= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Creutzer comments on [Link] More ominous than a [Marriage] strike - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (90)
This. My impression is that a hard-working person can no longer expect income that supports a family. (I must admit that I have not researched what percentage of working men earn sufficiently much for that now vs. in the past, though.)
[edited to eliminate some unclarity, partly due to my confusing something, but preserving the main statement]
But one of the reasons why it used to be possible for one person to support a family but no longer is is that our standards for what “support a family” means have risen (see also).
If you're willing to be frugal (e.g. spend on yourselves as little as Julia Wise and Jeff Kaufman do) it isn't actually that hard to live on one income in the First World.
That and that when the supply of labor increases, the demand will go down.
That may well be so. Why does this sentence start with "but", though?
Signaling that you expect your mate to be frugal might not be a widely applicable strategy for attracting one, though…
If you're frugal yourself, it might be a signal you want to send if you want to improve the odds of a mate who won't drive you crazy.
It may be true for you. I doubt it's true for me. And most importantly, I doubt it's true for the average male. Hence not much of a surprise that people aren't going around signaling frugality and trying to support a family with one earner on a relatively low income.
The average ;male isn't frugal, either.
It's like any other unusual trait which works best with a cooperating partner.
Search this post for “Attractiveness: Mean and Variance”. (That's even more relevant for potential marriage partners than for casual sex. Also, what matters is not how many people are attracted to you, but how many people whom you're attracted to are attracted to you.)
(You posted the same comment twice; you might want to delete the other copy.)