids who are subsidized to go to the most expensive and prestigious colleges never graduate. I remember once years ago one of DC's fancy hotels had a doorman who, with his top hat, was about 8 feet tall. Very impressive. Someone later told me that he had been a center at Georgetown. Do we really need to spend taxpayer money (or money taken from a middle-class family) to train hotel doormen?

>>>"There is no shortage of lawyers in the USA, and this was cause a huge spike in supply"<<<

Hi David9999,

Interesting post, at least for me. :) My knee jerk reaction is that there is no shortage of lawyers in USA. It might even be considered common sense.

But, actually I think it might be better for the country if a basic high school diploma had enough "core law" courses so that it would automatically entitle the holder to "practice law." There wouldn't be any "advanced" legal education as far as licensure or other special privileges or even government jobs. Yes, that probably sounds brain dead and crazy to most people. And, who knows they might be right and I could be completely wrong.


>>>"This idea was pushed very heavily by (mostly) white liberal law school professors, who tried to claim that the exam HAD to be racist because in CAL only about 10 to 20% of blacks (a bit higher for hispanics) could pass the exam vs typically 40 to 50% of whites and asians"<<<

I can see arguments like this: The defendant abused an illegal substance and thus is guilty of a first degree felony. The actual undisputed fact may be that the defendant had a single beer. Is this abuse? Well, if the law defines it as abuse that may be the ballgame. To take an extreme example of the "racist" argument. The law could define as racist and even criminal any test where blacks fail to out perform whites or asians or Martians or whatever. A person may laugh and say well how in the world do you expect to make sure that blacks do significantly better on a test than whites? That is simple. The test could provide that since blacks in general have a much higher level of morality than whites that a credit of 100 points will be imputed to their final score. If an A+ is defined as 100 points, then a black person need only show up to receive an A+. Just to make sure that blacks outscore whites the test could also provide that since whites in general have a much lower level of morality a debit of 100 points will be imputed to their final score. Thus a white could answer every question correctly and yet still fail the test. :)



Before you think this too "crazy" let me assure you that when it comes to law nothing is too "crazy" or too stupid. In my condo case the law is supposed to provide in a foreclosure action that in a situation where the plaintiff acquires the property at the auction, then the defendant is entitled to a hearing as to the value of the property if the plaintiff seeks a deficiency judgment. The judge of course disagreed that a hearing on the value of the unit needed to be held. After much more litigation my attorney was permitted to provide evidence of value i.e. an appraisal report as of the date of sale and 2 investors that were not only willing to purchase the unit "as is," but were also willing to pay *all* the claimed attorneys' fees and court costs and interest and penalties. Plaintiff argued successfully that they were entitled to not only the ownership of the unit, but damages as well. My attorney argued that there were no damages because the unit was definitely worth more than the claimed damages. So plaintiff should either get the "damages" i.e. money found to be owed, attorneys' fees, interest, penalties, etc. or the unit. NOT both. My attorney claimed that I had a super strong case, which is what other attorneys had advised me. When the judge ruled against me, my attorney really wanted to appeal. Yes, I would be willing to do that if I had any faith in appellate judges. My attorneys excuse for the trial judge was that he had just recently come from the criminal division and really didn't understand civil cases.

The trial judge wanted me to contest the plaintiff's "reasonable" attorneys' fees. I said your Honor if I contest the fees you can just double or triple them I have no legal protections. The trial judge says you have the appellate court. I said your Honor the appellate court is better than you? The judge says your attorney wants you to contest the fees. I said yes, and my attorney also said I had a very stong case and not just him, but other attorneys that I consulted before hiring him. My attorney has an outstanding reputation, which is why I hired him at $400 per hour. The judge says your attorney did an excellent job and fought hard for you and you should have listened to him! I said I DID listen to him and look where it got me? Look, any amount the plaintiff demands is "reasonable" because like I said I don't have any legal rights in this country.

Most people can't believe or they'll make excuses. I think in general the courts do an extremely poor job. I might be wrong in that assessment, but that is my experience and also reading different case law on different issues it just doesn't give me a lot of confidence.

>>>"The judge says your attorney did an excellent job and fought hard for you and you should have listened to him! I said I DID listen to him and look where it got me?"<<<

BTW, I think my attorney really did do a lot of work and agree 100% with the trial judge as far as my "attorney did and excellent job and fought hard for you."

Oh, and in this same case judge No. 2 (judge No. 1 got transferred to the family division) claimed in anger that there is NO difference between a Warranty Deed and Quit Claim Deed!

