8 ms·

Elite Dating Apps Threaten to Make America’s Wealth Gap Worse

50 points by thisisit 9y ago

fixermark 9y ago
I can see the concern, but I'd place it way down the list of things that could make the wealth gap worse. Debutante balls and other such classist dating practice have been around basically forever. I don't think digitizing them adds a particular new dimension of concern.
- baud147258 9y ago
  Came here to say that. I don't think it will worsen the current gap, dating has mostly been done among one's peer group, so using an app won't change anything.
  - nkrisc 9y ago
    This app is the manifestation of the social norms that already exist, not a catalyst for new norms.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      The app can increase the degree to which the existing norms are realized rather than aspirational; to the extent that individual acheivement of the goals of the existing norm has adverse social consequences, that is rightfully a source of concern even if it involves nothing personally blameworthy and no change of norms.
  - Aunche 9y ago
    I agree. If anything, regular dating apps like Tinder are decreasing the wealth gap.
- hackermailman 9y ago
  Agree, dating for the most part happens within social circles, so being super wealthy means you get introduced to other super wealthy potential partners on a regular basis through your network of friends at whatever yacht club, private school, nightclub VIP, ect. Almost every girl I've dated was because I went to a party, camping trip, dinner, beach or bar somewhere and a friend of a friend brought a single friend and introduced us. Online dating is just a way to expand search from your local social network.
- Al-Khwarizmi 9y ago
  Actually, it has been claimed that online dating has made marriages more diverse: https://lifehacker.com/how-online-dating-is-making-u-s-marriages-stronger-and-1820511844 https://lifehacker.com/how-online-dating-is-making-u-s-marri... So perhaps the effect of this will be a return (total or partial) to how things always were.
FussyZeus 9y ago
There are a lot of things making the wealth gap worse, dating apps catering to the wealthy is a symptom, not a cause.
- rhizome 9y ago
  My sense is that this article is submarine PR, but I can't quite discern which of the companies mentioned commissioned it.
ryanx435 9y ago
This is an ad for the elite dating sites. It's on bloomberg, for Christ sake. Their target market is elites.
- Semirhage 9y ago
  Sing it with me! We all live in a yellow journalistic submarine... http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
- thwd 9y ago
  This. And it's written in a cancerous SEO-advertising prose, spelling out "The League" verbatim once every paragraph. > But the med student says he prefers Tinder, a site with a reputation for facilitating hookups, and the League. That suffixed ", and the League".
- _rpd 9y ago
  It really is, and it appears to be intentional. It makes sense when you think about it - socially controversial articles get clicks, so they are a great vehicle for advertorials.
- notadoc 9y ago
  Psst... much of "news" is PR, marketing, or advertising.
askafriend 9y ago
I can’t help but think that this is really grasping for straws. Sure technically the headline may be correct...but there’s nothing wrong with wanting to date someone in the same socioeconomic class as you. On top of that, the amount that this contributes to the actual gap is probably minuscule relative to the other big contributors that are more systemic and policy-oriented rather than cultural.
- sfotm 9y ago
  Especially so since many people on existing dating applications probably filter by similar criteria anyway.
  - Thriptic 9y ago
    Most dating apps filter by it too. If you are in the professional class, you will tend to be matched with other people in the professional class.
    - madeofpalk 9y ago
      I absolutely do not find this the case in Tinder (or other obviously less 'filtered' and more niche platforms)
- ProAm 9y ago
  "Birds of a feather flock together"
searine 9y ago
I signed up for the "The League" a few months ago. I appreciate that they added in options to be discrete, by excluding people at your employer or friends on facebook. Not that that kind of discretion was necessary, or worth the price. As for results, well, imho they have been no better than tinder. Lots of flakes, and seemingly random matches. Funnily enough I met my current partner on OkCupid, which seems antiquated by modern dating app standards.
- teirce 9y ago
  I feel like I hear more random success stories on OkCupid than anywhere else. It seems the commitment of swiping on <insert any of 20 apps here> is really thin. Not to mention that most people probably aren't looking to marry (or even date) someone from Tinder. I'm curious about your experience. Do you feel that anything in particular made OkCupid more successful for you? I feel that the level of information / detail in profiles might help for a more successful match, but I haven't put in any time on the platform myself.
  - CapitalistCartr 9y ago
    My wife and I met on OKCupid, although that was seven years ago. It was a fine platform then, for finding non-monetary compatibility.
  - searine 9y ago
    Online dating is just 90% random chance that both parties will be compatible, which is why quick swipe apps are so popular now (and what OKC has recently transitioned to as well). It allows for a greater throughput of matches, so you can eventually boil it down faster. I think the more detailed profile of OKC has always been very helpful conversationally, but really that's about it. I think the greater fraction of successful OKC dates is simply a result of it being around longer.
  - magduf 9y ago
    I met my current dating partner on OKcupid a couple years ago. I've tried Tinder and while I've had more matches on there, and got more dates from it (before I got serious with this girl), I think OKC is better for finding compatible people for the reasons you name: there's simply a lot more information and detail in the profiles. OKC makes it easy to weed out people who have incompatibilities because you can see this stuff in the profiles in also in the answers to the many questions. The only problem with OKC in my view is that Tinder and similar low-information phone apps have basically taken over, so it seems like the traditional sites like OKC are basically dying out from lack of users. Just like any social network, these sites depend on a "critical mass" of users to work well.
rb808 9y ago
> Share of couples in which both partners have a college degree: now up to 15% Wow I'm out of touch with the real world.
