Category Archives: Guide to Dating

Time and Babies

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Economist,

my husband and I are planning to have a baby. Of course we already hear more advice than we want to. But what do you think: will a baby change our relationship? How? Will it make us happier?

Thank you, Veronica

Dear Veronica,

Let’s compare the pre-baby and post-baby worlds from an economist’s perspective. One basic economic choice to make is how much to work vs how much leisure to enjoy. More work means more money and more things you can consume; and it also means less leisure. In the pre-baby world, you and hubby have already made this choice. You chose a job, and with it a certain salary and a certain amount of work hours. If you and hubby care a lot about each other and about the same things, you likely arranged your work in a way that allows you to enjoy leisure together. This usually entails some sharing of chores, for example. (Compare this Daily Comment.)

As you already made this choice when entering post-baby world, your leisure hours are pretty fixed. Now, with a baby, a large chunk of one person’s leisure hours will be committed to baby care. There are different ways you can go about this, and some will likely make you happier than others. If you are not very interested in baby care, and assume the load alone, it will feel like a proportional reduction in your leisure time. Leisure gone and nothing in return – and you will likely be less happy than before. If you like baby care (as I assume you do, because you want a baby), then you will enjoy the hours of baby care, like nothing you ever experienced before. If your husband is of the same view, joint caring will be like leisure spent jointly and much fun. And it will strengthen your relationship.

One caveat, even for the sunny scenario. Baby care, like any fun activity, has diminishing returns. A further hour spent on it is less fun than the first hour. What is more, in this particular case, the returns are very non-linear. I.e. after pretty much a plateau of reasonably high returns, they diminish markedly and care can become very tiring. It is a good idea to find out (and be honest about) this inflection point for yourself and husband. Make sure to involve help for the hours beyond this point, from a baby sitter, grandparents or others. You, hubby and also your kids will be the happier for it..

Your Economist

 

Job and Children

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s post picks up a comment spotted in the WSJ in March this year

Dear Economist

when is the best time to have a child if you’re considering a career in academia/law/medicine– professions with prominent career milestones (tenure, partner, etc)? Grad school (lots of time, but little money)? Before tenure/partner (more money, less time, but tenure clock is ticking)? After tenure/making partner (biological clock is ticking…)? Is your answer the same for men and women?

My dear,

I am glad you are planning ahead for this. Yours truly found out about the advantages of different professions in this regard when she was already well into her career as a political economist and pregnant.

Economists have researched your question from the gender wage gap perspective. The gender wage gap is the gap (well, shortfall) of women’s wages with respect to men’s after controlling for all measurable factors that typically influence the wage. The gap is the difference in the net wage of a man and a woman that work in the same sector, have the same education and work experience and other measurable skills…A part of this wage gap is likely due to baby breaks. And the residual we cannot explain…is possibly discrimination.

Anyway, back to the topic. Claudia Goldin researched what different professions did to women’s wages and wellbeing, and it turns out that among educated women, the doctors had it best. Yep. The earnings penalty for taking maternity leave was found to be smallest for physicians and other medical professionals, smaller than for those with a JD or PhD. And the largest penalty hit women with an MBA. Ouch. And food for thought.

A few other things you may or not, want to know: male earnings rise with number of kids, female earnings diminish, but only because of hours worked. Full-time earning women also see their salaries rise with the number of kids. By the way, MDs also have the highest number of kids, on average, from the professional groups above. No wonder.

Your Economist

Good Things Happen to People Who…Wait

Posted on by
1

Victoria is a beautiful and educated young woman from a well-to-do family.  She is also not too easy to please. She loves good manners and protocol and has a well-developed appreciation for gentlemanlikeness. Including for men to make the first move and to invite the ladies; not the other way round. She has had several admirers. And turned them down time and again. While she turned 20…25…30…she dismissed men she found not good enough. She plainly refused to think about any ticking clock, going against the current in her peer group. And then she met John. He passed the bar and she had in fact met her soulmate. But that is another story.

Victoria waited. She was happy to wait and happy in her wait. She met her girlfriends regularly, she had a bookclub and went to a sports club. She also loved organizing charity events and mingled in her university’s alumni club. Her time was well and happily filled and there was probably too much buzz to hear any clock ticking. She also switched careers and became a ‘mature student’ again at age 28, getting her MD at 32. (She married John one year later, by the way.)

