From the Wiley press release [1], not the blogspam:

> “Most American women hope to marry but current shortages of marriageable men—men with a stable job and a good income—make this increasingly difficult, especially in the current gig economy of unstable low-paying service jobs,” said lead author Daniel T. Lichter, PhD, of Cornell University. “Marriage is still based on love, but it also is fundamentally an economic transaction. Many young men today have little to bring to the marriage bargain, especially as young women’s educational levels on average now exceed their male suitors.”

I don't know, that seems like such an incredibly 1950s take to me. Is that really the way most people view marriage? Sure, people who are seeing success in one area of their lives (educational, professional) are more likely to see success in other areas, but I don't think most people (or most women) view marriage as a "fundamentally economic transaction". That reads kind of like incel flame-bait to be honest.

[1] https://newsroom.wiley.com/press-release/journal-marriage-an...

> view marriage as a "fundamentally economic transaction".

You dropped the critical word 'also'. Marriage is 'also a fundamentally economic transaction'. At some level, you should understand what your future looks like with this person, how much will you make, will that make both of you happy, how will you handle a divorce, etc. What happens if one of you gets sick and the other has to care for you?

Women are attracted to successful men. This is an evolutionary thing and so not much your brain can do about it.

I'm guessing they never even get close to seeing marriage this way as the relationship probably doesn't reach into courtship past dating. Just a hunch.

This echoes what's been going on in Japan since the 90's.

What we hear about men in China needing to own an apartment in order to be a well qualified potential partner seems to be an amped up version of this.

And most importantly

"These synthetic husbands were also 30% more likely to be employed than real single men and 19% more likely to have a college degree"

I really enjoyed the nomenclature of "synthetic husbands"

Are marriage rates up in any Western country?

OK, I was wrong.

There are sex machines for both men and women: http://sexybots.com/sex-robots/

And if there were synthetic partners that were lifelike, were real companions, and had careers and incomes, why not for everyone? Maybe even for having children.

Poor people have existed in every time and era, yet we don't hear of low marriage rates in the 1800s, for example. It can't be just about the money.

I personally think it's good that marriage isn't the only choice for women, or men for that matter. People like their independence and without the social pressure to marry just for the sake it, it ultimately results in happier people that don't have to do things just because of some vague, background expectation of society - which is ultimately composed of more people that don't care about you than do.

Unless you are poor, but if you are poor you are likely unhappy whether you are married or not.

Could universal basic income save marriage?

> Poor people have existed in every time and era, yet we don't hear of low marriage rates in the 1800s, for example. It can't be just about the money.

It is now socially acceptable, and financially feasible, for women to avoid marrying. That was certainly not the case in the 1800s. It was barely the case in the 1950s.

There are future dangers of loneliness and social isolation from single and elderly.

Even without the general social stigma of being unmarried, structurally it's difficult to maintain ties with friends as their own family obligations increase and their social time increasingly revolves around inter-family activities.

Furthermore we have an ongoing decay in social institutions that bring such people in regular contact with fellow citizens, married or unmarried. Church is probably one of the last such commonly found institutions?

I feel like an increasing rate/normalization of hookups and arrangements (sugar) makes it perfectly possible for men to get the transactional/on demand aspects they generally seek and ladies get the economic aspect they often seek.

I (still happily) married right before Tinder came around. I really think if I had access before being in LTR with my wife I’d go this route and not have married. Hookups and companionship when I want. None of the stress, pressure, expectations, and drama of being a husband.

This misses the actual upsides of marriage, you don’t get married for the easy casual sex (well I mean some people probably do at first). You get married for the commitment. You can rely on the other, till death do you part, to support you, pooling your resources etc. and your families an social network sees the commitment as a sign of maturity and a signal to invest in your future as well.

To look at marriage as purely transactional either sexually or financially is disingenuous.

I’m not really imposing this on anyone else just voicing my thoughts on how I may choose differently given second chance. I’m happily married so know the pros and cons. Fact of it is I was never gunning for marriage. I dated my wife for a very long time and she eventually gave me an ultimatum. I didn’t want to leave her so I married her. That said I think it’s the best decision I’ve ever made. However, it’s challenging because I’m also selfish and want to focus on myself and my interests way more than couple stuff. Fact is I don’t need any of that stuff you listed. I make plenty of money, I don’t give a shit what my family or friends think, I really sometimes wish I had the resources I have now without the responsibilities that come with wife, kid, family. It’s probably the definition of mid life crisis.

I’m thankful to be happily married. I know a lot of people in similar situations but not happy and refuse to put their kid through a broken home or they don’t want to lose half or the social/family shame part. It seems miserable.

Well condoms are a must pretty much since HIV showed up... 40 years ago?? It’s not a rampant problem with people who play safe afaik.

My divorced friends all get sugar babies. Cost less than a wife, guys do what they want hobbies, workaholic, etc. Girls are there when they need them. Yes, it’s basically low volume prostitution

HIV was pretty much limited to male homosexuals until the mid 80s. Which is when I pretty much bailed on casual sex.

There was a heyday of condom-free casual sex during the 60s-70s, after convenient hormonal birth control had become available, and before HIV showed up. HSV was nasty, but not fatal, and there were antibiotics for most STDs.

My wife and I are more like roommates, in many ways. After 20 years, anyway. We love each other, but we have very different interests. But then, this is the third marriage for both of us, and kids were never part of it.

I've often joked that getting married is like saying "I love you so much, let's get the government involved".

I feel like so much of the draw for many people to get married is the pageantry and narcissism involved.

As a divorced man who is at the age where all his friends seem to be getting married I can't help but make mental wagers on how many of those marriages will actually last.

The pay gap says that men make more money, but this study would have me believe that they don't make enough "more money" to settle down with? Someone please correct my wrongthink.

The "pay gap" is about people who have jobs. With some more or less defensible assumptions about what jobs are comparable.

But this study is about employment, income and academic characteristics of available vs desired men. And it too makes some assumptions. One, that women looking for husbands won't consider other women. And that they exclude men of other races. Both are obviously false, but arguably not false enough to render the study meaningless.

Unemployment for men is under 4% so I'm not sure how that separates the issue of the pay gap from the men in this study. Put another way, >96% of men have income from employment. And according to the study, desired income vs real income was the biggest difference according to the women. Clearly, >96% of men are making far less than desired according to the women surveyed.

> Unemployment for men is under 4% ...

Official unemployment data aren't reliable. Mainly because they ignore people who aren't actively looking for work. Typically because they've given up, or won't accept what's on offer.

Women do have high standards, according to this study. Somewhat implausibly high, I admit.

I think peeps are forgetting the long term impact to one’s career from bouts of long term unemployment. How many bounced right back from 2008? Combine with student debt, rising home prices, and the fact you’re not getting any younger, then in 10 years you’re not 28, but 38. You have a job, but you’re making less at 40 then you did at 30. And you’re not supposed to ‘trust’ anyone over 30. (>_<)