Shortage of "economically attractive" men reason for marriage decline according to new study

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/09/09/marriage-rate-study-economically-unattractive-mxp-vpx.hln


This story discusses a Cornell study that says the reason that US marriage rates are at an all time low is because there is a shortage of economically attractive men. They are labeling economically unattractive as lacking a bachelors degree or making less than $40,000 a year. Apparently women are reluctant to "marry down" so are remaining single instead. Assuming this study is valid, why do you think there is such a shortage of men who are "economically attractive" to women?

This was very true as an AA woman when I was in my 20s. I and many other AA women I knew were college educated by our mid-20s and reluctant to be what my great-aunt called “unevenly yoked” to a man who did not yet have the ability to help build a MC lifestyle. I’m happy to see that attitude seems to have vanished among the AA Millennials I know. I think young AA woman who want to marry are following the example of Michelle Obama and selecting a man with potential that they can help reach a higher level. There are so many diamonds in the rough. It took a bad marriage to a man who ticked all the boxes to teach me that happiness isn’t the house, cars, and vacations —they can be just a special type of hell. If I’d meet my second DH when he was a twenty-something country boy enlisted in the Marines, I would have never seriously considered marrying him. Today, he is my soulmate.

Wait, what?

When Michele met Barack he was a big law lawyer. They were a power couple from date one.

I understand she later put her career on hold to support him, but let’s not pretend she saw untapped potential in an unemployed man. When they met he was bringing home a big paycheck - just like she was.

In addition to having gone to Harvard Law. Not my definition of a "diamond in the rough."

Raise in Hawaii by his white mother's parents.
Went to private K-12 school
COlumbia U for ugrad
Harvard Law
Then shows up in Chicago for a Big Law internship.

That's a ton of pedigree, for any race person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man here, this is a real issue. I have lots of single, reasonably attractive single female friends who are stable and financially somewhat successful. They ask me if I have any single friends I can set them up with and the answer is no. None. I literally do not know one man who is still single in his mid-30s on who I consider eligible. I do know some divorced dads but even those ones that have their act together have zero problems finding a date.

Someone said it best upthread: Men are still prized for their money and women for their looks. If a woman makes a good salary, than the man she prizes has to be at least equal if not financially better. There aren't that many men statistically who earn good paychecks and the ones that do are married, the ones who are still single in their 30s totally run the dating scene.

Note that everyone in my neighborhood who paired off did so by mostly meeting their spouse in college or grad school or immediately after.

If you want to know who your financially successful married handsome husbands are sleeping/cheating with, these are them. They rule the conference scene as single men in their 30s rule the dating market.

And no girl, he is never leaving his wife for you.

Yeah, I'd believe that if this city wasn't a hotbed for second marriages started by affairs.

Ilhan Omar and her lover just being the latest. I believe the lover and spouse have already filed for divorce.

I thought she married her overseas brother to green card him in to the U.S. She was also married to someone else? And then cheated on him (and her brother)? Did the brother green card marriage last the 3 years to get him citizenship?

[Anonymous]

The issue is, that in this area - the person who can't bring in a substantial paycheck USUALLY quits the workforce to take care of the home of the kids.

Not in my zip code. Both parents work, both deal with the kids, both deal with the house. It sounds like you’ve got a cushy deal far above median household income, and you’re still griping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This situation also highlights some of the ADVANTAGES that "power couples" have. Two focused parents, two high-end earners, and two strong social networks provides exponential value to the family. Been around a lot of women who earn north of 500K even after stepping back from their careers for a few years when their kids were young. Their husbands all make more. Its the optimal way to proceed and I can see why younger women are pursuing that path - I did and there are too many examples around to miss the value.

I'd agree and raise you. TWO hands-on parents with whatever income, will always beat out ONE hands-on parent with super high incomes.
And yes, two hands-on, involved parents, both high-earners will win the child-raising game, wealth game, happiness game every time.
So, yeah, guys, outsource everything to your working wife and illiterate paid help so you can focus on office work -- just know that you will never beat the family with two Partners, coaching sports, knowing their kids, having a healthy social life, and killing it at their careers.

[Anonymous]

I love DCUM!

In this thread: “if I materially outearn my husband, he damn well better take care of all domestic duties.”

