[ad_1]
You are dealing with the sex economy. The fact that economists look at people's portfolios is understandable. But what do they want to look into the beds and hearts? Why?
This question comes every time I tell the uninitiated what I do at the university, but usually very quickly after the first instinct of intuitive indignation, they come to the conclusion that this does not happen. is not completely meaningless. The economy is, after all, a Greek science on the laws governing a household, and every first-year economist learns that the household is the basic unit of the economy. Hence my interest in household formation, the mechanisms that guide people when they decide to start or end a relationship, to have children, to remain faithful or to betray, etc.
Probably the main mechanism of pairing there is love.
Yes, but something shapes it, it affects it and, to a large extent, these are economic factors. We do not make decisions about choosing a partner based solely on feelings. If that were the case, our relationship would last for a maximum of three to four years, until the hormonal reaction to the feeling of falling in love ceases. The fact that they last longer indicates that they are cemented by non-emotional factors. Love is shaped in the context of market relations – people looking for a partner create markets where selection and matching processes rely on specific and measurable criteria. For example, how can we be associated most often with people with similar income, education, background or political views?
The theory that human emotional life is governed by the laws of supply and demand has long been refuted. Biologists, evolutionary researchers, most of the problems you mention have been described in terms of the science of the human brain …
I was fascinated by evolutionism in psychology, biology, etc., but my enthusiasm for these sciences has weakened. Of course, I deliberately trivialized, but if everything was reduced to evolutionary mechanisms, women would choose only the strongest and strongest men. We know that this is not the case. Pairing pairs is not done solely on the basis of physical attraction. Raden Fisher, an exceptional evolutionary psychologist, has even gone from the drastic reduction of love to biology. It's not that biology is invalid. The choice of a partner for whom we do not feel physical attraction would be an aberration, but the aberration would also be the choice of a partner who does not meet certain social norms, even if we feel a great physical attraction
.
Yes (laughs). Of course, I admit that the old "market approach" to describe the relationship was too simplistic. Once, it seemed to me that on the "love market" we have two types of actors: the sellers, that is to say the women, and the traders , that is to say men. In this approach, women sell sex and exclusivity in return for the resources that a man must provide. This approach, however, does not harmonize with the functioning of modern society. The economy, however, allows us to understand why, over the last hundred years, it has become increasingly difficult for us to pursue the ideal of a traditional marriage, that is, that is, whose essence is perpetual monogamy. So, if we talk about the love market, then we think of the foreign exchange market – barter. Everyone is both a buyer and a seller.
But was it always easier to be with you "until death does not separate us"?
In a sense, yes. 300 or 400 years ago, marriages lasted on average 12 years due to the fact that people were living much less than today. Today, if someone famous, for example, the 70th wedding anniversary, it means that he has lived twice as long as the average life expectancy in Britain in 1700.
Statistics indicate that children born today are in front of them even a hundred years of life. What does this mean for the institution of marriage?
Great changes. But he will send jams to his historical evolution before answering the question of the future. From a historical point of view, marriage, as a pioneer of research in the prof.'s family. Gary Becker, is a production company composed of two people. This wording does not sound very strange, but please consider: what is the purpose of the wedding? Create a household that works well. For its implementation, spouses use their comparative advantages, that is, the abilities that can contribute to a relationship at a relatively lower cost than that of their partner. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, what women did at such a market was the possibility of giving birth to children and taking care of the house. The advantage of men was the opportunity to win, and so – the clothes and meals of the family. The resulting division of household chores persisted during the Industrial Revolution, when people migrated from the countryside to the cities, abandoning agriculture and finding employment in the factories. Interestingly, before the era of industrialization, when agriculture was the most important branch of the economy, the division of labor in the family was more "equal". Women more often accompanied men in field work. Thus, the evolution of marriage may be related to technological changes. But it is not enough to invent a steam engine that has launched an industrial revolution. The Danish economist Ester Boserup, building on research she has conducted with African communities, found that the tool that "domesticated" women by removing their position as a partner in the field of resource provision was the plow.
The plow is an enemy of equality?
This can be interpreted as such. The man did not need help anymore. He plowed the field with a plow to which he harnessed a horse or a bull, and the woman stayed home more often with her children. Professor Nathan Nunn of Harvard University empirically examined Boserup's theory and it turned out that in fact, in communities where the plow appeared, it was believed a woman was to take care of the house. This has shaped the perception of the role of women for centuries. Thus, on the one hand, technology is the enemy of traditional values and, on the other hand, it is itself conducive to the creation of values that, over time, perpetuate themselves as traditional . Some values simply replace others. We witnessed this at the beginning of the twentieth century: new technologies gradually began to free women from the tasks they used to take every day. Before the invention of the washing machine it was necessary, for example, two days a week to do the laundry. Today it is 30 minutes. Women were starting to have free time to learn and enter the labor market and, in the meantime, education was becoming an increasingly important determinant of the amount of earnings. In other words, from an economic point of view, men and women began to become more and more alike. Comparative advantages of the old type began to disappear Except perhaps that based on the ability to have children
Of course, but it is biology – essentially immutable .
