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?
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.
And that “surplus” hasn’t crashed or lowered prices in over 50 years despite demand lowering.
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.
I wouldn’t agree here, the cost to get in is the only actual cost here. It’s like getting into an exclusive country club, the one time cost is egregiously high, but once you get access the supply is near unlimited.
Who are not the majority? Women within 1 standard deviation of the average attractiveness? What are you saying exactly?
25-30% of married men end up in an affair, 25-30% of women are in the 2-4 range. It’s not perfectly linear, but men having affairs are egregiously more likely to do so if they don’t find their partner attractive.
And that “surplus” hasn’t crashed or lowered prices in over 50 years despite demand lowering.
Yeah. That's because the equilibrium changed. Meaning either the supply or demand curve shifted.
I wouldn’t agree here, the cost to get in is the only actual cost here. It’s like getting into an exclusive country club, the one time cost is egregiously high, but once you get access the supply is near unlimited.
This cost structure is a type of monopoly. That would still be a change in the supply curve.
25-30% of married men end up in an affair, 25-30% of women are in the 2-4 range. It’s not perfectly linear, but men having affairs are egregiously more likely to do so if they don’t find their partner attractive.
Depending on the variation in women that would mean only a small fraction, maybe about 15% of women, fall into the range of "within 1 standard deviation, but husband unhappy enough to cheat."
Yeah. That's because the equilibrium changed. Meaning either the supply or demand curve shifted.
The demand has shifted
This cost structure is a type of monopoly. That would still be a change in the supply curve.
The supply curve shifted during the “sexual revolution” and has been static since, the demand curve is the one shifting currently, but isn’t impacting the supply curve. Less men are dating, more men are simping online through a payment system.
Depending on the variation in women that would mean only a small fraction, maybe about 15% of women, fall into the range of "within 1 standard deviation, but husband unhappy enough to cheat."
And that’s a good chunk of the 4s. Let’s say 4s make up 30% of women, that’s half of all 4s being cheated on at some point because their boyfriend/ husband/ etc doesn’t find them attractive
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?
And that “surplus” hasn’t crashed or lowered prices in over 50 years despite demand lowering.
I wouldn’t agree here, the cost to get in is the only actual cost here. It’s like getting into an exclusive country club, the one time cost is egregiously high, but once you get access the supply is near unlimited.
25-30% of married men end up in an affair, 25-30% of women are in the 2-4 range. It’s not perfectly linear, but men having affairs are egregiously more likely to do so if they don’t find their partner attractive.
Yeah. That's because the equilibrium changed. Meaning either the supply or demand curve shifted.
This cost structure is a type of monopoly. That would still be a change in the supply curve.
Depending on the variation in women that would mean only a small fraction, maybe about 15% of women, fall into the range of "within 1 standard deviation, but husband unhappy enough to cheat."
The demand has shifted
The supply curve shifted during the “sexual revolution” and has been static since, the demand curve is the one shifting currently, but isn’t impacting the supply curve. Less men are dating, more men are simping online through a payment system.
And that’s a good chunk of the 4s. Let’s say 4s make up 30% of women, that’s half of all 4s being cheated on at some point because their boyfriend/ husband/ etc doesn’t find them attractive