Vlerchan
November 7th, 2016, 05:20 PM
In Defense of Protectionism and Arranged Marriages
We've got our aristocracy - or Not! - and now its time to start thinking about the martial culture in our society. Like any god, I'm very interested in who you are about to have sex with.
So, one of my friend's wants to break up with her boyfriend and in a recent discussion she told me that she didn't want to lose out on the investment she'd made*. The operate word here is 'invest': in selecting a boyfriend she was in fact investing in someone with an expectation of a return. This is because the marriage market - as I will refer to it from here on out - holds the same characteristics of the usual economic market**. Think of Love like brand-loyalty I guess. The competition is what we would refer to as imperfect of monopolistic: it's possible for some sellers to hold market-power.
Market power, will be important later, so Google it if you have no idea what I am talking about.
The share of men who are childless at age 45 rose from 14 percent in 1985 to 23 percent in 2013.
The share of women who had not become mothers by age 45 increased from 10 percent in 1985 to 13 percent in 2013.
http://sciencenordic.com/quarter-norwegian-men-never-father-children
That's an interesting statistic - huh. It seems that whilst men had an increased likelihood of living without reproductive success - the number has spiked in the last number of years***. It has remained much more constant for women. What's important is that there is a gap - implying re-utilization of some men: the article refers to it as 'recycling' - and it's growing. Thus, there's a much less equal distribution of market power among men than there is among women.
But perhaps men want to be Bachelors. Children are boring after all.
Both men and women in Norway answer in studies that having children is an important part of life. Few men or women consciously decide against having them. The desire to have kids has not changed,” says An-Magritt Jensen.
ibid
Nope. Let's discard that hypothesis - though, for impartialities sake, the evidence on whether men or women suffer more, with regards to loneliness and depression, seems somewhat mixed (Koropeckyj-Cox 1996 (http://parc.pop.upenn.edu/sites/parc.pop.upenn.edu/files/parc/PARCwps96-02.pdf); Zhang and Hayward 2001 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Hayward5/publication/11822649_Childlessness_and_the_psychological_well-being_of_older_persons/links/00b4952e97a0317f53000000.pdf); Hadley 2013 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robin_Hadley/publication/215559065_Involuntarily_childless_men_and_the_desire_for_fatherhood/links/00b495215d702ea299000000.pdf))****. Perhaps instead we should look to the lives of the people of Chimbu courtesy of the ever-reliable, PsychologyToday. Let's note in particular where it claims, 'rubbish men never married, because their kinsmen considered them such losers that they would not contribute to their purchase of a wife (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-evolving-father/201311/non-dads-or-childless-men).' It refers to these men, rather kindly, as failing as a result of populating the 'statistical tail-end' of the distribution. It notes then, examining the real world, that a man's likelihood of having children is inversely proportional to his level of income.
Ding, ding, ding. It seems like we might be on a winner.
It seems - like in every market - men who are 'at the statistical tail-end', to re-enjoy that eupherism, have a hard time succeeding. This - though we have much less evidence - we can imagine as occurring the same to women. These men are out-competed and experience considerable net welfare losses as a result - loneliness, depression, feelings of isolation. But that's not the interesting bit. If this is a market surely we can model the consequences of the great liberalization of the sexual revolution - just like we model the Reaganite neoliberal revolution. Why, yes. Yes, we can. And, that is where it gets interesting.
One would expect in a traditional search market where market power doesn't persist, perfect matching. But market persists. As a result, the disproportionate accrual of welfare gains at the 'good' tail increase in a situation where market-power increases. Under Liberalizarion goods become unevenly excludable across time, and rival: Or, in other words, capable of being appropriated by multiple parties at different periods across time. Or, it is possible for men to end things with a current partner and go back onto the market and find a new partner. This creates greater incentives for women to hold out and avoid tail-end men since the number of others in the distribution has effectively increased*****. [Pop quiz., what would happen under Polygamous relations?]
That's a welfare argument for a return to pre-Sexual Revolution ethics, straight off. But, the point was to exposure the broader welfare losses that are incurred with any liberalization. Being as markets are imperfect there is a number of men and women who go without matches, irrespective, imposing costs. It would be - in this case, where there welfare costs are considerable: and one would expect them to be - to arrange marriages between all men and women in a society. Whilst matching is imperfect, where matches remain intelligent through planning, it ensures that there is a wider distribution of welfare.
This doesn't need to be through families but rather can be organised through computation, matching characteristics and goals. It is, frankly, the most Egalitarian solution, for any individual who professes a preference for this solution, it would seem tyrannical to oppose it.
In the long-run it might be better for our society for the tail-end men to be bred out since it is indicated that they possess sub-optimal traits that shouldn't be maintained in the system. We would see an elevation of traits determined through societal negation to be optimal. But such is tantamount to Eugenics, and Hitler supported Eugenics.
Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization . Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as 'the law of the market'...Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.
Michel Houellebecq, Whatever
---
* This is called the Fallacy of Sunk Costs. But that is for another time.
** Here's some notes courtesy of Columbia University (http://www.cemmap.ac.uk/resources/chiappori/all_slides.pdf), which I haven't read either.
*** This is surely interesting where it is probably a tight correlate with participation in a meaningful, long-term relationship.
**** I came up with this hypothesis on my commute home. No, I haven't read the papers. I'm willing to bet they are not fantastic but then sociology research never is.
***** I am highlighting men because the expansion of their market-power was much greater than the expansion that occurred to women. This highlights that the trend doesn't occur equally across the sexes.
