Grey-Flannel-Dwarf
No bio...
User ID: 1993
Grey-Flannel-Dwarf
1yr ago
But that's not a compromise. The fact that traditional marriage disintegrated basically everywhere in the world that shifted to a service based economy and saw an equalization between men and women's earning potential suggests that it actually requires substantial economic incentives for women to be willing to do it. You can't just go back to men protecting and providing in exchange for sex, chastity, and domestic labor when the value of male protection is nil and women can provide for themselves.
Grey-Flannel-Dwarf
1yr ago
Male and Female obesity rates are pretty similar roughly 40% in both but severe obesity is 7% in men and 12% in women so there's some difference there.
Men & Women are identify as homosexual at very similar rates. Every woman in a long term relationship is one less man in a long term relationship.
If the pool of potential mates for men is much smaller isn't that offset by being marriageable for 3x as long? Under your marriageability assumptions men's set of marriageable mates at age 18 is all women 29 to -14 (43 birth cohorts) since many women will become 18 over their time in the dating pool? Women's set at age 18 is all men aged 50 to 9, or 41 birth cohorts. It's true that in any given moment there are more men competing for women, but women are competing against women who will enter the pool in the future. The 29 year old trying to get a 30 year old guy to commit is implicitly competing with the 20 other cohorts of women who will turn 18 over his lifetime.
Also what percent of men make enough money to support a family? In 2016 the 50th percentile income for a 35 year old male was ~50k, 33rd percentile was 30k. It's not a "good deal" to keep yourself chaste and attractive so you can snag a guy making that much.
I think the core of it is that you're demanding the old bargain where women provided sex, domestic labor and paternity certainty in exchange for men who would "protect and provide". Well in a modern society male protection isn't particularly necessary, and the gender wage gap isn't huge and largely accounted for by women choosing more flexible careers so they can do childcare labor for their husbands, or jobs that pay less but that they find self actualizing. You can't demand an attractive, young, chaste wife with similar social background when she can earn 70-85% of that income and do whatever she wants.
Grey-Flannel-Dwarf
1yr ago
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25883/w25883.pdf
I think I misspoke in the original post, they find that cell phone towers reduce murders. They're correlating murders per capita with a measure of antenna density for each county. They use the 1970's as a kind of "placebo" because cell towers were being constructed, with obvious non random relationship to population density, in preparation for cell service being offered but cell service wasn't being offered so it wouldn't have an effect on murder rates yet. They break the data down by decade in Table 4 and find no significant relationship in the 70's, a negative relationship that isn't borderline significant in the 80's, a negative coefficient that is significant in the 90's and a coefficient approaching 0 in the 2000's, which maps on to the theory of cell phone adoption altering the structure of the drug market significantly in the 80's and 90's and reaching saturation in the 2000's.
Grey-Flannel-Dwarf
1yr ago
Yeah, "The Wire" portrays the drug market structure of the period when David Simon was a beat reporter and not in the period it's actually set in. Control of "corners" is less relevant in the cell phone era when dealers can set meets with customers in a variety of locations rather than needing to hold down a single location to maintain contact. There was an interesting paper on this which relates cell phone tower density to murder rates and finds a strong correlation.
Good idea! Suppose there's a foreign country with a two party system where each party wins roughly half the time and economic performance and thermostatic effects strongly predict electoral outcomes. Which conclusion does Occam's razor support, that this is a fair competitive system or that it's massively tilted in favor of one party? On which position does the burden of proof lie, that the elections are fair and both parties are pretty good at triangulating, or that they're rigged completely but only so that the party rigging them wins by a small margin half the time?
More options
Context Copy link