Let's go back to the question of the evolution of marriage.
Due to economic changes, the purpose of marriage is no longer strictly productive. More than ever in history, it is about love and partnership, and a little less about providing each other home services. People are looking for such partners with whom it will be easier for them to consume different types of goods and they will be able to do it with more intensity than alone. Relationships have become a way to enjoy pleasure together while a hundred years ago, they were a full time job. In this context, it is not surprising that more and more people decide to live separately in single-family homes, even if they create a pair with someone else. In Germany, up to 48% only one person lives. Some of them are people in relationships. Since both sides are financially independent, they often want to enjoy as much as possible a certain level of freedom, space.
But in this case, we are no longer talking about marriages, but loose relationships
It depends on a specific couple. However, in my opinion, people will be less and less involved in weddings, and certainly they will do so later and the concept of marriage will give individual meaning. I'm 50 years old. When I graduated from high school, I had a simple choice: either I would become single, or I would get married, but it was clear what kind of relationship connotes him. Such an alternative is a thing of the past. We do not expect young people to get married as soon as possible. Now, decisions regarding marriage are postponed. In Canada, the average age of newlyweds is over 30 years old. But now many people do not need to formalize a relationship. This trend is particularly noticeable among young women. In a recent survey in the United States, a group of singles was asked whether it would be better for them to get married. Only 49 percent. women aged 25 to 35 replied that they had done so. An affirmative answer was given by up to 65 percent. men of the same age group. For women, marriage is no more as valuable as it was. Until the 20th century, getting married was vital for their survival, it had little to do with a free choice. Women offered men sex, children and exclusivity, and in return, they received the means to live. Now, marriage is only an option and when a woman chooses her, she begins to ask conditions. For example, require that a man take charge of some of the traditional tasks of the women's field.
And when these conditions do not want to meet?
Then, of course, we have a break. That's why there is a growing group of people who view marriage as a kind of temporary contract. This is related to the evolution of the indicators of the continuation of life. People get married at the age of 30, then get divorced in their fifties or sixties, with 20, 30 or even 40 years ahead of them. Although, for example, in the United States the total number of divorces decreases, the increase in the number of divorces in this age group is an increasingly visible trend. It can be said that a serial monogamy model has appeared – we are not loyal to one person for one life, only to other partners. Some go further and enter into open relationships in which monogamy is not required. Recently, the research was published, from which it already seems 5%. marriages in the United States have such status, and 16 percent. the respondents think that it is actually the best form of the relationship. Of course, this does not mean that it will be a dominant approach in the future, but one may think that it will be more and more popular.
It seems that we lived in the era of a great revolution that would dismantle traditional values. And all because of economic factors.
True, the tension between institutions that promote traditional understanding of marriage, such as the Catholic Church and common social practice, will grow. Is it just a revolution? I will not tell. That there will be changes, have already been made in the interwar period. In 1921, an article appeared in the magazine "Cosmopolitan", in which the author wondered if in 50 years, people would get married again. The author overestimated the rate of change by answering the negative question. But he certainly had a good intuition.
You mention that people choose partners with an education, a similar income … This means that class "mezalianse" are still possible.
Of course! When did you last hear tell that, say, a lawyer from a large office married a trader without a high school diploma? We live in a time when mesalians, understood as a relationship between poor and rich, educated and uneducated, are something very rare.
And what does he enter?
It will be a bit of butter but more … perfect fit
People more effectively and rationally analyze the pros and cons before engaging in a given relationship? "She's just a waitress, eliminated." It seems heartless.
We've always been rational in our decisions about personal life, of course, there are exceptions, but today, because of technological change have released our time and resources, we can make better decisions and not necessarily base them on assessing the bride's future dowry, only on more sophisticated criteria. The Internet expands the market of potential partners.If you are a fan of locomotives, you can find someone who is also fascinated with the internet.Comprehending interests or intellectual relations at the cement level.By that, they are more durable.
And I thought that the Internet had a rather negative impact on the sustainability of relationships.
Research shows something else. Let's illustrate this by a comparison with c the labor market Suppose you are unemployed and the economy is going through a recession. You will take the first best job, which – as soon as the economy is in a better state – will change to another one. When the market is flourishing and you can choose from many offers, it's very different. The chance that you will find something you really want to do is bigger then. Similarly with a market of love. Part of the reason for this increase is the decline in the number of divorces in the United States or Canada, which we have seen for about two decades. There are also economic studies showing that Web access increases the chances of getting married.
As for an interview with a sex economist, we talk too little about him. What does the sex economy as such actually tell us?
A lot – for example about the frequency of sex and the incidence of venereal diseases
I understand …
The economist Steven Landsburg was heading one of his books The most sex, the safest. "He said that the general decline of sexual activity in society resulted in an increase in the incidence of venereal diseases. What do you say?
