So marriage rates are the same? Birth rates are the same? The supply is not adjusting to meet demand, that is not the same as “demand remaining static” that is supply remaining static.
No, retard. The supply curve is women. When women start ignoring 80% of the population they are restricting themselves, shifting the supply curve way over to the left. This pushes the equilibrium to much higher price (most women out of reach) and much less quantity (fewer men are dating).
We are in this situation precisely because supply has not remained static.
Not most, just 25-31% which is the average rate of affairs for men. You seem to think every woman is a 4…
Most women are average, dude. Most women are mid. That's how bell curves work.
No, retard. The supply curve is women. When women start ignoring 80% of the population they are restricting themselves, shifting the supply curve way over to the left. This pushes the equilibrium to much higher price (most women out of reach) and much less quantity (fewer men are dating). We are in this situation precisely because supply has not remained static.
The supply curve has been static for at least 50+ years currently. The static cost has been what drove demand down because it was set too high in the 70s. Like I said, if a ps5 is 50k the demand will diminish over time because the price is static. Men walking away hasn’t lowered the price, so yes, women are indeed the static factor.
Most women are average, dude. Most women are mid. That's how bell curves work.
Yes, which makes 4s and below in what percentage range again?
The supply curve has been static for at least 50+ years currently. The static cost has been what drove demand down because it was set too high in the 70s. Like I said, if a ps5 is 50k the demand will diminish over time because the price is static. Men walking away hasn’t lowered the price, so yes, women are indeed the static factor.
You have no idea how supply and demand curves interact. If suppliers simply increase price, then the market will still settle back to the same equilibrium because nobody's buying their product.
Women have restricted their own supply. The number of available women on the market has plummeted.
Yes, which makes 4s and below in what percentage range again?
If 5 is the average woman, then 4s are well within 1 standard deviation. Very close to average.
You have no idea how supply and demand curves interact. If suppliers simply increase price, then the market will still settle back to the same equilibrium because nobody's buying their product.
False, you will see diminishing returns, but people will still buy the product, especially if the product is a monopoly.
Women have restricted their own supply. The number of available women on the market has plummeted.
Also false, there’s an over abundance of supply, if you can afford the cost.
If 5 is the average woman, then 4s are well within 1 standard deviation. Very close to average.
False, you will see diminishing returns, but people will still buy the product, especially if the product is a monopoly.
Of course there's a segment of the population that will still buy the product, but the product will be overproduced, creating a surplus situation, which then collapses back to equilibrium price and quantity. You can't force people to buy your product.
This also applies to monopolies, although the initial equilibrium is more profitable to the monopolist. Monopolies can't force people to buy their product either.
Also false, there’s an over abundance of supply, if you can afford the cost.
No kidding, this is exactly what happens when the supply curve shifts. If you want to spend an absurd amount of money you can always buy as much product as you want. But most buyers don't want to pay that.
Equilibrium quantity depends on buyer WILLINGNESS TO PAY.
Which is again, not the majority
Who are not the majority? Women within 1 standard deviation of the average attractiveness? What are you saying exactly?
No, retard. The supply curve is women. When women start ignoring 80% of the population they are restricting themselves, shifting the supply curve way over to the left. This pushes the equilibrium to much higher price (most women out of reach) and much less quantity (fewer men are dating).
We are in this situation precisely because supply has not remained static.
Most women are average, dude. Most women are mid. That's how bell curves work.
The supply curve has been static for at least 50+ years currently. The static cost has been what drove demand down because it was set too high in the 70s. Like I said, if a ps5 is 50k the demand will diminish over time because the price is static. Men walking away hasn’t lowered the price, so yes, women are indeed the static factor.
Yes, which makes 4s and below in what percentage range again?
You have no idea how supply and demand curves interact. If suppliers simply increase price, then the market will still settle back to the same equilibrium because nobody's buying their product.
Women have restricted their own supply. The number of available women on the market has plummeted.
If 5 is the average woman, then 4s are well within 1 standard deviation. Very close to average.
False, you will see diminishing returns, but people will still buy the product, especially if the product is a monopoly.
Also false, there’s an over abundance of supply, if you can afford the cost.
Which is again, not the majority
Of course there's a segment of the population that will still buy the product, but the product will be overproduced, creating a surplus situation, which then collapses back to equilibrium price and quantity. You can't force people to buy your product.
This also applies to monopolies, although the initial equilibrium is more profitable to the monopolist. Monopolies can't force people to buy their product either.
No kidding, this is exactly what happens when the supply curve shifts. If you want to spend an absurd amount of money you can always buy as much product as you want. But most buyers don't want to pay that.
Equilibrium quantity depends on buyer WILLINGNESS TO PAY.
Who are not the majority? Women within 1 standard deviation of the average attractiveness? What are you saying exactly?