• DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days ago

    It could also be a correlation rather than causation. People with more money might be better at finding partners.

    • Taleya@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      You’re hearing hooves and thinking zebras.

      A couple that splits expenses will be better off than someone who carries the load by themselves.

      • DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        “also”. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Both could be contributing factors, and it looks like the research didn’t control for either.

        • Taleya@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          fair, but you’re kinda wedded to the idea that “People with more money” more readily get partners in a weird way.

          • DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            It is true that it’s harder to date when you’re poor. Try taking a woman out to dinner and asking her to pay for you. See if you get a second date.

            • Taleya@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 days ago

              If these are the only dynamics you think possible in dating, then money ain’t the reason you’re not getting a second one.

          • mlc894@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 days ago

            I mean, by inspection, it seems easily true. If you’re working 100 hours per week, you’re probably not taking much time out for dating.

      • DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        “also”. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Both could be contributing factors, and it looks like the research didn’t control for either.

    • LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      That would suggest almost all people are superficial, which doesn’t track. Contributing factors to couples having more money (opportunities etc) are things like, one person can work longer hours, while supporting the other to upskill, therefore eventually bringing in a higher income. One person can do school drop offs, the other pick ups, therefore offering less impact on one individual job spoiler, jobs are not child friendly, so needing to leave too often for a sick kid, can and does lose you a job. learning facilities, arr similarly not child friendly, your access is hugely lowered, to which, if any, courses you can study, without significant informal (free support) child care. Actual child care centres are unbelievably expensive, to the exclusion of most single parents. And that’s not even counting sharing the other typical living costs. Being single has become a huge barrier to climbing the ladder.

      • DavidDoesLemmy@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 days ago

        Dating also costs money, which excludes some people. and people are less datable if they’re unemployed.

        Both can be contributing factors.