Posted on 01/04/2016 1:28:08 PM PST by C19fan
The notion of “making a good match,†a staple of the writings of Jane Austen and Henry James, continues in contemporary romance novels. At the same time, income inequality commands increasing attention from economists. Lately we’ve been learning just how much these two topics are tied together.
These days, an investment banker may marry another investment banker rather than a high school sweetheart, or a lawyer will marry another lawyer, or a prestigious client, rather than a secretary. Whether measured in terms of income or education, there are more so-called power couples today than in the past, one manifestation of a phenomenon known as assortative mating, or more generally the pairing of like with like.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“Gay” “marriages” are even worse in this regard. Plenty-0-DINKS....
So they’re going to start telling us who we can and can’t marry now?
Here it comes...government must approve of your spousal choice for the greater benefit of society. Billionaires can only marry people from the “poor side of town.”
Next up...all marriages arranged by government. Utopia, here we come.
Why does the left choose to cover the issue of rising prosperity in poor regions by being selective about the differences in wealth? I can only conclude that the left is so self-loathing about the prosperity of the west they would feel better if the west was brought down a few notches.
Moreover, when you dig a bit into the complaints about “income inequality”, you do not find anyone on the left fretting about, say, how much the Rolling Stones earned for a single concert as compared to how much they paid the people who unloaded their gear from the truck. We do no hear a peep of complaint that Matt Damon is being paid $3 million to appear in a 60 second commercial for a coffee machine, when I am sure the gaffers and the sound men on the shoot will only make union wages.
We should cheer because of the tremendous value that some people have the freedom and circumstances to create and because of the modern means of amplifying the creative work of a person so many can enjoy it no matter where in the world they may be. And thanks to the creative work and generosity of people like Salman Kahn, whose Kahn Academy is free to anyone who wants to learn, and to all the universities who give coursework for free, anyone in the world with an internet connection can be just as educated and just as creative.
Instead we seem to fixate on just how poor some people are when others are not poor, as if the wealthy somehow stole their wealth. Well, that colonial model is old and busted. GET OVER IT.
Liberals are driven by The Narrative even when they are not conscious of what it is and where it would take them. The Narrative is to be on the continual hunt for victims and oppressors. In the narrative about people who have wealth and people who don’t it is easy to have a continual supply of victims by which liberals can express their self-loathing over, and by which they can inhibit and shame people who are exceptional achievers. In the process, prosperity, innovation and diligent work are denigrated. Dependency is elevated to a form of moral nobility. Our society is worse off for it.
Hay, it’s for your own good comrade. Viva la revolution!
State mandated nuptials without regard to gender.
Now everyone can be equally....unhappy.
Oh what a wonderful liberal world.
No.
Your move.
“No.
Your move.”
Exactly, why would I want marry a fat, lazy welfare b*tch?
And why would a nice young lady want to marry Trayvon Gibsmedat?
Think of all the money those little Sons of Obama would bring in. At twenty Baby Trayvons or so, you could retire and shoot hoops all day.
So then, in the interest of “income equality”, all marriages between economic equals are forbidden, and all must marry someone in the opposite end of the income spectrum.
They can have their loveless power alliances. Imagine the tension in those bedrooms. Ick.
They will fall in front of the throne of Jesus right along with the rest of us little people.
U mean like Bill and Hillary?
And yet they hate Trump, who married multiple girls of various classes AND divided his wealth among them and their offspring.
Good response, theBuckwheat.
I just can’t give the Slimes a internet hit on this article. It looks like it will just state the obvious (which I know is sometimes hard for the slimes to figure out!).
Oldplayer
As I told my wife, she married down. I don’t want the government tell me what income group I should marry.
Women rarely marry down economically.
Thus, the natural outcome of high-income women is very high-income couples.
Women choose their mates, men just think they do.
Yeah—freedom and a meritocracy further inequality, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.