Not in your Econ 101 text book

I've been reading Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner. For all the controversy it received for linking Roe v. Wade to the drop in violent crime rates over the last decade, I'm finding the section on the economics of drug dealers and other black market business most interesting. Especially this quote:

The delicate balance between these factors helps explain why, for instance, the 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.

Not that I'd know, but I was once out photographing a building on Cedar Street south of the railroad viaduct. There was a disheveled young woman standing on the street corner in an old sun dress. I noticed a car start to slow down on the street. Then the driver spotted me with my camera and sped away. The entrepreneuress glared at me until I left. Since then I've learned to keep a lower profile on our jobsites in transitional areas. It's bad enough that we're gentrifying them out of their neighborhoods. No need to mess with their business.