Every other thread: “I don’t care that my husband makes twice as much; he needs to set boundaries at work and come home and be an equal partner; and no, I won’t move just because his career brings in the lion’s share of household income”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I can say is wow.

When the tables turn it’s all about the money. Well, you gotta give the women credit - they are very clear in the terms of the transaction.

My only regret as a high earning DH is I should have been as clear with my expectations and demands.

I don’t think that’s what we (most of us) are saying. I posted that if you’re not the breadwinner you’d darn well better be an equal partner at home (and if the pay differential is that large, be willing to be the point person with house and kids- stepping back from your work if needed). Nothing more than men expect of women, frankly (if the scenario were reversed). Women just don’t want to be the breadwinner AND do everything at home. Rightly so.

I disagree. Most self-respecting working women don't want a spouse of any income level who dumps every big or small thing on her to handle. You can't pay a nanny or housekeeper to decide what school to send your kid, what travel team to apply for, what camps or vacations to do, what learning disability your kid has, what's breaking in the house and how to fix it, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because some women think they are deserving of a Kardashian existence -- too much reality television.

Unmarried woman here. I make much more than 100K a year, own my home, and have a degree. I'm not at all uncommon in this area.

Why should I marry a guy who makes less than me? Doesn't own a home? And can't provide me a higher standard of living than I can for myself?

Especially considering the childbearing years and work would effectively halve my own income.

I'm genuinely curious.

You're still single, so I would guess you're not pretty enough to attract men who earn more than you. So that's a reason you might marry down.

NP here. I'm 30 and make $250k+ depending on bonus. Men fall all over me constantly. I think I'll probably pick one when I'm 32-34 yrs or so, but why on earth would I want to rush it? I'm having a ton of fun!

And if I don't get married (unlikely if I ultimately decide I want to), I know I'll be 100% fine by myself. There's really no downside. You don't need to take out your projections and massive insecurities on others.

[Anonymous]

The reactions here are a bit isolated. DcUm does not represent the US. A women making $40k will not marry someone making less than her who also can’t help in the house. Most families have to have both parents work full time. No one stays at home to take care of kids unless one spouse makes a lot of money. That is not common in most of the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reactions here are a bit isolated. DcUm does not represent the US. A women making $40k will not marry someone making less than her who also can’t help in the house. Most families have to have both parents work full time. No one stays at home to take care of kids unless one spouse makes a lot of money. That is not common in most of the US.

The article doesn't mention it's only applicable to high COL area. In general, wherever women live, she doesn't want to carry the burden of the majority of house chores and childcare while at the same time being the primary caregiver. How many men would volunteer to do both?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because some women think they are deserving of a Kardashian existence -- too much reality television.

Unmarried woman here. I make much more than 100K a year, own my home, and have a degree. I'm not at all uncommon in this area.

Why should I marry a guy who makes less than me? Doesn't own a home? And can't provide me a higher standard of living than I can for myself?

Especially considering the childbearing years and work would effectively halve my own income.

I'm genuinely curious.

You're still single, so I would guess you're not pretty enough to attract men who earn more than you. So that's a reason you might marry down.

NP here. I'm 30 and make $250k+ depending on bonus. Men fall all over me constantly. I think I'll probably pick one when I'm 32-34 yrs or so, but why on earth would I want to rush it? I'm having a ton of fun!

And if I don't get married (unlikely if I ultimately decide I want to), I know I'll be 100% fine by myself. There's really no downside. You don't need to take out your projections and massive insecurities on others.

Guy here - I’m in the same boat as you age and income wise. I’m sure I’d be fine by myself but I don’t like cats. I like the idea of having a family even if it disrupts my now very nice life. I’m glad men fall all over you - it must be the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/09/09/marriage-rate-study-economically-unattractive-mxp-vpx.hln


This story discusses a Cornell study that says the reason that US marriage rates are at an all time low is because there is a shortage of economically attractive men. They are labeling economically unattractive as lacking a bachelors degree or making less than $40,000 a year. Apparently women are reluctant to "marry down" so are remaining single instead. Assuming this study is valid, why do you think there is such a shortage of men who are "economically attractive" to women?

