An Economic Model of the Rise in Premarital Sex and Its De-Stigmatization [pdf]

http://www.jeremygreenwood.net/papers/fgg14.pdf

by nkurz • 11 years ago

86 60 11 years ago

dj-wonk2• 11 years ago

There are 14 parameter values to determine, {β, ϕ, ζ, γ, δ, θ, ι, ω, μ, α, τ, λ, η, σ}.

Using Greek letters may follow in the economics tradition, but it is a pain for humans who need to match up symbols with concepts.

michaelchisari• 11 years ago

Using easily readable/recognizable variable names is one thing computer programmers got right. It's always frustrating to read mathematic or economic models that use symbols instead.

I'm sure there's a good reason for it, but I haven't heard it yet.

jacobolus• 11 years ago

The reason is that it makes everything much more compact, which facilitates symbolic manipulation by reducing the space that symbols take, so that the differences between each step can be easily spotted, and in particular so that it’s easier to write down each step, which is especially important when working with pencil and paper.

The problem with short cryptic symbols comes when there are so many symbols that it’s hard to keep them straight, when symbol uses fall far from their definitions, when the same symbol is overloaded to mean different things, or when the author’s and the reader’s cultural conventions about symbols are different.

In a programming context, short variable names are extremely handy when either (a) the scope of the variable is limited, or (b) there’s a strong convention associating the name with the meaning, so that someone seeing the name knows immediately what it represents. For example, writing pi instead of circle_constant, writing i instead of loop_index, etc. tends to make code more readable rather than less.

saraid216• 11 years ago

I've read some computation-heavy processing using long-form variable names in code and it's not actually readable.

For parameter passing, long-form names make sense. For actual math? Not so much.

SamReidHughes2• 11 years ago

If you use the symbols that are used, frequently, you get better at using them. It's much like the way if you play a round of golf at a course that you're unfamiliar with, it's a lot harder to recall a shot-by-shot recap of your round than if you play the course regularly. The mind builds little registers for keeping track of the meanings of Greek letters if you use those little friends often enough.

kszx2• 11 years ago

Writing out long variable names while working on a mathematical model is like writing the same text with ten times the number of characters. It's neither elegant nor efficient.

Imagine you're playing around with variables and model configurations in complex mathematical terms, but one formula stretches over two pages and you always need to cross out and rewrite whole words.

RockyMcNuts• 11 years ago

There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors. - somebody

avn2109• 11 years ago

* somebody who knew what he was talking about.

GFK_of_xmaspast2• 11 years ago

Are you suggesting Greek letters are not suitable for human comprehension.

oh_sigh• 11 years ago

Presumably the poster would have about as much as a problem if the author picked the first 14 letters of the English alphabet.also, it is not a given that everyone knows the green alphabet, and it is harder to correlate symbols when you don't have familiarity and know the names of them.

kszx2• 11 years ago

It makes sense to use Greek letters for exogenous parameters so that we can use Latin letters for endogenously determined variables. The distinction between capitalized and uncapitalized letters is useful for a similar reason.

This makes economic formulae much more readable.

dj-wonk2• 11 years ago

How would one go about learning this convention (and others like it), in the off chance that it was not completely obvious to the reader?

zxcvvcxz2• 11 years ago

Interesting stuff, it's clear from this economics perspective that sexual behavior is tightly coupled to risks and societal influence. As birth control became more available, the risk of premarital sex went down dramatically. I think societal norms are slowly catching up with this, hence why "we" (i.e. Western nations) are more liberal now than say 70 years ago.

Here's a related thought experiment: could ever increasing divorce rates be explained similarly by risk? There is much less risk of divorcing now, women are about as financially independent as men, and it could be argued there is a greater safety net for single parents (e.g. [1]). This is interesting because it would imply that in the natural state of things, men's primary family purpose is/was as a provider/protector of some sort. So as that need diminishes, perhaps it shouldn't be the norm to expect everyone to get married.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_...

discodave2• 11 years ago

I agree with you but would quibble on one thing "women are about as financially independent as men"... I would say that women are about 70-80% as financially independent as men, due to the gender pay gap. That gap is even higher if you consider women's under representation in high paying jobs (e.g. tech).

However... That's light years better the past when women were essentially considered to be the property of their father or husband.

chadzawistowski• 11 years ago

If you're going to name figures I think you ought to cite sources rather than just guessing.

unethical_ban• 11 years ago

I didn't downvote you, but I can see why others did. Unequal pay doesn't mean unequal independence.

I'm in debt with a middle class job. I'm just as financially independent (in the short term) as someone making $250k, or someone with no debt making 60% of what I do.

Alex3917• 11 years ago

I would say that women are about 70-80% as financially independent as men, due to the gender pay gap.

That pay gap is for all women, not unmarried women. Young unmarried women living in cities generally make more money than men.

seany• 11 years ago

The gender pay gap is a myth. Even major publications refute it http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-tha... http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527023035327045794837...

brc• 11 years ago

Unfortunately, for many millions of women, even in western countries, this is still the case - treated as property.

throwawayaway3• 11 years ago

ever increasing divorce rates

https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=divorce+rate+over+time...

not sure your premise is true.

irishcoffee2• 11 years ago

As a response, marriage rates over time:

https://www.google.com/search?q=marriage+rates+over+time&sou...

