« seriously | Main | Wacky Patents »
Why are there so few eligible bachelors?
...game theory predicts, and empirical studies of auctions bear out, that auctions will often be won by "weak" bidders, who know that they can be outbid and so bid more aggressively, while the "strong" bidders will hold out for a really great deal. You can find a technical discussion of this here. (Be warned: "Bidding Behavior in Asymmetric Auctions" is not for everyone, and I certainly won't claim to have a handle on all the math.) But you can also see how this works intuitively if you just consider that with a lot at stake in getting it right in one shot, it's the women who are confident that they are holding a strong hand who are likely to hold out and wait for the perfect prospect.
This is how you come to the Eligible-Bachelor Paradox, which is no longer so paradoxical. The pool of appealing men shrinks as many are married off and taken out of the game, leaving a disproportionate number of men who are notably imperfect (perhaps they are short, socially awkward, underemployed). And at the same time, you get a pool of women weighted toward the attractive, desirable "strong bidders."
Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them—and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness.
Here is the full argument. I don't, however, quite buy this as the explanation of the phenomenon. I view the real world auction as being held -- at least if you wish -- continuously rather than at discrete times. So the "strong bidding women" can always cave and settle for a "lesser man" after an optimal amount of waiting, yet many don't. The distinction between period-by-period happiness and overall lifetime happiness also shapes the market. As smart single women mature, their lives get better and better. "Settling" becomes psychologically harder, even if it would make some of the "settlers" happy in the longer run. So settling doesn't happen; decisiveness become harder to conjure up at the same time that its long-run value is increasing, or in other words behavioral economics is very much at work here.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on April 11, 2008 at 07:01 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
"As smart women mature, their lives get better and better."
Roissy, calling Roissy to the podium....
This isn't what I personally observe.
Posted by: Billare at Apr 11, 2008 7:49:29 AM
From what I observe, life gets better and better for just about all smart people.
Posted by: infopractical at Apr 11, 2008 9:11:45 AM
Isn't there a big assumption that relative value (desirability) doesn't change over time? Garth Brooks effectively addressed this in "Thank God for Unanswered Prayers." My observations are that people change enormously over time, due to events they can't control as well as to their own personal characteristics. For those who paired off early, how does one re-value this asset at a point in the future? I don't think that the elements of relative value remain constant, nor do they carry the same weights over time.
Posted by: Laocoon at Apr 11, 2008 9:12:49 AM
This article doesn't offer anything to support the idea that there is a shortage of quality men, at least compared to the supply of quality women.
Where are all the single socially-connected swimsuit model Rhode scholar women? Can they cook?
Posted by: Steve R at Apr 11, 2008 9:13:24 AM
I thought that male survival is weak, so that even though at birth there are slightly more boys then girls, boys get sicker sooner and suffer much higher rates of things like autism, retardation, etc. Also, there is a higher incidence of incarceration and accidental/violent death.
I think there may just be more eligible women than men. Maybe we should reevaluate polygamy? ;)
Posted by: JoshK at Apr 11, 2008 9:28:03 AM
Thats a very "narrow minded" point of view. One almost assumes a ubiquity of the "items" bid for, as well as the bidders them selves. If you scratch the surface with just a little more thought, you might consider the question of what is the metric of "eligible bachelor". Desirability is probably the most difficult thing to describe mathematically. (I'd rather take my chances with a differential model of the Dow, at least I can confine the range to some real numbers). One womans louse, is another womans husband. Regardless of what stage of life their at.
But setting all that nonsense aside, and all this BS about womens lib, perhaps theres been a renaissance of mens lib. Because Tyler Durden has them all out creating their own personal armies.
"A generation of men, raised by women. Is another woman really the answer?".
People forget that making the connection is a 2 sided decision. What does the math tell you if the item on the auction block decides it doesn't want to be bought? Oh we don't have a model for that yet.
So I find these 1 size fits all, analysis of why marriages are so scarce of late, rather disconcerting. Perhaps the author started out with a good idea, that might help to elucidate a problem. But it seems more like personal bias that meaningful inquiry.
The road to hell is paved with good intention.
Posted by: James at Apr 11, 2008 9:38:52 AM
Wait, Laocoon, wasn't that song about him being thankful he *didn't* marry a woman
he knew when he was younger, who *was* relatively desirable then?
Posted by: Person at Apr 11, 2008 9:58:27 AM
As I think other comments have mentioned (or hinted at), there is another side here. What about what men want? Are the women they see availible desireable to them and do these men even see value in being married.
In particular, men who do not marry early, have many reasons to not marry once they get beyond a certain age. Especially after they start to build wealth. In addtion, Im not sure as many women want to get married either, for similar and different reasons.
