Social economists have a term called «assortative mating» which describes people of similar characteristics marrying.
Back when men held most of the high income jobs, the effects of this were limited to people tending to marry within their social class and ethnicity.
Wealthy men would marry women who had no income yet provided value in other ways.
An average well-to-do marriage would consist of doctor + housewife, lawyer + housewife, businessman + housewife.
This had an unintended effect of «spreading the wealth» among more families.
However, as women have entered the workplace in recent years, assortative mating has taken on a whole new meaning.
As we all know here, the average woman is incapable of being attracted to a man she views as inferior.
This has resulted in the phenomenon of half of the high paying jobs in many fields being taken over by women, who for the most part, refuse to marry men who make less money than them.
Now, the average well-to-do family is beginning to look like doctor + doctor, lawyer + doctor, businessman + lawyer.
Not only does this at least double the income of already wealthy families, it has the result of decreasing the amount of jobs to go around for otherwise-qualified men, regardless of the rate of economic growth.
Also, the trend of women beginning to outnumber men in the workplace will likely grow because male business owners are much more likely surround themselves in an opposite-sex corporate harem than women, who aren’t usually going to be attracted to men they view as lower status than them. (I personally experience this all the time, nearly all of the male doctors and dentists I’ve regularly gone to ran practices where they were the only male employee. They all seem to be having the time of their lives being the only guy working there too.)
A study was done recently to gauge the effect of assortative mating on income inequality and the results are quite telling.
The statistic they used to gauge income inequality was the Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality on a scale from zero to 1. Zero represents no inequality—as if everyone earns exactly the same amount—and 1 represents perfect inequality, which would occur if one person earns everything and everybody else makes nothing.
Greenwood and his colleagues estimated that the Gini coefficient was .34 in 1960, or about a third of the way to complete inequality. When they randomly matched people by education level and recalculated the coefficient, the answer was basically the same: The Gini coefficient still stood at .34, suggesting that assortative mating by education played little, if any, role in income inequality.
Then they applied the same method to 2005 data. Now the overall Gini coefficient was .43, an increase of about .09 since 1960 and consistent with other research. But when they randomly matched people by education and re-ran their analysis, the Gini index plummeted to .34, showing that today, “assortative mating is important for income inequality.”
Essentially, what this study shows us is that in 1960, assortative mating had no effect on income inequality.
A woman’s economic status had absolutely no bearing on whether she was chosen as a mate by a man.
Today, the data shows that the nine point increase in income inequality from 1960 to 2005 would be completely negated if assortative mating were removed as a factor.
It’s not much of a stretch to see the fingerprint of women’s increased power and choice in the sexual marketplace here.
Hypergamy run amok is damaging society in ways we are only beginning to discover, and RedPill knowledge will become an increasingly useful lens to view the coming days through.