6 ms·

Social class seems to have always played an important role in marriage (e.g. Jane Austen as a primer on 19th-century upperclass British society), so I'm not sur

by whakim 5y ago

Social class seems to have always played an important role in marriage (e.g. Jane Austen as a primer on 19th-century upperclass British society), so I'm not sure it's fair to say that this is change from the past. But I think it's fair to say that it is a factor in concentrating wealth.

QuarterReptile 5y ago
The change is the soaring achievement levels of some woman where they achieve themselves right out of marriage-ability.
- bumby 5y ago
  Can you elaborate on why high achieving women are less likely to get married? I think the research shows the opposite and the marriages tend to last longer
  - QuarterReptile 5y ago
    At the individual level, yes, there will probably always be a man outcompeting any woman at the top of a competitive field. But on a population level, the instability [0] of matches where the woman out-earns the man means that the pattern of women outnumbering men in ever-more prestigious fields is going to leave some very successful women without good matches. And foregoing that weaker match has increasingly little apparent downside when you're finding some career satisfaction and materially very comfortable. I think you're referring to the fact that successful marriages are largely becoming a luxury good, but these can both be true for a couple of reasons. First, using education as a proxy for attainment (please give me something better, because I haven't found it) I struggle to find statistics going past four year degrees to really talk about the top or competitive fields, and that isn't sufficient. Second, it seems reasonable to me that the women (and men) excelling professionally would have, on average, better chances of making a marriage work; it may be that a strong correlation between women's propensity for success in career and success in marriage is obscuring a negative effect of outlier-achievement on rates of getting and staying married that is also coming into play. Besides all this, it's consistent with what I encounter in my daily life. [0] https://www.nber.org/papers/w19023 https://www.nber.org/papers/w19023
    - bumby 5y ago
      >women outnumbering men in ever-more prestigious fields is going to leave some very successful women without good matches. I agree with your post but the quote above speaks to my original point further up the thread. The fact that this assumes that the only suitable mate is one of the same career status is part of what drivers income inequality. Other than that, the only other proxy for attainment is income but it’s still the same story
      - QuarterReptile 5y ago
        >The fact that this assumes that the only suitable mate is one of the same career status is part of what drivers income inequality. Absolutely. The proliferation of two-income families is a huge and well-documented driver of inequality. But the fact is that human woman tend not to marry below themselves in terms of some combination of status markers that they judge as important. And human men who don't feel like their contributions are important to the family (primary earner, mostly) tend to make their relationships less stable.
        bumby 5y ago
        >the fact is that human woman tend not to marry below themselves in terms of some combination of status markers I think this point to what people have an issue with. In many western cultures people are told marriage/mating is based on love, yet more than a trivial amount of what people see is largely based on status. They may not be mutually exclusive, but not weighted in the proportion that is commonly spoken about
        QuarterReptile 5y ago
        Once again, I am in almost complete agreement; I am the last person to defend popular US American messaging about love and match-making. It is mostly fanciful lies, and telling young people how you wish things were does not prepare them for life.
bumby 5y ago
IIRC it was the book The Meritocracy Trap that detailed the change from past generations, but I don’t know the numbers or underlying sources off the top of my head
- whakim 5y ago
  Thanks for bringing up the source; if you do end up finding the data I'd love to see it. It's also fascinating to think about the relationship between social changes like this one and some of the economic/political drivers of inequality (less progressive taxation/inegalitarian investments in education/globalization). I suspect that the rise of tertiary education over the past 40-50 years which has further stratified educational attainment along class lines may be a relevant factor.
  - bumby 5y ago
    >I suspect that the rise of tertiary education over the past 40-50 years which has further stratified educational attainment along class lines may be a relevant factor. This was a central point to the aforementioned book. The gist being elites invest in education, skill investment, and long hours that leads to more money that they can use to invest in more education and skill development in their children to repeat the cycle. The irony being that, while education and skill development work to gain material success, the long hours required to stay at the top of the competitive heap also makes the meritocratic winners miserable.
    - newbie2020 5y ago
      I dunno, I’m pretty sure it’s awesome being a winner!
      - bumby 5y ago
        I guess it depends on how you define winner. If you measure winning primarily by social status or money, sure. But one of the main points of the book is to illustrating the costs of all that "winning". There was one quote from the book of a high-achieving mother who, due to long hours, only got to spend 20 minutes a day with her child but "wouldn't give up those 20 minutes for the world." If you're someone who values close human relationships, I don't know if I'd call that "winning".

