wu :: forums
« wu :: forums - Economics of love/marriage/sex »

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Oct 19th, 2018, 4:51am

RIDDLES SITE WRITE MATH! Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members Login Login Register Register
   wu :: forums
   general
   truth
(Moderators: Icarus, towr, william wu, SMQ, Eigenray, Grimbal, ThudnBlunder)
   Economics of love/marriage/sex
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2 3 4  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Economics of love/marriage/sex  (Read 10356 times)
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #50 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 1:01pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 4th, 2009, 12:34pm, pex wrote:

Aha. I thought you were referring to a surplus that arises from the mere fact that they are a couple (call it synergy, if you like). But I see now that you are talking about a surplus that one of them (or both) enjoys, and that should somehow be split because they are a couple.

 
Yeah, it's whatever increases the value or perceived value of a game player (A or B) in the relationship ... it could be intangible such as becoming more popular, famous, becoming admired and respected among his peers.
 
Women can also act strategically to get more attention, more "value"
 
Quote:

In that case, I don't think most couples need (or should need) game theory here - they'll just figure out whatever irrational split they like best. It would be extremely complicated to adequately model such a situation in game-theoretic terms, because so many different factors are of influence, and we would need to assign a "value"/"utility"/whatever number to each of them to reach sensible conclusions.

 
Yeah, I agree it is tough .... I thought of the Cakecutting problem ... but in the case of multiple-flavor cake, and have A and B quantify the different "flavors" of the cake.
 
Here's the problem I posted in another forum:
 
Suppose you and a friend have a cake that is half chocolate and half vanilla...To quantify how much you and your friend want chocolate or vanilla you have assigned monetary values in dollars to each section of the cake. You have assigned the values $2 for chocolate and $0.75 for vanilla. You friend has assigned the values $1 for chocolate and $1.25 for vanilla. Thus the chocolate part of the cake is worth $2 to you and $1 to your friend.  
 
Division must be envy-free

 
And I thought of another Game theory problem:
 
The social norm of leaving the toilet seat down: A game theoretic analysis
 
Your thoughts, please.
 
 
 
 
IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #51 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 2:27pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

We could compare the division of "surpluses" to dividing a cake between two people. The obvious strategy is to cut it down the middle ... as with the "I cut, you choose" strategy.
 
However, with a cake which has different flavors, it gets more complicated. Suppose we have a chocolate cake with vanilla frosting.  
 
You may have one person likes frosting more than the other, it may be that slices unequal in size actually create a fairer distribution.
 
« Last Edit: Jul 4th, 2009, 2:28pm by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #52 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 2:38pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

To figure out how to cut the cake, or how one person can cut the cake so that he can value the two pieces cut equally, we may use a concept from Calculus : the Intermediate Value Theorem.
 
This theorem states that for a function f that is continuous on the interval [a, b], if there exists a value d between f(a) and f(b), then there is a value of c in (a, b) such that f(c) = d. For example, if someone was 5 feet tall last year and is now 5 feet 2 inches tall, at some point that person was 5 feet 1 inch tall. With the same reasoning, there is at least one place a person can cut a cake to create two pieces of equal value.  
 
The trick, of course, is to find that place. This theorem guarantees that a value exists, but it does not show how to find it.
 
IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****



Some people are average, some are just mean.

   


Gender: male
Posts: 13647
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #53 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 2:43pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 4th, 2009, 2:38pm, BenVitale wrote:
The trick, of course, is to find that place. This theorem guarantees that a value exists, but it does not show how to find it.
Do bear in mind the cake is getting stale while you spend days trying to find that optimal cut.
IP Logged

Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #54 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 3:13pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 4th, 2009, 2:43pm, towr wrote:

Do bear in mind the cake is getting stale while you spend days trying to find that optimal cut.

 
Yeah, no kidding! I have spent a lot of time thinking about dividing this cake ...
 
