Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: Exclusive: Proxénète ou entrepreneure?

  1. #1

    Exclusive: Proxénète ou entrepreneure?

    With 20 girls and 3 rooms for incalls, a pimp is complaining that she does not have the full benefits she deserves when she makes up to 7000$ per week because she does not get parental leave, a credit rating and declare her full income.
    http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/infos/reg...23-180807.html
    Also see video:
    http://tvanouvelles.ca/video/8502951...entrepreneure/
    Last edited by Mod 9; 03-29-2011 at 06:44 PM. Reason: Change to up to 7000$
    [B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=Green]Mod 9[/COLOR][/FONT][/B][FONT=arial black][SIZE=4][B][URL="http://merb.ca/vbulletin/announcement.php?f=5"][COLOR=#ff0000]
    MERB's official rules[/COLOR][/URL][/B][/SIZE][/FONT][I][FONT=palatino linotype][/FONT][/I]

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod 9 View Post
    With 20 girls and 3 rooms for incalls, a pimp is complaining that she does not have the full benefits she deserves when she makes 7000$ per week because she does not get parental leave, a credit rating and declare her full income.
    That is certainly not what she is saying. Do you need translation?

  3. #3
    What she said:
    Marie, possède une agence d'escorte qui emploie une vingtaine de personnes travaillant en rotation dans trois chambres de motel.
    L'entreprise de Marie peut rapporter jusqu'à 7000$ par semaine.
    «Quand je suis tombée enceinte, que j'ai eu mes enfants, je n'ai pas eu droit à des congés parentaux. (...) on puisse officialiser notre revenu... on puisse avoir un crédit... on puisse être reconnues financièrement.»
    which part would you like to correct? Go ahead.
    [B][FONT=Arial][COLOR=Green]Mod 9[/COLOR][/FONT][/B][FONT=arial black][SIZE=4][B][URL="http://merb.ca/vbulletin/announcement.php?f=5"][COLOR=#ff0000]
    MERB's official rules[/COLOR][/URL][/B][/SIZE][/FONT][I][FONT=palatino linotype][/FONT][/I]

  4. #4
    Your are linking different statements from different parts of the video. What she says basically is that what she does at the present is defined as being a "proxénète", but that she is in reality a business woman that should be considered as any other business person, pay her taxes and profit from the governmental programs. You attack her on the basis that she earns 7000$/week. You should say "up to 7000$/week", consider that this is gross income before expenditures and that her net business revenue after tax would be very much less. Her interview is not a complaint about revenue. It is a plea for legalization of prostitution.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by gugu View Post
    You attack her on the basis that she earns 7000$/week. You should say "up to 7000$/week", consider that this is gross income before expenditures and that her net business revenue after tax would be very much less. Her interview is not a complaint about revenue. It is a plea for legalization of prostitution.
    I am not attacking anything nor anybody.
    Initial statement changed to 'up to'.
    As for legalisation, I will let members discuss on that.
    Last edited by Mod 9; 03-29-2011 at 06:47 PM.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod 9 View Post
    Huh I am not attacking anything nor anybody.
    My apologies. I did put intentions in your wording.

  7. #7

    The Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by gugu View Post
    Your are linking different statements from different parts of the video. What she says basically is that what she does at the present is defined as being a "proxénète", but that she is in reality a business woman that should be considered as any other business person, pay her taxes and profit from the governmental programs. You attack her on the basis that she earns 7000$/week. You should say "up to 7000$/week", consider that this is gross income before expenditures and that her net business revenue after tax would be very much less. Her interview is not a complaint about revenue. It is a plea for legalization of prostitution.
    Let's give gugu's interpretation the benefit of the doubt and look at the numbers.

    The raw numbers are up to $7000.00 a week, generated by 20 people employed by one entrepaneur = 21 total people involved in the enterprise.

    If we assume that each of the 21 people works a 35-40 hour week then this generates app $333.33 per person if capped at the maximum $7000.00 per week.Given that the minimum wage is $9.50 this means everyone is working for a rate below minimum wage even before the expenses are factored out.

    At $200.00 a session $7000.00 requires 35 sessions/1 hour. At $140.00 a session $7000.00 requires 50 sessions/ 1 hour. So three rooms for seven days = 21 days,means each room would be used between 1 2/3 to 2.4 times a day.

    So the following possibilities have to be considered:

    1.) The numbers thrown out are total BS and a number of people have bought them hook,line and sinker without thinking things thru. Significantly greater dollars are being generated.

    2.) The numbers are accurate. Then the person in question should not be running a business due to ineptitude since there is not sufficient money to be made.

    Either way ................
    Last edited by eastender; 03-29-2011 at 08:22 PM. Reason: wording
    LISA'S FRIEND

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    164
    No one should be surprised that the media does a crummy job.
    If you follow what passes for journalism (in print, radio or television), you will repeatedly encounter journalists doing a crummy job and not doing the most basic fact checking. And this is especially true when "controversial" topics such as the war on drugs or sex work are covered. The media will generally tow the official line favored by government and law enforcement.

    One recent case reported in the Village Voice: data used to pressure Craiglist to close its adult services section was junk science. See article here: http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-03-...-junk-science/

    The war on drugs is replete with such examples. Jack Shafer of Slate.com specialized is debunking the press's coverage of complex issues.

