Thread by @alexflevy

Ladies and gentlemen, a parable.

Imagine lawmakers decide that women would be better off if they didn't work more than 20 hrs/ week. They'd be happier at home (even if they can't or won't admit it); they hate their jobs; women's independence destabilizes the family, whatever. 1/

So now it's a crime to employ a woman for more than 20 hrs/ week, and, if you're a woman, it's illegal to work more than that. (This particular law would obviously be unconstitutional; not the point.) But then someone comes along and says, Wait a minute! 2/

Our goal was to make women better off by causing them to work less, but some are still working too much AND facing criminal charges to boot. We need to focus enforcement efforts on the employers, who are inducing these women ("these women") to work too much. 3/

(In this hypothetical, all employers are, naturally, men.) So now law enforcement stops arresting women and doubles down on employers instead. It becomes much riskier to hire women for more than 20 hrs, so, of course, fewer people do so. But some women *need* to work more than 4/

20 hrs/ week, and are willing, by necessity, to take a pay cut that offsets the increased risk to the employer. Of course, law-abiding employers would rather hire men. But employers who are willing to risk arrest (i.e. shady ones) will be able to hire women at very low prices. 5/

Specifically, they'll be able to overwork and underpay women who are most desperate for income.

Will this law reduce the number of women who work more than 20 hrs/ week? Yes, obviously; there just aren't as many full time jobs available, so women with other resources 6/

(family money, partners, etc) will cut back their hours, as will women who earn enough to live working part time. But crucially, the law does nothing to offset the lost revenue for women who actually need to work more than 20 hrs/ week to survive. 7/

Here's the thing: eliminating the option to work more hours doesn't actually make it possible to survive on fewer.

Why am I talking about this nonexistent law? Because it illustrates the absurdity of the Nordic/ "end demand" model, espoused by @KamalaHarris among many, many 8/

others (sometimes billed as "decriminalization" - not the same). Its basic premise - that sex workers benefit from laws that make it harder to hire them - only makes sense in a universe where reducing people's options (without offset) can also increase them. 9/

It's completely incoherent from the standpoint of economic theory, and, as sex workers will tell you, brutal in practice. #endenddemand #enddemand #sexworkiswork 10/10