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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Have you ever had an actual relationship? Not everything is about money. In fact, once you have enough money, it tends to become a non issue and other things take precedence. That's one of the nicest things about having money - it alleviates all the stress.

Except in this scenario the stress will always be on the female spouse as she’s bringing in the HHI to maintain their SOL.

Which is why she’s being picky before getting locked down.

I don't know why you would assume this. I SAH, my husband makes 700k +, AND he's 50/50 equal partner at home and with kids. He does that because he was raised to believe that's what "good husbands" and "good fathers" do.

Those men definitely exist. I feel like you are probably not giving them a chance though because they don't "make enough" according to you.

But what about the emotional connection though? Companionship? Someone to talk things over with and just laugh with? Someone to have regular sex with?

Yes you can raise a child on your own. But you will miss the joy of sharing it with someone. One of the best parts of having a child ime is hearing them say something cute and funny and then looking over at my husband and seeing him smile and know that we are thinking the exact same thing at the same time because we both love that child in the same way.

What about this don’t you get? You don’t make any income. Of course, you’re happy with just providing companionship. I’m pretty sure if you divorce your tune will change as you fight for alimony and diminished child support.

What we’re saying is that women who KNOW the man they’re dating isn’t making a income high enough for them to not support the household have to be more careful.

Now you're changing your tune. There are women in here point blank saying, if a man can't earn over 100k, he's not worth getting to know. And other people are saying, you ought to rethink that because there is a LOT more to a healthy relationship than money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s as simple as women having more choices now and not having to settle for a man, because a woman can provide for herself and get a spend donor if she wants a kid.

There are several million unmarried men in China who are looking for brides LOL they can join the club with the “loser” husband material category in the US.

Women don’t have to settle anymore because we have our own property.

There are a ton of exceptions to the norm, though, on these rules. I am an outlier. Was breadwinner in first marriage to man child, divorced him on good terms. In my 30s with several kids I remarried a handsome-high-earner man in his 40s who had been used to having all women chase hi except ME. He had to pursue me, because I was self sufficient and Lready had kids and my own $400k paycheck. I think my confidence and “don’t need you for your money” attitude made him chase me and propos quickly. Women need to own their value and should not feel like they can’t meet a quality man just because they are single mom in their 30s.

But statistically there are very few single women who are actually having children with sperm donors. In reality most of these women remain childless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Have you ever had an actual relationship? Not everything is about money. In fact, once you have enough money, it tends to become a non issue and other things take precedence. That's one of the nicest things about having money - it alleviates all the stress.

Except in this scenario the stress will always be on the female spouse as she’s bringing in the HHI to maintain their SOL.

Which is why she’s being picky before getting locked down.

I don't know why you would assume this. I SAH, my husband makes 700k +, AND he's 50/50 equal partner at home and with kids. He does that because he was raised to believe that's what "good husbands" and "good fathers" do.

Those men definitely exist. I feel like you are probably not giving them a chance though because they don't "make enough" according to you.

But what about the emotional connection though? Companionship? Someone to talk things over with and just laugh with? Someone to have regular sex with?

Yes you can raise a child on your own. But you will miss the joy of sharing it with someone. One of the best parts of having a child ime is hearing them say something cute and funny and then looking over at my husband and seeing him smile and know that we are thinking the exact same thing at the same time because we both love that child in the same way.

What about this don’t you get? You don’t make any income. Of course, you’re happy with just providing companionship. I’m pretty sure if you divorce your tune will change as you fight for alimony and diminished child support.

What we’re saying is that women who KNOW the man they’re dating isn’t making a income high enough for them to not support the household have to be more careful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Have you ever had an actual relationship? Not everything is about money. In fact, once you have enough money, it tends to become a non issue and other things take precedence. That's one of the nicest things about having money - it alleviates all the stress.

Except in this scenario the stress will always be on the female spouse as she’s bringing in the HHI to maintain their SOL.

Which is why she’s being picky before getting locked down.

I don't know why you would assume this. I SAH, my husband makes 700k +, AND he's 50/50 equal partner at home and with kids. He does that because he was raised to believe that's what "good husbands" and "good fathers" do.

Those men definitely exist. I feel like you are probably not giving them a chance though because they don't "make enough" according to you.

But what about the emotional connection though? Companionship? Someone to talk things over with and just laugh with? Someone to have regular sex with?

Yes you can raise a child on your own. But you will miss the joy of sharing it with someone. One of the best parts of having a child ime is hearing them say something cute and funny and then looking over at my husband and seeing him smile and know that we are thinking the exact same thing at the same time because we both love that child in the same way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Have you ever had an actual relationship? Not everything is about money. In fact, once you have enough money, it tends to become a non issue and other things take precedence. That's one of the nicest things about having money - it alleviates all the stress.

Except in this scenario the stress will always be on the female spouse as she’s bringing in the HHI to maintain their SOL.

Which is why she’s being picky before getting locked down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Have you ever had an actual relationship? Not everything is about money. In fact, once you have enough money, it tends to become a non issue and other things take precedence. That's one of the nicest things about having money - it alleviates all the stress.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

lol this makes no sense

A super high income = elite social network. It means c-suite executive, partner, managing director, early investor, etc. etc.

That type of social network will always beat out two mediocre middle manager careers. Sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

No. I would rather be unmarried than be married to someone who does not earn the same range as I do. I make $300. If, as the woman, I can be expected to be the default parent/primary caregiver and manage the household, then my partner needs to bring something to the table. He can't make $100 and say that's his contribution. I want equitable.

Anonymous wrote:
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.

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.

Whether it's optimal or not - the point is, you would rather be unmarried if you can't have a man who makes north of 500k? Because that is what the article is saying.

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.