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

[Anonymous]

And if the guy is rich enough that he can fund his wife’s side job (a socially responsible business or a small start up) so they can be a power couple that’s even more prestigious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, this results in both ambitious, careerist women and low status men having a lower fertility rate.

Well maybe for the ambitious careerist women. They are actually low status for the men with money. Why would you want to marry/date some one who is busy working for a living?

Hey let’s go to LA for the weekend

...oh I can’t have work.

Hey got a business meeting in London. Why don’t you come out with me on Wednesday. You can shop on Friday and we can have a great weekend?

...oh I can’t no vacation days!

Hey just closed that big deal! We are going to paint this town red!

...oh I can’t have work.

I guess you basically want someone who is going to cater to your schedule instead of you compromising with their schedule.

Some men on here can scream this to the heavens and it is of course true for some, but the data is in; we are primarily engaged in assortative dating and marriage at this point in time. The men with money, are not marrying the, "I can drop everything on a whim because I have little going on" fill-in-the-blank low paying, low commitment job woman. This was partially true at some point, but it is NOT now. As younger and younger people are entering into marriage, this is being solidified. I am mid 30's and I know very few, if any, couples where the man has the expectation that they would be with someone who could drop everything on a dime to go along for a business trip just for fun, nor do most of them look for this all-availability in the dating process. Even if you end up with a SAHM, if you're a top guy, you aim to "put your wife out of work" as my Wall Street friends say. That means her 500k salary is such a pittance it's not worth it anymore. But, big BUT, you both probably had big careers at some point. And yeah, she couldn't always call in "rich boyfriend" at every opportunity.

That’s very nice but you obviously do not run in the circles of the “top men” or even the next level down.

Unlike you perhaps, I am not relying on anecdotes and personal experience alone. This is established fact. Class mobility is at an all time low and the days of rich, wealthy men marrying a hairdresser or waitress are pretty much over. Obviously it does happen, but it is not the norm. It's happening at the very top and down into the UMC and MC. Go a few levels down and bring it to a anecdotal level. How many men do you have in your circle who have postgraduate degrees and successful careers who are married to women without college degrees? Big fat zero for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if the guy is rich enough that he can fund his wife’s side job (a socially responsible business or a small start up) so they can be a power couple that’s even more prestigious.

Yep. Until the side business losses too much money then it is shut down. She is in her mid to late fifties by this time and can now focus on the retirement home and grandchildren.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ironically, this results in both ambitious, careerist women and low status men having a lower fertility rate.

Well maybe for the ambitious careerist women. They are actually low status for the men with money. Why would you want to marry/date some one who is busy working for a living?

Hey let’s go to LA for the weekend

...oh I can’t have work.

Hey got a business meeting in London. Why don’t you come out with me on Wednesday. You can shop on Friday and we can have a great weekend?

...oh I can’t no vacation days!

Hey just closed that big deal! We are going to paint this town red!

...oh I can’t have work.

I guess you basically want someone who is going to cater to your schedule instead of you compromising with their schedule.

Some men on here can scream this to the heavens and it is of course true for some, but the data is in; we are primarily engaged in assortative dating and marriage at this point in time. The men with money, are not marrying the, "I can drop everything on a whim because I have little going on" fill-in-the-blank low paying, low commitment job woman. This was partially true at some point, but it is NOT now. As younger and younger people are entering into marriage, this is being solidified. I am mid 30's and I know very few, if any, couples where the man has the expectation that they would be with someone who could drop everything on a dime to go along for a business trip just for fun, nor do most of them look for this all-availability in the dating process. Even if you end up with a SAHM, if you're a top guy, you aim to "put your wife out of work" as my Wall Street friends say. That means her 500k salary is such a pittance it's not worth it anymore. But, big BUT, you both probably had big careers at some point. And yeah, she couldn't always call in "rich boyfriend" at every opportunity.

That’s very nice but you obviously do not run in the circles of the “top men” or even the next level down.

And you do? are you a waiter at a high end restaurant or something? You hear tidbits of these “top men’s” conversations and feel like you know their lives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this when it first started but not the next 15 pages or so. Just a funny story. I have a very stable job and would be considered very well off in most of the country. Around here though, pretty average, just over 150K. I keep myself in relatively good shape and am an active parent to our children, do the coaching thing, help with chores, etc.

My wife and I were out at lunch one day and were seated next to two younger women who were talking loud enough to be overheard. Couldn't really be avoided, the seating was very close quarters. One had just broken up with a boyfriend I think, but the other did more of the talking. A lot of it revolved around wanting her boyfriend to get more serious with his life, stable job, etc. If I heard right, she and her parents had even found him a job but he wouldn't take it because they found it for him.

This woman was objectively good looking, nice features, the dress she was wearing was semi-modest and could have gotten her plenty of attention in any bar or club. I could not believe she had settled the way she sounded like she had.

I told my wife afterwards "Holy shit, I had no idea how much of a catch I am!" Simply by being an active, stable, okay looking guy. In fairness, my wife also has a very good job and is a very good parent, she is also very much a catch, but it was just shocking listening to these two talk. This thread reminded me of that lunch.