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  Did you think it'd be higher or lower?
  - Upvoter33 9y ago
    I think they mean: wow, that's way lower than I expected. I had the same reaction, as virtually every couple I know both have college degrees.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Historically, men date down (professionals marrying their executive admins, nurses marrying doctors) whereas women will not, so this percentage is based on how many college eduated women can find equally or greater educated, eligible men. Citation below. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-gap-hook-up-culture-female-graduates https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-...
      - 0x4f3759df 9y ago
        If women don't date down, then the higher they go, the fewer men there will be, its lonely at the top.
        simonsarris 9y ago
        Yes, there are hundreds of articles about this. See for example: "The Mating Crisis Among Educated Women" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15736410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15736410
supernintendo 9y ago
Am I the only one who sees the silver lining in this? I don't want to date rich people.
- gravy 9y ago
  For that reason? Yeah probably.
lacker 9y ago
Colleges themselves are a much bigger factor. If you go to an elitist college, you are much more likely to marry someone from that elitist college, and then to have a two-high-income household. It just seems inevitable, though - people want to date other people like themselves.
- mediaman 9y ago
  Yes - elite colleges, and top B-schools and the like, are often seen as part education, part networking...and part spouse-finding. For B-schools, more networking/signaling and spouse-finding than education.
notadoc 9y ago
I doubt it. Water finds its own level. Most people date/marry someones equally attractive, from an equal class, with equal education. That's fairly standard and always has been, which is why most people marry someone from their college, a job, church, or some other shared experience. It's the shared experience that typically brings people together, and keeps them together. And of course there are many cultures around the world with arranged marriages, and those almost always specifically aim to match equals from the same class background (or higher).
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Most people date/marry someones equally attractive, from an equal class, with equal education. Historically, the second has been strongly true, the first much less so, and the last basically false, though somewhat less untrue if you read “equal” as “in a roughly similar point on the distribution for their gender”. > And of course there are many cultures around the world with arranged marriages, and those almost always specifically aim to match equals from the same class background (or higher). If someone is getting higher, the other partner is getting lower. There is a necessary symmetry there.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    Since women weren't typically attend higher schooling until very recently, it doesn't make sense to compare it historically. I've seen people go higher and lower within their class, but not really go from one class to another, unless the person is supermodel worthy.
- notyourday 9y ago
  The really funny part is that SA demonstrated that it is also the case is arrangement - pretty much no one cares about the bottom 80% and people pay a boatload of money for early access to the top 5%.
bstar77 9y ago
Dating/marriage outside of your economic upbringing presents some difficult challenges that should not be trivialized. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to date someone that has a similar background to you. Relationships are much easier when you are with someone who share similar economic backgrounds and religious beliefs.
- magduf 9y ago
  I agree completely. Been there, done that. Never again will I date someone from a a different socioeconomic class or who has any significant religious beliefs. I tried being open-minded and it was a disaster.
  - simias 9y ago
    Was the issue the socioeconomic class or the religious beliefs? I can see how different religious beliefs can be a very practical issue but it seems like socioeconomic class is a little less "dogmatic" and it would be easier to find a middle ground? That being said I can't really give life lessons here, I don't think I ever dated anybody outside of my "socioeconomic class", whatever that is.
    - magduf 9y ago
      Both, but the socioeconomic thing really killed it more than the religion. With religion, at least you can agree to disagree usually. But in a marriage, finances are shared to some extent, and you just can't get past that. When one partner is frugal and manages money carefully, and the other thinks "we're making all this money! why can't I spend it on xyz/tithe to my church/buy expensive gifts for my family/etc.?" the results won't be good.
      - bstar77 9y ago
        I understand this scenario completely, but I was able to make it work with my wife (who grew up very poor). Ironically, many people that grow up poor seem to not realize that many people who have money tend to be frugal with it- that's it's not a sign of weakness to be frugal. My wife and I are on the same page now-a-days (I definitely learned some things from her as well), but it was a struggle for a while hence why I don't think it's good to trivialize in the name of social equality.
ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
So if we date someone of equal earning potential we make the wealth gap worse... If we date someone from a different economic class then one party is prone to abuse that power imbalance and take advantage... Sounds like what we all need is an app that just randomly assigns partners to fuck each other. It's really the only fair thing to do... Sign up for the Beta at www.sex-with-randos.com.
- magduf 9y ago
  >If we date someone from a different economic class then one party is prone to abuse that power imbalance and take advantage... Yep, been there, done that. It isn't even always intentional, it's just that when someone from a very different economic background, and who has a very different approach to handling finances, marries someone who has high earning potential, I've found they just can't reconcile these very different viewpoints.
Analemma_ 9y ago