Intuitively, I can say that fairness does not equate to equal amounts ... it would depend on the other person.
 
I can be happy with a smaller portion, if the other person likes chocolate more the vanilla frosting.
 
OR
 
I'll be happy to take a smaller portion ....
 
... if the other person baked the cake
... if the other person bought the cake
... if it is his/her birthday or some other special occasion.
 
Intuitively, I know all that ... I'm just trying to quantify that in order to set up a matrix of payoffs.
 
 
IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #55 on: Jul 4th, 2009, 8:08pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I came across an article in Time Magazine
 
(1) A Bull Market for Online Dating
 
The article discusses the effect that economic downturns have on the online dating market during the recession  
 
Quote:

When the going gets tough, the tough go online-dating. "I just got laid off, and it's the holiday season. The last thing I want right now is to be lonely ...
 
Along with getting a job, finding a boyfriend is definitely a top priority."  
.........................
 
"People crave reassurance and comfort during stressful economic times like this,"
.........................  
They are afraid of being alone even in good times, but that fear is especially heightened nowadays."  
 

 
(2) Can Genetics Help You Find Love?
 
Remember the famous sweaty-T-shirt experiment?
 
 
« Last Edit: Jul 4th, 2009, 8:57pm by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
rmsgrey
Uberpuzzler
*****





134688278 134688278   rmsgrey   rmsgrey


Gender: male
Posts: 2818
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #56 on: Jul 7th, 2009, 12:20pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

If I eat too much cake, I start feeling sick... and stale cake is horrible, so I'm not bothered if other people want seconds...
IP Logged
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #57 on: Jul 12th, 2009, 12:57am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

(1) The law of one price (applied to relationships), and  
(2) bargaining power in relationships  
(3) The Alchian-Allen theorem.  
 
I've discussed items (2) and (3). I would like to discuss item (1).
 
Marriage and divorce :  
 
To many the world may seem nuts! But to an economist or to a game theorist the world makes perfectly sense.
 
However, even though each person makes rational choices, the result / the outcome can be something that none of them wanted;  we could say that rational behavior by individuals can produce irrational results for society.
 
Divorce is being underrated.
 
According to the author, divorce has pushed up women's  increasing earning power, and domestic violence has fallen, and by offering women an exit option, the new laws gave men stronger incentives to behave well inside a marriage.
 
« Last Edit: Jul 12th, 2009, 1:03am by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #58 on: Jul 12th, 2009, 1:09am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

men to women ratio USA
 
Key concept: law of one price
 
It takes two to tango, and it takes two to get married. Marriage therefore requires you that you go out and find someone you want to marry and persuade them to marry you. It's a matching problem, and it is not unique to marriage. Getting a job is emotionally a different proposition to finding a wife or a husband, but in some ways it's similar. You need to consider a range of jobs, work out which ones you prefer, and persuade the employer that he likes the match as much you do. And just as in the job market, who matches up with whom, and on what terms, will depend on what the competition is offering.
 
Imagine 20 single guys and 20 single women in a room. This is the marriage supermarket, so called because shopping is simple, there's nothing exciting about any of the products, and everything's under one roof. Getting "married" at the Marriage Supermarket is easy: Any man and woman who present themselves at the checkout can collect $100 (a simple way to represent the psychological or financial gains from getting married) and leave. Naturally, nobody agonizes about whether to get married in the Marriage Supermarket. It's a no-brainer, because any partner is equally good, and you get cash with no strings attached.
 
The Marriage Supermarket is a very simple model of marriage. Like all economic models, it leaves out many complicating details in an attempt to tease out something interesting about the core issues that remain.
 
And they are?
 
That most people would rather be married than remain single and your gains from getting married
depend on the supply of marriage partners. Of course, we know that in reality there are contented lifelong singletons and married people who curse the day they walked down the aisle. But to the extent that we accept these two premises as embodying a recognizable kernel of truth about the real world, the Marriage Supermarket can tell us something useful.
 
