Monday, November 12, 2007
The Economics of Love
The JamaicaObserver states a study which shows that the number count of attractive women is increasing, while the number of 'unattractive men' is also increasing. "According to a 2005 study by the London School of Economics, led by Dr [Satoshi] Kanazawa and published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, attractive women are in higher supply than handsome men because beautiful parents are more likely to have daughters than sons.
And as time passes, the gap widens. The researchers showed that beautiful people are 36 per cent more likely to have a daughter than a son as their first-born child. Contrary, less attractive people have more sons - more less attractive sons that is.
Dr Kanazawa based his conclusions on data from 3,000 Americans taking part in an investigation called the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. When Dr Kanazawa looked at the sex of the volunteers' first-born children, he found attractive parents were far more likely to have had girls."
Freakonomics blogs about this, "It is good that Kanazawa is only a researcher and not, say, the president of Harvard. If he were, that last finding about scientists may have gotten him fired."
While I can think of a lot of funny quips to go with this, you might also want to revisit the tiny 'economics of gold-digging' storm in a teacup raised by a Craigslist posting in which an NYC wall street fat cat called a 25 year old attractive woman looking for a rich guy a 'depreciating asset'.
"Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity...So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you! I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know. "
And the response to the response : "By now you are likely scratching your ever-vanishing hairline in confusion, so allow me to elaborate...If your grasp of finance were not a minority partner with your ego, you would realize that the "outflows" associated with my depreciating "assets" are quite certain, and therefore subject to a low discount rate when determining their present value...."
To take this a bit further, here's a study by Charlotte Perkins Gilman titled "Women And Economics : A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution".
The horse, in his free natural condition, is economically independent. He gets his living by his own exertions, irrespective of any other creature. The horse, in his present condition of slavery, is economically dependent. He gets his living at the hands of his master; and his exertions, though strenuous, bear no direct relation to his living. In fact, the horses who are the best fed and cared for and the horses who are the hardest worked are quite different animals. The horse works, it is true; but what he gets to eat depends on the power and will of his master. His living comes through another. He is economically dependent. So with the hard-worked savage or peasant women. Their labor is the property of another: they work under another will; and what they receive depends not on their labor, but on the power and will of another. They are economically dependent. This is true of the human female both individually and collectively."
Lemme take a guess....Charlotte Perkins Gilman, if she turns up at Harvard, will likely be burned at the stake by the 'politically correct discourse' brigade...
In summary, women depend on men for their money, and they bring their looks to the table, where first choice seating is provided to the rich men. Thus, women need looks, and men need money. Driven by necessity, evolution has taken over and started producing more beautiful women (who can easily garner rich men ) and more ugly men ( who will work harder to get rich than handsome men ).
And as time passes, the gap widens. The researchers showed that beautiful people are 36 per cent more likely to have a daughter than a son as their first-born child. Contrary, less attractive people have more sons - more less attractive sons that is.
Dr Kanazawa based his conclusions on data from 3,000 Americans taking part in an investigation called the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. When Dr Kanazawa looked at the sex of the volunteers' first-born children, he found attractive parents were far more likely to have had girls."
Freakonomics blogs about this, "It is good that Kanazawa is only a researcher and not, say, the president of Harvard. If he were, that last finding about scientists may have gotten him fired."
While I can think of a lot of funny quips to go with this, you might also want to revisit the tiny 'economics of gold-digging' storm in a teacup raised by a Craigslist posting in which an NYC wall street fat cat called a 25 year old attractive woman looking for a rich guy a 'depreciating asset'.
"Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity...So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you! I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know. "
And the response to the response : "By now you are likely scratching your ever-vanishing hairline in confusion, so allow me to elaborate...If your grasp of finance were not a minority partner with your ego, you would realize that the "outflows" associated with my depreciating "assets" are quite certain, and therefore subject to a low discount rate when determining their present value...."
To take this a bit further, here's a study by Charlotte Perkins Gilman titled "Women And Economics : A Study of the Economic Relation Between Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution".
The horse, in his free natural condition, is economically independent. He gets his living by his own exertions, irrespective of any other creature. The horse, in his present condition of slavery, is economically dependent. He gets his living at the hands of his master; and his exertions, though strenuous, bear no direct relation to his living. In fact, the horses who are the best fed and cared for and the horses who are the hardest worked are quite different animals. The horse works, it is true; but what he gets to eat depends on the power and will of his master. His living comes through another. He is economically dependent. So with the hard-worked savage or peasant women. Their labor is the property of another: they work under another will; and what they receive depends not on their labor, but on the power and will of another. They are economically dependent. This is true of the human female both individually and collectively."
Lemme take a guess....Charlotte Perkins Gilman, if she turns up at Harvard, will likely be burned at the stake by the 'politically correct discourse' brigade...
In summary, women depend on men for their money, and they bring their looks to the table, where first choice seating is provided to the rich men. Thus, women need looks, and men need money. Driven by necessity, evolution has taken over and started producing more beautiful women (who can easily garner rich men ) and more ugly men ( who will work harder to get rich than handsome men ).
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