A settlement had been worked out where I would transfer my interest in the unit to the plaintiff via a Quit Claim Deed. Everything had been agreed to by my attorney (this was a rotten to the core attorney), me, and the plaintiff's attorney. My attorney had even stated repeatedly that it was to be a Quit Claim Deed. Later, I said a Special Warranty Deed would be fine as long as it was just to insure I hadn't further transferred my interest, which I hadn't so that wasn't a problem at all. Anyway, I'm sent a Full Warranty Deed to sign because I told my attorney to mail it so that I can review it first. WOW! What a shocker. At first I just thought it had been a simple misunderstanding that my attorney would easily correct. I'd been sent a standard Warranty Deed!!!??? My attorney (a woman, btw) said she was sorry, but at the last moment the other side had changed their mind and demanded a Full Warranty Deed. So, you have NO choice, but to sign she said. I then contacted 2 other attorneys (one of whom specialized in real property litigation) both attorneys had me come and reviewed the documents, etc. and both advised NOT to sign a full warranty. I fired the lady attorney and the plaintiff went off the deep end writing a nasty letter about me to the judge. How I wasn't keeping my word and had lied, blah, blah, blah. Of course, the judge at hearing was blasting me for not honoring the settlement agreement. I explained it was the plaintiff who had broken the settlement agreement. The judge practically yells how is that! I say well your Honor, after everything was agreed to the plaintiff changed what was agreed to. Instead of a Quit Claim Deed which I was willing to sign, I was sent a standard Warranty Deed. The judge says didn't your attorney tell you to sign it! I said yes. The judge says that's because there isn't any difference between a Quit Claim Deed and Warranty Deed! I said NO, your Honor my attorney said I didn't have any choice. The judge booms EXACTLY!

Anyway, who knows if the judge was just a crook or dishonest or ignorant or whatever. The expensive $400 per hour attorney says the judge (judge No. 2) just wanted me to obey my attorney and not make legal decisions. I asked the $400 per hour attorney would you have advised me to sign a standard Warranty Deed? He shook his head and says NO.

Anyway, it isn't just me. Not only have I read about absurd cases in the newspaper, or in case law, but I'm aware of other people screwed even worse than me. IMO, it just isn't much of system. Yes, it is supposedly better than elsewhere and that might be true. But, that makes it a good system or one that I should care about? Ideally, I will die a natural painless death sooner rather than later and it will be unimportant then. :)

And, talking about adding salt to the wound the $400 per hour attorney did a Motion to Withdraw and basically said something about differences--it was as nice he could make it and still get free from the case apparently. So, when he shows at the last hearing he is still doing what I consider to be a good job and fighting for my rights. And, he tells the judge verbally there is absolutely NO problem between him and me. Which is the very strong impression that I had. So verbally I'm an A+ client. In the written record there is a phoney conflict that the law requires? The judge talks about the "conflict" and I say it is a "conflict" because I've run out of *my* money? I say if I can't pay, then why should he work? That doesn't make any sense. I said I believe we are on very good terms and would like to do further work for me if I can raise the money.

So from my perspective the system is geared toward mandating dishonesty to final end. If there is another judge, then it could be argued that my $400 per hour attorney had conflicts with me, his alleged reason for withdrawing, and therefore it is obvious that I'm a horrible person. The court system, imo, is disgusting and corrupt.

http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docket?p_…

The above is a link to a Third DCA case that was very interesting. At the trial one thing that really impressed me is that the judge genuinely seemed like he wanted to do the right thing for both parties. He said, correctly imo, that this was a 50/50 case and that the main issue was a matter of law more than facts. Meaning that under the law he felt he could rule correctly for either side. The judge also stated, I believe correctly, that he couldn't just split the baby because unfortunately the law required an all or none decision. He urge the parties a couple of times to settle the case because that would be the fair outcome for everyone. Unfortunately, neither side was willing to budge (they were both viewing it morally--right v. wrong--and not in the legal sense) and the judge was forced to make a decision. :( I don't necessarily disagree with the decision as far as who gets the money and like he said it was a 50/50 case that could definitely be decided either way.

The trial judge's decision was *reversed* by the Third DCA in an authored and published opinion. The majority decision, imo, was completely brain dead. The dissenting judge wrote a powerful opinion, imo.

So the case goes to the Florida Supreme Court were it is *reversed* yet again! I would give thumbs down to Florida Supreme Court as well, btw, but that is neither here nor there. If appealed and heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, then it might be reversed yet again. :)


I believe both sides had merit to their positions and that the trial judge was right i.e. the case could legally and fairly be decided for either party. He said it might even be fairer to just flip coin, but he wasn't going to do that. I think he should have, with a neutral party flipping the coin and a designated attorney calling heads or tails in the air. :) In this case it would have been fairer to both sides, imo.


