Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Jeff7
(Raise your standards of what you want in a partner, and potential partners will have to develop better personalities.)
Or they'll just go for the people who offer less, but have lower standards.
I was assuming that the entire market of "buyers" would raise their standards, and thus the "sellers" would need to improve their product. I wasn't specific enough. That's what I get for posting in a rush.
Originally posted by: Farang
Originally posted by: Jeff7
Raise your buying standards, and the sellers will have to raise the quality of their product.
(Raise your standards of what you want in a partner, and potential partners will have to develop better personalities.)
Everything in life can be explained in terms of basic economics.
If you see males and females as basic commodities, then raising your standards (or the "price" of yourself) means you end up forever single ("surplus"). I suppose your economic principles still apply, but they don't mean you can land a supermodel.
I'll have to dig up my full posting on the economics of relationships. It received a "brilliant" rating from BoberFett.
The person, per se, isn't the commodity, it's what they can potentially bring to a relationship that is.
Ok, here we go, from
this old thread:
(It's at least partly relevant; I had another one on a different forum, on a different specific subject, but I still managed to "reduce relationships to simple economics."
Originally posted by: 49erinnc
Simple answer:
Would you want a guy making a move on your girlfriend if he knew she had been with you for 2 years and was happy? Didn't think so.
Do you like the free market? Relationships can follow a free market model too. If she's happy with her current boyfriend, she has no need to see what the market offers. So if you make advances, she might not be interested in your goods, so to speak.
So much of what males in any species do is to reduce competition. Many male-dominated human societies try to keep women subservient, and less likely to feel that they even
can "shop around" for their ideal mate. That means that whoever they're with doesn't need to stay competitive - it's an artificial market cap. The service being provided is being a good husband/boyfriend. If the woman isn't free to browse the market, she'll settle for what she's got - she's got no choice. The man benefits because then he can be lazy, and be less than ideal.
The same happens in a regular market without competition. A company with effectively captive customers, such as cable companies, has little reason to innovate. Cable Internet for example: let's say you're in the middle of nowhere, and can't get good satellite reception. What's your option for broadband Internet? Your local cable provider. Sure they might charge $200/month, and only offer 512kbps service with constant packet loss, but hey, what else can you do? It's not like they've got incentive to maintain their network or lower prices.
Similarly, in relationships - if either party feels stuck in the relationship, there's no incentive to stay competitive. But if the market is open for both, they'd best stay competitive, or else a breakup will result.
What I'm trying to get around to saying, which hopefully has come through by now: Guys don't like other guys hitting on their girlfriends, because the guy in the relationship has to make sure he works hard enough to keep her happy, or else she might take her business elsewhere.
As I've said in another forum:
"Yes, that's right, I've reduced relationships to simple economics, wanna fight about it?"