Posted by: Matthew at Apr 11, 2008 10:00:40 AM
I think Tyler has the stylized facts backwards. My experience is that the quality of the median available female starts declining at around age 24 or 25. Just my personal experience. The effect becomes quite noticable by 27/28.
Posted by: steve at Apr 11, 2008 10:01:42 AM
I think the phenomenon (if it truly exist) has more to do with what men and women look for in a mate.
Young women are much more likely to date an older man than vice versa.
A successful attractive unmarried man in his 40/30's can easily date/marry someone ten years younger than him. Women do not tend to have the ability or the desire to do the same (they may be able to date succesgul 40-50 year olds though).
So what does this do to the dating market. The value of young women is bid up by competition from young men and older men and the least desirable of each group is unable to pair leaving for older women a very weak market for men their same age.
Posted by: eccdogg at Apr 11, 2008 10:13:05 AM
As smart, single women mature, their lives get better and better and perhaps settling becomes psychologically more difficult. However, age (youth) still seems to matter more in the market for women than it does for men, so doesn't the concern over turning into a cat lady to some extent negate the psychological barriers to decisiveness in older women? Moreover, are their lives really better if they have been without stable companionship for so long? (This last part is an assumption)
Posted by: Chairman Mao at Apr 11, 2008 10:15:14 AM
I think Steve is on to something with his observation that many of the higher-quality women have been taken off the market by their mid-twenties, which reduces the average quality of available women.
It seems to me that many of the most desireable women get engaged or married in their twenties and never get divorced. More of the less desireable women are left in the dating pool. The situation continues in this direction because men often divorce the women they thought were very desireable but turned out not to be so. The dating pool becomes less appealing over time. There are still lots of desireable women but you probably have to look harder for them.
I see no reason this wouldn't be true for both males and females.
Posted by: mr. t at Apr 11, 2008 10:31:08 AM
However, age (youth) still seems to matter more in the market for women than it does for men
That's true. It may seem like a cultural construct but more likely is an inevitable recognition of the effects of age on fertility. If women remained fertile into their 60's and 70's, while men's sperm counts sank like the Titanic after age 35, we'd see age being a much bigger market factor for men than for women.
In a way, the decline in women's fertility at young ages is Nature's ironic twist, because by nearly all measures other than reproductive ability women remain younger much longer than men. That old line about women getting older while men get distinguished is pure crapola. Today it's commonplace to see young-looking, physically fit, and mentally vibrant women in their 50's and 60's, while all too many men of that age are, as the French would say, eating dandelions by the root. Diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease and prostate cancer slaughter men in massive numbers, with women either not getting these diseases at all or only being affected when quite elderly.
Posted by: Peter at Apr 11, 2008 10:35:52 AM
As a 24 year-old (somewhat socially, financially, culinarily (?) competant) nice girl, I would consider myself to fall into the 'Strong Bidder' category. And I am worried that my standards are too high and that my ideal mate has already been snatched up, so lately I have been taking riskier moves. For example, just two days ago, I was struck smitten with a guy at a work conference, so at the end of the conference, I boldly walked up to him and gave him my number. I have never done anything like that before, but I wonder if that move suggests that he might be out of my league and I was playing the part of the 'Weak Bidder', distressed that I would get outbid later. However, what was going through my mind when I wrote my name and number on a piece of paper was that my time with him is limited, and I wanted to make it clear that I'm interested. Perhaps I should have given him my email though, as he has yet to call...
Posted by: Kelly at Apr 11, 2008 10:53:51 AM
A man goes to the supermarket and picks up a frozen pizza, a six-pack of beer, a half-gallon of milk, and a bag of potato chips.
At the checkout, the cashier is a cute young blond. She asks him, "You must be single, right?"
The man is startled, and replies, "Oh ... right, you saw that because of what I'm buying!"
She answers, "Nope, you're just ugly."
***
Regarding Kelly's remark, it's very difficult for a woman to credibly make an offer like that because of selection effects ("What are the odds a woman will just fall on my lap like that?") The man will assume it's a trick. I certainly would...
There's a neat Dilbert comic about it too.
Posted by: Person at Apr 11, 2008 11:05:52 AM
Kelly,
You have 5-6 years left for "checking guys out" before you start to lose physical attraction. My best advice is to meet a LOT of guys (not necessarily sleep with them!). If you date one guy for 3-4 years, you miss alot of opportunities. So -- give out your number a lot, but use it to learn about a lot of men -- not rush into a relationship. /older brother perspective
Posted by: David Zetland at Apr 11, 2008 11:11:06 AM
Person, I disagree. I don't think anyone would think it was "a trick" (except you). The first step to getting what you want is asking for it- I think Kelly is on the right track. If he doesn't call, so what? Would not giving him your number make him more likely to call? Obviously not. Getting asked out by a woman is very flattering, although some men do not like it.
