Yes. Try booking a girl in Richmond after 12pm. Won't happen. I'm not talking about the place being aesthetically or economically shitty. I'm talking about the fact that WGs in London make a fuckload of money as they can fritter between hotels quite literally 24/7 if they so wish. Not possible in suburbia.
And in Richmond where I just demonstrated a popular WG can make £3k per week or £150k pa, you are now saying that's peanuts compared to the WGs in London who make a "fuckload" of money. Just so we've got that clear?
No U-turn. This is thread about AW girls - who also happen to work the central London hotel circuit. My stomping ground and the topic on which virtually all of my posts on this forum refer to.
And thereby make - according to you a "fuckload" more than £3k per week right?
It's not a London thread - it's a thread about earnings - the majority of which are made in ZONE 1 ... central London.
Yup got that now - zone 1 earnings - a "fuckload" more than £3k per week right?
They commute in because there are slim pickings in the suburbs. No-one wrote that all the AW girls are living in poverty.
Now are you sure about that West? Because it kinda seemed like - just taking say the opening statement of your OP - that that is EXACTLY what you are saying.
Apparently some of the better know AW girls are living in penury. Either that or they're snorting it up their hooters.
Sorry do you know know what "penury" means? Because maybe it does not mean what you think it means. Penury West means not just poverty but I would say "extreme poverty".
Are you going to now deny that was your opening statement you lying U-turning snake??
This is a thread about whether the economics stack up. They clearly do .. but not to the degree many would assume. Myself included.
Particularly given the costs of commuting and the hotels. Most WGs factor in 35% of the daily 'take' on expenses. Factor in cancellations and the truth is sometimes 50% of a daily take.
...they do the London circuit because it's their bread and butter. You again missed the point: it's profitable, but not the pot of gold that is often assumed.
And thereby proving yourself wrong once again. If a WG can make £3k from the "slim pickings" in the "shitty suburbs" and by your estimation they earn a "fuckload" in zone 1 - I think we'd all agree it's likely more than double given the gold-paved streets of zone 1. So even if they lose 35% on expenses, they are still much better off.
Given the inconvenience of travelling etc I think we can all assume that they must AT LEAST be making an extra £1k per week AFTER expenses to make it worth their while. Otherwise why would they do it?
So let's just summarise - that would put a "popular" central London / zone 1 WG as earning something like £4k MINIMUM AFTER expenses which is equivalent to £200k per annum.
Now, in what part of Narnia does an equivalent salary to £200k per annum equate to penury?
Oh, hang on - you don't think they make £200k do you - again from your OP:
£50K gross is a figure I have often heard bandied about as being 'barely enough to survive on'. Take off all the usual girlie expenses + travel + hotels and the net figure is a akin to an average London salary.
So you think they make £50k gross in zone 1? Which indeed might be "barely enough to survive on" for someone living in zone 1. But as we've proven in this thread, a zone 1 WG would HAVE to be making more like £200k to make it worth their while bothering, otherwise they'd stick to the "shitty suburbs" where they can make £150k pa and have nothing like the expenses to worry about. Correct?
So to summarise - you have no clue what real WG's earn, because you are dumb as a brick and have just wasted pages to demonstrate that fact comprehensively.
Thank you for the demonstration West - for future reference you have nothing to prove - we all know you are dumb as a brick as well as being a total prick.
Now fuck back off to Narnia you moron.