Elite dating apps are the absolute worst. I was invited to an Ivy League alum dating app, and I swear Mensa and /r/atheism on their worst days never came close to the amount of smug, self-satisfied posturing as I saw there. I don't even think there was a lot of actual dating going on, most people were just there to show off. On the last of major socioeconomic problems in America, I really don't think "new apps for peacocking" is up there.
chalkandpaste 9y ago
I have two issues with this article. First, aren’t people going to be looking to pair up with someone in the same socioeconomic class anyway? That’s what we’ve mostly been doing over the course of history. That an app is based on this is not surprising. And I have a hard time believe apps perpetuate what we are already doing or exacerbate it. The second is the graph in the middle regarding distance from city center and population with a degree. Haven’t we, in general, been getting more degrees since the points of comparison? How is this, again not already distributed according to pre-existing trends? The curve also does not change significantly besides being shifted up (corresponding a generally high rate of university degrees). Is there a actually significant shift happening with those without college degrees with regard to distance from city center? I think not, or they would have showed it and it would have been more convincing.
opportune 9y ago
On a societal level, yes it's bad when romance stratifies along classist lines, not only because people miss out on potential compatible partners, but also because it increases inequality and cements generational wealth/prestige. On an individual level, it's definitely a good idea if you're wealthy. Since so many things correlate so well with wealth, or have wealth as a prerequisite, it could highly reduce someone's signal-noise ratio if they're looking for someone with those traits. For example, if you're an entrepreneur, or an amateur tennis player, or someone trying to play the corporate ladder climbing game like the example in the article, and you want to find someone similar, you'll have much more success finding someone similar to you among wealthy people, even though wealth is not necessarily a prerequisite to any of those things.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > On a societal level, yes it's bad when romance stratifies along classist lines I disagree. It's bad when the society has poor mechanisms for distribution of the gains of economy, and with certain deficiencies the magnitude of the impact will be exacerbated by wealth-stratified life partner selection, independent of the degree to which this associated with romance. However I partner selection is not th source of the harm, it's a factor which aggravates the impact of some actual distributional defects if they are present.
  - opportune 9y ago
    If class-based partner selection is not the source of the harm, but exacerbates the harm of inequality, how is it preferable to the alternative? If something is on fire, I would generally say it's "bad" to add fuel to it, hence my opinion. Of course I agree that this is more of an emergent effect of the classist society we inhabit than a cause of it, but most of the reasons that class-based partner selection can be "good" are precisely due to class inequalities in the first place.
    - lotsofpulp 9y ago
      "Classist society" is instinctive to all animals, it's just how mating and evolution works. I don't think we should, or are even able to, curb class-based partner selection to try and reduce wealth and income inequality. My preference would be to strive make sure that all people have the opportunity for a quality education and upbringing, by ways of guaranteeing shelter, quality food, and work protections to allow parents to spend time with children.
toasterlovin 9y ago
Honestly, this is just the modern version of a process that has taken place since the beginning of time. It's called assortative mating. Basically, people tend to end up married to people who are of an equivalent class/quality/caliber. Now there is a dating app which augments the role of country clubs, private schools, and expensive neighborhoods in enabling the elite to find each other. NBD. IMO, a much more troubling development is the way that the rise of college education in the 20th century has systematically pulled the cognitive elite out of most of the country and concentrated them in urban centers (where all the high paying jobs that demand elite cognition are located). Whereas the elites have always lived an existence far disconnected from the rest of us, now the upper middle class and lower middle class are similarly disconnected from each other.
imgabe 9y ago
I've learned to ignore news articles that talk about what could or might happen. That's not news, it's just speculation. The news is supposed to be things that did happen. Could elite dating apps exacerbate wealth inequality? Maybe. But people already segregate themselves by wealth pretty effectively. They would have to actually show that people who might have otherwise married someone of lower socioeconomic status didn't because of the app, and of course that's not available.
millermp12 9y ago
Mao had a Final Solution to solve the "problem" of assortative mating. But it didn't really stick, so I guess it'll have to be lobotomies all around.
almost_usual 9y ago
Doubt it. More than anything I believe this caters to a population who enjoys the feeling of being "exclusive" or "elite". Whatever, if someone is buying someone will sell.
Chevalier 9y ago
...no, they don't. Or at least not in the way that this article suggests. First, we should divide "dating" into two markets -- one for sex and one for long-term relationships. In my experience, existing dating apps overwhelmingly cater to the sex market. Even the ones supposedly designed to set up professionals are used by both genders to find quality people for quick flings. There IS massive "inequality" in the sex market -- women overwhelmingly judge men by a Pareto distribution, as evidenced by multiple studies (that I can cite upon request) -- but the fact that the average woman is uninterested in the average man doesn't stir within me a call for equitable distribution of sex partners. Then there's the long-term relationship market, which I admittedly don't know has been successfully addressed by any app. OKCupid's premise was that it would set up compatible people for long-term relationships, but I think OKC is out of vogue now. This is the void that apps like The League are trying to fill, I guess, though I'm baffled as to their appeal. For women (or either gender that wants to secure long-term commitment from a high-status, high-income mate), The League sort of makes sense. When you're done with your Tinder carousel and