413047-Underground-Commercial-Sex-Economy

Table 3.2 Number of Sex Proxy (
) Ratios for Different Choice of Splitting Year (T)
Splitting Year T Number of Ratios
1990 20
1995 21
2000 21
2004 21
2005 32
2006 26
2007 25
2008 21
2009 21
2010 20
In light of the above, we take T = 2005. Having done this, we determine the mean weekly income of pimps
operating pre- and post- 2005 by city. This data is tabulated below.
Table 3.3 Mean Weekly Gross Cash Intake per Pimp
City Pre-2005 cases Pre-2005 Post-2005 cases Post-2005
Atlanta 4 $25,875 9 $32,833
Dallas 4 $11,625 6 $12,025
Denver 3 $39,333 5 $31,200
Kansas City 1 $50,000 2 $5,000
Miami 7 $21,929 11 $17,741
San Diego 4 $16,500 7 $11,129
Seattle 2 $6,750 4 $18,000
DC 5 $16,700 4 $11,588
Now, analyzing the survey corpus further, we consider the set of years in which pre-2005 pimps operated,
and the set of years in which post-2005 pimps operated. These two sets are clustered near 2003 and
2007, respectively. Accordingly, we take and put and .
B. On the Insufficiency of Pimp Income Data from Kansas City
As is explained below, our estimates of the relative size of the sex economy in each city is based on the
decisions of UCSE participants (both pimps and sex workers) to travel to each city. Inter-city travel is
quite common among our sample, with 63 percent traveling to at least one other city, and 24 percent
working in multiple cities within our sample. Because of the prevalence of this activity, we believe there is
much information to be gleaned from travel decisions.
Unfortunately, none of the UCSE participants in our sample travelled to Kansas City. Thus, our method
cannot estimate the relative size of Kansas City, and this city must be dropped from estimation. Having
dropped (Kansas City) from the analysis, we shall hereafter consider only seven ( ) cities, each in
two ( time intervals and , selected based on the analysis presented.
30