The Real Reason Richer People Marry • Hacker News Board

Re: The Real Reason Richer People Marry

#21

Post by hndissapointed » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 6:45 AM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #6

Different explanation, and some of this ain't pretty. (Apologies if this is male-centric, but it's probably quite similar for women.) Richer people (or, at least, socioeconomically comfortable people) establish masculinity and effectiveness by building successful families. If you're happy at work and your kids are doing great and you're intellectually engaged, one woman is enough for most men. That obscene sex drive…

I am inclined to agree with much of what you said (though, not all of it). However, you are making a lot of claims without supplying us with supporting evidence. Can you please provide names of books, studies, or links, etc.?

Specifically, for statements where you claim it is empirical fact:

> but the empirical facts are that (a) promiscuity hardly requires money, social skills and tactics ("Game") being more important, and (b) most people who are socioeconomically comfortable have little interest in promiscuity after age 25.

If you can't supply external evidence of your claims, then please refrain from making such claims in the first place. However, if you do have evidence then I am genuinely interested in studying up on this. :)

Re: The Real Reason Richer People Marry

#22

Post by xercex » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 6:59 AM UTC

javert wrote: post #16

xercex wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple: 1) Richer people are mostly smarter. Smarter people see through the toxic culture and seek to marry. 2) Wealthy people are often so because they do things that help build wealth and success, Ie. marriage. Smart people descended from smart married people are more likely to follow their parents warnings about the destructiveness of the toxic culture which attacks marriage.

Why do you claim that getting married is smarter and helps build wealth and success?

There are many reasons. Yummyfajitas mentioned two very good ones:

"Marriage is cheaper than being single due to economies of scale (a lot like having a roommate) and having a more stable income source (assuming 2 earners, it's unlikely both will simultaneously lose their job)."

I would also add, as equally important: support network.

I'm sure that there are more I can't think of, although they are likely related to one of those listed already.

Re: The Real Reason Richer People Marry

#23

Post by cageface » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 9:06 AM UTC

xercex wrote: post #20

cageface wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you even read the article? But some digging into historical census records shows that social class differences in marriage have been tied to the extent of income inequality among white Americans for at least 130 years. They also suggest that commentators who insist that the marriage gap is wholly a matter of values are almost surely wrong.

The article is purposely misleading. At best its entire premise is concluded on one small report that only looks at one source of data. Even the article admits: "To be sure, the parallel movements of economic inequality and marriage inequality do not prove that the former causes the latter." The truth is that there was some correlation always - that makes sense with what I said, which is smarter people are going to d…

The funny this that I would agree to you that, at least to some extent, popular culture is part of the problem. But I think you're going to have to back up that argument with some hard data to make it sound like something more than another predictable culture war salvo.

Re: The Real Reason Richer People Marry

#24

Post by michaelochurch » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 2:46 PM UTC

apsec112 wrote: post #11

michaelochurch wrote: post #6

Different explanation, and some of this ain't pretty. (Apologies if this is male-centric, but it's probably quite similar for women.) Richer people (or, at least, socioeconomically comfortable people) establish masculinity and effectiveness by building successful families. If you're happy at work and your kids are doing great and you're intellectually engaged, one woman is enough for most men. That obscene sex drive…

"If you want to go deeper into the theory behind this, humans actually have two sex drives, one geared toward r-selection and the other toward K-selection." Human sexuality is very complex, and has had evolutionary pressure on it from many different directions... but that's not how the science works. I'll let Slate Star Codex explain ( http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/20/ozys-anti-heartiste-faq... ): "Is it true tha…

Is it true that some humans are r-selected, which means they’re promiscuous and want to have lots of children, and some humans are k-selected, which means they invest in a few children?

This is not what I'm saying. If you look at any human's ancestry, you're going to find both influences. The last thing I intend to say is that there are meaningful differences between humans (either at an individual or group level) on this front. My point is that both sex drives exist, because both are a part of our evolutionary story.

Humans as a species are absurdly k-selected. How many species can you think of that have young that are totally helpless for their first decade of life? r/k selection theory would argue that we wouldn’t have casual sex, because humans are not remotely r-selected on any conceivable level!

My argument is that all humans are both, each to some degree, although the K-drive is more socially acceptable, civilized, and progressive... and probably the stronger one in most of us.

Being r-selective is actually very adaptive during times of ecological stress, such as after a population crash. K-selection is more fruitful when population is at saturation and the only available growth is civilization's progress. I don't intend to moralize on this. We needed both drives to get us where we are. You're right that, as applies to any specific animal, the r/K selection theory is a bit simplistic because almost all advanced organisms exhibit traits derived from both evolutionary imperatives (quality and quantity). For example, trees are K-selective in terms of being durable and large, but r-selective in terms of having many seeds.

As for "we wouldn't have casual sex", I'm not so sure that there's an either/or. Humans are an advanced animal and, given both our cognitive capability (and flexibility) and our numbers, it's quite reasonable to assume that human behavior includes the full spectrum of strategies. It's not unreasonable to suppose that humans are predisposed to r-selective behavior when young (15-25) and K-driven behavior when older (25+).