want to move on to a relationship, here's a pool of wealthy, connected men whose bank accounts suit your lifestyle aspirations. That's not a pitch that will inspire lust, but at least it's more palatable than admitting to being a sugar baby. For men, though... why would you want The League? Even if you're an unattractive guy, making what amounts to a Tinder profile for your bank account is just a terrible idea. If you're attractive enough, you can just have sex via Tinder. If you want to pay for sex, there are existing options. If you want someone to love... apps that brag "half of its active members earn more than $500,000" and its kin are frankly not going to provide that. - - - - - This article conflates two important ideas without really addressing either. There IS a very real, accelerating trend of what's called "assortive mating," where highly intelligent people move out of Nowhere, Kentucky to major cities where they meet spouses in line with their intelligence and success. These successful couples have more successful children, who then mate with other successful children, and so on. The less successful people are left behind, mate with other less successful people, and have less successful children who mate with other left behind children. This brain drain is both international and intranational. Then you have the question of mating strategies, particularly the (traditionally female) interest in securing long-term commitment. The recent book "Date-onomics" did a decent job describing the massive demographic challenge facing educated women in this market -- educated women overwhelmingly desire more successful men, but men generally don't care about their mates' education or status. In fact, as men prefer to date younger women, aging women face the twin challenges of narrowing interest and increasing competition (due to population growth or cultural differentials like age gaps). The League and its kind deserve some respect for nakedly addressing these mating strategies -- men offer up their status and wealth, and women presumably only need to be young and attractive. Dating apps probably DO accelerate assortive mating. Women are particularly sensitive toward status in men, especially educational attainment. (At least in the long-term relationship market, not necessarily in the sex market.) So ideas like The League and its competitors aren't necessarily a bad idea -- if you can market it as "OKCupid for successful people" rather than "Saudi prince seeking Instagram model." As far as I can tell though, anyone mature enough to want a long-term relationship is not in the douchey Vegas-ish market that The League is targeting. Anyone tasteless enough to want The League is probably more interested in its clique than its offerings. And that leaves wide open the potential market of "successful professionals who desire other successful professionals for long-term commitment without having to sort through the proletariat."
kyledrake 9y ago
> Ladies, you asked for quality gentlemen: Men are verified grads of top universities So was the "quality gentleman" that sexually harassed a friend of mine. Get an OKCupid account, and actually answer the questions. You'll get a list of people that are actually compatible with your values and beliefs. It's a far better way to date than any system that's based on superficial crap. People on OKC actually took the time to sit down and think about their relationship goals. You shouldn't be surprised that people that are good at communicating goals generally tend to be good at accomplishing other goals too. So you end up with a better way to find goal-oriented people like that (if that's your thing) than this approach would ever provide anyways.
eezurr 9y ago
I propose that the more wages stagnate and the COL increases, the more people are going to stick to dating and marrying people in their own socioeconomic class. I think there will be a threshold in which there is a clear choice to made between romance and lifestyle between two socioeconomic classes (barring the ultra rich). i.e., dating someone in a lower class than you incurs a higher cost that will have a significant impact on your financial plans (retirement, housing, edit: children, etc).
asdsa5325 9y ago
This is silly. Wealth inequality is a serious concern, but implying that wealthy people dating other wealthy people is making it worse is ridiculous. People can date whoever they want, it makes progressive movements look terrible if you push the notion that there must be economic balance among all relationships...
simonsarris 9y ago
"Elites are studiously silent about the familial basis of their relative success. Marital stability is now a form of competitive advantage for the upper tier ... amplified by the insistence that family formation is ... an obstacle to autonomy." - Patrick Deneen Most of the upper crust finds marital/family stability to be very necessary to success, while many cultural currents try to express that its not a big deal (or that it is better to be a forever bachelor and forever child). Many of the upper crust probably try to downplay it too. Think of how even the Clintons and Weiners[1] and Trumps are together and stay together, for instance. The problem isn't elite dating apps though, the problem is the common man and woman's perception and treatment of marriages/families. Elite dating apps are just signaling out in the open something that the elite have known for a very long time. The big advantage that the elite have here is recognizing the importance. [1] wiki says: > Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner withdrew their divorce case from court in January 2018, claiming they did so in order to spare their six year-old son further embarrassment. The claim is one thing, but the truth is that in spite of his terrible flaws/nature/whatever, they both agreed they still have work to do, be it ambition or family.
- notyourday 9y ago
  > "Elites are studiously silent about the familial basis of their relative success. Marital stability is now a form of competitive advantage for the upper tier ... amplified by the insistence that family formation is ... an obstacle to autonomy." - Patrick Deneen Divorce destroys wealth. Wealthy people understand that marrying partnering is a partnership which a sprinkle of romantic interest. Middle class and below is fixated on "finding the one" who will complete them and with whom he or she can be happy together in a crappy studio apartment without realizing that the crappy studio apartment they are going to be stuck in because "love conquers all" is going to seriously negatively affect their relationship.