We've got our aristocracy - or Not! - and now its time to start thinking about the martial culture in our society. Like any god, I'm very interested in who you are about to have sex with.
So, one of my friend's wants to break up with her boyfriend and in a recent discussion she told me that she didn't want to lose out on the investment she'd made*. The operate word here is 'invest': in selecting a boyfriend she was in fact investing in someone with an expectation of a return. This is because the marriage market - as I will refer to it from here on out - holds the same characteristics of the usual economic market**. Think of Love like brand-loyalty I guess. The competition is what we would refer to as imperfect of monopolistic: it's possible for some sellers to hold market-power.
Market power, will be important later, so Google it if you have no idea what I am talking about.
The share of men who are childless at age 45 rose from 14 percent in 1985 to 23 percent in 2013.
The share of women who had not become mothers by age 45 increased from 10 percent in 1985 to 13 percent in 2013.
http://sciencenordic.com/quarter-norwegian-men-never-father-children
That's an interesting statistic - huh. It seems that whilst men had an increased likelihood of living without reproductive success - the number has spiked in the last number of years***. It has remained much more constant for women. What's important is that there is a gap - implying re-utilization of some men: the article refers to it as 'recycling' - and it's growing. Thus, there's a much less equal distribution of market power among men than there is among women.
But perhaps men want to be Bachelors. Children are boring after all.
Both men and women in Norway answer in studies that having children is an important part of life. Few men or women consciously decide against having them. The desire to have kids has not changed,” says An-Magritt Jensen.
ibid
Nope. Let's discard that hypothesis - though, for impartialities sake, the evidence on whether men or women suffer more, with regards to loneliness and depression, seems somewhat mixed (Koropeckyj-Cox 1996 (http://parc.pop.upenn.edu/sites/parc.pop.upenn.edu/files/parc/PARCwps96-02.pdf); Zhang and Hayward 2001 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Hayward5/publication/11822649_Childlessness_and_the_psychological_well-being_of_older_persons/links/00b4952e97a0317f53000000.pdf); Hadley 2013 (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robin_Hadley/publication/215559065_Involuntarily_childless_men_and_the_desire_for_fatherhood/links/00b495215d702ea299000000.pdf))****. Perhaps instead we should look to the lives of the people of Chimbu courtesy of the ever-reliable, PsychologyToday. Let's note in particular where it claims, 'rubbish men never married, because their kinsmen considered them such losers that they would not contribute to their purchase of a wife (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-evolving-father/201311/non-dads-or-childless-men).' It refers to these men, rather kindly, as failing as a result of populating the 'statistical tail-end' of the distribution. It notes then, examining the real world, that a man's likelihood of having children is inversely proportional to his level of income.
Ding, ding, ding. It seems like we might be on a winner.
It seems - like in every market - men who are 'at the statistical tail-end', to re-enjoy that eupherism, have a hard time succeeding. This - though we have much less evidence - we can imagine as occurring the same to women. These men are out-competed and experience considerable net welfare losses as a result - loneliness, depression, feelings of isolation. But that's not the interesting bit. If this is a market surely we can model the consequences of the great liberalization of the sexual revolution - just like we model the Reaganite neoliberal revolution. Why, yes. Yes, we can. And, that is where it gets interesting.
One would expect in a traditional search market where market power doesn't persist, perfect matching. But market persists. As a result, the disproportionate accrual of welfare gains at the 'good' tail increase in a situation where market-power increases. Under Liberalizarion goods become unevenly excludable across time, and rival: Or, in other words, capable of being appropriated by multiple parties at different periods across time. Or, it is possible for men to end things with a current partner and go back onto the market and find a new partner. This creates greater incentives for women to hold out and avoid tail-end men since the number of others in the distribution has effectively increased*****. [Pop quiz., what would happen under Polygamous relations?]
That's a welfare argument for a return to pre-Sexual Revolution ethics, straight off. But, the point was to exposure the broader welfare losses that are incurred with any liberalization. Being as markets are imperfect there is a number of men and women who go without matches, irrespective, imposing costs. It would be - in this case, where there welfare costs are considerable: and one would expect them to be - to arrange marriages between all men and women in a society. Whilst matching is imperfect, where matches remain intelligent through planning, it ensures that there is a wider distribution of welfare.
This doesn't need to be through families but rather can be organised through computation, matching characteristics and goals. It is, frankly, the most Egalitarian solution, for any individual who professes a preference for this solution, it would seem tyrannical to oppose it.
In the long-run it might be better for our society for the tail-end men to be bred out since it is indicated that they possess sub-optimal traits that shouldn't be maintained in the system. We would see an elevation of traits determined through societal negation to be optimal. But such is tantamount to Eugenics, and Hitler supported Eugenics.
Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization . Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as 'the law of the market'...Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.
Michel Houellebecq, Whatever
---
* This is called the Fallacy of Sunk Costs. But that is for another time.
** Here's some notes courtesy of Columbia University (http://www.cemmap.ac.uk/resources/chiappori/all_slides.pdf), which I haven't read either.
*** This is surely interesting where it is probably a tight correlate with participation in a meaningful, long-term relationship.
**** I came up with this hypothesis on my commute home. No, I haven't read the papers. I'm willing to bet they are not fantastic but then sociology research never is.
***** I am highlighting men because the expansion of their market-power was much greater than the expansion that occurred to women. This highlights that the trend doesn't occur equally across the sexes.