Dalrock had an interesting piece about a woman who had 50 dates in 6 months, and another who had 100 dates in a year, but still couldn't find "the right guy." Naturally he focused on "choice addiction" whereas my biased mind wandered in the realm of economics.
"How much money are guys forking over for these girls? I mean, how much in non-taxable income is that? It's certainly significant!"
So off to the Excel spreadsheet I went to do some very rough back-of-napkin economics.
Most women, we will admit, do not get 100 dates a year, let alone 50. But I think it's safe to say the average woman will have 10 dates a year.
The dates I estimate cost more than the $5 el-cheapo movie you could afford in college, vs. the $120 fine wine and dining night out when you're in your upper income tax bracket. Let's say $50 just for s's and g's.
But wait! Women do go dutch sometimes! Yes, "sometimes." I'll say 20% of the time based on personal experience (unless somebody can cite a government database that tracks this), netting out a $10 per date subsidy by the dutch going dames. Net cost to the guy per date $40.
How many years does the average woman date? Well in the olden days, maybe 5-10. But given dating starts around 14, average age of first marriage is 28, so 14 years. BUT WAIT! Let's not forget divorce, allowing people to pleasure of going out dating again! 7 year itch, plus 28, woman is back on the market at 35, 20 years until she's 55 and more or less off the dating market forever. 14 + 20 = 34. Let's just call it 35 to account for the R-Hamster Effect.
So in the end, the average woman can expect to get $14,000 over the course of her life in free food, movies, drinks and other forms of entertainment. I actually think that's a little low, but I'll just stick with my methodology.
Final factor to account for is the number of women dating at any given moment. I'm too lazy to look up demographic data and population distribution over age. Let's call it 50,000,000 or 1/3 the current female population.
Total bill = $700 billion.
Sound about right?
My question is whether or not we ought to start factoring in these income and wealth transfers when calculating the "wage gap."
"My question is whether or not we ought to start factoring in these income and wealth transfers when calculating the "wage gap.""
ReplyDeleteLove it!
Thanks for thinking about the economics and doing some calculations - no matter how rough.
Online dating sites are filled with these women. After being on one for awhile and going on several dates, I did a cost benefit analysis and decided it wasn't worth it. Women on those sites exploit men to get free meals and an ego boost from the attention and give nothing in return. All the normal men quickly wise up and leave, leaving only players and scam artists. The women can be easily exploited in turn because they have an unrealistic view of their desirability and think that good looking guy emailing them is actually interested in them instead of just wanting quick sex or money. The women then complain about all the players and scammers in their profiles and moan about where are all the good men. The women in the end get what they deserve.
ReplyDelete"Women on those sites exploit men to get free meals "
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. There was even an article recently about some chick boasting that she had not bought groceries for months, just dated different/any guy off the dating sites.
Clearly a bailout is needed. Every male in the country needs a $5,000.00 subsidy, per year. Do it for the wimmens!
ReplyDeleteI think you are seriously underestimating the amount of economic "freebies" women are getting.
ReplyDeleteThese calculations are based on the average typical "first, second, or third" date freebie, dinner and a movie kind of thing.
Consider the boyfriend/girlfriend situation.
Who usually pays for the trips the couple takes? two guesses. Who springs for the more expensive "wine and cheese" nonsense at this point?
Next consider all the inducements bars use to get the ladies there, the half off drinks, the lack of cover charges at the clubs.
Then factor in all the free labor the empowered (yet strangely helpless) women can get out of their beta orbiters.
Maybe it's cheaper to just hire a prostitute directly.
ReplyDeleteHey Cap, help spread this awesome video:
ReplyDelete"If I wanted America to Fail"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za9G14XLxQ8
Eh. It's about as good as any Feminist math or survey.
ReplyDeleteGreat. Thanks. As someone who got divorced about three years ago and is ready to get back into dating in hopes of meeting someone to spend the long term with, I am now totally depressed. Think I'll just save everyone some time and shoot myself.
ReplyDelete@ FSK
ReplyDeleteof course, if there were no 'dating', and concomitant 'free' sex, prostitutes would be a helluva lot more expensive. (more demand you know). opportunity cost fellas!
Excellent post. In the spirit of progressiveness, I suggest a "dating woman's tax" used to establish a "female dating commission" to ensure that these wealth transfers are fairly allocated and not allowed to inure disproportionately to the young and hot.
ReplyDeleteI want $14,000 worth of sex.
ReplyDelete( word verification: Boobti + number )
I actually had a woman tell me once that she would not have sex with a man until they had been on three dates, because until a man spent at least $300 on her, he was not going to get in her pants.
ReplyDeleteI asked her if I actually had to take her out three times, or if she would just be willing to take a check.
I never saw her again. I wonder why.
no such thing as a free, er, lunch...
ReplyDelete@ Divemedic,
ReplyDeleteGEE, playing the Churchill card a bit early weren't you?
Captain
ReplyDeleteO/T, but I thought you might find this interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9310511/Buyers-remorse-for-Californias-bullet-train-to-nowhere.html
It just keeps on getting better, doesn't it?
Divemedic --
ReplyDeleteThat reminds me of the old joke where a woman was 'raped', but she didn't know it until the next day...when the check bounced!
I don't think the average woman dates for 35 years.
ReplyDeleteyeah that's some pretty horrible math, cap. you're assuming a one hundred percent divorce rate. and the figure quoted is for the lifetime transfer of one third of the population, which is a weird metric. wouldn't you rather figure out the annual transfer for the entire population?
ReplyDeleteWho bears the search costs of mating is a tremendous indicator of the future.
ReplyDeleteThat is why ALL traditional cultures had systems that kept the costs of courtship not just low, but also evenly balanced..
This is also why I say that even moderate competence in Game (defined by me elsewhere) is worth $2 Million.
I quantified how I arrived at that number in an old comment on The Spearhead form 2009.
FSK,
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's cheaper to just hire a prostitute directly.
Even if a man does not actually hire a prostitute (I still recommend Game), yes, that question should determine the effort put in.
At least the cost of traveling to a country where prostitution is legal, and adding up the whole cost of a lengthy sex vacation.
Country Lawyer,
ReplyDeleteI think you are seriously underestimating the amount of economic "freebies" women are getting.
Of course.
For starters, 70-80% of ALL government spending, of all types, is a transfer from men to women.
Furthermore, there is no way a democracy can avoid reverting to this state over time. Women use their vote primarily for this purpose, above all else.
Don't forget the cost of her sexy outfits if things go a little longer term. Car payments, grocery shopping. Especially after kids. Life seems to cost money no matter what your doing. Even short date can cost 200 bucks if at up scale restaurant. Guys do kinda pay most even though wemen work and get paid just as many hours. Some people split check . if she's gorgeous he mite pay whole thing. Just the way it goes. Guy gives pretty girl all his extra cash, and if children are involved even more lol
ReplyDelete