4 ms·
This has a simple explanation that the article doesn't account for, namely that the busier you are with work at a young age (and hence better income), the less
by carterschonwald 18y ago
This has a simple explanation that the article doesn't account for, namely that the busier you are with work at a young age (and hence better income), the less time you have for sexual activity within or without an associated relationship.
- nod 18y agoWell, the author does mention "Or maybe you're just left with less time to go to work." in the 4th paragraph. The thing of interest to me, though, was the gender-based age difference in the inversion point of the money/sex correlation. I would have expected the opposite, frankly, given society's "breadwinner" v. "trophy wife" archetypes.
- jballanc 18y agoSince the analysis is based on comfort with financial position, not absolute financial position, I would suspect this reflects the fact that women feel the need for financial security before being able to feel relaxed at a younger age than men. In other words, more or less keeping with societal norms.
- adamsmith 18y agoThis explanation rings very true in the lives of the post-college people I know. Indeed I think this is the strongest effect in the system: the spreads between the two financial groups are about 10-20% at all points EXCEPT FOR the spread for males in the 20-30 age group where the spread looks more like 50%. It doesn't surprise me that females aged 20-30 don't show this spread. I'd expect to see a similar dynamic in sex versus grades for college age males. It's the stereotypical example of partying versus studying on a Thursday or Friday night, with $$$ substituted for grades!