NT Master
Prophet of the Racepill
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2022
- Posts
- 227
- Reputation
- 384
Introduction
Both jobs and romance require interpersonal relationships, often result in mismatches, & are paradoxically seen as something people need, but cannot be freely given.There are 4 key issues with both the dating market & job market.
Structural Mismatch: The System Needs Unmatched People
A pervasive & often overlooked feature of both the labor & dating markets is the structural necessity of unmatched individuals. Full employment and universal romantic coupling is not only undesirable if you really think about it, but outright infeasible.
In the job market, economists recognize that a small degree of unemployment is not only inevitable but also functionally necessary. It provides labor market flexibility, allows for transitions between jobs, & prevents wage inflation. Attempting to force 100% employment would result in inefficiencies and distortions that harm the economy overall (Nelson, 2000). Similarly, in the dating market, there must be a surplus of single people to facilitate new relationships, second chances, & re-partnering after breakups. If every individual were permanently paired, any dissolution would directly cause someone else's exclusion from the pool.
Highly educated individuals often face trade-offs between romantic & professional opportunities, leading to persistent geographic and social mismatches in both domains (Zhang, 2016).
Both systems thus rely on a certain level of exclusion to remain dynamic, which in turn ensures that some people will always be left behind.
Inelastic Demand: Scarcity Doesn’t Raise the Value of the Undesired
In classical economics, reducing supply usually raises the value of what remains. However, both the job & dating markets exhibit highly inelastic demand at the lower end, where scarcity does not translate into increased desirability or compensation.
In the labor market, when low-skill workers disappear, their absence rarely improves the market standing of those just above them. Employers may simply increase reliance on machines, offshoring, or reorganize workflows to bypass the need for those workers altogether (Nelson, 2000).
A similar dynamic plays out in the dating world. Women’s mate preferences, particularly in online dating environments, tend to be highly selective & concentrated toward a minority of men. Studies show that even when there are fewer available men, average or below-average men do not see a proportional rise in desirability (Hall et al., 2025). In essence, reducing the supply of participants at the bottom does not increase their value. It may simply shrink the market & intensify focus on top-tier candidates.
This inelastic demand contributes to long-term frustration for those on the lower rungs of either system & suggests that scarcity alone cannot address systemic undervaluation.
Globalized Competition: Technology Favors the Top
Globalization & technology have expanded the reach of both employers and romantic “buyers,” increasing competition & reducing the negotiating power of most participants.
In the labor market, remote work & international outsourcing allow employers to tap into a global talent pool. While this benefits highly skilled or elite workers who can market themselves internationally, it undermines wage power and job security for the average employee. The emergence of platforms & algorithmic hiring tools has only intensified this effect (Coles et al., 2010).
In the dating market, technology platforms like Tinder & Instagram have globalized attention. A woman in a small town can now attract suitors from across the world, & hot people can leverage global exposure into dating and even financial opportunities. This phenomenon has shifted dating from a local, community-driven endeavor to a highly competitive global marketplace. The dating market now mirrors an attention economy where top-tier participants capture outsized interest while the rest struggle for visibility (Schmitz, 2017).
As both markets become global, inequality intensifies. Those with exceptional appeal or credentials thrive, while the average participant faces a steep decline in leverage & options.
Comparative Valuation: Status Is Everything
Perhaps the most insidious feature of both the job & dating markets is their reliance on relative rather than absolute value. Success is defined not by how qualified or desirable someone is in isolation, but by how they compare to others in the same pool.
In the job market, even as workers have become more educated, healthier, and technologically literate, their relative value hasn’t improved. Employers continue to evaluate based on the comparative desirability of applicants, not historical standards. The bar rises as the average improves, creating a perpetual race with no finish line (Coles et al., 2010).
Dating functions similarly. A man who would have been considered a “catch” decades ago may now fall short due to rising standards and constant upward comparison, particularly in visually-driven platforms. As T. Rakitan notes, even in emotional domains like romance, rational market behavior persists: people evaluate mates based on relative attractiveness, status, and perceived options, much like consumers or employers would in a market of goods (Rakitan, 2006).
