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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If the man can’t even bring home a paycheck why would any sane woman take on all the family responsibilities?

Is the issue in this area the man can’t bring home a paycheck, or is the issue that the paycheck isn’t statistically way abnormal?

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.

Except in the 21st century its now possible that it could be the husband or the wife without a good income.

Most women who are planning to marry aren't interested in being the breadwinner with a husband who can provide nothing but childcare (and still none of the childbearing responsibility).

There's also the fact that if the woman is earning this much, I would look at the man and say - why aren't you a success? Are you lazy?

It really depends. For example, I know women in academia with SAHDs. Their work is pretty all-consuming, although not very high-paying, and they often have to follow the job offer to new institutions. It's hard for the trailing spouse. So in these circumstances, they have a SAHD, or someone with a hobby or flexible job that is the primary caregiver.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If the man can’t even bring home a paycheck why would any sane woman take on all the family responsibilities?

Is the issue in this area the man can’t bring home a paycheck, or is the issue that the paycheck isn’t statistically way abnormal?

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.

Except in the 21st century its now possible that it could be the husband or the wife without a good income.

Most women who are planning to marry aren't interested in being the breadwinner with a husband who can provide nothing but childcare (and still none of the childbearing responsibility).

There's also the fact that if the woman is earning this much, I would look at the man and say - why aren't you a success? Are you lazy?

DP... agree with everything except the bolded. Salary is also dependent on what field you are in. I would be fine married to a professor, but I work in the IT field making about $200K, and it's possible that a professor wouldn't be making that much.

[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?

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Pretty much this. Not that hard to understand.

[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.

But women in their 30s don't want to wait for "potential man", which I understand. I think it's a bit different when you are 25, and you know that most people are just starting out in their careers.

[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?

UMW - I like hot guys but have never been attracted to having a SAHD/Beach Bum on my couch. Maybe it's a guy thing (wanting to provide), but I haven't met any GFs (married and unmarried) who wanted one either.

I know many women who run companies/lawyers/doctors and their husbands are either teachers or make ~$70K ... in the DC area that is similar to $40K elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don't know men that care for their children and cook... truthfully I don't know anybody that cleans... men or women.

Plus I know a ton of women that care for the children, with help, don't cook, just order in.

So basically men can't/won't take care of their own children is the reason?

[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?

Men never do this. The woman they marry is the one who takes care of the child. From conception to birth the woman carries the full burden of childcare in pregnancy. After birth the woman continues to bear primary responsibility for childcare, especially in the newborn phase. For most couples, the woman continues to be the default parent throughout childhood.

If the man can’t even bring home a paycheck why would any sane woman take on all the family responsibilities? A man who loves you would not want his partner bear all the financial AND care taking responsibilities in the family.

But it does not need to be that way, men can be the primary caregiver after birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

All the "economically unattractive" men need to do is visit the 150 other countries in the world with lower incomes than the US. In the Philippines, a guy with a $40k income is king.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

UMW - I like hot guys but have never been attracted to having a SAHD/Beach Bum on my couch. Maybe it's a guy thing (wanting to provide), but I haven't met any GFs (married and unmarried) who wanted one either.

I know many women who run companies/lawyers/doctors and their husbands are either teachers or make ~$70K ... in the DC area that is similar to $40K elsewhere.

These successful women end up advancing in careers because they're good at it and they have no choice if they want to buy anywhere within the beltway and support their kids.

They probably married the man and were making about the same amount starting out. Its different when you come into a marriage already making a high-income.

Why would I go out and search for a teacher or low-employed man? The two women I know in the above situation are absolutely miserable. Their DHs are fat slobs and they are working 60 hours a week to make sure he is taken care of.

[Anonymous]

Study makes sense to me. I make >$350k/year and DH makes about $75k. This would not bother me as much if he even did an equal amount around the house and for the kids, but I do 90% of everything. He sits around playing video games. Makes it hard to respect him and I suspect divorce is on the horizon.

It's not about women wanting sugar daddies - it's just that we want me who will pull their own weight and be equal partners. Who wants another child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

All the "economically unattractive" men need to do is visit the 150 other countries in the world with lower incomes than the US. In the Philippines, a guy with a $40k income is king.

The same can be said of financially set women.

Dating abroad has its benefits. There's a whole class of wealthy men abroad and they want a wife who can be seen as a catch - educated, citizenship in a western country (to pass on to the kids), and well-traveled.

[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.

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.

[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.

Nice, and thanking your husband for his service.