50 points by thisisit 9y ago

I can see the concern, but I'd place it way down the list of things that could make the wealth gap worse. Debutante balls and other such classist dating practice have been around basically forever. I don't think digitizing them adds a particular new dimension of concern.

baud147258 9y ago
Came here to say that. I don't think it will worsen the current gap, dating has mostly been done among one's peer group, so using an app won't change anything.
- nkrisc 9y ago
  This app is the manifestation of the social norms that already exist, not a catalyst for new norms.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    The app can increase the degree to which the existing norms are realized rather than aspirational; to the extent that individual acheivement of the goals of the existing norm has adverse social consequences, that is rightfully a source of concern even if it involves nothing personally blameworthy and no change of norms.
- Aunche 9y ago
  I agree. If anything, regular dating apps like Tinder are decreasing the wealth gap.
hackermailman 9y ago
Agree, dating for the most part happens within social circles, so being super wealthy means you get introduced to other super wealthy potential partners on a regular basis through your network of friends at whatever yacht club, private school, nightclub VIP, ect. Almost every girl I've dated was because I went to a party, camping trip, dinner, beach or bar somewhere and a friend of a friend brought a single friend and introduced us. Online dating is just a way to expand search from your local social network.
Al-Khwarizmi 9y ago
Actually, it has been claimed that online dating has made marriages more diverse: https://lifehacker.com/how-online-dating-is-making-u-s-marriages-stronger-and-1820511844 https://lifehacker.com/how-online-dating-is-making-u-s-marri... So perhaps the effect of this will be a return (total or partial) to how things always were.

FussyZeus 9y ago

There are a lot of things making the wealth gap worse, dating apps catering to the wealthy is a symptom, not a cause.

rhizome 9y ago
My sense is that this article is submarine PR, but I can't quite discern which of the companies mentioned commissioned it.

ryanx435 9y ago

This is an ad for the elite dating sites. It's on bloomberg, for Christ sake. Their target market is elites.

Semirhage 9y ago
Sing it with me! We all live in a yellow journalistic submarine... http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
thwd 9y ago
This. And it's written in a cancerous SEO-advertising prose, spelling out "The League" verbatim once every paragraph. > But the med student says he prefers Tinder, a site with a reputation for facilitating hookups, and the League. That suffixed ", and the League".
_rpd 9y ago
It really is, and it appears to be intentional. It makes sense when you think about it - socially controversial articles get clicks, so they are a great vehicle for advertorials.
notadoc 9y ago
Psst... much of "news" is PR, marketing, or advertising.

askafriend 9y ago

I can’t help but think that this is really grasping for straws. Sure technically the headline may be correct...but there’s nothing wrong with wanting to date someone in the same socioeconomic class as you. On top of that, the amount that this contributes to the actual gap is probably minuscule relative to the other big contributors that are more systemic and policy-oriented rather than cultural.

sfotm 9y ago
Especially so since many people on existing dating applications probably filter by similar criteria anyway.
- Thriptic 9y ago
  Most dating apps filter by it too. If you are in the professional class, you will tend to be matched with other people in the professional class.
  - madeofpalk 9y ago
    I absolutely do not find this the case in Tinder (or other obviously less 'filtered' and more niche platforms)
ProAm 9y ago
"Birds of a feather flock together"

searine 9y ago

I signed up for the "The League" a few months ago. I appreciate that they added in options to be discrete, by excluding people at your employer or friends on facebook. Not that that kind of discretion was necessary, or worth the price. As for results, well, imho they have been no better than tinder. Lots of flakes, and seemingly random matches. Funnily enough I met my current partner on OkCupid, which seems antiquated by modern dating app standards.

teirce 9y ago
I feel like I hear more random success stories on OkCupid than anywhere else. It seems the commitment of swiping on <insert any of 20 apps here> is really thin. Not to mention that most people probably aren't looking to marry (or even date) someone from Tinder. I'm curious about your experience. Do you feel that anything in particular made OkCupid more successful for you? I feel that the level of information / detail in profiles might help for a more successful match, but I haven't put in any time on the platform myself.
- CapitalistCartr 9y ago
  My wife and I met on OKCupid, although that was seven years ago. It was a fine platform then, for finding non-monetary compatibility.
- searine 9y ago
  Online dating is just 90% random chance that both parties will be compatible, which is why quick swipe apps are so popular now (and what OKC has recently transitioned to as well). It allows for a greater throughput of matches, so you can eventually boil it down faster. I think the more detailed profile of OKC has always been very helpful conversationally, but really that's about it. I think the greater fraction of successful OKC dates is simply a result of it being around longer.
- magduf 9y ago
  I met my current dating partner on OKcupid a couple years ago. I've tried Tinder and while I've had more matches on there, and got more dates from it (before I got serious with this girl), I think OKC is better for finding compatible people for the reasons you name: there's simply a lot more information and detail in the profiles. OKC makes it easy to weed out people who have incompatibilities because you can see this stuff in the profiles in also in the answers to the many questions. The only problem with OKC in my view is that Tinder and similar low-information phone apps have basically taken over, so it seems like the traditional sites like OKC are basically dying out from lack of users. Just like any social network, these sites depend on a "critical mass" of users to work well.

rb808 9y ago

> Share of couples in which both partners have a college degree: now up to 15% Wow I'm out of touch with the real world.