Anyway, there is a lot of meat to this case. Even though it was a very meaty case, imo, an administrative hearing officer (high school diploma) could have handle the case better. Of course, I could be wrong. :) And, I don't just write that because I'm disgusted with the court system. With all their education and training all of the judges sought to avoid/ignore the central argument by both sides regarding "procuring cause." The trial judge, who I appreciated, even avoided explaining his finding/decision as to procuring cause and that was the whole ball of wax according to both sides and the judge. For the judges, at least in writing, they didn't want to get into the main issue of procuring cause----the facts weren't really in dispute . . . the battle was over the law and thru 3 layers of judges the legal point was evaded. :(



The sad thing is the loser was financially devastated. IMO, both sides were essentially good people and yet the way the system is designed it is incredibly expensive and the product is poor. The loser has every right, imo, to be completely disgusted with the court system. He spends mega bucks in legal fees and the damn judges repeatedly refuse to explain the main issue?! At Florida Supreme Court level, imo, the quality of the judges was at its lowest.

I am not sure what the current discussion has to do with "market value of strippers" but I will add my two cents worth. Having taken (and passed) the Ga. bar exam many years ago I would have to agree with David9999 that any person with a high IQ could prepare on their own for a couple of month's and probably pass the exam. I haven't seen the studies but would certainly conclude that success on the test would correlate with IQ. I do not practice law but would add that most law school graduates are not really qualified to practice, but rather are prepared to start their on the job training. Law school helps students learn how to do research, write briefs, and think (about the possible outcomes of a situation), but does little to prepare you for the day to day routine of practicing law. I actually think a 1 year school term combined with a 1 or 2 year internship would produce much better lawyers.

Hi snowtime,

Well, I think it started that strippers are over valued for what they do. The same could be said of lawyers. And, then there is the issue of free market value and what does that really tell you if anything. Somebody raised the point that a $400 per hour attorney looks pretty damn reasonable if it is multi-million dollar case. I agree, if the attorney wins.

In short, stripper or attorney value is difficult to determine because generally there isn't a free market here in the U.S. Who is worth more? I guess the attorney, but even if you spend $400 per hour the courts are of such poor quality, imo, that the quality of the attorney doesn't make as much difference as people might think. Also, imo, the law doesn't make much difference in how the case is decided. For example, supposedly I was entitled to a jury trial----problem is the judge can easily use the scam device of summary judgment and claim there are no material issues of law or fact and order a summary judgment. Now, if you believe in the U.S. court system then you might believe you have a bunch of rights. I don't believe that. I believe generally the court system is garbage. :(

Why did the judge fraudulently use a summary judgment against me? I think it is pretty standard practice. For example, I did research on a certain type of Driver License case. Something like 1,000 files I shifted thru. Almost all the cases were handled by attorneys and the quality of their work went from making a detailed petition to fill in the forms. Something insane like 993 of the case were handled with one word DENIED. The court is a fraud, imo. All 993 cases truly had so little merit that all the attorney got for his trouble besides $$$ was the word DENIED? The poor clients probably spent their hard earned money to get relief, which they and their attorneys felt should be available. Now, if you knew the judge involved---now deceased---you would know he is a crook! Sorry, but he promulgated orders to HIMSELF with phony dates and then claimed that was law. What a lowlife. :(

Only 1 or 2 out of the 993 got relief relief. One of the cases was even published and the decision made it appear the courts are truly top notch making sure people's rights are protected. One well written well thought out opinion out of about a 1,000 cases. Doesn't impress me even a little.

Correction: Only 1 or 2 out of the 1,000 cases got relief relief. One of the cases was even published and the decision made it appear the courts are truly top notch making sure people's rights are protected. One well written well thought out opinion out of about a 1,000 cases. Doesn't impress me even a little.

993 just got the word DENIED.

I almost forgot. It gets even better. The one well written well thought out opinion? The judges didn't write it. The attorney wrote the opinion before the case was decided and imo, it was excellent.

I had the privelege of seeing that happen real time once. Attorney (a former circuit judge) prepared a well written opinion (actually his client who was a law school graduate prepared it)--not just an order, and it was very well done with case law and findings of fact, etc. Judge waited maybe a month before signing it unchanged. The other side was supposedly never aware of the situation. Anyway, that is just the way things are. :) Perhaps justly the judge was reversed on appeal *without opinion*. However, the attorney claimed to honestly believe in his client's position. So who was right? I think the trial judge was right, but then I'm not an attorney. Of course, some of these cases are fairly simple and shouldn't take a whole lot of time if you had an honest court system.

