Comments by "Sammy B" (@sammyb1651) on "Why successful men use escorts: what the rich and the beautiful have in common" video.

The "lawyers hourly rate" thing is a silly red herring. That metric only applies when you're at work doing billable activities. It doesn't (for instance) apply when you're sat on your ass at home/going to the gym/going on a date. You don't earn $1300 per hour sat on your ass at home. Indeed part of the time you're actually at work you're not even doing billable activities. So we can dispense with that nonsense. What IS important is how busy you are relative to the free time you're left with. That's the only thing that really matters when calculating the economics of it. If you figure you work too hard to waste precious free time with conventional dating (and you can afford to pay to play) then that's your entire equation laid out. It doesn't come with an hourly-rate metric unless it directly reduces your productivity/billable hours at work. And even then that's probably only if you're self employed rather than salaried.
28
It only (actually) costs you that in dollar terms if you lose 4hrs of billable work because of it. Otherwise it doesn't. I'm not saying you're wrong to be critical of dating, I'm just saying Dr Taraban's costings are nonsense. The lawyer example he uses, is flawed in two ways; 1. For the reason I explained above. 2. $1300 per hour isn't what they're paid in any event. It's the rate their employer charges them out at.
11
Fair comment.
5
@Erik_369 Yes I get all that. My point is simply that you don't get to value your time outside of work at the same dollar rate as your time spent at work. No employer is paying you $1300 per hour to take a dump at home for instance. It's all a bit of a nonsense anyway because $1300 per hour isn't what the lawyer in the scenario is actually being paid. It's the rate at which his employer hires him out. The two figures are completely different.
4
Correct. The "lawyers hourly rate" thing is a silly red herring. That metric only applies when you're at work doing billable activities. It doesn't (for instance) apply when you're sat on your ass at home/going to the gym/going on a date. You don't earn $1300 per hour sat on your ass at home. Indeed part of the time you're actually at work you're not even doing billable activities. What IS important is how busy you are relative to the free time you're left with. That's the only thing that really matters when calculating the economics of it. If you figure you work too hard to waste precious free time with conventional dating (and you can afford to pay to play) then that's your entire equation laid out. It doesn't come with an hourly-rate metric unless it directly reduces your productivity/billable hours at work. And even then that's probably only if you're self employed rather than salaried.
2
@crazymonkeyVII Completely agree and I've actually made a similar remark under another comment to the video.
2
It's not what they're paid. It's the rate their employer charges them out at.
2
@RH-td7vc Nicely formulated.
2
I think he was clear on where the bulk of the work lies and which gender has the greater burden.
2
@jth_printed_designs In short: diminishing returns.
1
@anonanon7553 Yeah I know. Some work can't be billed. A lot of work isn't done but is billed anyway (ie the firm just pretends its been done and claims it fraudulently). Other work is carried out on a flat fee basis and so the hourly rate becomes immaterial. The whole point though is that the $1300 headline figure isn't what the lawyer actually earns as take-home pay. It's an horrendously naive misreading of remuneration packages. The $1300 figure is what the employer hires the lawyer out to the client for. But clearly the employer has all sorts of overheads/tax to pay. And EVEN THEN...you still don't use the $1300 figure as a metric for valuing your time outside of work/on dates/sat on the toilet etc. An employer can't bill a client $1300 per hour for you to take random women out on dates. It's a seductive idea for the more ego driven, but in reality it has zero value to a client.
1
@anonanon7553 Yeah I know. Some work can't be billed. A lot of work isn't done but is billed anyway (ie the firm just pretends its been done and claims it fraudulently). Other work is carried out on a flat fee basis and so the hourly rate becomes immaterial. The whole point though is that the $1300 headline figure isn't what the lawyer actually earns as take-home pay. It's an horrendously naive misreading of remuneration packages. The $1300 figure is what the employer hires the lawyer out to the client for. But clearly the employer has all sorts of overheads/tax to pay. And EVEN THEN...you still don't use the $1300 figure as a metric for valuing your time outside of work/on dates/sat on the toilet etc. An employer can't bill a client $1300 per hour for you to take random women out on dates. It's a seductive idea for the more ego driven, but in reality it has zero value to a client.
