Post: #1

I don't know if this has been discussed here before but some economists have analyzed the effect of how people choose their spouses on income inequality in society at large.

Quote:Changes in society in choosing a marriage partner contribute to income inequality across households. Professor Dr. Georgi Kocharkov, Junior Professor of Macroeconomics at the University of Konstanz, has established this fact together with researchers from the Universities of Pennsylvania (USA), Barcelona (Spain) and Mannheim (Germany) in the study "Marry your like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality" released by The National Bureau of Economic Research (U.S.A.).

The researchers analyzed the interaction of marriage partner choices and the distribution of income across households. Positive assortative mating, or in other words, the tendency of choosing a partner with the same level of education or income, has increased so significantly over the past five decades in the U.S., that it has a considerable effect on the income distribution. The results of the study will be published in the annual issue of "The American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings."

Analyzing hundreds of thousands of households from the U.S. Census, the researchers show that both the degree of assortative mating based on the education of husbands and wives, and the Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality in a society, rose significantly from 1960 to 2005. Marrying a partner from another social class, which happened more often back in the 1960s, leads to a redistribution of income among households. Today, there are more married households with partners at the same income level, which leads to an increase in inequality.

"The results of our analysis show that if marital matching in the U.S. in 2005 was completely random instead of positively assortative as in the data, household income inequality would be dramatically lower," explains Georgi Kocharkov. One of the reasons for this development is the increased proportion of women in the labour market. "As women are better educated today, more women work, and less women have little or no income, resulting in more equality. However, with women working, married households have two earners instead of one. Thus the increased positive assortative mating pattern of marriages in the 2000s leads to a wider gap between households with two high-wage earners and households with two low-wage earners," says the economist.

The report is available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19829

I haven't read the whole study but here is my preliminary interpretation of the results:

Back in 1960s when women in the West were not as educated and professionally active as today, it was much more common for high-earning men to marry a woman from a lower social caste. The manager wedded the secretary, the doctor espoused the cleaning lady, the floorwalker in steel mill married the farmer's daughter from the countryside. Thus, women marrying up (and their families) could climb the social latter and men, intentionally or not, created more social equality in the grand scheme of things.

As women got better education and better jobs, however, to this day they have not been ready to do the same what men did for them some decades ago. Despite all the talk about fighting gender clichés, even the most ardent feminists who earn well as PR consultants or teachers are not willing to marry a plumber or a construction worker. Nor are they at least willing to marry a man who earns more than her but did not attend college.

Now, the social classes keep increasingly among themselves. White trash marries white trash. Academics marry academics. Effect: Income equality is much worse than it used to be.

Of course, the neoliberal capitalism, deindustrializiation and deregulation we've been facing since the 1970s/80s also are responsible for this mess. But the study provides another interesting angle to look at it.

Feminists are most often progressives, too. Despite their declared will to fight social inequality, a noble cause!, masses of liberal arts majors are not willing to live up to their theories in their private lives and acknowledge the decency of the average working class man.

Post: #2

This is the expected result from what we know of female behavior. Women do their best to avoid marrying down in status or wealth, so of course now that women have more money they will only marry from their own class or above. You see it all the time: Doctors marrying doctors, lawyers marrying lawyers, etc.

The flip side of this is that if rich men are marrying rich women, it leaves less rich men for the poor women, so the poor women stay poor.


I'm undecided about whether or not this is a good change. Sure, there is less chance for poor women to get a free lift, but this also may mean that women feel pressured to attend colleges and get corporate jobs just so they can land a high status man.

Post: #3

Letting women go to University only caused to feel them entitled for more.

But they are not more intelligent, just more choosy. It is just a mirage of their own high status.

Post: #4

The book the bell curve is very much about this topic - increasing stratification by intelligence and class. If you're interested in the subject, read it.

Post: #5

"Career women" are driven by money and security. Why would they marry down and have to share their money with someone that made "bad career decisions" when they can marry up and pull from the excess wealth of their spouse? I don't know a single noble woman that is making good money. All the noble ones are working low paying social worker jobs and are neck deep in student loans.

Post: #6

About the only ways a person can move up significantly in economic class/status quickly is by being an incredibly driven and smart man who makes things happen; or by being an at least somewhat smart and very beautiful woman who attracts a high status man. Just going to university and getting a "good job", as a man or woman, isn't going to propel you that much higher.

As has already been stated a woman doesn't, really CANT, marry down. It would be the equivalent of a reasonably attractive man marrying an extremely obese harridan. It would just make her look ridiculous. Imagine someone like Sheryl Sandberg marrying her poolboy. An affair, sure, but anything more serious would make her the laughing stock of her entire social and business circle. A woman just cant do that. The damage to her status would be catastrophic.

Men can and do marry women bellow their economic/career class. In fact the nature of female attraction pretty much demands this. I think the article is saying that because young people spend so many years at college they are most likely to marry someone from this scene, and therefore people outside of their narrow circles aren't considered. For the women this is a great deal, but the men are a little silly not to consider a bigger pool...

Post: #7

Quote:I'm undecided about whether or not this is a good change. Sure, there is less chance for poor women to get a free lift, but this also may mean that women feel pressured to attend colleges and get corporate jobs just so they can land a high status man.

[My bold above]

Quote:...just more choosy. It is just a mirage of their own high status.

The more women who are at college to bag a high status man, the more warped their definition of high status become.

'High status' men becomes high status relative not just to other men but to themselves and other women, dramatically altering the women's perceptions of marriageability.

Despite what they would like to believe, this is not because they are strong and independent ladies, but because they derive their self-worth and social worth from the status of the man they can attract.

Post: #8

The people who eschew traditionalism in this regard fail to recognize that laws and social rules to keep women out of business/education used to collectively help men out.