When people wait comfortably for a partner, the match will be better and more sustainable. This common sense insight has some solid economic theory to back it up. Dale Mortensen in ‘Partner for Life’ reviews the labor market literature that is applicable not only to employer-employee but also husband-wife partnerships. And finds that people who find a way to sweeten the wait end up better matched. (And the unemployed who receive an unemployment benefit end up in a better matched job. But that is another story.)

 

 

Are you ‘well matched’ with your partner? 5 Shades of Love

Posted on by
Reply

What is a good match? Which couples are ‘meant for each other’? I would assume that most people agree that a good match is one where the partners love each other. Very much.

But how can we get at the ‘love’ concept? With economics, of all sciences?

Lo and behold, one extra daring economist has tried to capture ‘love’ in economic terms. Some of you may have guessed: Gary Becker. Inspired by his writings, here are 5 aspects of love that economists understand.

Love is…

  1. Caring about the partner. This is best measured as altruism, a concept that economists are, on average, fairly familiar with. In economic terms, it means, my happiness (“utility”) improves, if my partner’s happiness improves.
  2. Trust. If you two really care for each other, you don’t have to watch your back that much. Your partner already will.
  3. Sharing and generosity. If your partner is happy about you being happy, it doesn’t matter so much if he eats the last piece of cake or if you do. He’ll be (nearly) equally happy.
  4. Enjoying things more if consumed together. If you really care for each other, you enjoy a joint dinner more than if each person eats in her own time. Dinner has altogether a new quality; it becomes hard to accept a separate dinner as a valid meal. The same is true for other items, travel, parties, reading a book, even trying out new fashion.
  5. Enjoying the same things. Because of 4, it also makes sense if you like the same things. The same books, countries, dinners and dinner times, places…

If you can capture love in economic terms, it also means you can measure it.

If you want to know how well you are matched, here are questions you should ask: 1) Is your partner happy, if you are happy? 2) Can you trust him; does he look out for your advantage as much as his? 3) How does he share whatever is scarce – time, cake, money? 4) How much more do you enjoy dinner when you are together rather than dinner alone?

And, finally 5) How long does it take to agree on the theatre play you are going to watch, or the kind of picture you are going to hang?

The answer to these will be telling…

Why Women Should Propose

Posted on by
Reply

Laura and her boyfriend Ed had dated for 6 years and lived together for five. They led a joyful, loving and successful life together as entrepreneurs in a European metropole. Their personalities completed each other: he, an introvert, polite, soft-spoken, laid back and the modern version of the humble scientist; she, an extrovert, passionate planner and organizer, presenter and confessing to an exhibitionist touch both professionally and privately. They indulged in the different hobbies they both brought to the relationship (he: avant-garde art, she: wedding fairs and books). They had jointly travelled half the globe, had a network of hundreds of common friends and intended to keep leading this life forever. The only thing missing: Ed just.did.not.propose. When Laura’s mother-in-law asked her about wedding plans, she owned up about the missing proposal. Ed’s mum then encouraged her to propose herself, as she thought would be fitting for an emancipated young woman. Laura plotted and planned and delivered a very romantic proposal to Ed. She proposed in a hot air balloon in the French countryside. Ed said yes. And for the protocol, he counter proposed not much later, in a helicopter. They have been married for 9 years now.

This may be the most radical post to date. Why should it matter who proposes? Other than for tradition, say. Well, tradition goes further than what we usually assume; it’s where the power sits. And if it is about proposing in a relationship, the first mover wins. He or she sets the agenda more than the one who reacts.

As reviewed by Nobel Prize Winner Dale Mortensen in 1988, an algorithm devised by Gale and Shapley in 1962 can be used to match employers and employees or husbands and wives. A series of matching outcomes is stable if no paired person has the desire to rather be single. However, in a given matching outcome some people can be better of than others. E.g. a matched person would not prefer to be single but rather be paired with someone else. While several people are happy with whom they are paired with. And it can be shown that the outcome is actually most favorable for those individuals who proposed the match first. They have more options to choose from than the ones who react and only can choose between different proposals.

So ladies, if you want to take charge of your relationship happiness, make a move. First.

 

I want my soulmate NOW! Fast!

Posted on by
Reply

Despite all the enlightenment we have provided here already – finding The One can be a messy, arduous and possibly slow process. For the busy singles of today; is there any way of speeding it up, or even delegating part of it?  – This story may ring familiar.

