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

[Anonymous]

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?

Footnote: "Economically unattractive men, however, couldn't care less, are leading happier lives than their married, economically attractive counterparts, and are having regular sex."

[Anonymous]

This is an area that sociologists and economists have been studying for decades.

See this 1985 Washington Post article: The Men Aren't There To Marry (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/05/08/the-men-arent-there-to-marry/480cfbc7-3ff2-46f8-8a5f-54d4bf18100d/)

And here's a nice 2015 overview: Is there a shortage of marriageable men? (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/09/22/is-there-a-shortage-of-marriageable-men/)

[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?

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

You mean women want to become successful entrepreneurs who make their own money and live life on their own terms? Sounds about right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Marriage just isn’t beneficial to most women in general. If we have to be the primary earner too, yeah, that’s even less appealing. Because studies also show that women are happier and healthier single, but men are happier and healthier married.

+1. Historically women married for economic security and because it wasn't culturally acceptable to have sex/kids outside marriage. If the man earns less and could divorce you down the road anyway, there's little upside.

The rational reaction would be for marriage-minded men to try to excel in the domestic sphere in order to attract/keep a breadwinner.

[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?

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.

Men do it all the time. Why not? If you meet somebody you love?

Female here who has NEVER thought of it this way, but now realize I should have. However, the man-child + childbearing thing still holds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an area that sociologists and economists have been studying for decades.

See this 1985 Washington Post article: The Men Aren't There To Marry (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/05/08/the-men-arent-there-to-marry/480cfbc7-3ff2-46f8-8a5f-54d4bf18100d/)

And here's a nice 2015 overview: Is there a shortage of marriageable men? (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/09/22/is-there-a-shortage-of-marriageable-men/)

Yeah, but in 1985 we didn’t have DCum to extol why men suck!

[Anonymous]

Decline of unions and increase in the gig economy. Outside of the white-collar world, it’s not particularly easy for a guy to make enough money to support a family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: 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.

Ok, I am going to give you a very practical response which will probably cause an uproar.

It is much easier to raise kids in a two-parent household, unless you have one of your own parents who is willing to effectively form a family with you. Childcare prior to age of 5 is comparable in cost to college; 100K is great for single living in the greater DC area, but once you throw in 20K of childcare expenses post-tax, it becomes less attractive. Competent SAHD is quite a find, especially if you are talking 2+ kids (20K x 2 + tax = 70K salary, plus whatever he may offer with DYI projects and basic cooking).

Your biggest challenge will be making sure his IQ is high enough to produce smart children, since IQ is largely heritable. I would strongly consider men who majored in humanities in a strong college, but just never quite got it together for a high-power job for some reason. In other words, compromise on how much he earns, but not how smart he is. My friend married a librarian with spectacular results; brilliant children, and she is fulfilled at work.

After kids start attending public schools, your SAHD can find little jobs here and there, and then maybe even start full time somewhere. Don't count on any of it, just look at his earnings as a bonus and put them straight into the savings account since he may have a job today and lose it tomorrow.

"real politik" of modern upside-down marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Men do it all the time. Why not? If you meet somebody you love?

Female here who has NEVER thought of it this way, but now realize I should have. However, the man-child + childbearing thing still holds.

The men who have historically married a woman with no income/assets/earning potential did so with the expectation they'd get some amalgam of a domestic servant out of the deal: definitely all childcare, likely most if not all cooking and cleaning. Women who marry "down" economically cannot expect the same. It's not the same calculus.

[Anonymous]

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?

Don’t marry a guy who makes less than what you want. But what makes you think you _can_ outcompete all the other women and land a guy who does make at least that much? Movies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is there has always been a shortage, but now women don’t need to rely on a man to survive. Easier to work than be married to a loser.

A working person (who is WORKING) and earning 40,000 is NOT a loser. You have problems on so many levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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.

Ok, I am going to give you a very practical response which will probably cause an uproar.

It is much easier to raise kids in a two-parent household, unless you have one of your own parents who is willing to effectively form a family with you. Childcare prior to age of 5 is comparable in cost to college; 100K is great for single living in the greater DC area, but once you throw in 20K of childcare expenses post-tax, it becomes less attractive. Competent SAHD is quite a find, especially if you are talking 2+ kids (20K x 2 + tax = 70K salary, plus whatever he may offer with DYI projects and basic cooking).

Your biggest challenge will be making sure his IQ is high enough to produce smart children, since IQ is largely heritable. I would strongly consider men who majored in humanities in a strong college, but just never quite got it together for a high-power job for some reason. In other words, compromise on how much he earns, but not how smart he is. My friend married a librarian with spectacular results; brilliant children, and she is fulfilled at work.

After kids start attending public schools, your SAHD can find little jobs here and there, and then maybe even start full time somewhere. Don't count on any of it, just look at his earnings as a bonus and put them straight into the savings account since he may have a job today and lose it tomorrow.

"real politik" of modern upside-down marriage.

This advice would be great if there were any basis for the idea that economically unattractive men have the wherewithal or desire to be competent SAHDs.

[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?

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 curious, what was your parent's marriage like? I wanted a companion, someone to grow old with and share my life with, someone who I could not imagine existing without, I wanted what I witnessed as I grew up. To me, that was part of the package I wanted as an adult, old fashioned yes, but that was my dream to have something very comparable to my parent's relationship. I know others will answer to this what a shit show their own parent's relationships were, but that is not my or many others reality. What good is my success if I have no one to share it with at the end of the day? For what it's worth, my husband is a plumber and earns a six figure salary, I'm in the "executive" world of real estate. We work together, he was just that person for me and I for he. Have I elevated him a bit, yes, he reads books he otherwise would not have read and attends concerts/plays he had no interest in before "us." As for me, he has expanded my world too with me going outside my comfort zones on too many levels to count. I couldn't imagine life without his voice or his smile at the end of the day.

I'm genuinely curious.

[Anonymous]

I don’t know any women who would be interested in an economically unattractive male except for economically unattractive females. Women generally like to pair up with people in a similar position or better.

[Anonymous]

Just from my own experience and on message boards there are plenty of women complaining how their male partners won’t step up in the home or watch children. Even the SAHDs are lazy. Unless men become true partners at home and take on responsibilities a SAHW would it is likely the working female breadwinner will find herself in an impossible situation. I agree little incentive for a working woman who earns well to get married, if she really wants children she can get a child by choice and raise it alone with a nanny and it will be way better than dealing with a man child.