Jtsummers 9y ago
Did you think it'd be higher or lower?
- Upvoter33 9y ago
  I think they mean: wow, that's way lower than I expected. I had the same reaction, as virtually every couple I know both have college degrees.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Historically, men date down (professionals marrying their executive admins, nurses marrying doctors) whereas women will not, so this percentage is based on how many college eduated women can find equally or greater educated, eligible men. Citation below. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-gap-hook-up-culture-female-graduates https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/nov/10/dating-...
    - 0x4f3759df 9y ago
      If women don't date down, then the higher they go, the fewer men there will be, its lonely at the top.
      - simonsarris 9y ago
        Yes, there are hundreds of articles about this. See for example: "The Mating Crisis Among Educated Women" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15736410 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15736410

supernintendo 9y ago

Am I the only one who sees the silver lining in this? I don't want to date rich people.

gravy 9y ago
For that reason? Yeah probably.

lacker 9y ago

Colleges themselves are a much bigger factor. If you go to an elitist college, you are much more likely to marry someone from that elitist college, and then to have a two-high-income household. It just seems inevitable, though - people want to date other people like themselves.

mediaman 9y ago
Yes - elite colleges, and top B-schools and the like, are often seen as part education, part networking...and part spouse-finding. For B-schools, more networking/signaling and spouse-finding than education.

notadoc 9y ago

I doubt it. Water finds its own level. Most people date/marry someones equally attractive, from an equal class, with equal education. That's fairly standard and always has been, which is why most people marry someone from their college, a job, church, or some other shared experience. It's the shared experience that typically brings people together, and keeps them together. And of course there are many cultures around the world with arranged marriages, and those almost always specifically aim to match equals from the same class background (or higher).

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Most people date/marry someones equally attractive, from an equal class, with equal education. Historically, the second has been strongly true, the first much less so, and the last basically false, though somewhat less untrue if you read “equal” as “in a roughly similar point on the distribution for their gender”. > And of course there are many cultures around the world with arranged marriages, and those almost always specifically aim to match equals from the same class background (or higher). If someone is getting higher, the other partner is getting lower. There is a necessary symmetry there.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  Since women weren't typically attend higher schooling until very recently, it doesn't make sense to compare it historically. I've seen people go higher and lower within their class, but not really go from one class to another, unless the person is supermodel worthy.
notyourday 9y ago
The really funny part is that SA demonstrated that it is also the case is arrangement - pretty much no one cares about the bottom 80% and people pay a boatload of money for early access to the top 5%.

bstar77 9y ago

Dating/marriage outside of your economic upbringing presents some difficult challenges that should not be trivialized. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to date someone that has a similar background to you. Relationships are much easier when you are with someone who share similar economic backgrounds and religious beliefs.

magduf 9y ago
I agree completely. Been there, done that. Never again will I date someone from a a different socioeconomic class or who has any significant religious beliefs. I tried being open-minded and it was a disaster.
- simias 9y ago
  Was the issue the socioeconomic class or the religious beliefs? I can see how different religious beliefs can be a very practical issue but it seems like socioeconomic class is a little less "dogmatic" and it would be easier to find a middle ground? That being said I can't really give life lessons here, I don't think I ever dated anybody outside of my "socioeconomic class", whatever that is.
  - magduf 9y ago
    Both, but the socioeconomic thing really killed it more than the religion. With religion, at least you can agree to disagree usually. But in a marriage, finances are shared to some extent, and you just can't get past that. When one partner is frugal and manages money carefully, and the other thinks "we're making all this money! why can't I spend it on xyz/tithe to my church/buy expensive gifts for my family/etc.?" the results won't be good.
    - bstar77 9y ago
      I understand this scenario completely, but I was able to make it work with my wife (who grew up very poor). Ironically, many people that grow up poor seem to not realize that many people who have money tend to be frugal with it- that's it's not a sign of weakness to be frugal. My wife and I are on the same page now-a-days (I definitely learned some things from her as well), but it was a struggle for a while hence why I don't think it's good to trivialize in the name of social equality.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago

So if we date someone of equal earning potential we make the wealth gap worse... If we date someone from a different economic class then one party is prone to abuse that power imbalance and take advantage... Sounds like what we all need is an app that just randomly assigns partners to fuck each other. It's really the only fair thing to do... Sign up for the Beta at www.sex-with-randos.com.

magduf 9y ago
>If we date someone from a different economic class then one party is prone to abuse that power imbalance and take advantage... Yep, been there, done that. It isn't even always intentional, it's just that when someone from a very different economic background, and who has a very different approach to handling finances, marries someone who has high earning potential, I've found they just can't reconcile these very different viewpoints.

