Posted on 08/03/2016 5:02:11 AM PDT by Kaslin
What economists call an ability to make "compensating differences" is a valuable tool in everyone's arsenal. If people are prohibited from doing so, they are always worse off. You say, "Williams, I never heard of compensating differences. What are they?"
Jimmy Soul's 1963 hit song, "If You Wanna Be Happy," explained the concept of compensating differences. His lyrics went: "If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife. So from my personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you." His point was that an ugly woman would treat you better. But more importantly, a less attractive woman's willingness to compensate for her differences enables her to effectively compete with a pretty woman.
It goes the other way around, too. I've presented people with the following scenario: Suppose you saw a fat, ugly cigar-smoking old man married to a beautiful young woman. What kind of prediction would you make about the man's income? Everybody I've asked guesses that he would have a high income. The fat, ugly cigar-smoking old man would essentially be telling the beautiful young woman, "I can't compete for your hand the same way a guy like Williams can, so I'm going to offset my handicap by offering you a higher price."
Some might view it as unfair that a fat, ugly cigar-smoking old man could not win a pretty woman's hand on the same terms as a handsome man. Suppose they enacted a law saying beautiful women cannot treat fat, ugly cigar-smoking old men any differently than they treat handsome men. Then what would happen to the probability of a fat, ugly cigar-smoking old man's marrying a beautiful woman? Most people would guess that it would go to zilch. What the law would do would be to remove the less preferred man's most effective tool for competing with the more preferred man.
There are many real-world examples of compensating differences. Full-fledged doctors receive hourly pay that ranges between $80 and $157. A brand-new intern earns about $34 an hour. What do you think would happen to a hospital's willingness to hire an intern if there were a minimum hourly wage for interns of, say, $60, $70 or $100? There would be less willingness. Worse, there would be reduced learning opportunities for brand-new doctors. Worse still is that a hospital administrator would say, "If I must pay that higher minimum hourly wage no matter whom I hire, I might as well hire the most qualified." Thus, the higher minimum hourly wage would discriminate against the employment and skills acquisition of the least skilled intern.
During the 1930s, '40s and '50s, one could not prevent whole neighborhoods in the north from going from white to black occupancy virtually overnight. This was before government anti-discrimination laws related to housing. You might wonder how poor, discriminated-against people managed to seize the land-use control of neighborhoods. They did it through the market mechanism. For example, there might have been a racially discriminatory landlord who rented his three-story brown stone building to a white family for $100 a month. Maybe six black families approached the owner with the proposition that if he cut the building up into six apartments, each family would pay him $50 a month. That would mean that he could earn $300 a month renting to blacks rather than $100 renting to a white family. The evidence suggests that landlords opted for the higher earnings. Black people simply outbid white families.
Compensating differences abound. Even though chuck steak is less preferred, it outsells filet mignon. Less-preferred Toyotas compete effectively with Mercedes-Benzes. Costume jewelry competes with fine jewelry. In each, the lower price compensates for the difference. You might say, "Williams, people are not cars, steaks or jewelry!" That's true, but they respond to the same economic laws as cars, steaks and jewelry -- just as people would obey the law of gravity the same way bricks would if they fell off the Empire State Building.
That was good. First time in a while that I’ve seen a Williams article. Can’t think of anyone who can boil down economics to its essence better than he.
My first wife had intellect and education, but not looks or refinement. She was not pretty and she turned out to have a grumpy and mean disposition when married.
The article does point out that meddling in the market skews things. My 1st ex screwed me over in the divorce thanks to family law and divorce favoring women. An ugly woman can still have an ugly personality. The government meddling has ruined the adage: if you want to be happy for life, marry and ugly wife.
I left the first wife because of nastiness. The 2nd wife was more attractive and in general kinder and milder disposition, but unfortunately her inner slut came out and she was a serial cheater.
Ugly wife. Pretty wife. Marriage LOL.
Whopper had it right in Wargames about nuclear war. They should have a movie where Whopper analyzes modern marriage for men: “A strange game. The only way to win is not to play.”
I picked someone who had an extra layer of character and accountability, over that which I might encourage, alone.
I picked my wife because she had a rock-solid Christian walk. God beats a man alone, every time.
That’s because the ugly woman and the pretty woman and every woman in between are just bats**t insane.
The first 45rpm record that I ever bought...in Dr Williams hometown at the WT Grant.
Always enjoy the way Dr Williams brings everyday life examples to define economic concepts.
Oh and just for the "record"...the lovely, gracious and gorgeous Mrs Prov1322 and I just celebrated our 44th two weeks ago. GOD is good!
At one point, Marty's wife of 20+ years emphatically said that he was her best friend and that if she did not have him as her husband, she'd want him as best friend. Marty definitely did not bring good looks to the marriage. He did give her something she valued far more than a handsome face.