The gains from marriage in reality are not measured in dollars -- or at least, not in dollars alone. But for the purposes of this model, we do not need to know whether women (men) in reality are looking for men (women) who will give them money, orgasms, sparkling conversations, or a warm glow of security. All we need to know is that they would rather be married than single.
 
Since any couple can collect a hundred dollars to split between them, the only question is how to
divide the spoils. With equal numbers of men and women, we can expect 50-50 split. Yet it doesn't take much to change that conclusion utterly.
 
Imagine an unusual evening in the supermarket , when 20 single women show up but only 19 single me. What happened to the other guy? He's gay. Or dead. Or in prison. Or moved to Silicon Valley. Or is studying Game theory. For whatever reason he is not available -- like the half million single guys Carrie thinks have gone missing in Manhattan. You might think that the slight scarcity of men would cause the women some modest inconvenience, but in fact even this tiny imbalance ends up being very bad news for the women and very good news for the remaining men. Scarcity is power, and more power than you might have thought.
 
 
To be continued
 
« Last Edit: Jul 12th, 2009, 1:11am by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****



Some people are average, some are just mean.

   


Gender: male
Posts: 13647
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #59 on: Jul 12th, 2009, 8:05am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 12th, 2009, 12:57am, BenVitale wrote:
(1) The law of one price (applied to relationships)
Where will you find people that are exactly the same? If the "goods" aren't identical, the "law of one price" doesn't apply.
And not rarely people's evaluation is non-transitive. I could think A is better than B, B better than C and C better than A. Because there isn't an objective measure, and the criteria depend on what's being compared.
IP Logged

Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
Grimbal
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****






   


Gender: male
Posts: 7418
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #60 on: Jul 12th, 2009, 3:09pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

It even happens that A is better than B and B is better than A.  The grass is greener on the other side.  Cheesy
 
More realistic would be that you are given a "menu" telling you how much you get when leaving with a given partner.  The price list being different for everybody, and your preferred partner (the one that makes you earn the most) not necessarily having you as preferred partner.  So you have to negotiate, either offer some money to a partner who is profitable to you or try to sell yourself to a less interesting partner but who would profit from leaving with you.  You might also consider giving money to someone if he renounces being matched with a partner you are after.
 
It seems it takes more than 2 to tango, after all.
IP Logged
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #61 on: Jul 13th, 2009, 12:39pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 12th, 2009, 3:09pm, Grimbal wrote:
It even happens that A is better than B and B is better than A.  The grass is greener on the other side.  Cheesy

 
Maybe the grass is greener! Please read this article
 
Quote:

More realistic would be that you are given a "menu" telling you how much you get when leaving with a given partner.  The price list being different for everybody, and your preferred partner (the one that makes you earn the most) not necessarily having you as preferred partner.  So you have to negotiate, either offer some money to a partner who is profitable to you or try to sell yourself to a less interesting partner but who would profit from leaving with you.  You might also consider giving money to someone if he renounces being matched with a partner you are after.
 
It seems it takes more than 2 to tango, after all.

 
I need time to think about this ... I still have trouble accepting Tim Harford's claims. He made strong claims but he doesn't talk about any testing of the Law of One Price in marriages.
 
I may have to post 1 page from his chapter.
 
Is that Okay with you?
« Last Edit: Jul 13th, 2009, 12:48pm by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #62 on: Jul 13th, 2009, 12:41pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 12th, 2009, 8:05am, towr wrote:

Where will you find people that are exactly the same? If the "goods" aren't identical, the "law of one price" doesn't apply.
And not rarely people's evaluation is non-transitive. I could think A is better than B, B better than C and C better than A. Because there isn't an objective measure, and the criteria depend on what's being compared.

 
Towr,
 
The Law of One Price (LOP) as described here and here
 
I thought that this law could not be applied here, too.
 
