Econlib Resources
|
TRACKBACKS (3 to date)
TrackBack URL: http://econlog.econlib.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/301
The author at WILLisms.com in a related article titled Some Call It A Bonfire/Carnival Of Classiness... writes:
COMMENTS (10 to date)
Mike Linksvayer writes:
It's hard not to feel disgusted at a man who marries for money, but we judge women who do so far less harshly. Really? I feel nothing at all, must have missed out on that social disapprobation. So men who marry for money are worse than "gold diggers"? Posted July 2, 2005 12:07 PM
Paul N writes:
Man Bryan, I don't know anyone who *doesn't* marry for money! Posted July 2, 2005 1:09 PM
Nathan Whitehead writes:
I think the answer is that both women and men are indeed strongly attracted to money. Everyone has a dislike for the idea that someone else likes them for their money, because knowing this adds to the insecurity of the relationship should the money be lost. Therefore people are attracted to money but have strong incentives to deny this. Thus when we look for the attraction, it is hard to find. Also, people are more strongly attracted to physical looks. While good looks do fade over time, the genetics that produced them don't fade, and will be passed on to the children. Money doesn't fade either, but wealth might not be as valuable as genetics. Posted July 2, 2005 4:04 PM
Robert Schwartz writes:
"... aren't women much more attracted to success than money? An average guy who inherits millions isn't interesting to women in the same way that a self-made millionaire is." Just keep telling your self that. Posted July 2, 2005 4:37 PM
jaimito writes:
In fact, many European and American males marry "mailorder brides" from the third world. Phillipine brides are very popular because they speak English. But as outsourcing has shown, an Indian engineer is cheap, but his productivity is low. Eating Phillipine food every day and paying long distance phone calls may not be worth it. Posted July 3, 2005 4:20 AM
El Presidente writes:
I would venture a guess that few men marry for money in this country (the way we think of it) because fewer women have an appreciable stash. Opportunity lacking for such marriages, it's hard to say what men would do if we had the same opportunities. As for women, I think only a fool would would claim to understand them. "This is only a test of the male intellect. If this were a real conclusion" . . . you get the point. I think they are no less or more likely to develop love from a financial engagement than men. It probably happens for women with greater frequency because of the greater prevalence of women marrying for money, again because of their higher likelihood to be less well endowed financially and statistical tendency to earn less over their lifetime. When two poor people marry we often assume it had nothing to do with money and they were just soooo in love. The reverse is quite often true. It's not easy living in poverty and having a partner in financial challenges can increase the odds of success. It is almost imperative for low-skilled poor individuals to couple in order better their lot. There are, of course, obvious psychological and physiological benefits that are assumed as part of the marriage arrangement which make it preferable to communal living for purely financial reasons. I think this is a good counter-example to the "two rich people" scenario. In this one each of them have nothing and yet each are marrying for money without apology or need of one. Posted July 3, 2005 11:06 AM
Bob Knaus writes:
I would, personally, marry for money. In fact, if any of you know of a financially independent woman who would want to marry a 43 year old smart handsome cheerful guy who lives on a sailboat in the Bahamas, send her my way! She can look at my web site to see what I look like, and the boat too for that matter. I can't wait for results. This would make the difference between teaching Boy Scouts how to sail part-time, and exploring the world full-time. Posted July 3, 2005 2:03 PM
robert leeper writes:
How plausible is this: I married her for her looks, but don't - and You seemed to be on the right track when you wrote of "the discrete nature of the marriage contract". As an economist, you might tend to think first of the contract and second if at all of the relationship, but I would expect you to see that what matters is the separability of the money from the person - to a degree of a different order than Posted July 3, 2005 6:29 PM
dsquared writes:
An average guy who inherits millions isn't interesting to women in the same way that a self-made millionaire is Really? Prince William? Posted July 4, 2005 1:20 AM
Peter Clark writes:
As my dad always said ... "If you marry for money, you earn every cent of it!" Posted July 6, 2005 8:47 AM
Comments for this entry
have been closed
|
||||||||
|
|
Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors. All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund, Inc.
The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the
earliest-known written appearance of the word
"freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It
is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.
|
||||||||