I know I am late to the Freakonomics party, but I picked up the book again today and this was the first paragraph I read:

    The delicate balance between these factors helps explain why, for instance, a typical prostitute earns more than the typical architect. It may not seem as though she should. The architect would appear to be more skilled (as the word is usually defined) and better educated (again, as usually defined). But little girls don't grow up dreaming of becoming prostitutes, so the supply of potential prostitutes is relatively small. Their skills, while not necessarily "specialized", are practiced in a very specialized context. The job is unpleasant and forbidding in at least two significant ways: the likelihood of violence and the lost opportunity of having a stable family life. as for demand? Let's just say that an architect is more likely to hire a prostitute than vice versa.

I have to go with Phillip Johnson on this one, these authors don't make a very convincing case on the differences between these two professions...

Leave a Reply.