A few weeks ago, I explored the extent to which competitive dating markets exist, arguing that Provo, Utah is a relatively good example of one. In my analysis, I acknowledged that no dating market is likely to be perfectly competitive, but I failed to give a good example of imperfect competition (e.g., monopoly or monopsony). Recently, however, one of my friends suggested that individuals in certain markets outside of the Happy Valley may face less competitive conditions.
According to my friend, in just about every singles ward on the East Coast (including Boston, NYC, and D.C.), there are 2x as many girls as guys. For a guy on the prowl, a place like BYU might seem ideal because of the quantity of girls. However, the valuation of a guy tends to increase on the East Coast since there is a lesser supply of LDS males on an absolute and relative basis. Put differently, an East Coast bachelor may possess more market power relative to a BYU bachelor and can therefore demand higher quality in the women he chooses to date.
That's great for guys, but what does this mean for all the single ladies on the East Coast? For a good chunk of my college years, I fantasized about moving to the East Coast and working on Wall Street. Although I ended up getting my dream job in Phoenix and not Manhattan, there is at least one compelling reason I wouldn't mind living back East--even if it would put me in a seemingly unfavorable bargaining position as as single LDS female.
This book is still on my need-to-read list, but I've heard great reviews about The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz, a prominent American psychologist. Although economists generally assume that more options is better than fewer options, Schwartz suggests that too many options can lead to confusion and frustration for the chooser. In some ways, being in an exclusive relationship is "costly" in Provo since there are many good dating options. Sure, it may be easy for Molly Mormon to enter into a dating relationship with FHE Fred, but while she thinks about dating Fred, she also has to consider whether it would be more beneficial to date Chem 101 Chris, Laundry Room Landon, Friend-of-friend Frank, Smith Fieldhouse Sam, etc. etc. etc. In other words, too many options can be overwhelming.
For this reason, I sometimes wonder if living in smaller (but not totally dry) dating markets in places like D.C. or Boston may actually reduce choice paralysis, making it easier for individuals to settle into longer relationships without worrying about "missing out" on other dating options. Anecdotally, I know that I personally go on many more dates when I'm up at the Y, but it seems that some of my longer relationships have actually occurred while living in non-Utah markets. That said, I've never been a YSA on the East Coast, so I'm sure my hypothesis is a bit simplistic. (Also, I've heard complaints from big city girls that, although the mix of guys in East Coast wards may be disproportionately weighted toward smart, ambitious, "desirable" types of guys, including financiers, lawyers, and academics, those guys are often "too invested" in their careers and may have limited time resources to expend on dating activities. . . . ) Nevertheless, I think that the Paradox of Choice may at least partially explain why living in an imperfectly competitive dating market is not necessarily a bad thing--even if the premises of The Nanny Diaries and Legally Blonde are mostly fiction.
Spot on my friend.
ReplyDelete