I know that this law has been tested in Food Markets, and in commodity markets, but not in marriage supermarkets.
 
The Law of One Price (LOP) is a rule which states that in an efficient market, a security must have a single price, no matter how that security is created. For example, if an option can be created using two different sets of underlying securities, then the total price for each would be the same or else an arbitrage opportunity would exist.
 
where Arbitrage is the process of buying assets in one market and selling them in another to profit from unjustifiable price differences.
 
Could I post 1 page of his chapter so that we could all see it and discuss the Law of One Price in marriage supermarkets?
 
 
 
 
 
« Last Edit: Jul 13th, 2009, 12:49pm by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****



Some people are average, some are just mean.

   


Gender: male
Posts: 13647
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #63 on: Jul 13th, 2009, 1:47pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 13th, 2009, 12:41pm, BenVitale wrote:
The Law of One Price (LOP) as described here and here
Yeah, and that first link says  
"In an efficient market all identical goods must have only one price."
We're neither talking about goods, nor are they identical. And also consider teh give list of places where it doesn't apply.  
I really don't know what you want to do with it here.
IP Logged

Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #64 on: Jul 13th, 2009, 2:28pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 13th, 2009, 1:47pm, towr wrote:

I really don't know what you want to do with it here.

 
well, my aim is to build game theory models based on his book and on two other books written by behavorial economists.
 
I'm using this forum to deepen my understanding of economics and game theory, and test ideas and put together models.
IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #65 on: Jul 13th, 2009, 2:38pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

In physics there are well-established laws., e.g. the law of gravity... Economists have been working hard to establish laws as physicists have done in their field.
 
So, what laws are there in economics? There are two of them:
 
(1) The Law of Supply and Demand
(2) The Law of One Price
 
I have trouble with the second law. Why? Because this law is quite often violated.
And, since it is too often violated, then, why is it a law?
 
We expect the same thing to sell for the same price. This is the Law of One Price.  
 
Why should this be true?  
 
Common sense dictates that if you could buy an apple for 25¢ and sell it for 50¢ across the street, everyone would want to buy apples where they are cheap and sell them where they are priced higher. Yet this price disparity will not last: As people take advantage, prices will adjust until apples of the same quality sell for the same price on both sides of the street.  Furthermore, a basket of apples must be priced in light of the total cost of buying the fruit individually. Otherwise, people will make up their own baskets and sell them to take advantage of any mispricing.
 
Take the example of aspirin.
 
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Bayer aspirin and store brand aspirin are identical products, but that Bayer costs twice as much because some consumers believe (falsely, in this example) that Bayer is better. Would we expect markets to eradicate this price difference? Since the Bayer brand name is trademarked, it is not (legally) possible to go into the business of buying the store brand aspirin and repackaging it in Bayer bottles. This inability to transform the store brand into Bayer prevents one method arbitrageurs might use to drive the two prices to equality. Another possibility for arbitrageurs would be to try to sell the more expensive Bayer aspirin short today, betting that the price discrepancy will narrow once the buyers of Bayer “come to their senses.” Short selling works like this: an arbitrageur would borrow some bottles from a cooperative owner, sell the bottles today and promise the owner to replace the borrowed bottles with equivalent Bayer bottles in the future. Notice that two problems impede this strategy. First, there is no practical way to sell a consumer product short, and second, there is no way to predict when consumers will see the error in their ways. These problems create limits to the forces of arbitrage, and in most consumer goods markets, the Law may be violated quite dramatically
 
Source: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/richard.thaler/research/lawof.pdf
 
 
Next: I'll post parts from Harford's book  
« Last Edit: Jul 13th, 2009, 2:47pm by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****



Some people are average, some are just mean.

   


Gender: male
Posts: 13647
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #66 on: Jul 13th, 2009, 3:07pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 13th, 2009, 2:38pm, BenVitale wrote:
(2) The Law of One Price
 
I have trouble with the second law. Why? Because this law is quite often violated.
I think, that rather than being violated, it usually doesn't apply.
 