Noah is a senior government advisor working 11 hour days. While he enjoys being part of the inner circle around his country’s head of government, he dreads not having time for dates. He had intended to marry by the age of 30. Now, aged 35, he is starting to worry. He has high demands for the type of woman he wants to marry, such as a success level similar to his. Either way, there will be little time for dates during the next year too. Elections are looming and a crisis has weakened the country. Noah’s job gets irresistibly interesting and important just at a time when the prospect of (not) settling down gives him sleepless nights.

Noah gives up and embraces the uncoolness of signing up with a traditional dating advisor. While he does not enjoy the soul-baring during the initial meetings with the advisor, he does appreciate that a part of the effort is now delegated. Actual dates are pre-selected with insight, and Noah learns more on fewer dates. Within a year, he finds his significant other, a cute and successful health trust CEO, just a year younger than himself.

The idea is as old as human interaction: intermediators or middlemen. (Traders, bargainers, heralds, other communicators…and matchmakers). They can work well in any ‘market’. Some recent Nobel prize winners have shown they can do wonders in the labor market.  The middlemen’s role is to specialize in the search, and the sounding of a partner to an extent. They help bridge the information deficit between the searching parties. And because they are specialized, they develop expertise in doing this, they can do it faster, and with a wider reach.

There is one condition: there need to be many of them who compete with each other. This ensures that they try to be ever better and ever more productive.

Dating agencies improve everyone’s luck simply because every client improves every other client’s luck by being there. Every individual search effort is multiplied through the agency and benefits others. The economists who found this out even suggested the state subsidize ‘computerized dating agencies’ (the article predates online dating) for the benefit of all!

Do looks matter?

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Economist,

Do looks really matter in the dating market? I mean, conventional wisdom holds that they do. But I seem to observe that many plain girls have found their soul mate, while several beautiful ones haven’t. Before I invest time, energy and money into bettering my exterior, could you confirm that it would be wise to do so?

Sincerely, Layla

Dear Layla,

That is a very good question. While your observations are probably right, your conclusion is wrong. Daniel Hamermesh at the University of Texas has researched the topic of ‘looks’ since the early nineties and gives us four important lessons:

1) Finding a spouse does not depend on looking good.

Holding age and education constant, a woman’s looks are completely unrelated to her chances of being married.

However, your observation is true in the short run: the average looking girls will find a match more quickly, because they are approachable by many men. On the other hand, the rarer you are, including in (good) looks, the longer you will have to search to find comparable material.

2) However, the better you look, the more educated (and therefore better earning) your husband will be.

Hamermesh’s key paper finds that looking average or above gets you a husband with one more year of education compared to the below average lookers (other things held equal).

3) It’s worth checking the looks of your beau: in the workplace, looks are more important for men than for women.

Unattractive women make 12% less than attractive women, but unattractive men make 17% less than the attractive ones.

4) Plastic surgery does not pay.

Even with the results above, don’t go overboard. For each dollar spent on the surgery, you get less than a dollar increased in earnings.

7 rules to prevent divorce

Posted on by
Reply

I am observing a bizarre tendency lately: several acquaintances have stopped wearing their wedding rings. Only one of them has openly announced her divorce, the others pretend as if nothing. But I can’t get rid of the feeling that somethin’s brewin’.

It’s therefore time for a few pointers from economists. Follow these seven rules for a sizeable discount on your divorce probability.

Before marriage:

1.       Don’t marry too young. The younger you are, if under thirty, the higher the likelihood of divorce. (This is apparently even more true for women than men).

2.       If possible, marry within your own religion. – And you save yourself about 10-20% points of divorce probability. (Don’t ask me why, but common religion is particularly good at preventing divorce when your IQ is above 135, says this survey.)

3.       The more exceptional you are, the more time you should take to find your match. People  “with an lQ over 150, $1 million, a height in excess of 6 feet 6 inches, or being a Moslem in South Dakota” can expect to spend considerable time until they find their soulmate according to these smart economists.

 

After marriage:

4.       Have some kids. The first four kids prevent divorce (the first two especially strongly), the fifth makes it more probable.

5.       If a man, improve your income and keep it stable. Rises in the expected income of men after marriage increase marriage stability. Discrepancies between expected and actual income (even if the actual is higher than expected) are a challenge to marriages.

6.       Keep as healthy as you are. Apparently, deviations from original health status increase the likelihood of divorce. Especially if the deviation is negative.