Analemma_ 9y ago

Elite dating apps are the absolute worst. I was invited to an Ivy League alum dating app, and I swear Mensa and /r/atheism on their worst days never came close to the amount of smug, self-satisfied posturing as I saw there. I don't even think there was a lot of actual dating going on, most people were just there to show off. On the last of major socioeconomic problems in America, I really don't think "new apps for peacocking" is up there.

chalkandpaste 9y ago

I have two issues with this article. First, aren’t people going to be looking to pair up with someone in the same socioeconomic class anyway? That’s what we’ve mostly been doing over the course of history. That an app is based on this is not surprising. And I have a hard time believe apps perpetuate what we are already doing or exacerbate it. The second is the graph in the middle regarding distance from city center and population with a degree. Haven’t we, in general, been getting more degrees since the points of comparison? How is this, again not already distributed according to pre-existing trends? The curve also does not change significantly besides being shifted up (corresponding a generally high rate of university degrees). Is there a actually significant shift happening with those without college degrees with regard to distance from city center? I think not, or they would have showed it and it would have been more convincing.

opportune 9y ago

On a societal level, yes it's bad when romance stratifies along classist lines, not only because people miss out on potential compatible partners, but also because it increases inequality and cements generational wealth/prestige. On an individual level, it's definitely a good idea if you're wealthy. Since so many things correlate so well with wealth, or have wealth as a prerequisite, it could highly reduce someone's signal-noise ratio if they're looking for someone with those traits. For example, if you're an entrepreneur, or an amateur tennis player, or someone trying to play the corporate ladder climbing game like the example in the article, and you want to find someone similar, you'll have much more success finding someone similar to you among wealthy people, even though wealth is not necessarily a prerequisite to any of those things.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> On a societal level, yes it's bad when romance stratifies along classist lines I disagree. It's bad when the society has poor mechanisms for distribution of the gains of economy, and with certain deficiencies the magnitude of the impact will be exacerbated by wealth-stratified life partner selection, independent of the degree to which this associated with romance. However I partner selection is not th source of the harm, it's a factor which aggravates the impact of some actual distributional defects if they are present.
- opportune 9y ago
  If class-based partner selection is not the source of the harm, but exacerbates the harm of inequality, how is it preferable to the alternative? If something is on fire, I would generally say it's "bad" to add fuel to it, hence my opinion. Of course I agree that this is more of an emergent effect of the classist society we inhabit than a cause of it, but most of the reasons that class-based partner selection can be "good" are precisely due to class inequalities in the first place.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    "Classist society" is instinctive to all animals, it's just how mating and evolution works. I don't think we should, or are even able to, curb class-based partner selection to try and reduce wealth and income inequality. My preference would be to strive make sure that all people have the opportunity for a quality education and upbringing, by ways of guaranteeing shelter, quality food, and work protections to allow parents to spend time with children.

toasterlovin 9y ago

Honestly, this is just the modern version of a process that has taken place since the beginning of time. It's called assortative mating. Basically, people tend to end up married to people who are of an equivalent class/quality/caliber. Now there is a dating app which augments the role of country clubs, private schools, and expensive neighborhoods in enabling the elite to find each other. NBD. IMO, a much more troubling development is the way that the rise of college education in the 20th century has systematically pulled the cognitive elite out of most of the country and concentrated them in urban centers (where all the high paying jobs that demand elite cognition are located). Whereas the elites have always lived an existence far disconnected from the rest of us, now the upper middle class and lower middle class are similarly disconnected from each other.

imgabe 9y ago

I've learned to ignore news articles that talk about what could or might happen. That's not news, it's just speculation. The news is supposed to be things that did happen. Could elite dating apps exacerbate wealth inequality? Maybe. But people already segregate themselves by wealth pretty effectively. They would have to actually show that people who might have otherwise married someone of lower socioeconomic status didn't because of the app, and of course that's not available.

millermp12 9y ago

Mao had a Final Solution to solve the "problem" of assortative mating. But it didn't really stick, so I guess it'll have to be lobotomies all around.

almost_usual 9y ago

Doubt it. More than anything I believe this caters to a population who enjoys the feeling of being "exclusive" or "elite". Whatever, if someone is buying someone will sell.

