This was an interesting quote.

"I think the greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out 'You need more education' and have been able to respond to that, and men have not. And it's very, very scary for economists because people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It's a fact in need of an explanation."

As men (on average) finish less education, as male wages (on average) decline, men become less attractive as marital partners. As Harvard's Christopher Jencks -- a left-leaning academic, it should be stressed -- said in that same New York Times piece: "Single-parent families tend to emerge in places where the men already are a mess."

Re: Paragraph 1 Speaking of 'price signals,' how about the cost of an education today? To say nothing of its lousy return on the investment (and debt) as people with 'a degree' struggle to find work.

Re: Paragraph 2 The complete omission of the influence of feminist propaganda in this struck me while I was reading it before I posted it. This paragraph makes it sound like women are hyperrational in their husband-selection, or that a well-earning man is desirable. In reality, it is shameful for a woman to be supported by a husband, or to become a SAHM, heaven forbid she do so *with* a degree. The feminist propaganda says "Get an education, who needs a man" but has subtly morphed into "get an education *so that* you don't need a man"

As men (on average) finish less education, as male wages (on average) decline, men become less attractive as marital partners.

That's laughable.
In my experience, the man's income has next to nothing to do with his chances of being married.
Sure, there are women who will chase after BIG money, but when it comes to average, above average, or below average (or even none at all) incomes, I don't see the poor guys as being certain to finish last.

This was an interesting quote.

Quote

"I think the greatest, most astonishing fact that I am aware of in social science right now is that women have been able to hear the labor market screaming out 'You need more education' and have been able to respond to that, and men have not. And it's very, very scary for economists because people should be responding to price signals. And men are not. It's a fact in need of an explanation."

As men (on average) finish less education, as male wages (on average) decline, men become less attractive as marital partners. As Harvard's Christopher Jencks -- a left-leaning academic, it should be stressed -- said in that same New York Times piece: "Single-parent families tend to emerge in places where the men already are a mess."

Dalrock highlighted and responded to the same quote you did:

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/why-arent-men-responding-to-economic-signals/

Good read, but that sure is a depressing blog.  :smile:

Yeah, it really is sometimes.  It's probably best to avoid the comments, which can be crass and even more discouraging.

He puts forth the thought that things will get bad enough to encourage a shift back towards a family-centered society. I hope that's right as this world is much too messed up to think that things could possibily be even worse for the next generation.

Things can get much, much worse.  Think of the Germans in 1944 being bombed.  They hadn't seen anything yet.

And I think they will get much worse, because even the parts of society that are supposed to be most conservative are thoroughly imbued with feminist presuppositions, attitudes, their children, especially their daughters, are immersed in modern culture, without the tools and the guidance to resist it.

Trads would rather feud with each other over the chapel pecking order than resist the world.

Yes, things will likely become much worse:

(WARNING the comment section should probably be avoided)

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/03/29/antifeminism-might-become-illegal-in-the-nordic-countries/