The author is actually indireclty referring to the stable marriage problem ( <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem</a> , don't bother reading the paper the slate writer links to, it has no substantive content), in which you have two sets of agents which we label the "men" and the "women". Each agent has a preference ordering of the members of the other gender. It is really easy to prove that you can then find an equilibrium arrangement by iterating the following procedure i = 1..n:<p>have each man propose to the i'th woman on his list (if he's not currently matched, otherwise he does nothing). the woman accepts if she's not matched yet or if the man ranks higher on her list than the previous guy she accepted.<p>if you think for a moment you can see (and prove) that this equilibria favors the men.<p>Also curiously enough, this exact algorithm is used to match med students with residency programs
I think additional part of the problem is that men are starting to realize that they really don't have anything to gain by being married. And they are so afraid of having to go through a divorce that can wipe them out, that they don't feel like trying. I mean a 50% divorce rate in this country, is pretty much a coin toss on whether or not you lose everything.<p>Seriously the only thing to gain by being married is saving a few bucks on taxes.<p>And you lose pretty much everything else. Every single married guy I know is MISERABLE. The sex pretty much stops within the first couple of years. And the woman gains mega weight, because now that they "got" you, they don't need to keep in shape. And then the whole bitchy wife comes out treating the guy as a second class citizen.<p>Marrying an American woman is pretty much the worst decision you can make. If you really want to get married, go find a nice European girl to marry, unlike American women, at least they know that marriage is not a one way street.
It's been a while since I read his explanation, but an economist -- I believe it was Tim Harford in _The Undercover Economist_, but it may have been Tyler Cowan -- has already solved this, and with a very different answer.<p>Several factors are operating. First, due to a higher death rate among males, the number of women begins to exceed the number of men (of a given age) starting at age 23. Next, there are about 10 times as many men in prison as women. Also, there seem to be rather more gay men than lesbian women. There are far more women in large US cities, where articles like this are written, than men (who are disproportionately rural). then, women like to "marry up", whereas men are willing to marry down.<p>Now comes the key point. Even a rather small discrepancy between supply and demand in an auction market can quickly drive prices thru the roof, or the floor. Great example: recent oil prices. Back when the economy was going well prices could shoot up rapidly as oil fields became exhausted and development of new ones was blocked. When the economy talked and demand dropped just a few percent, prices collapsed from $147 to $39, or some such. I read his account too quickly to fully follow it, and I'm sorry I can't remember it, but small-supply-imbalances-can-produce-huge-price-swings was the gist of it. Sorry, I don't have the book available to check it.<p>>> This is how you come to the Eligible-Bachelor Paradox, which is no longer so paradoxical. The pool of appealing men shrinks as many are married off and taken out of the game, leaving a disproportionate number of men who are notably imperfect (perhaps they are short, socially awkward, underemployed).
There's a simpler explanation than appealing to math the author admits not understanding: male attractiveness ages better.<p>A 40 year old man can be attractive to 20 year old women, but a 40 year old woman is rarely attractive to 20 year old men.<p>In other words, women past their prime who restrict themselves to mates their own age will may be in relatively low demand.
> Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them—and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but <i>their</i> <i>decisiveness</i>.<p>I think this one quote from the article is important.<p>> What they understood is this: as your priorities change from romance to family, the so-called “deal breakers” change. Some guys aren’t worldly, but they’d make great dads.<p>2nd quote from linked article in original piece - an interesting Lori Gottlieb article entitled "Marry Him!" which I'm considering forwarding to a few of my 30-ish single and still serial-dating female friends (considering the negative repercussions).<p><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry" rel="nofollow">http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/single-marry</a>
A better explanation is that older men date younger women more often than older women date younger men. So there are extra old women and young men. No need for combinatorial game theory, just supply and demand.
the Gale-Shapley algorithm requires an authority (like the medical school establishment) to make it work. in real life, if you want to get married, you face a much more amorphous situation: a series of prospects, and with each a decision, "are they good enough"? i can't find it anymore, but iirc the answer was, to estimate the length of the game (say 20 years on the marriage market) and then just date for the first 1/e fraction of this time. and then say "yes" to the next person as good or better than the best you could have had during your trial/dating period. can anyone name the theorem or is this apocryphal?
I'm a bit bothered than there is no objective evidence - just a claim that "everybody knows" followed by a loose application of game theory.<p>But, if he is right, then as a man you should be holding out.