Quote:
And, since it is too often violated, then, why is it a law?
It is an ideal law. Drop a feather and a coin at the same time; the law of gravity tells you they should fall at the same rate, they don't. Why not? Because it is an ideal law, which doesn't apply under usual (non-vacuum) circumstances.
 
Quote:
We expect the same thing to sell for the same price. This is the Law of One Price.
But only under the condition we have one market, which has had time to reach equilibrium and where there is no difference in time or space between different parts of the market. And there are probably some other variables involved (such as convenience of buying all your goods at one place (comparing shops costs time and time is money).
 
Quote:
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Bayer aspirin and store brand aspirin are identical products
They are chemically identical.
 
Quote:
but that Bayer costs twice as much because some consumers believe (falsely, in this example) that Bayer is better.
Then, thanks to the placebo effect, it will probably also work better.
Also, the mistaken beliefs mean that the law of one price doesn't apply, because it assumes consumers are completely informed.
 
Quote:
Would we expect markets to eradicate this price difference?
No. Not unless the consumers get the appropriate information and take it to heart.  
And even then, there are advantages to buying merchandise from large companies; e.g. if the occasion arises where you can sue them over faulty products, there is more to be had (on the down side they will have better lawyers).
« Last Edit: Jul 13th, 2009, 3:08pm by towr » IP Logged

Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #67 on: Jul 14th, 2009, 11:13am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 12th, 2009, 3:09pm, Grimbal wrote:
..................
 
More realistic would be that you are given a "menu" telling you how much you get when leaving with a given partner.  The price list being different for everybody, and your preferred partner (the one that makes you earn the most) not necessarily having you as preferred partner.  So you have to negotiate, either offer some money to a partner who is profitable to you or try to sell yourself to a less interesting partner but who would profit from leaving with you.  You might also consider giving money to someone if he renounces being matched with a partner you are after.
 
It seems it takes more than 2 to tango, after all.

 
Wow! This could work in a classroom experiment ... but out there in the real world? I doubt it ...  
« Last Edit: Jul 14th, 2009, 11:13am by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #68 on: Jul 14th, 2009, 11:35am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Tim Harford writes:
 
One woman is going to go home with neither a spouse nor a check from the cashier. That's bad news for her. What is less immediately obvious is that women who do get a spouse are also going to be worse off -- and their loss is the men's gain. Remember that a couple gets to split a hundred dollars when they show up at the checkout; assume that the nineteen couples have provisionally agreed on a fifty-fifty split.
 
The odd woman out, contemplating going home empty-handed, will make the obviously rational decision to muscle in on an existing pairing. The unwanted woman could certainly offera better deal than a fifty-fifty split, perhaps agreeing to accept only 40 dollars. Her rival, being a similarly rational soul, won't want to lose out entirely, so she'll counterbid -- maybe offering to accept just 30 dollars. The bids will fall until the woman who faces leaving alone is offering to walk through the checkout with some lucky guy and accept just one cent as the price of doing so. He'll get $99.99; her one-cent profit is better than nothing.

 
This doesn't square with the empirical evidence of The Ultimatum game
 
In this game (the ultimatum game) test subjects respond to take-it-or-leave-it offers ... it's game that explores how humans handle issues like fairness and punishment.  Test subjects will reject a proposed division of an amount of money, at a cost to themselves, if they perceive it as unfair.  
 
So how can one get $99.99 leaving 1 cent to another test subject?
« Last Edit: Jul 14th, 2009, 11:43am by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #69 on: Jul 15th, 2009, 8:45am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I'm trying to understand Herford's reasoning.
 
Continued
 
The law of one price, which says that identical products on offer at the same time, in the same place, with the prices clearly visible will go for the same price. This is the Marriage Supermarket, so that's exactly the situation the women find themselves in. No matter what deals are agreed, there will always be on woman left over, offering to pair up for just one cent. The law of one price says one cent is what all of them will get: Anyone on the verge of getting a better offer will be undercut. The 19 men will each get $99.99. The 19 women will get a cent each , and the last woman will get nothing at all.