This was very true as an AA woman when I was in my 20s. I and many other AA women I knew were college educated by our mid-20s and reluctant to be what my great-aunt called “unevenly yoked” to a man who did not yet have the ability to help build a MC lifestyle. I’m happy to see that attitude seems to have vanished among the AA Millennials I know. I think young AA woman who want to marry are following the example of Michelle Obama and selecting a man with potential that they can help reach a higher level. There are so many diamonds in the rough. It took a bad marriage to a man who ticked all the boxes to teach me that happiness isn’t the house, cars, and vacations —they can be just a special type of hell. If I’d meet my second DH when he was a twenty-something country boy enlisted in the Marines, I would have never seriously considered marrying him. Today, he is my soulmate.

Obama had a bachelor's degree from Columbia University and was getting a law degree from University of Chicago. You consider this an example of a "diamond in the rough" or marrying down?

[Anonymous]

Face it. Most males are INCAPABLE of putting others' needs before their own. Before their own job status, ego, image, eating, sleeping, reading their iPhone. Totally incapable of putting a kid's needs before themselves. And before a wife's? Forgetaboutit. Maybe the close 2nd is their Mommy, who brainwashed him. But distant 3rd is CARING for their kids, home and spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because some women think they are deserving of a Kardashian existence -- too much reality television.

Unmarried woman here. I make much more than 100K a year, own my home, and have a degree. I'm not at all uncommon in this area.

Why should I marry a guy who makes less than me? Doesn't own a home? And can't provide me a higher standard of living than I can for myself?

Especially considering the childbearing years and work would effectively halve my own income.

I'm genuinely curious.

You're still single, so I would guess you're not pretty enough to attract men who earn more than you. So that's a reason you might marry down.

NP here. I'm 30 and make $250k+ depending on bonus. Men fall all over me constantly. I think I'll probably pick one when I'm 32-34 yrs or so, but why on earth would I want to rush it? I'm having a ton of fun!

And if I don't get married (unlikely if I ultimately decide I want to), I know I'll be 100% fine by myself. There's really no downside. You don't need to take out your projections and massive insecurities on others.

Woman here. I wish I had been as smart as you when I was your age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This situation also highlights some of the ADVANTAGES that "power couples" have. Two focused parents, two high-end earners, and two strong social networks provides exponential value to the family. Been around a lot of women who earn north of 500K even after stepping back from their careers for a few years when their kids were young. Their husbands all make more. Its the optimal way to proceed and I can see why younger women are pursuing that path - I did and there are too many examples around to miss the value.

I'd agree and raise you. TWO hands-on parents with whatever income, will always beat out ONE hands-on parent with super high incomes.
And yes, two hands-on, involved parents, both high-earners will win the child-raising game, wealth game, happiness game every time.
So, yeah, guys, outsource everything to your working wife and illiterate paid help so you can focus on office work -- just know that you will never beat the family with two Partners, coaching sports, knowing their kids, having a healthy social life, and killing it at their careers.

Is “beating” other families really what your life boils down to? Sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/09/09/marriage-rate-study-economically-unattractive-mxp-vpx.hln


This story discusses a Cornell study that says the reason that US marriage rates are at an all time low is because there is a shortage of economically attractive men. They are labeling economically unattractive as lacking a bachelors degree or making less than $40,000 a year. Apparently women are reluctant to "marry down" so are remaining single instead. Assuming this study is valid, why do you think there is such a shortage of men who are "economically attractive" to women?

This was very true as an AA woman when I was in my 20s. I and many other AA women I knew were college educated by our mid-20s and reluctant to be what my great-aunt called “unevenly yoked” to a man who did not yet have the ability to help build a MC lifestyle. I’m happy to see that attitude seems to have vanished among the AA Millennials I know. I think young AA woman who want to marry are following the example of Michelle Obama and selecting a man with potential that they can help reach a higher level. There are so many diamonds in the rough. It took a bad marriage to a man who ticked all the boxes to teach me that happiness isn’t the house, cars, and vacations —they can be just a special type of hell. If I’d meet my second DH when he was a twenty-something country boy enlisted in the Marines, I would have never seriously considered marrying him. Today, he is my soulmate.

Wait, what?

When Michele met Barack he was a big law lawyer. They were a power couple from date one.

I understand she later put her career on hold to support him, but let’s not pretend she saw untapped potential in an unemployed man. When they met he was bringing home a big paycheck - just like she was.

When they met, she was far in advance of him. In fact, she was his mentor while he completed a summer program at the firm.