>>>"The other perverse side of this whole issue is that many (perhaps most) of those poor kids who are subsidized to go to the most expensive and prestigious colleges never graduate. I remember once years ago one of DC's fancy hotels had a doorman who, with his top hat, was about 8 feet tall. Very impressive. Someone later told me that he had been a center at Georgetown. Do we really need to spend taxpayer money (or money taken from a middle-class family) to train hotel doormen?"<<<


Hi FONDL,

If the school was more than just fluff (prestige), then the answer may be YES. One hotel doormen, I think you will agree doesn't tell the whole story. For each hotel doormen there may have been a success story or two success stories, etc.

I will also say although I believe in genes, there is environment (teaching and home) as well as a "tipping point." One of the neighbor children that I helped years ago really opened my eyes. I'm an extremely negative person---imo, both by design (genes) and by conditioning. The child wanted my help with his home work. Of course, my reaction is negative for a million reasons and besides I'm supposed to be nasty. So I tell the child, No, your mommy wouldn't like that. She thinks that I'm dangerous and crazy, which is how she felt about me. So the child is like you're going to be helping me. Not my mom! I said, I really can't go against your parents can I? The child says YES. :) I say, let's make a deal. I talk with your mom and if she says NO, then you don't bother me anymore? He didn't like that deal, but finally agreed to it. To my great surprise the mom didn't have any problem. She thought the kid was just too dumb to teach and besides it would keep the child out of her hair. The child was DUMB, btw. I *had* thought mainly it was just genes were the reason he was so DUMB with the school and home not helping the situation.

I spent 100s of hours trying to get the child to think; more than learn. And, even simple thinking was very difficult for him and worse still he was aware that these weren't difficult problems--just difficult for him. So after a long time he starts in with the he is dumb and asks if I think he is dumb. I say YES. He says why are you wasting your time then? I said I'm not wasting my time. He says you said I was dumb. I then told him different stories that he seemed to really like and understand and also explained why I didn't feel the game was over and that he could be a lot brighter.

No break through at this point. I'm still spending hours and hours and hours with the child and there isn't any improvement at all. I keep thinking patience, patience, patience. Who knows the child may not do anything positive, but I'll just keep calm and inventive. BOOM!!! :) Suddenly the child starts thinking. It is mind blowing. From nowhere he starts understanding. And, his progress was extremely rapid. Like night and day. I continued to work with the child, but less and less. The child said he only wanted to come over when he really needed my help. Months go by without the child asking for any help. I spoke with the mom and she was like the child is a different person and getting very high marks. Anyway, years passed and the child according to his mom is doing great and she doesn't consider him dumb anymore. In fact, she says he is a little too smart for her liking.

I wouldn't have believed it. I *had* believed that the genes would rule for the most part and that teaching could only go so far. Also, I didn't think the progress would be all at once. I was hoping for a little improvement each week. Anyway, made me feel really good. :)

Some time back the child came to me because he was trying to help raise funds for the school. (He had become a very good student and wanted to help the school.) He was stunned when I said NO!!! Screw, the f**king school! Don't bring me no garbage about schools needing my money or any money! They ought to close the damn school down!!!

The child says you believe in education! I said, boy you need to do some more thinking. A hell of a lot more thinking. You should have known damn well that I ain't got no interest in that school or its teacher and think the damn thing ought to be CLOSED!!! Bingo! The child says because it's a government school? I say that's a damn good start. Now, git before I really get angry. It is just difficult for him to understand my feelings on that subject. At least he tries. :)

One very interesting point is the argument that affirmative action reduces the number of black attorneys because a lesser law school would be a better fit. Hopefully, I didn't misunderstand. Let's try again:

A fancy elite law school is admitting "hardship" blacks under affirmative action. These blacks then do poorly as far as passing the bar. Thus, a reasonable conclusion is these blacks should have gone to lesser law schools, which would have given them a better opportunity to pass the bar??? Ergo, affirmative action at elite law schools are reducing the number of black lawyers.

Offhand, sounds stupid. Doesn't mean it isn't true. Just sounds stupid. I assume that the theory is that the lesser law schools provide more "remedial" or "basic" law school training. That might be true.

I've got an even better theory? Eliminate all the pretentious BS and make a law degree a simple 3 month course. Now, that should improve the end product for the consumer a little bit. :) Yes, you need more reforms than that. But, the product is such sh*t as things stand I wouldn't lose a wink o sleep over any supposed reduction in the "quality" of lawyers practicing and actually believe "quality" may go up.