 
That's remarkable: A shortage of just one man gives all the other men massive scarcity power. The intuition is straightforward, though. Just one "leftover" woman can provide an outside option for every single man and spoil the bargaining position of every other woman.
 

That's how it would work in the Marriage Supermarket. You may have noticed some minor differences in reality. The conditions for the law of one price are never perfectly met. The bargaining process is not quite as calculating, although it is probably just as brutal. Most important, because the marriage supermarket measures the benefits of marriage in dollars, those benefits are easily transferred from one party to another. In reality, it's not as easy for suitors to bid against one another as marriage prospects ("I'll match Brian's guarantee of three orgasms per week, and add in at least one candlelit dinner") -- although the marriage of 26-year-old former Playboy centerfold Anna Nicole Smith to 89-year-old billionaire J.Howard Marshal II (both, sadly, now deceased) suggested there are some circumstances in which one potential marriage partner can compensate the other, at least tosome extent, for whatever shortcomings he or she might have.
 
Although the Supermarket produces overly stark conclusions, even in a more realistic setting the same underlying forces would be at play. A seemingly modest shortage of men leads to a surprisingly big disadvantage for women. The dramatic increase in the bargaining power of men doesn't harm merely the women who don't get to marry but also those who do. Their potential partners just have too many options to allow a fair bargain. Later in the chapter we'll see a striking example by looking at what happens to women when many of the young men they might have
married go to prison instead.
 
There is another big simplification involved in this thought experiment, which, when we shine the spotlight on it, tells us what strategiesthe real-world equivalents of women in the marriage supermarket can rationally pursue, given that offering cash to get a husband doesn't work so well. Outside the supermarket, you can go to college, set up a business, get plastic surgery or work out at the gym. In short, there are all sorts of ways you can make yourself a more attractive catch than the other guys and girls. This is indeed how rational women tend to respond to a shortage of women, as we shall see.
 
To take us there, though, let's take a step backward and ask why Carrie Bradshaw and the girls were facing such a  shortage of eligible men in New York. There's a rational explanation for this, too.

« Last Edit: Jul 15th, 2009, 8:47am by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****



Some people are average, some are just mean.

   


Gender: male
Posts: 13647
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #70 on: Jul 15th, 2009, 9:36am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 15th, 2009, 8:45am, BenVitale wrote:
That's remarkable: A shortage of just one man gives all the other men massive scarcity power. The intuition is straightforward, though. Just one "leftover" woman can provide an outside option for every single man and spoil the bargaining position of every other woman.
Provided, of course, that all the women have not a shred of self-esteem.
I think you were right before, comparing it to the ultimatum game for which there is actual empirical evidence. If there is 100 dollar to be divided, then one cent is no cent, and one dollar is no dollar.  People don't tend to think in exact terms, but rather in fuzzy terms like "all", "most", "half", "some", "nothing". So while in exact terms two dollars is better than one and one is better than none, in fuzzy terms it does not make a iota of difference.
 
Funnily enough, that's the same reason why pricing something as $9.99 instead of $10.00 works; the subjective (fuzzy) difference is much larger than the real (exact) difference. Where is the rationality in that?
 
(Hint: It lies in the fact that it's greatly simplifies the demands on our puny organic brains.)
 
As a corollary to that, I should also point out that the men and women will not notice the size difference between their two groups. A difference of one on group sizes of 20, is no difference. It won't affect negotiations until most people have paired off and left the market.
 
Quote:
You may have noticed some minor differences in reality.
That's the understatement of the year. It is nothing like reality at all.
« Last Edit: Jul 15th, 2009, 9:42am by towr » IP Logged

Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics of dating, love and sex  
« Reply #71 on: Jul 16th, 2009, 12:03am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Key concept : Rational Choice Theory (RCT) :
 
in Wikipedia
 
here
 
here
 
Good points, towr!
 
