Price Signals and Cheap Living (fwd)

Owen Byrne owen@permafrost.net
Thu, 30 May 2002 20:13:12 -0300


Eugen Leitl wrote:

>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: 29 May 2002 11:02:26 -0700
>From: James Rogers <jamesr@best.com>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Price Signals and Cheap Living
>
>I have a theory as to why there is a bias that is slowly causing
>movement from rural areas to super-metro areas despite the fact that the
>cost of living increases as one moves through the spectrum. I've lived
>across the spectrum and moved between them, which has given me a pretty
>good idea of how it happens.
>
>The short answer is that women drive this behavior in the general
>population. I've regularly observed this in many different places and
>under many different environments.  Men are fairly agnostic about
>location and are sensitive to cost of living, without a strong bias
>toward living in the city.  Most women prefer the city, the bigger the
>better, and don't seem to be too sensitive to the fact that it costs
>more (perhaps because in the majority of cases, they are not bearing the
>primary financial burden of it).  The pattern I have seen over and over
>is that for most couples, there is an equilibrium between the man's
>price sensitivity and the woman's desire to live in ever bigger/denser
>cities.  
>
>The outcome of this is that living in the city makes a man a more
>desirable mate.  Therefore, by paying the higher cost of living in urban
>areas they have access to better women. Men who can provide access to a
>city living environment for a woman can get better women, and men rarely
>show too much resistance to spending money to acquire better women. 
>
>In other words, it is the same old sexual selection bit.  The only real
>interesting point is the fact that women find the city very magnetic as
>a general rule.  This is a very old cliche that shows up in literature
>as far back as you look.  However, it doesn't take a psych boffin to
>come up with a good hypothesis as to why this is the case.
>
>Cheers,
>
>-James Rogers
> jamesr@best.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>  
>
This must be a continuation of the Mars discussion, because it seems 
like it came from there. Talking about cost
 of living is ignoring the other side of the spectrum - income. Perhaps 
in a suitably rarefied academic atmosphere
the range of salaries will be compressed enough for cost of living to be 
the primary driver of where one lives.
 Higher income generally seems more important to a man. Every woman I've 
been involved with (yes, its anecdotal evidence - very
anecdotal!) are completely adamant about staying where they are, whether 
its the country or the city.
And I can't think of one example of the "old cliche" about women and the 
city - lots of men going off to the city to find their
fortune, then returning for the virgin waiting for him back on the farm. "
Owen