Jayson_Virissimo comments on Marketplace Transactions Open Thread - Less Wrong

29 Post author: John_Maxwell_IV 02 June 2012 04:31AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (40)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MileyCyrus 02 June 2012 06:40:56AM 17 points [-]

This is not an offer but it is related to marketplace norms.

Bryan Caplan argues that romantic relationships are the last refuge of the just price theory. Relationships are expected to "equal" in that both parties the burdens and benefits are split equally. If I do the dishes, my partner is expected to sweep the floor. If I pick which restaurant we go to tonight, my partner gets to pick next week.

I'm wondering if LWers would react if, hypothetically, they were offered the chance to be in an "unequal" relationship. Let's say you are looking for a long-term mate. A particular brilliant and attractive mate, the kind that would normally be "out of your league" offers you the following terms:

  • You do 70% of the housework.
  • You pay for 70% of the household expenses, even though you are both earn the same amount.
  • 70% of the time, they get to decide what happens on date nights. (ex. which movies to watch, what restaurant to eat at)

Would you consider this offer, weighing the value of an attractive mate verses the costs of an unequal relationship? Or would you be offended that this person differed you an unequal relationship, when clearly only equal relationships can be just?

Conversely, suppose a mate who was normally "below your league" offers to reverse the deal: you only do 30% of the house work, ect. Would you be consider a lopsided arrangement with an unattractive mate, or would you reject it out of hand as being exploitative?

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 02 June 2012 12:39:29PM *  3 points [-]
  1. I am fairly sure I would be incredibly unhappy in an "equal" relationship (I would predict the same for the vast majority of humans).
  2. Being in an "equal" relationship seems like it would be very inefficient because you couldn't realize gains from specialization in certain tasks.
  3. Due to sexual dimorphism (assuming opposite sex partners), doing the same amount of X isn't necessarily any fairer than doing different amounts of X (not to mention some tasks, like pregnancy and childbirth, cannot be "equal" without extreme biological augmentations).
Comment author: Pavitra 02 June 2012 08:45:00PM 2 points [-]

Due to sexual dimorphism (assuming opposite sex partners), doing the same amount of X isn't necessarily any fairer than doing different amounts of X

Would you expect significantly more "equal" relationships among homosexual couples than among heterosexual couples?

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 02 June 2012 09:36:51PM *  4 points [-]

I would anticipate there being a measurable difference between homosexual and heterosexual populations.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 02 June 2012 02:06:51PM 3 points [-]

Being in an "equal" relationship seems like it would be very inefficient because you couldn't realize gains from specialization in certain tasks.

How does that follow? Both partners doing about the same amount of things doesn't mean that one of them couldn't specialize in certain kinds of tasks.

Also, whether the division of tasks is subjectively experienced as equal is usually the most relevant criteria, which can make for a division that would be very unequal if looked at in objective terms.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 02 June 2012 08:04:09PM *  2 points [-]

Kaj, I am referring to equality among objective measures like time spent doing X or number of times doing X per time T. Since most people have different skills and preferences most people would not have a subjective impression of fairness while splitting up tasks equally (in the objective sense). Frankly, I would feel very petty if I insisted that my wife spend equal time doing computer maintenance that I do (even though I am more experienced and enjoy it more).