Tim Harford's book offers  many good insights... but it is not a university textbook.
 
His insights are useful, though.
 
Also. Tim's analytical shortcoming is that he says that these choices are all explicable using rational-choice theory.
 
But the problem with rational-choice theory is that it assumes that people always make rational choices.
 
I tend to believe that people are predictably irrational.
 
How can the Rational Choice Theory (RCT) apply in love and sex?
 
And, how about the Law of one price (LOP)?
 
LOP assumes frictionless markets, rational investors, and equal access to Market prices and information.  
 
It's an ideal. In a perfect world we could have that.
« Last Edit: Jul 16th, 2009, 12:14am by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics: Erratic wisdom  
« Reply #72 on: Jul 16th, 2009, 12:45pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Jul 15th, 2009, 9:36am, towr wrote:

 
Funnily enough, that's the same reason why pricing something as $9.99 instead of $10.00 works; the subjective (fuzzy) difference is much larger than the real (exact) difference. Where is the rationality in that?
 
(Hint: It lies in the fact that it's greatly simplifies the demands on our puny organic brains.)
 
......

 
An analysis of 840 advertisements revealed that odd prices, in particular prices ending in the digit 9, clearly outnumbered all other price endings.
 
The Widespread Use of Odd Pricing in the Retail Sector
 
Buyers believe that prices ending in uneven, rather than even numbers, (such as, $9.99, $199,999, etc.) are a better deal or a better price than even numbers (e.g. $10 or $200,000).  
 
And, the price 'band' on Online auctions, e.g. eBay, if you list a product A at $10.00 as opposed to listing the same product at $9.00
 
if the listing price is in the odd range, say $199,000, it will appear in a lower price band than the $200,000 listing and will be viewed as better value.  
 
At $199,000 the house will generate more interest than if it were listed at $200,000
 
The downside of this strategy is that houses ending in an odd number are also often perceived as being lower in value.  
 
 
« Last Edit: Jul 16th, 2009, 12:46pm by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
Benny
Uberpuzzler
*****





   


Gender: male
Posts: 1024
Re: Economics of dating/love/marriage/sex  
« Reply #73 on: Jul 17th, 2009, 6:32pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Tim Harford writes:

The ancestral environment, the African Savannah, a long time ago :
 
Males and females have different approaches to sex and marriage. This is because it takes a female
9 months to make a baby, while it takes a male about 2 minutes. This simple biological fact, allied
to the inexorable force of natural selection, lies behind the folk wisdom that males (not just human males) are always available for sex. Men typically do not need much persuading to invest a short amount of time in having sex, with the chance of spreading their genes as a result, because they are the sons of men who did not need much persuading. For females (not just human females) sex tends to lead to pregnancy, and pregnancy is a serious commitment of time and resources. It is best only to risk pregnancy when the time and the partner are right, so women have higher standards and take more persuading. Women are more cautious because they are the daughters of women who were cautious.
« Last Edit: Jul 17th, 2009, 10:40pm by Benny » IP Logged

If we want to understand our world — or how to change it — we must first understand the rational choices that shape it.
towr
wu::riddles Moderator
Uberpuzzler
*****



Some people are average, some are just mean.

   


Gender: male
Posts: 13647
Re: Economics of dating/love/marriage/sex  
« Reply #74 on: Jul 18th, 2009, 2:53am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Isn't it wonderful when evolutionary psychology "confirms" our biases of human sexual roles. Yeah, nothing suspicious about that at all...
*cough* bullshit *cough* Roll Eyes
 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.02.005
« Last Edit: Jul 18th, 2009, 2:54am by towr » IP Logged

Wikipedia, Google, Mathworld, Integer sequence DB
Pages: 1 2 3 4  Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board