1
@anonanon7553 Yeah I know. Some work can't be billed. A lot of work isn't done but is billed anyway (ie the firm just pretends its been done and claims it fraudulently). Other work is carried out on a flat fee basis and so the hourly rate becomes immaterial. The whole point though is that the $1300 headline figure isn't what the lawyer actually earns as take-home pay. It's an horrendously naive misreading of remuneration packages. The $1300 figure is what the employer hires the lawyer out to the client for. But clearly the employer has all sorts of overheads/tax to pay. And EVEN THEN...you still don't use the $1300 figure as a metric for valuing your time outside of work/on dates/sat on the toilet etc. An employer can't bill a client $1300 per hour for you to take random women out on dates. It's a seductive idea for the more ego driven, but in reality it has zero value to a client.
1
@anonanon7553 Yeah I know. Some work can't be billed. A lot of work isn't done but is billed anyway (ie the firm just pretends its been done and claims it fraudulently). Other work is carried out on a flat fee basis and so the hourly rate becomes immaterial. The whole point though is that the 1.3K headline figure isn't what the lawyer actually earns as take-home pay. It's an horrendously naive misreading of remuneration packages. The 1.3K figure is what the employer hires the lawyer out to the client for. But clearly the employer has all sorts of overheads/tax to pay. And EVEN THEN...you still don't use the 1.3K figure as a metric for valuing your time outside of work/going on dates/sat on the toilet etc. An employer can't bill a client 1.3K per hour for you to take random women out on dates. It's a seductive idea for the more ego driven, but in reality it has zero value to a client.
1
@bearclaw5115 Well if it's literally encroaching on work time and he loses an amount of money commensurate with the time lost then his hourly rate is literally what it's costing him. At least in terms of a loss of opportunity to earn. I already made that clear though.
1
@JohnBoy234 No idea really. To the extent they're both "knowledge economy" jobs it might be in the same ballpark. Their overheads will principally be the same thing (high commercial rents, recruitment costs, professional/regulatory compliance etc). Investment banking is more gambling however so I don't know how much they have to set aside to capitalise themselves against trading losses. Possibly nothing given that they rely on the taxpayer to bail them out.
1
@chica212 There are different types of partner. Equity partner/salary partner. In any event, it doesn't follow that if your firm charges you out at $1300 per hour you will take home more than that just because you're a partner. It depends on all sorts of variables; not least the profitability of the law firm overall and your equity share/salary package. It was a silly analogy to begin with for several reasons. It's just defective thinking to suppose your time away from work is "worth' the same as your time at work, in terms of a dollar amount.
1
@JohnBoy234 I couldn't say definitively. In as far as they're both part of the knowledge economy however then I suppose it could be in the same ballpark. Their overheads will be similar (big corporate rents, recruitment, professional and regulatory compliance). Investment banking has a large gambling element to it however. I don't know to what extent banks are required to capitalise to guard against trading losses. (Possibly not at all given that it's the taxpayer that typically bails them out).
1
@JohnBoy234 I couldn't say definitively. In as far as they're both part of the knowledge economy however then I suppose it could be in the same ballpark. Their overheads will be similar (big corporate rents, recruitment, professional and regulatory compliance). Investment banking has a large gambling element to it however. I don't know to what extent banks are required to capitalise to guard against trading losses. (Possibly not at all given that it's the taxpayer that typically bails them out).
1
@JohnBoy234 I couldn't say definitively. In as far as they're both part of the knowledge economy however then I suppose it could be in the same ballpark. Their overheads will be similar (big corporate rents, recruitment, professional and regulatory compliance). Investment banking has a large chance element to it however. I don't know to what extent banks are required to capitalise to guard against trading losses. (Possibly not at all given that it's the taxpayer that typically bails them out).
1
@chica212 It's all speculation of course. By your math: $1300 per hr x 8hrs day x 5 days wk x 52 wks yr = $2,7000,000. While that's entirely possible, on balance its unlikely. Hence my comment.
1
@JohnBoy234 I couldn't say definitively. In as far as they're both part of the knowledge economy however then I suppose it could be in the same ballpark. Their overheads will be similar (big commercial rents, software, recruitment, professional and regulatory compliance).
1
@chica212 Yeah I know. I'm just pointing out that you were in error given that you simultaneously claimed the $1300 hourly figure was likely too low. The two figures didn't equate.
1
@JohnBoy234 I couldn't say definitively. In as far as they're both part of the knowledge economy however then I suppose it could be in the same ballpark. Their overheads will be similar (expensive office leases, recruitment, professional and regulatory compliance). Investment banking has a large gambling element to it however. I don't know to what extent banks are required to capitalise to guard against trading losses. (Possibly not at all given that it's the taxpayer that typically bails them out).
1