This constant comparison creates psychological exhaustion and feelings of inadequacy, even among those who might objectively be highly desirable or skilled.
Solutions: Decoupling Human Needs from Market Success
To address the shared dysfunction of the job and dating markets, both systems must be decoupled from basic human needs like survival & emotional fulfillment.
On the employment side, Universal Basic Income (UBI) offers a path forward. By ensuring a base level of financial security regardless of job status, UBI reduces dependence on increasingly precarious work & acknowledges the reality of a shrinking need for human labor in many sectors (Nelson, 2000).
In the realm of intimacy, sex work and technological companionship may serve a similar function. As Nader Elhefnawy suggests, virtual worlds, sexbots, and commercial intimacy can offer psychological relief and companionship for those structurally excluded from the dating market (Elhefnawy, 2021).
These are not dystopian fixes, but practical adaptations to a reality where human value is increasingly measured by market desirability.
Conclusion
The job and dating markets are structurally flawed in deeply similar ways. Both reward the exceptional, marginalize the average, & guarantee that many will be left out. Not due to laziness or inadequacy, but due to the design of the systems themselves. As Chris Rock said: "A man is only as faithful as his options". That's not only true of men, but of women & corporations as well. People want the best they believe they can realistically get. If the quality/quantity of the best increases, people become even pickier. If the quantity/quality of the best decreases, people lower their standards but still ignore the below-average folks. By understanding these parallels & decoupling basic needs from these volatile arenas, society can foster greater wellbeing & reduce the suffering caused by unrelenting competition.
Bibliography (Chicago Style)
Coles, Peter, John Cawley, Philip Levine, Muriel Niederle, Alvin Roth, and John Siegfried. “The Job Market for New Economists: A Market Design Perspective.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 24, no. 4 (2010): 187–206. https://consensus.app/papers/the-job-market-for-new-economists-a-market-design-coles-cawley/7e3784d38f695f82bf4efa18bab502a5/
Elhefnawy, Nader. “Has an ‘Exodus to the Virtual World’ Already Begun?: A Consideration of Changing Lifeways in the Early Twenty-First Century.” SSRN, 2021. https://consensus.app/papers/has-an-exodus-to-the-virtual-world-already-begun-a-elhefnawy/45278705ec065ea99b3249a12dd0dad5/
Gelderen, Marco van. “Dating Market Opportunities.” AGSE, 2008. https://consensus.app/papers/dating-market-opportunities-gelderen/85967bbc1dab5d17b7c2b8fd828c2c2e/
Hall, Rachel E., Khandis Blake, Ho Fai Chan, Benno Torgler, and Stephen Whyte. “Sex Differences in Perception of Economic and Dating Access.” Evolutionary Psychology 23, no. 1 (2025). https://consensus.app/papers/sex-differences-in-perception-of-economic-and-dating-hall-blake/feac20929f295e218fb8842f2ea4a67b/
Nelson, Cary. “Graduate Studies and the Job Market.” PMLA 115, no. 5 (2000): 1200–1202. https://consensus.app/papers/graduate-studies-and-the-job-market-nelson/cb456d703e665808a8fec93949385137/
Rakitan, Thomas. “The Meat Market: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature of the Economics of Dating and Relationships.” 2006. https://consensus.app/papers/the-me...1da0557ab8cd5735ad025cb31/?utm_source=chatgpt.
Schmitz, Andreas. “The Market Character of Online Dating.” In Online Dating as Market, 29–42. Springer, 2017. https://consensus.app/papers/the-market-character-of-online-dating-schmitz/60f160f9c7c559f88cebe2e796003413/
Zhang, Xirui. “Marriage Market Versus Job Co-Location: Location Choices of Ph.D.-Trained Singles and Couples.” 2016. https://consensus.app/papers/marriage-market-versus-job-colocation-location-choices-of-zhang/a97a73241274568b9ea3d8f0aced287d/