Sad that women who have their stuff together feel that they have to settle for males that don’t have their stuff together. But that may be the supply/demand situation. There are more loser men out there at each strata than loser women.

The statistics argue against that. In the US, men pay 99 percent of alimony paid. The food stamp program funds 25 percent more women than men; 22 percent of American women are on food stamps at some point in their lives, versus 11 percent of men. Over 50 percent of female-headed households receive some form of welfare payment. Men only receive 45 percent of Medicare spending, while women receive 55 percent of Medicare spending.

[Anonymous]

Those are all irrelevant statistics- on only the lower strata.
But since you felt the need to go there: If anything tour chosen data show the effects of abandonment of loser men on women and their offspring. Plus they probably can’t even navigate how to file for welfare— if they’re not incarcerated, living off the grid, or in a life of crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those are all irrelevant statistics- on only the lower strata.
But since you felt the need to go there: If anything tour chosen data show the effects of abandonment of loser men on women and their offspring. Plus they probably can’t even navigate how to file for welfare— if they’re not incarcerated, living off the grid, or in a life of crime.

So non-loser-women have been “abandoned” by their loser-men?
And the loser-men are even incompetent losers: unable to get the free money which the government and/or their non-loser-ex-wife should be paying them?

[Anonymous]

Np. I dont personally know many people on food stamps so can we move along please. I have certainly been to the SSA office and seen who is signing up but I don’t come across them at the gym, work, airport, biking trails, temple, bars or neighborhood.

As for economically challenged men- I’d say maturity challenged men is a real rub.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this when it first started but not the next 15 pages or so. Just a funny story. I have a very stable job and would be considered very well off in most of the country. Around here though, pretty average, just over 150K. I keep myself in relatively good shape and am an active parent to our children, do the coaching thing, help with chores, etc.

My wife and I were out at lunch one day and were seated next to two younger women who were talking loud enough to be overheard. Couldn't really be avoided, the seating was very close quarters. One had just broken up with a boyfriend I think, but the other did more of the talking. A lot of it revolved around wanting her boyfriend to get more serious with his life, stable job, etc. If I heard right, she and her parents had even found him a job but he wouldn't take it because they found it for him.

This woman was objectively good looking, nice features, the dress she was wearing was semi-modest and could have gotten her plenty of attention in any bar or club. I could not believe she had settled the way she sounded like she had.

I told my wife afterwards "Holy shit, I had no idea how much of a catch I am!" Simply by being an active, stable, okay looking guy. In fairness, my wife also has a very good job and is a very good parent, she is also very much a catch, but it was just shocking listening to these two talk. This thread reminded me of that lunch.

Sad that women who have their stuff together feel that they have to settle for males that don’t have their stuff together. But that may be the supply/demand situation. There are more loser men out there at each strata than loser women.

The statistics argue against that. In the US, men pay 99 percent of alimony paid. The food stamp program funds 25 percent more women than men; 22 percent of American women are on food stamps at some point in their lives, versus 11 percent of men. Over 50 percent of female-headed households receive some form of welfare payment. Men only receive 45 percent of Medicare spending, while women receive 55 percent of Medicare spending.

Please a lot of loser women are “rescued” from loserhood by marrying. I know a lot of mothers is my circle who tapped out of the work force because they could not cut it. Sure you were on the partner track It is laughable to think a woman who marries an economically attractive man is some how better vs a man who has no money. Women work to marry up because it is easier vs working there way up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this when it first started but not the next 15 pages or so. Just a funny story. I have a very stable job and would be considered very well off in most of the country. Around here though, pretty average, just over 150K. I keep myself in relatively good shape and am an active parent to our children, do the coaching thing, help with chores, etc.

My wife and I were out at lunch one day and were seated next to two younger women who were talking loud enough to be overheard. Couldn't really be avoided, the seating was very close quarters. One had just broken up with a boyfriend I think, but the other did more of the talking. A lot of it revolved around wanting her boyfriend to get more serious with his life, stable job, etc. If I heard right, she and her parents had even found him a job but he wouldn't take it because they found it for him.

This woman was objectively good looking, nice features, the dress she was wearing was semi-modest and could have gotten her plenty of attention in any bar or club. I could not believe she had settled the way she sounded like she had.

I told my wife afterwards "Holy shit, I had no idea how much of a catch I am!" Simply by being an active, stable, okay looking guy. In fairness, my wife also has a very good job and is a very good parent, she is also very much a catch, but it was just shocking listening to these two talk. This thread reminded me of that lunch.

Sad that women who have their stuff together feel that they have to settle for males that don’t have their stuff together. But that may be the supply/demand situation. There are more loser men out there at each strata than loser women.

The statistics argue against that. In the US, men pay 99 percent of alimony paid. The food stamp program funds 25 percent more women than men; 22 percent of American women are on food stamps at some point in their lives, versus 11 percent of men. Over 50 percent of female-headed households receive some form of welfare payment. Men only receive 45 percent of Medicare spending, while women receive 55 percent of Medicare spending.

Please a lot of loser women are “rescued” from loserhood by marrying. I know a lot of mothers is my circle who tapped out of the work force because they could not cut it. Sure you were on the partner track It is laughable to think a woman who marries an economically attractive man is some how better vs a man who has no money. Women work to marry up because it is easier vs working there way up.