Re: The Real Reason Richer People Marry

#25

Post by michaelochurch » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 2:50 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #12

michaelochurch wrote: post #6

Different explanation, and some of this ain't pretty. (Apologies if this is male-centric, but it's probably quite similar for women.) Richer people (or, at least, socioeconomically comfortable people) establish masculinity and effectiveness by building successful families. If you're happy at work and your kids are doing great and you're intellectually engaged, one woman is enough for most men. That obscene sex drive…

We just behave differently because we're under a different and mostly less severe set of stressors. I don't buy the explanation that "stressors" are somehow the cause. Here in India marriage is sky high, yet stressors of any sort are vastly higher. Further, when discussing economic incentives, it doesn't make sense to discuss lack of money. Marriage is cheaper than being single due to economies of scale (a lot like h…

I don't buy the explanation that "stressors" are somehow the cause. Here in India marriage is sky high, yet stressors of any sort are vastly higher.

I was making an argument that holds within one culture. My point was that there isn't really a difference in values between different social classes in the U.S. but a difference in behavior. I was trying to refute the (classist and often racist) claim often made in the US that the poor have a lack of "family values".

Change the social background and you change the values and the behavior, and all bets are off.

Re: The Real Reason Richer People Marry

#26

Post by michaelochurch » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 2:53 PM UTC

hndissapointed wrote: post #21

michaelochurch wrote: post #6

Different explanation, and some of this ain't pretty. (Apologies if this is male-centric, but it's probably quite similar for women.) Richer people (or, at least, socioeconomically comfortable people) establish masculinity and effectiveness by building successful families. If you're happy at work and your kids are doing great and you're intellectually engaged, one woman is enough for most men. That obscene sex drive…

I am inclined to agree with much of what you said (though, not all of it). However, you are making a lot of claims without supplying us with supporting evidence. Can you please provide names of books, studies, or links, etc.? Specifically, for statements where you claim it is empirical fact: > but the empirical facts are that (a) promiscuity hardly requires money, social skills and tactics ("Game") being more importa…

I read a lot of different stuff, but Jared Diamond's work helps on early civilization, and so does Simon Baron Cohen's work on gender. Robert Sapolsky's work on baboons and other primate research also gives us a lot of insight into what we were before we became human.

If you want to learn about modern "Game"/PUA-land (which is a pre-monogamous culture-- and, thankfully, a non-reproductive one-- that has erupted in 21st-century North America) there's a lot of research on that, but it's depressing and probably not worth your time unless you're a sociopath.

Re: The Real Reason Richer People Marry

#27

Post by TheCoelacanth » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 4:20 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #8

wheaties wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or watching your loved one's paycheck be taxed higher because they married you (high income households.) See that they no longer are eligible for certain government programs that they depended on because your combined incomes are just high enough (lower incomes.) Certain low income homes we looked when I was younger looked at households income. No surprise that there were mostly single mothers who lived there.

Or watching your loved one's paycheck be taxed higher because they married you I'm pretty sure that's not normally how it works. Married couples have the same deduction (well, it's doubled, but they file only one return) and tax rates on a couple are lower: Income between 40,000 - 40,050 Tax if filing single: 5,935 Tax if married filing jointly: 5,111 Income between 80,000 - 80,050 Tax if filing single: 15,935 Tax if…

It's actually kind of complicated whether there are benefits or drawbacks to being married. For couples where most of the income comes from one person, there are benefits. For couples with roughly equal incomes, there is a marriage penalty for couples with very high (because the upper tax brackets start at less than twice of the corresponding single tax brackets) or very low (because of EITC) income.

Here a chart that depicts how the effect of marriage on taxes varies with income: http://taxfoundation.org/article/effects-marriage-tax-burden...

Re: The Real Reason Richer People Marry

#28

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Dec 08, 2014, 6:30 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #25

yummyfajitas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We just behave differently because we're under a different and mostly less severe set of stressors. I don't buy the explanation that "stressors" are somehow the cause. Here in India marriage is sky high, yet stressors of any sort are vastly higher. Further, when discussing economic incentives, it doesn't make sense to discuss lack of money. Marriage is cheaper than being single due to economies of scale (a lot like h…

I don't buy the explanation that "stressors" are somehow the cause. Here in India marriage is sky high, yet stressors of any sort are vastly higher. I was making an argument that holds within one culture. My point was that there isn't really a difference in values between different social classes in the U.S. but a difference in behavior . I was trying to refute the (classist and often racist) claim often made in the…

Once we accept that culture rather than "stressors" drives behavior (as you've just done), it begs the question of whether poor Americans also have a different culture with less "family values". So your refutation seems to have failed.

I'm also not sure why you even believe it's wrong, given that your post lays the premises for a perfectly valid selection theory leading to poor people having fewer family values. The specific theory:

I gather from your posts that you lean towards family values. I lean towards promiscuity. How does this inform our behavior? You have a motive to earn a lot of money and take steady employment (finding and keeping a wife is expensive). I'm pretty happy with the assorted ladies of Pune University and can afford to turn down boring (possibly lucrative) projects. Between the two of us, the rich one has more family values than the poor one.

Why would this effect not happen to the population at large?