Dewie• 11 years ago

Here's a related thought experiment: could ever increasing divorce rates be explained similarly by risk? There is much less risk of divorcing now, women are about as financially independent as men, and it could be argued there is a greater safety net for single parents (e.g. [1]).

Thought experiment? Isn't that what most people assume to begin with?

This is interesting because it would imply that in the natural state of things, men's primary family purpose is/was as a provider/protector of some sort. So as that need diminishes, perhaps it shouldn't be the norm to expect everyone to get married.

On the other hand, nurturing functions have also to a degree been delegated to kindergartens, daycare and schools.

And divorce courts still seem to want that sweet dough from the primary income provider when a divorce does happen. Though that point isn't relevant to people who never get married to begin with. And I guess society changing doesn't stop lawyers to keep wanting money... or divorcees that benefit from the divorce courts.

trhway• 11 years ago

So as that need diminishes, perhaps it shouldn't be the norm to expect everyone to get married.

just look at Sweden. Strongest social net and government child support benefits - lowest marriage rate with highest rate of out-of-wedlock births(~60%).

draugadrotten• 11 years ago

just look at Sweden.

Note also that in Sweden 60% of divorces are initiated by the woman, and that it's the men that suffer more from a divorce and suffer long-lasting severe negative effects on mental health.

Source: Gähler, Life after divorce: economic, social and psychological well-being among Swedish adults and children following family dissolution https://scholar.google.se/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl...

swsieber• 11 years ago

Unfortunately, it's coupled with short-term risks and probably doesn't accurately reflect the cost of high divorce rates, low birth within wedlock rates, and both parents working rates. While some people do make a single parent work, or both parents working with children work, there is a huge impact of divorce and single parents on their children. Those long term effects are not reflected as well by economic incentives in those situations.

zxcvvcxz2• 11 years ago

As someone mentioned, looking at only divorce rates doesn't paint the clearest picture. The data isn't as consistent as I led on. It would be more accurate, and pretty much equivalent to the discussion, to cite the declining marriage rates.

Here's something interesting: bachelorhood is at an all-time high: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachel...

What's common in articles like these is the implicit assumption that:

Men are bachelors because they're failing to mature, falling behind in school and the workplace, etc, etc

How about a more economic argument, like in this submission? Or rather, why not just ask a better question - why are they failing to mature? The answers would be something along the lines of: there are no incentives to do so.

If women don't need to get married as much (lower demand), their price (standards) must therefore increase. E.g. "I'm not really interesting in having a sweet right now, but if it's a mousse chocolate cake..." Maybe the price rises past the point where it's worth it to buy, from the male perspective. Also this means less and less men can compete.

_bfhp• 11 years ago

The paradigm of woman as private property has been losing popularity, obviously. We have to recognize that the "newer" constructions of womanhood are not necessarily positive.

obstinate2• 11 years ago

You seem to be implying that woman-as-property was better than what we have today. Presumably that is not what you meant. Perhaps an edit to clarify?

Fdndjxjxr• 11 years ago

At the risk of being lambasted as a misogynist, I think he's referring to the current trend towards an informal return to harems, where a majority of women court a minority of men, and vice-versa. That just has to do with how we humans are naturally polygamous creatures and the sexual revolution has gotten rid of a lot of the societal factors keeping people in strict monogamy.

curiously• 11 years ago

Female empowerment seems to share high correlation with the availability of contraceptives. For instance, countries where it is widely available, there is strong women's right and advocacy whereas in other countries, for religious or societal reasons, seems to lack it and women enjoy the same level of freedom and power in the 19th century.

This newfound glory of the female seems to have devastating impact on traditional familial values, where countries like South Korea and Japan have extremely low birth rates and marriages. In countries where fertility rate is not as severely impacted, divorce rate seems extremely high, leading to large number of offsprings raised with a single mom (as most custody ends up this way) and no male authority figure (shown to have negative effect on male offsprings). The single father who bears the grunt of the financial burden in low socioeconomic classes face higher chance of incarceration, harm and substance abuse. The single mom who make the living now must spend less time with her kids which has negative effects.

vixen99• 11 years ago

So how will the model be used? Isn't this important given that the conclusions in this paper could be stated by anyone thinking about the subject for ten minutes? Abstracts usually tell us about the paper and the reasons for conducting the research. This one does not.

lordnacho• 11 years ago

I wonder if there's a similar thesis about why homosexuality is now well accepted in many societies. In Denmark for instance they pride themselves on being at the front of the sexual revolution as well as being free and open about gays. The change also happened at roughly the same time as De-Stigmatization.

I can't quite make out the analogy though. Why would there be an economic disincentive to be gay in the past, and how has it changed?

theorique2• 11 years ago

The historical social stigma against homosexuality, and the consequent high risk of losing your job or social position, probably kept many homosexuals in the closet who would have been open in a more permissive time.

Nowadays, since nobody is fired (at least in the West) for homosexual activities or relationships, the economic penalty is eliminated.

kefka2• 11 years ago

My state, Indiana, just made it legal specifically to fire or demote people because of their LGBTQ preference. That was in challenge to the recent Supreme court case regarding Hobby Lobby.

An Economic Model of the Rise in Premarital Sex and Its De-Stigmatization [pdf]

Related Stories