by whakim 5y ago

QuarterReptile 5y ago

The change is the soaring achievement levels of some woman where they achieve themselves right out of marriage-ability.

bumby 5y ago
Can you elaborate on why high achieving women are less likely to get married? I think the research shows the opposite and the marriages tend to last longer
- QuarterReptile 5y ago
  At the individual level, yes, there will probably always be a man outcompeting any woman at the top of a competitive field. But on a population level, the instability [0] of matches where the woman out-earns the man means that the pattern of women outnumbering men in ever-more prestigious fields is going to leave some very successful women without good matches. And foregoing that weaker match has increasingly little apparent downside when you're finding some career satisfaction and materially very comfortable. I think you're referring to the fact that successful marriages are largely becoming a luxury good, but these can both be true for a couple of reasons. First, using education as a proxy for attainment (please give me something better, because I haven't found it) I struggle to find statistics going past four year degrees to really talk about the top or competitive fields, and that isn't sufficient. Second, it seems reasonable to me that the women (and men) excelling professionally would have, on average, better chances of making a marriage work; it may be that a strong correlation between women's propensity for success in career and success in marriage is obscuring a negative effect of outlier-achievement on rates of getting and staying married that is also coming into play. Besides all this, it's consistent with what I encounter in my daily life. [0] https://www.nber.org/papers/w19023 https://www.nber.org/papers/w19023
  - bumby 5y ago
    >women outnumbering men in ever-more prestigious fields is going to leave some very successful women without good matches. I agree with your post but the quote above speaks to my original point further up the thread. The fact that this assumes that the only suitable mate is one of the same career status is part of what drivers income inequality. Other than that, the only other proxy for attainment is income but it’s still the same story
    - QuarterReptile 5y ago
      >The fact that this assumes that the only suitable mate is one of the same career status is part of what drivers income inequality. Absolutely. The proliferation of two-income families is a huge and well-documented driver of inequality. But the fact is that human woman tend not to marry below themselves in terms of some combination of status markers that they judge as important. And human men who don't feel like their contributions are important to the family (primary earner, mostly) tend to make their relationships less stable.
      - bumby 5y ago
        >the fact is that human woman tend not to marry below themselves in terms of some combination of status markers I think this point to what people have an issue with. In many western cultures people are told marriage/mating is based on love, yet more than a trivial amount of what people see is largely based on status. They may not be mutually exclusive, but not weighted in the proportion that is commonly spoken about
        QuarterReptile 5y ago
        Once again, I am in almost complete agreement; I am the last person to defend popular US American messaging about love and match-making. It is mostly fanciful lies, and telling young people how you wish things were does not prepare them for life.

bumby 5y ago

IIRC it was the book The Meritocracy Trap that detailed the change from past generations, but I don’t know the numbers or underlying sources off the top of my head

whakim 5y ago
Thanks for bringing up the source; if you do end up finding the data I'd love to see it. It's also fascinating to think about the relationship between social changes like this one and some of the economic/political drivers of inequality (less progressive taxation/inegalitarian investments in education/globalization). I suspect that the rise of tertiary education over the past 40-50 years which has further stratified educational attainment along class lines may be a relevant factor.
- bumby 5y ago
  >I suspect that the rise of tertiary education over the past 40-50 years which has further stratified educational attainment along class lines may be a relevant factor. This was a central point to the aforementioned book. The gist being elites invest in education, skill investment, and long hours that leads to more money that they can use to invest in more education and skill development in their children to repeat the cycle. The irony being that, while education and skill development work to gain material success, the long hours required to stay at the top of the competitive heap also makes the meritocratic winners miserable.
  - newbie2020 5y ago
    I dunno, I’m pretty sure it’s awesome being a winner!
    - bumby 5y ago
      I guess it depends on how you define winner. If you measure winning primarily by social status or money, sure. But one of the main points of the book is to illustrating the costs of all that "winning". There was one quote from the book of a high-achieving mother who, due to long hours, only got to spend 20 minutes a day with her child but "wouldn't give up those 20 minutes for the world." If you're someone who values close human relationships, I don't know if I'd call that "winning".