I've been married to my first wife for 1 month shy of 43 years now, and I am a BIG winner for it. We've had our ups and downs, of course, but we've stuck it out, and while it's paid off all along, it's paying off big time right now.
It takes good judgment and an intelligent understanding of what you want to pick a potential life mate, of course. But I really feel that luck also plays a significant part in the equation.
So good luck to you, especially if you decide to throw your hat in the ring one more time. :)
Google Hot/Crazy Matrix on YouTube. Be entertained.
My first thoughts on anyone having 2 or more ex’s is the problem might not be the fault of the ex’s.
Great article. Another home run by Dr. Williams.
bump
Well, what is the probability of a single incompatible spouse? Then we can calculate the probability of crapping out twice in a row.
// My first thoughts on anyone having 2 or more ex’s is the problem might not be the fault of the ex’s. //
Yes, exactly. It is my fault for trusting people.
Like my 2nd wife. I should have known before I married her that she would cheat 4 times. Because she gave every single indication that she was a serial cheater. NOT.
My first thoughts on someone who says something like what you said, is that they are a judgmental ass.
A marriage researcher looked into the 50% of marriages that don’t result in divorce, and found that only about a third are happy marriages.
That means the odds of having a happy marriage not resulting in divorce are about one in 6.
I am going MGTOW. In the past hundred days, I have read about 50,000 pages on the psychology of romance, marriage, love, dating, sex, women. Neurological perspective, religious perspective, feminist perspective, MGTOW perspective, etc. (I read about 500 pages an hour) I’ve mostly assimilated this information into a new mental schema.
I now understand women, and they are not complicated. The reason why they seem “mysterious” is because it is MEN that are complicated and different from each other. Women are more cookie cutter and collectivist than men are. Men have greater variation, for example in intelligence... more retards and more geniuses.
Women observe men carefully, and tailor an individual course of action for each man that will result in her getting what she wants (resources & social status primarily). This results in women acting differently with different men and makes them seem inscrutable.
I now understand my recent ex’s actions and can now strategize for her likely attempt to reverse monkey branch back to me. If she comes back to my state, I will guide her into sharing an apartment with a roommate until the 12 months separation has elapsed and the divorce will be final.
Theorizing she would want to lay the groundwork for “reverse monkey branching” back to me should things with her new boyfriend not work out, I tested the waters and successfully seduced her on her last visit to this state to get more of her stuff. It didn’t take much effort to get her to cheat on her new guy. And her mental resolution of her “cognitive dissonance” was very apparent in her sudden display of affection (e.g. kissing that she had refused to do for past several years we were married)
I had a brief discussion with a co-worker once. He got divorced within a couple of weeks of getting married to a woman who apparently viewed jarrage as a welfare like perpetual welfare/meal ticket. There are apparently swift unforseeable changes with some women that occur after the ceremony. Then there is change of both parties over time. The odds are not good, but that is why ore-nupts were invented. The future is always murky.
/// So good luck to you, especially if you decide to throw your hat in the ring one more time. :) ///
For some reason, despite not being some stereotypical alpha male, I seem to be able to drawn in women pretty easily going way back. Have actually been with 2 virgins even, so it wasn’t like they were all sluts.
Now, that I basically understand what drives women internally, I can now explain their behavior when even THEY can’t explain it to me.
e.g. why my wife cried when I was getting ready to leave the house to hook up with a Eurasian woman — which was my response to her having cheated with a 4th guy. I had asked her “if you don’t love me like you say, why are you crying”. She said “I don’t know”.
I now know it was because internally she was upset because my lining up another woman was messing with the “monkey branching” strategy by weakening her grip on me before she had a full grip on the new guy. Stupidly, I felt sorry for her and didn’t hook up with the exotic Eurasian woman.
With my previous gift for pulling in women and my new understanding of their psychology, I’ve decided to turn those abilities to the dark side, since I don’t think women are worth investing in.
Post-separation, I’ve started an epic romp of “pumping and dumping” that would make Captain Kirk seem like a chaste virgin. I dangle the possibility of “$” and stability and then yank it away like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. I take their little “resource acquisition” goals and turn it against them like judo.
I also use Soviet-style reflexive control strategy against women. I figure out how I want them to act ahead of time, and then knowing how women customize strategies to each man, I project a persona designed to make the woman act a certain way.
For a good primer on reflexive control: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170613.pdf
(per asbstract, reflexive control is “a means of conveying to a partner or an opponent specially prepared information to incline him to voluntarily make the predetermined decision.”)
Be careful with pre-nuptials.
Both mangina and feminist judges are liable to toss them, particularly if there is not enough of what is called “consideration” in them. (essentially compensation for the other party in the pre-nuptial to balance out the restrictions/limitations placed upon them)
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.