Of course you can criticize men for 'unfairly' receiving social benefits to the detriment of the female hamster, but if those 'unfair' rules lead to things like infighting, low trust, disintegration, and inequality, is women's choosiness more important than that?

Post: #9

Imagine if you had the ability to wave a wand and make women the same height on average as men - yet women would retain their preferences for a male mate several inches taller than themselves. What would result?

Mass numbers of women would be unable to secure a man demonstrably taller than themselves, and it would lead to much female anguish. That is exactly what has happened, except with money and education, not height. Until they relinquish their desire for a superior man, they will be disappointed. And they show no signs of ever relinquishing that desire.

Post: #10

(04-03-2014 11:17 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  For the women this is a great deal, but the men are a little silly not to consider a bigger pool...

You would think that high status men would go find a younger babe, but often when you talk to men in big corporate jobs, you understand:

- Most of them work insane hours (80+ per week)
- Most of them think they are too old for younger girls
- Most of them are huge betas, deep down inside, which is why they wanted to get a high paying job in order to attract a female in the first place.

It really is the great irony of our age - the more money you have, the less likely you'll have the time to use it.

Quote:The more women who are at college to bag a high status man, the more warped their definition of high status become.

'High status' men becomes high status relative not just to other men but to themselves and other women, dramatically altering the women's perceptions of marriageability.

Despite what they would like to believe, this is not because they are strong and independent ladies, but because they derive their self-worth and social worth from the status of the man they can attract.

I agree on all three paragraphs.

For certain, status is all an illusion. What is considered high status today probably isn't going to be considered high status in 300 years from now. That said, women aren't concerned with the truth or the future, so whatever is powerful in the present is all they care about.

And women are obsessed with "being strong" because that means in their minds they are eligible for the stronger men.

Post: #11

(04-03-2014 11:31 AM)DonRoberto Wrote:  ...
Despite what they would like to believe, this is not because they are strong and independent ladies, but because they derive their self-worth and social worth from the status of the man they can attract.
...

I'm afraid this just is the way it is. While you may not agree that it is a "feature", it is not a "bug" either. It just is the way women are. While to feminists the point I'll make bellow may be the most sexist thing written on this site, here goes anyway:

The only point in life at which a woman has a clear idea of her value is on her wedding day, looking across the isle at the man she is marrying. In his person she finds a perfect reflection of her value at that point in time. A woman can't asses her value by her money, career or especially the men she sleeps with, but does not have a LTR with. The reasons for this are biological (eggs very big and small in number, sperm very small and very, very large in number) and not subject to change because feminists don't like it or guys in the manosphere want to believe they can entirely throw away status as an attraction mechanism.

To those complaining that women asses their self-worth by the men they are with, what changes do you propose? even if it were possible to do away with the biological imperative (IMO it isn't), what other candidates for assessing their self worth do you propose? Other than motherhood, which is really an extension of her relationship to the father of the children, the other options will be the usual feminist boilerplate: Career, money etc. Hardly the things we promote around here.

Post: #12

(04-03-2014 12:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 11:17 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  For the women this is a great deal, but the men are a little silly not to consider a bigger pool...

You would think that high status men would go find a younger babe, but often when you talk to men in big corporate jobs, you understand:

- Most of them work insane hours (80+ per week)
- Most of them think they are too old for younger girls
- Most of them are huge betas, deep down inside, which is why they wanted to get a high paying job in order to attract a female in the first place.

It really is the great irony of our age - the more money you have, the less likely you'll have the time to use it.

I know quite a few middle aged corporate "big-shots", but most of them married younger when they were not such big-shots, and most are still married to the same women. So they're cool. But an unmarried or divorced man of high status needs to expand his sights. What's going to happen to him if he hooks up with a hot girl who is younger than him? A lot of older women will dislike it due to jealousy/insecurity issues, and maybe some guys will be jealous as well, but this kind of social "stigma" is not the same for men as for women. Men can easily roll with it and use it as a badge of honour. Women are in a far more precarious state. They find it much more difficult to go against the tribe.

There's not really much to say about your hypothetical corporate guy above. He gets what he puts in, like everyone else. If he is satisfied with the women he gets he must just carry on.

Post: #13

(04-03-2014 12:54 PM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 12:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 11:17 AM)Bad Hussar Wrote:  For the women this is a great deal, but the men are a little silly not to consider a bigger pool...

You would think that high status men would go find a younger babe, but often when you talk to men in big corporate jobs, you understand:

- Most of them work insane hours (80+ per week)
- Most of them think they are too old for younger girls
- Most of them are huge betas, deep down inside, which is why they wanted to get a high paying job in order to attract a female in the first place.

It really is the great irony of our age - the more money you have, the less likely you'll have the time to use it.

I know quite a few middle aged corporate "big-shots", but most of them married younger when they were not such big-shots, and most are still married to the same women.

Yes, this is certainly true as well. Usually married men feel they have their sex lives taken care of, so they just focus on their career's exclusively instead.

Post: #14

Actually, married men tend to beextremely sexually frustrated, this frustration is what drives them to keep grinding.

Post: #15

The study is right as Chateau Heartiste has shown: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/01/2...nal-pride/

Men are much more magnanimous and altruistic in a sense than women, who are solipsistic-selfish, in our mating strategies.

Men created civilization, period.

Post: #16

(04-03-2014 07:36 PM)Anthony A. King Wrote:  The study is right as Chateau Heartiste has shown: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/01/2...nal-pride/

Men are much more magnanimous and altruistic in a sense than women, who are solipsistic-selfish, in our mating strategies.

Men created civilization, period.

And American women today take man's altruism for granted.