I know moms like this too and the main thing they have in common is that they are VERY attractive physically and had their choice of equally economically attractive men before they got married. If that’s your definition of “loser women”, I know plenty of women who want to be losers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read this when it first started but not the next 15 pages or so. Just a funny story. I have a very stable job and would be considered very well off in most of the country. Around here though, pretty average, just over 150K. I keep myself in relatively good shape and am an active parent to our children, do the coaching thing, help with chores, etc.

My wife and I were out at lunch one day and were seated next to two younger women who were talking loud enough to be overheard. Couldn't really be avoided, the seating was very close quarters. One had just broken up with a boyfriend I think, but the other did more of the talking. A lot of it revolved around wanting her boyfriend to get more serious with his life, stable job, etc. If I heard right, she and her parents had even found him a job but he wouldn't take it because they found it for him.

This woman was objectively good looking, nice features, the dress she was wearing was semi-modest and could have gotten her plenty of attention in any bar or club. I could not believe she had settled the way she sounded like she had.

I told my wife afterwards "Holy shit, I had no idea how much of a catch I am!" Simply by being an active, stable, okay looking guy. In fairness, my wife also has a very good job and is a very good parent, she is also very much a catch, but it was just shocking listening to these two talk. This thread reminded me of that lunch.

Sad that women who have their stuff together feel that they have to settle for males that don’t have their stuff together. But that may be the supply/demand situation. There are more loser men out there at each strata than loser women.

The statistics argue against that. In the US, men pay 99 percent of alimony paid. The food stamp program funds 25 percent more women than men; 22 percent of American women are on food stamps at some point in their lives, versus 11 percent of men. Over 50 percent of female-headed households receive some form of welfare payment. Men only receive 45 percent of Medicare spending, while women receive 55 percent of Medicare spending.

Please a lot of loser women are “rescued” from loserhood by marrying. I know a lot of mothers is my circle who tapped out of the work force because they could not cut it. Sure you were on the partner track It is laughable to think a woman who marries an economically attractive man is some how better vs a man who has no money. Women work to marry up because it is easier vs working there way up.

Wow, some fake lawyer from the 1950s just posted!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many males don’t do a second shift at home come 6pm, 7pm, or 8pm.

They focus on themselves (have a beer, shovel food down, have a rest, read Apple news, watch tv, pass out on the couch), and maybe some short Goof Around time with their young kids.

They are not getting home and organizing a meal, getting kids ready for tomorrow, fixing things in the house, or planning the weekend, etc.. They’ve been conditioned by their parents or by Tv not to do anything. And they have crappy marriages and relationships with their kids to prove it.

Shall I tell you about my evening as a dad this week?

Monday: picked up kids, gave them snacks, took them to music lessons, made them dinner, helped DS with homework, read to them before they went to sleep
Tuesday: picked up kids, took DS to sports practice, made them dinner, made them practice music, helped DS with homework, helped DD with homework, read to them before they went to sleep
Wednesday: will pick them up, make them dinner, take DS to sports practice, help them with homework, make them practice music, will read to them before they go to sleep

No need to plan this weekend, it's already done -- because I did it -- mostly sports activities for both DS and DD

I have done this for years now, I will do it for years more.
I don't need approval or applause, I do it because I love my kids.

You are awesome, and I’d rather have a DH like you than my DH who makes 7 figures, and didn’t lift a finger at home whether I worked or stayed at home.

Yeah, this thread is making me feel even more appreciative of my DH than ever. He works FT as a teacher, makes low six figures, but does all the cooking, grocery shopping, and child pick up and medical appointments. He is very involved in parenting our two kids, one with SN. We split the cleaning but I do most of the organizing and almost all of the scheduling and all of the laundry. We both wanted an egalitarian marriage and we both got it. I make high 5 figures and work FT out of the house for a non-profit but I guess in the equation he married me more for my looks than my earning potential (I'm no fashion model but I try to maintain what I Have and he's appreciative). We're comfortable financially (no Scrooge McDuck piles of money but two pensions and own a house that will be paid off before retirement). In other words, we both pull our weight and are considerate.

We know many couples like us. I don't think humanity or even the institution of marriage is doomed.

[Anonymous]

The charts I saw didn't indicate a shortage. The number of employed, childless, and college-educated bachelors roughly matched the number of employed, childless, and college-educated bachelorettes. I wonder how much of this shortage is due to women wanting to date specifically white bachelors with those qualities. I could see how such a preference might lead one to believe, mistakenly, that a shortage existed.

[Anonymous]

but I guess in the equation he married me more for my looks than my earning potential

Yup. And water is wet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The charts I saw didn't indicate a shortage. The number of employed, childless, and college-educated bachelors roughly matched the number of employed, childless, and college-educated bachelorettes. I wonder how much of this shortage is due to women wanting to date specifically white bachelors with those qualities. I could see how such a preference might lead one to believe, mistakenly, that a shortage existed.

Excellent point. Also, I notice that there are far more gay men graduating from college than was typical 40 years ago.