Chevalier 9y ago

...no, they don't. Or at least not in the way that this article suggests. First, we should divide "dating" into two markets -- one for sex and one for long-term relationships. In my experience, existing dating apps overwhelmingly cater to the sex market. Even the ones supposedly designed to set up professionals are used by both genders to find quality people for quick flings. There IS massive "inequality" in the sex market -- women overwhelmingly judge men by a Pareto distribution, as evidenced by multiple studies (that I can cite upon request) -- but the fact that the average woman is uninterested in the average man doesn't stir within me a call for equitable distribution of sex partners. Then there's the long-term relationship market, which I admittedly don't know has been successfully addressed by any app. OKCupid's premise was that it would set up compatible people for long-term relationships, but I think OKC is out of vogue now. This is the void that apps like The League are trying to fill, I guess, though I'm baffled as to their appeal. For women (or either gender that wants to secure long-term commitment from a high-status, high-income mate), The League sort of makes sense. When you're done with your Tinder carousel and want to move on to a relationship, here's a pool of wealthy, connected men whose bank accounts suit your lifestyle aspirations. That's not a pitch that will inspire lust, but at least it's more palatable than admitting to being a sugar baby. For men, though... why would you want The League? Even if you're an unattractive guy, making what amounts to a Tinder profile for your bank account is just a terrible idea. If you're attractive enough, you can just have sex via Tinder. If you want to pay for sex, there are existing options. If you want someone to love... apps that brag "half of its active members earn more than $500,000" and its kin are frankly not going to provide that. - - - - - This article conflates two important ideas without really addressing either. There IS a very real, accelerating trend of what's called "assortive mating," where highly intelligent people move out of Nowhere, Kentucky to major cities where they meet spouses in line with their intelligence and success. These successful couples have more successful children, who then mate with other successful children, and so on. The less successful people are left behind, mate with other less successful people, and have less successful children who mate with other left behind children. This brain drain is both international and intranational. Then you have the question of mating strategies, particularly the (traditionally female) interest in securing long-term commitment. The recent book "Date-onomics" did a decent job describing the massive demographic challenge facing educated women in this market -- educated women overwhelmingly desire more successful men, but men generally don't care about their mates' education or status. In fact, as men prefer to date younger women, aging women face the twin challenges of narrowing interest and increasing competition (due to population growth or cultural differentials like age gaps). The League and its kind deserve some respect for nakedly addressing these mating strategies -- men offer up their status and wealth, and women presumably only need to be young and attractive. Dating apps probably DO accelerate assortive mating. Women are particularly sensitive toward status in men, especially educational attainment. (At least in the long-term relationship market, not necessarily in the sex market.) So ideas like The League and its competitors aren't necessarily a bad idea -- if you can market it as "OKCupid for successful people" rather than "Saudi prince seeking Instagram model." As far as I can tell though, anyone mature enough to want a long-term relationship is not in the douchey Vegas-ish market that The League is targeting. Anyone tasteless enough to want The League is probably more interested in its clique than its offerings. And that leaves wide open the potential market of "successful professionals who desire other successful professionals for long-term commitment without having to sort through the proletariat."

kyledrake 9y ago

> Ladies, you asked for quality gentlemen: Men are verified grads of top universities So was the "quality gentleman" that sexually harassed a friend of mine. Get an OKCupid account, and actually answer the questions. You'll get a list of people that are actually compatible with your values and beliefs. It's a far better way to date than any system that's based on superficial crap. People on OKC actually took the time to sit down and think about their relationship goals. You shouldn't be surprised that people that are good at communicating goals generally tend to be good at accomplishing other goals too. So you end up with a better way to find goal-oriented people like that (if that's your thing) than this approach would ever provide anyways.

eezurr 9y ago

I propose that the more wages stagnate and the COL increases, the more people are going to stick to dating and marrying people in their own socioeconomic class. I think there will be a threshold in which there is a clear choice to made between romance and lifestyle between two socioeconomic classes (barring the ultra rich). i.e., dating someone in a lower class than you incurs a higher cost that will have a significant impact on your financial plans (retirement, housing, edit: children, etc).

asdsa5325 9y ago

This is silly. Wealth inequality is a serious concern, but implying that wealthy people dating other wealthy people is making it worse is ridiculous. People can date whoever they want, it makes progressive movements look terrible if you push the notion that there must be economic balance among all relationships...

simonsarris 9y ago

"Elites are studiously silent about the familial basis of their relative success. Marital stability is now a form of competitive advantage for the upper tier ... amplified by the insistence that family formation is ... an obstacle to autonomy." - Patrick Deneen Most of the upper crust finds marital/family stability to be very necessary to success, while many cultural currents try to express that its not a big deal (or that it is better to be a forever bachelor and forever child). Many of the upper crust probably try to downplay it too. Think of how even the Clintons and Weiners[1] and Trumps are together and stay together, for instance. The problem isn't elite dating apps though, the problem is the common man and woman's perception and treatment of marriages/families. Elite dating apps are just signaling out in the open something that the elite have known for a very long time. The big advantage that the elite have here is recognizing the importance. [1] wiki says: > Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner withdrew their divorce case from court in January 2018, claiming they did so in order to spare their six year-old son further embarrassment. The claim is one thing, but the truth is that in spite of his terrible flaws/nature/whatever, they both agreed they still have work to do, be it ambition or family.

notyourday 9y ago
> "Elites are studiously silent about the familial basis of their relative success. Marital stability is now a form of competitive advantage for the upper tier ... amplified by the insistence that family formation is ... an obstacle to autonomy." - Patrick Deneen Divorce destroys wealth. Wealthy people understand that marrying partnering is a partnership which a sprinkle of romantic interest. Middle class and below is fixated on "finding the one" who will complete them and with whom he or she can be happy together in a crappy studio apartment without realizing that the crappy studio apartment they are going to be stuck in because "love conquers all" is going to seriously negatively affect their relationship.