7.       Achieve a high degree of sexual harmony with your spouse. Practicing good sex is a marriage-specific investment; the skills learned to be in tune with one specific person are not easily transferable outside marriage. Couples with high sexual harmony have more to lose through separation and are more likely to stay together.

How long should you wait for sex?

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Economist,

how early in a relationship should you expect, or give in to, sex? I hear so many views on this topic that I am quite confused. Most guys want it as early as possible, and by the third date at the latest. Many dating gurus advise to wait – but not on how long. The only advice on timing comes from several world religions, which promote waiting until marriage. But how can this work in the modern world of dating? There seem to be no rules. – Now, do economists have a view on this?

Grateful for any light in this confusion, Yours, Katja

Dear Katja,

thanks for giving us an opportunity to answer this awesome question. We hear it a lot in conversation and counseling practice, but few people dare debate it online in a serious manner.

Yes – economists do have an opinion. A clear one, and empirically founded one. You should wait – for as long as you need a clear head to decide if the guy is the right one for you, and deserves your trust. (The question to you is then: what is ‘the right one’? If you are looking for someone to marry, then, yep, waiting until marriage is a good idea.)

Because after sex, the clear head will be gone and you will trust blindly. We owe this insight to a team of experimental economists at the University of Zurich. They tested the effect of oxytocin (the hormone women emit during orgasm, and also childbirth) on people’s judgment in an investment game. While the testees could still calculate well, they started to behave more trustingly and thereby opened themselves up to abuse.

Now, while it’s a good idea that mum and baby are bonded in blind trust, it may not be quite so useful in a dating relationship. Imagine you are high on oxytocin with someone that for some reason does not deserve your full trust. You risk being mucked about without even noticing.

You will say, great, but how can I ‘wait for sex’ in practice? My friends will think I’ve gone nuts.

First, your friends’ (or the majority’s) opinion should not come before your own wellbeing. Second, those who agree with the above (e.g. many world religions) have figured out all sorts of ways to delay sex until a time when it’s right. My favorite books on the matter haven been written by ladies who tested both worlds (waiting and not waiting)and then made their own conscious choice, Dawn Eden and  Wendy Shalit. You can save yourself your own trial-and-error by just reading about theirs.

Hope this works for you! Do check back in.

Best wishes,

Dr de Bergerac

What can you do if you are unlucky in love?

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Economist,

All your advice about finding the right person sounds very upbeat. But sometimes things just don’t work out. More often than not, you happen to love a person that doesn’t love you back. Then what?  – I have been wallowing in heartache for a week now and am quite fed up. I have even written a song for my lost love! What can I do?

Yours sincerely, Morris

Dear Morris,

You are absolutely right – until we find the right person, chances are that we go through more than one phase of heartache. We’ve been there.

The good news is – you can make this phase very productive for you! Sounds hard to believe, and in order to explain, I will leave the territory of economics, and enter that of psychology. (But as the psychologists entered our territory, and got a Nobel Prize there to boot, I have no qualms whatsoever.)

The secret is called ‘ego-defenses’. Ego-defenses help us cope with reality when the going gets tough. Anna Freud identified more than twenty defenses. Not all of which are healthy. The unhealthy ones include psychoses (think paranoia), and immature defenses (e.g. projecting one’s feelings into another person). Neurotic defenses, such as intellectualizing the problem (only thinking about it in logical terms) or simply repressing it, are actually quite common in ‘normal’ people. The winner are the ‘mature’ defenses. This is what you want. Mature defenses include: humor – laughing about it, anticipation – planning ahead to deal with future problems.

And the queen of them all: SUBLIMATION, i.e. turning the strong feeling such as sadness or anger into a productive activity. If you are angry, run or go boxing. If you are sad…write a song! Quite right. You are exactly on the right track. Write a song, a poem, or…an entire novel! Some of history’s greatest poets and composers had a string of unlucky loves which they turned into remarkable creativity – think Beethoven, Tchaikovsky or Droste. Even Picasso, not exactly unlucky in love, is said to have used painting “to wipe heavy dust off the soul”.

And the best thing is, ego defenses help you both cope with the current sadness and prepare you for success in the future: the recently revealed 70-year longitudinal GRANT study found out that acquiring mature ego-defenses is the best preparation to form happy relationships.

So savor your melancholic creativity as long as it lasts! It’s good for you.

Best wishes

Dr de Bergerac