The idea that "affirmative action reduces the number of black attys" is just another in a long line of convoluted explanations as to why blacks (especially black males) over the years have (in general) had a very difficult time being admitted via exam to practice in the various jurisdictions in the U.S. Yes, its true top schools like Harvard Law do not emphasize the bar exam per se, and they see themselves as preparing future legal scholars instead of mere bar members. Such great universities deem themselves above wasting time on something as trivial as a bar exam, whereas certain regional schools generally being more practical will often not just focus on the bar exam, but specific jurisdictions, often locally based.

Therefore w/o affirmative action more blacks would be at regional schools, and far less at top law schools, therefore in theory more might pass the bar.

Actually the issue is far more complicated, but they involve opening the door to debate very non PC issues pertaining to to issues for example whether different racial groups can have (in an aggregate sense) varying GROUP skills and predispositions. One needs to only look to Dr James Watson, the first to model DNA and his recent comments to see what happens to anyone that dares to discuss these issues in an honest way. They will be shouted down and disowned by the mainstream community.

Hi David9999,

Yes, believing in group differences is irrational. :) But, if I had a choice between having all white male judges or having all black female judges here in Miami-Dade County, then the black females would win hands down in a landslide. The educational requirement to be a judge definitely wouldn't be a degree from an accredited law school. A basic high school diploma or equivalency exam along with passing a simple test as to basic legal principles would set the bar. Heck, for the really simple cases, like my condo case, that might be too much education. :)



BTW, I believe businesses and people in a "free" society should generally be free to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, etc.

As everyone I'm sure is aware,the various legislatures in nearly all states are controlled to a large degree by lawyers, so you can forget anything that ends up vastly increasing the supply of lawyers. Note California is a bit unusual in that it has a very large number of unaccredited law schools, thus it gave them an excuse to make the bar exam even more difficult than normal, however it has only complicated the ongoing and apparently intractable issue (in nearly all jurisdictions in the United States) in regards to the (generally) ultra-low-pass rate of minority test takers. I believe Wisconsin adopted at some point a bar admission by law diploma rule applicable to certain ABA approved schools in the state, however most jurisdictions simply do not want to go that route, because ultimately bar membership will then signify nothing -not even the ability to take and pass a fairly difficult exam.

Hi David9999,

Well if the legislatures weren't "contolled to a large degree by lawyers" I doubt it would make any difference *at this point.* Perhaps an exception would be if minorities took control of the legislative and executive branches, but even then I could see the judicial branch "vetoing" anything they didn't care for.

Besides as most people would agree there are already too many lawyers so why add more? Or, worse than that why reduce the "quality"? :)

And, if this is really the land of the free wouldn't make much sense to go messing with the foundation of that freedom. OTOH, as Bork says as long as you have democracy by definition you have freedom. Good to see one former judge stand up for the rights and freedoms of slave owners. :)

test

Speaking of tipping points, I think I've tipped THE WRONG WAY in my career. That's why I'm returning to get a professional certification -- I'm tired of the "impoverished professional" route that I'm on, can't afford it. I'm debt-financing myself. Yes, the fact that said professional certification will be a law degree is a different issue.

About the genes / environment issue, and the touching story of the dumb little shit who got better. I think that "genetic IQ" is almost entirely environmental if you're talking about the 95 to 125 range. You can get higher or lower depending on diet, upbringing, attitude, context, whether or not you're encouraged at home, etc. Outside of that, although it MIGHT be genetic rather than environmental, frankly who gives a fuck? Accurately distinguishing between a 139 and a 141 IQ is really a silly question to answer. Both individuals are going to be juuuust fine in so far as their intelligence goes for being lawyers or doctors or ditch diggers. Same goes for being accurate about the distinction between a 91 and a 93 -- neither individual's going to be a good doctor, period. It's other things -- propensity to prefer math over science over language, for example; interest in a vagabonding or a traditional lifestyle; response to financial or emotional rewards systems -- that are going to indicate their tendency for success in a given work setting.

Another tangent. Interesting development, the growth of these unaccredited (by which I guess you mean, David999, not American Bar Association approved yet?) law schools popping up at fundamentalist Christian colleges. They feed into the lower ranks at the US and state-level justice departments where ministerial-level positions have been filled by the Ashcroft cronies and their ilk. So you got kids who were middle of their law class at U of Chicago who can't get a decent start in Washington because American Justice School of Law graduates keep getting posted there instead. Eek.