    One quote from Shafer (Dec 2010): "Where do most people get their information about drugs? From the press. And where does the press get its information? Primarily from other misinformed journalists, lazy cops, grieving parents, clueless drug counselors, spurious Web sites, and gibbering druggies. By indulging their worst class biases, by following their newsman instincts to hype the sensational or dramatic aspects of the story, by giving in to fear and ignorance, journalists keep their readers in the dark about drugs."
    http://www.slate.com/id/2276597/

    It is the same with sex work.

    No matter where the $7000 figure comes from, it is used to distort the debate. And especially to show to Mr and Mrs Average (who can only dream of making that much in a week and know only myths about sex work) that these are "criminal" and reprehensible activities. It sensationalizes the issue and prevents rational factual debate.

  9. #9

    Both Sides

    Quote Originally Posted by sigma69 View Post

    It is the same with sex work.

    No matter where the $7000 figure comes from, it is used to distort the debate. And especially to show to Mr and Mrs Average (who can only dream of making that much in a week and know only myths about sex work) that these are "criminal" and reprehensible activities. It sensationalizes the issue and prevents rational factual debate.
    Point is that both sides cannot be trusted to provide accurate numbers as evidenced here.
    Last edited by eastender; 03-29-2011 at 10:34 PM. Reason: quote reduction
    LISA'S FRIEND

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by 10-4Roger View Post
    Sex workers should make their income tax reports and be proud of what they do. With no sex industry, Quebec economy would fall on its ass...
    Very true 10-4Roger.
    BUT, when you work in a gray zone, there is always the fear that law enforcement will turn against you in response to some political or media pressure to act against perceived "immoral" activities.

    In our world, if you live in a gray zone, you are probably not too inclined to share all your information with the government...

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by sigma69 View Post
    One recent case reported in the Village Voice: data used to pressure Craiglist to close its adult services section was junk science. See article here: http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-03-...-junk-science/
    And just like Poulain after a rebuttal by judge Himel, Shapiro chose denial as a safe heaven after the examination made by the Voice. Thanks for the link. Human trafficking and prostitution are probably the most contaminated fields of research today. Thanks for the link.

    Quote Originally Posted by sigma69 View Post
    No matter where the $7000 figure comes from, it is used to distort the debate. [...] It sensationalizes the issue and prevents rational factual debate.
    I agree with you as far as many medias are concerned. But I think the intentions of the lady in laying down a few numbers, which look realistic at first hand, were transparent: sending a message to the public on how much tax is eluded by purposively keeping the sex industry underground for old age moralistic reasons. I see no reason for her to understate data for that purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by eastender View Post
    Point is that both sides cannot be trusted to provide accurate numbers as evidenced here.
    I hope you do not consider your previous table corner calculations as evidence of one side providing inaccurate reporting of numbers. Your maths, as I demonstrated elsewhere, are of the type discussed here: flawed, based on wrong assumptions and, one might think, either driven by undisclosed agendas or trolling, a more accurate word to describe a self proclaimed contrarian.

  12. #12

    Numbers are Numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by gugu View Post

    I hope you do not consider your previous table corner calculations as evidence of one side providing inaccurate reporting of numbers. Your maths, as I demonstrated elsewhere, are of the type discussed here: flawed, based on wrong assumptions and, one might think, either driven by undisclosed agendas or trolling, a more accurate word to describe a self proclaimed contrarian.
    That you did not verify and run the numbers before reaching conclusions is a weakness that is inherent in your position. That you were caught is typical of your efforts.

    The basic elementary school calculations stand on their own and clearly show that the revenues are insufficient for the number of people involved. Nice looking raw number that simply does not stand once analyzed.
    LISA'S FRIEND

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In my head
    Posts
    164
    Quote Originally Posted by gugu View Post
    I agree with you as far as many medias are concerned. But I think the intentions of the lady in laying down a few numbers, which look realistic at first hand, were transparent: sending a message to the public on how much tax is eluded by purposively keeping the sex industry underground for old age moralistic reasons. I see no reason for her to understate data for that purpose.

    I went back and watched the clip again. The $7000 figure comes from the reporter and not the lady (at least not directly). And it is "up to $7000", not $7k every week.

    I suspect that the lady offered a range of numbers (from...to) and the reporter chose to use only the highest number.

    I totally agree with you that sex workers would like to send a message to the public about how much is lost by keeping all this activity in the black/gray market.

    The reporter's motivation is more sensationalistic. IMHO. Cheers!

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by eastender View Post
    That you did not verify and run the numbers before reaching conclusions is a weakness that is inherent in your position.
    OK then let's go.

    "If we assume that each of the 21 people works a 35-40 hour week".

    What is this assumption based on?

  15. #15

    Why?

    Quote Originally Posted by gugu View Post
    OK then let's go.

    "If we assume that each of the 21 people works a 35-40 hour week".

    What is this assumption based on?
    Provide your own model or justifications. You are the one who took the TVA presentation at face value. and capped revenues at $7,000/week.

    It is up to you to provide a viable distribution of the hours for 21 people in a fashion that balances with the interview portraying a business that generates a maximum of $7,000 per week,renting three rooms for incalls.
    Last edited by eastender; 03-30-2011 at 07:26 PM. Reason: addition.
    LISA'S FRIEND

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •