5 ms·

I'd add that when you're in your 30s or 40s, you're simply too late. The good men are already taken. There may still be plenty of men in the same age group, si

• mrep 5y ago
  So your definition for good men are only people who have never had a break up in their 30s/40s because there are plenty of people who have?
  • fleddr 5y ago
    No, not at all. I think from this context you'd understand that "good" means most attractive or most desired within the scope of selecting a partner. It doesn't mean you're a good or bad person in general. And of course, some attractive ones are returned to the pool. But most are not, so the bigger issue of low supply remains.
• bumby 5y ago
  This reminds me of the classical efficient market economists perspective that it’s a waste of time to pick up a $100 bill from the sidewalk. Because if it were a real $100 bill somebody else would have obviously picked it up already. I don’t know that you can make the claim that the mating market is completely efficient.
  • allturtles 5y ago
    The reason that joke is funny is that the economists are ignoring the fact that someone has to be the first person to come across that $100 bill. One is not likely be the first woman to 'come across' a single man in his 30s-40s, who has presumably been 'on the sidewalk' for 10-20+ years.
    • bumby 5y ago
      It's a play on the idea of market efficiency. From the classical economist perspective, there's no point in trying to beat the market because if it were possible, somebody would have already discovered and exploited it, leaving you unable to do so similarly. Just like the dating claim that if somebody was desirable, they would have already been taken. My claim is that both perspectives are wrong because neither market is perfectly efficient. Ironically, taking the approach that they are efficient makes it harder to accomplish either end of beating the market or finding a mate.
      • allturtles 5y ago
        I don't think the situations are at all similar. If you come across a $100 bill, chances are you are in fact the first person to come across it. You've already beaten the odds. If you come across a man in his 30s-40s who has always been single, chances are he is not a '$100 bill' man. It's possible that he is, but it's very unlikely. This is not the same as saying that there are no such thing as older '$100 bill' men, just like $100 bills do sometimes (but very rarely) end up on sidewalks.
        • bumby 5y ago
          I think you’re missing the entire point of the joke. >If you come across a $100 bill, chances are you are in fact the first person to come across it. The economist assumes you won’t be the first person because of market efficiency. Your assumption above disregards this. It seems like you are having a hard time reconciling that with the imagined scenario of seeing the bill, because the assumption is someone who noticed it previously would have picked it up. The fact that those two don’t reconcile is the whole point.
          • allturtles 5y ago
            I get the point of the joke. The equivalent would be if someone were saying "Oh I met this handsome, rich, kind, unmarried 45-year-old man last night, but there must be something wrong with him, or else someone would have married him already." But I'm not saying that and I don't think the originator of this sub-thread is either. We're saying "Only a small portion of the available older men will actually be attractive mates (on whatever dimensions) because those who are attractive will have mostly been taken already." It's like an economist saying "It's not a good use of your time to go outside scouring the sidewalks for $100 bills." That's not funny, it's just accurate.