3 ms·
That's likely a function of the area skewing so heavily towards a surplus of men. It's hard to play the field when the single man:single woman ratio is 3:1.
by ZoomerCretin 3y ago
That's likely a function of the area skewing so heavily towards a surplus of men. It's hard to play the field when the single man:single woman ratio is 3:1.
- giantg2 3y agoHow can it be 3:1? Seems the male/female breakdown for SF is about 1.1:1. There are some other factors, but I still don't see how it can be anywhere close to 3:1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisco#/media/File%3ASan_Francisco_City_population_pyramid_in_2021.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_San_Francisc...
- reducesuffering 3y agoLook at the male surplus until 60. Then remember that 80% of those are taken. And that the 1.1 : 1 ratio includes the huge 70+ women surplus. I could believe a 2:1 single ratio for ages 20 - 60
- anamexis 3y agoWouldn't 80% of males also be taken?
- reducesuffering 3y agoNo, the surplus skews it. If there's 120 males and 100 females for an age bracket like 30 - 40, and 80 of them are couples (assuming hetero), that leaves 40 males for 20 females as the rest, 2:1 single ratio. Men are born like 1.05 : 1 so early years are male-surplus and elderly are female-surplus because men die quicker. Then you also have the conundrum where males 20 - 50 are competing for women 20 - 35, so market dynamics aren't always 1 to 1 age-wise.