Posted by: Cliff at Apr 11, 2008 11:19:23 AM
"I don't think anyone would think it was "a trick" (except you). The first step to getting what you want is asking for it- I think Kelly is on the right track. If he doesn't call, so what? Would not giving him your number make him more likely to call? Obviously not. Getting asked out by a woman is very flattering, although some men do not like it."
Depends on the "attractiveness" of the man. I have friends for whom it's quite a common experience to be hit on by attractive women. I, on the other hand, would suspect a trap or practical joke in the making. :-)
Posted by: Affe at Apr 11, 2008 11:49:40 AM
OK, Tyler, that's a possible rationale. I think it's swamped by the well-understood rationale that distinguishes "quality" between the sexes.
Quality man: competent
Quality woman: pretty
These are admittedly very simplified, as is the constraint that a woman will not marry a man who is less competent than she, but the implications are clear.
Just run the clock. A man's competence steadily increases with age. A woman's prettiness peaks in her late teens, then gradually declines. The most competent men and prettiest women tend to get attached earliest. For the man who holds out, his choices expand as his competence grows since he will gladly marry a pretty girl who is either younger or older than he. For the competent women, her choices shrink, both because she is competing for competent men whose choices are expanding with age, and because her own attractiveness is declining with age.
As oversimplified as this explanation is, it remains the most powerful one I've come across.
I doubt my wife will ever find this, but I want to go on the record by saying that her beauty is exceptionally ageless.
Posted by: M. Hodak at Apr 11, 2008 11:55:02 AM
Person, there may be downsides in the form of risking negative signals due to selection effects, but it is the only game in town.
It's an egalitarian age: ask the guy out for a drink. Make selection effects work for you by sifting out those too stuck up to accept a woman's offer. Otherwise, sounds like the right track. /younger brother perspective
Posted by: Anglo-Burgundian at Apr 11, 2008 11:59:15 AM
If a cute woman gave me her number and I was attracted to her or curious, I would be fearless in calling her. I can't imagine why one would be suspicious. I think many men have little self confidence when it comes to women, which i think explains much of their silly behavior when it comes to women. Unless...of course...men somehow are assuming that women are thinking as they themselves would be thinking....it would explain a lot of homophobia.
Posted by: Not suspicious at Apr 11, 2008 12:36:45 PM
A man's competence steadily increases with age.
How so? That's certainly not always the case in career and financial terms. Sure, some men spend their 20's and 30's on an ever-upward career trajectory that eventually leads them to the corner office, but I'm sure no one is so naive to believe that is the normal order of things. More, probably far more men just sort of poke along, getting modest annual raises and maybe the occasional promotion, but hardly turning into captains of industry by 40.
Physically, outright decline is the general rule. Once past their college years a disturbingly high percentage of men become physically inert and begin packing on the avoirdupois. The popular stereotype of the former star athlete gone totally to seed as he approaches middle age is popular precisely because it is so common. Lastly, some men may see their social competence increase with age, but once again that is not common. I'm convinced that one's essential character - nerdy introvert, backslapping extrovert, or something in between - is pretty much set in adolescene and rarely shows much change thereafter.
Bottom line: if women aren't interested in you at age 25, they're not going to be any more interested in you when you're 35 or 40 or whatever.
Posted by: Peter at Apr 11, 2008 12:47:57 PM
It's a supply and demand thing. Fewer and fewer women are spending all their waking time looking for an "eligible bachelor." Instead we're continuing our education, seeking full-time careers (with the possibility of family later on, with our definition of family as unique and individual as we are), and last but not least -we have our friends. It's easy to "be alone" more often when you have an urban family and all its branches to fall back on! So we're not looking that hard or with too much serious intent. Thus the supply of said eligible bachelors dwindles even farther...
Posted by: Adrie at Apr 11, 2008 12:51:25 PM
The thing that strikes me as weird with his argument is that, on average, American men have their first marriage at an older age than women (27 versus 25, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage). If this marriage auction model holds, where women are more holdouts and men get married younger, I think you would expect the reverse.
The argument also omits the point that, in general, men get more attractive with age and women get less so. I think it would be more likely that women try to get married younger because their looks will fade, while men wait till they have higher salaries and social status. Maybe the "bachelor paradox" is a result of women who delay marriage can't compete with younger women for husbands.
Posted by: Trey at Apr 11, 2008 12:55:48 PM
Articles bemoaning the lack of eligible single men betray the American media's East Coast bias. See this map:
http://creativeclass.typepad.com/thecreativityexchange/2008/03/the-singles-map.html
Posted by: harryh at Apr 11, 2008 1:35:17 PM