Intuition tells you something else …
Yes, but it's essentially reasoning.His argument should be completed by the explanation that more than the general level of sexual activity of a society or of A particular group is on who is specifically active.Well, usually individuals who have a greater risk aversion leave sexual activity.This aversion can result from various reasons.Take a student who wants to be If she became pregnant, her education plans could get more complicated, it's better not to risk, when there are fewer people on the market with a risk aversion, who stays? have a greater appetite for this risk and take it p The likelihood of such people being carriers of venereal disease is greater. There is simply a chance that even if a prudent person chooses a relationship, he will go on a "sexual predator". And when there are more cautious people on the market, chances are they're hitting other people cautiously. The average quality of participants in sex life increases. This theoretical reasoning works in practice. For 20-30 years, we observed a decline in sexual activity among Western teenagers and students, with a simultaneous increase in the incidence of venereal diseases.
Or is it the fact that in developed societies the sexual activity of young people is decreasing, it is economically possible to explain? After all, the cost of protecting oneself from the risks associated with sex has never been so low, so commonplace education and the stigma of premarital relationships as low as today … And if something is cheap and accepted, it should be "bought".
I will claim to have an unequivocal answer to this question, but I think that economic inequality is part of the explanation. Young people really want to have a good life and are afraid that as a result of an unthinking activity they find themselves at the bottom of the income ladder. Yet the sudden collapse of the promiscuity trend, which we observed in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s, and the shift to massive abandonment of sex remain a mystery. Young people have become smaller risk takers. This is particularly evident in Japan, where the interest for sex in some age groups is zero. This is already creating social tensions. In North America, there was even a movement of bitter young men – Incel Movement – who feel aggrieved because they can not find sex partners. They are abstinent from coercion. They could find women, but women do not want to get married … and the circle closes. Incele commits terrible crimes in despair.
All of this is not a good omen to try to solve the fertility problems that affect the West, is not it?
These problems began with the beginning of the industrial revolution. Since then, the trend has been consistent: fertility decreases as societies enrich themselves. This is related to the increase in the relative cost of having children. In the past, children helped on the farm, generating a "product". After 1900, they stopped performing this function. At the same time, they began to mean the need to invest. Therefore, children can also be considered in terms of goods that we "buy" or not.
So subsidizing children, like the 500+ Polish program, is a good idea? So can women afford such a "purchase"?
A review of subsidy programs about the Natalist claims that they should be skeptical about them. Income dependencies – fertility on an individual basis are not linear and there are other variables in this equation. Historically, for example, the poorest women had more children than the richest. Currently, in my turn, and I refer to data from the United States, most children have the richest women, but also the best educated. Education is now a factor of fertility as important as income, but there is no simple correlation, but rather something like the letter U. Here are the women who have the least amount of money. children, who started their studies. Women who have not completed high school are still at the peak of fertility. He falls among those who have graduated from high school, but have not started their studies. I believe that in developing the policy of promoting parenting, it is worth considering the time that women have. It is also clear that grandparents will be less and less willing to take care of their grandchildren because they work for themselves. So what can a woman who has a child do and who wants to keep a job and not be comfortable? Not much. When government programs were successful in increasing fertility, in addition to subsidies, it was important to increase the availability of child care services.
No more crèches?
For example. Either it is relatively cheap to hire a nanny for a child.
So something that drinks in Poland. High incomes allow a woman to outsource some housework – cleaning, washing, taking care of children. And the only bit higher, which is obtained thanks to the support of the government, more. Of course, there is also the issue of the low participation of men in child care and housework. This is actually one of the reasons why, for example, in the United States, there are so many single mothers in low income groups and in education. They do not relate to each other not because there are no free men around them, just because they recognize them as those who do not belong to them. Will bring no added value in their lives. Effective inclusion in the production of a household product is a big challenge because it means the need to create cultural models. However, it should be remembered that these systems are not given once and for all.
You have been in the business of sex, family and love for 10 years. Is it just interesting to look from an economic point of view on these issues, you can actually learn something practical from that?
I am a scientist and avoid evaluating or giving advice. In fact, since I teach classes for students in the sex and love economy, someone still thanks me for the fact that what he heard about them was Helped in my life. It seems to me that it is an individual issue. However, there is an economic concept that anyone could use in their privacy. Lost costs, that is, those we have already experienced in a given area that can not be recovered. People who have relationships that are not working and in which they are still two, three or four years old tend to analyze those costs. "We are so together … that I've used this emotion / money / time …". According to economists, considering the costs of loss in the case of an unprofitable investment is an error that exposes us to only further losses. The economy allows you to look at your personal life in a more rational way.
>>> Read also: Rest in the heart of nature? Researchers: You must turn off the smartphone, otherwise the brain does not rest
[ad_2]
Source link
