[分享]骇笑

入得谷来,祸福自求。
Post Reply
Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

[分享]骇笑

Post by Jun » 2006-08-28 10:20

Recent controversy at Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/home/2006/08/23/M ... _land.html

A little more background on Michael Noer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Noer
Noer is also the author of "The Economics of Prostitution," [7] where, in describing a study, he wrote: "But the implication remains that wives and whores are--if not exactly like Coke and Pepsi--something akin to champagne and beer. The same sort of thing."
Democracy means allowing people to make stupid choices. Freedom of speech means allowing voices of unreason to be heard.

tiffany
Posts: 24866
Joined: 2003-11-22 20:59

Post by tiffany » 2006-08-28 10:35

这年头,还真有人长篇累牍的要证明自己是loser的。
乡音无改鬓毛衰

森林的火焰
Posts: 2913
Joined: 2005-09-08 9:45
Contact:

Post by 森林的火焰 » 2006-08-28 10:44

其实这样也好,让他自己打打广告,很多人就免了跟他打交道的麻烦了――直接绕道走,不用经过一段接触费心费力周旋以后才知道他是个屁股眼儿。资本主义社会,分分秒秒都是钱哪。要花不能花在不值得的人身上。
http://harps.yculblog.com
搬家了搬家了

Knowing
Posts: 34487
Joined: 2003-11-22 20:37

Post by Knowing » 2006-08-28 11:07

For our purposes, a "career girl" has a university-level (or higher) education, works more than 35 hours a week outside the home and makes more than $30,000 a year.
Additionally, individuals who earn more than $30,000 a year are more likely to cheat.
Divorce has been positively correlated with higher rates of alcoholism, clinical depression and suicide. Other studies have associated divorce with increased rates of cancer, stroke, and sexually-transmitted disease. Plus divorce is financially devastating.
你们就是不懂spin. 我看这个研究很好,跟那什么“男性的基因导致他们爱到处乱睡”有一拼,这个研究数据表明凡是有大学学历,年收入三万美元,工作三十五个钟头以上的妇女都可以理直气壮的偷情 -- 有其社会必然性。并且吓的丈夫们不敢离婚。旧社会妇女们忍丈夫纳妾忍出癌的时代过去了。
Last edited by Knowing on 2006-08-28 11:13, edited 1 time in total.
有事找我请发站内消息

tiffany
Posts: 24866
Joined: 2003-11-22 20:59

Post by tiffany » 2006-08-28 11:11

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
乡音无改鬓毛衰

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Post by Jun » 2006-08-28 11:24

第一先说一句:这儿有人自己花钱订阅Forbes么?可以省下来了。

第二说一句:这劝告让我想起那种在聚餐时劝别人"蔬菜健康,好吃,同学们多吃蔬菜"的人。现在的普通男人(不是收入百万的那种)如果真信了他的话而去跟不工作的女人结婚,那我只能说。。。兄弟你自己保重吧!

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Post by Jun » 2006-08-29 9:49

I dug out the Forbes article by Noer on Wife or Whore. It's an interesting read. It would be funny if it weren't for the fact that many women continue to subscribe to the slavery--brainwashing propaganda perpetuated by middle-aged white men who form their judgment on women by crunching numbers. The first step of slavery is to strip them of humanity and make them believe they are subhuman creatures born to be used.

The Economics Of Prostitution
Michael Noer, 02.14.06, 12:00 PM ET


Wife or whore?

The choice is that simple. At least according to economists Lena Edlund and Evelyn Korn, it is.

The two well-respected economists created a minor stir in academic circles a few years back when they published "A Theory of Prostitution" in the Journal of Political Economy. The paper was remarkable not only for being accepted by a major journal but also because it considered wives and whores as economic "goods" that can be substituted for each other. Men buy, women sell.

Economists have been equating money and marriage ever since Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker published his seminal paper "A Theory of Marriage" in two parts in 1973 and 1974--also, not coincidentally, in the Journal of Political Economy.

Becker used market analysis to tackle the questions of whom, when and why we marry. His conclusions? Mate selection is a market, and marriages occur only if they are profitable for both parties involved.

Becker allowed nonmonetary elements, like romantic love and companionship, to be entered into courtship's profit and loss statement. And children, in particular, were important. "Sexual gratification, cleaning, feeding and other services can be purchased, but not children: Both the man and the woman are required to produce their own children and perhaps to raise them," he wrote.

But back to whores: Edlund and Korn admit that spouses and streetwalkers aren't exactly alike. Wives, in truth, are superior to whores in the economist's sense of being a good whose consumption increases as income rises--like fine wine. This may explain why prostitution is less common in wealthier countries. But the implication remains that wives and whores are--if not exactly like Coke and Pepsi--something akin to champagne and beer. The same sort of thing.

As with Becker, a key differentiator in Edlund and Korn's model is reproductive sex. Wives can offer it, whores can not.

To be fair, Edlund and Korn were merely building an admittedly grossly simplified model of human behavior in an attempt to answer a nagging question: Why do hookers make so much money? Prostitution is, seemingly, a low-skill but high-pay profession with few upfront costs, micro-miniskirts and stiletto heels aside.

Yet according to data assembled from a wide variety of times and places, ranging from mid-15th-century France to Malaysia of the late 1990s, prostitutes make more money--in some cases, a lot more money--than do working girls who, well, work for a living. This held true even for places where prostitution is legal and relatively safe. In short, streetwalkers aren't necessarily being paid more for their increased risk of going to jail or the hospital.

Notwithstanding Jerry Hall's quip when she was married to Mick Jagger, about being "a maid in the living room and a whore in the bedroom," one normally cannot be both a wife and a whore. "Combine this with the fact that marriage can be an important source of income for women, and it follows that prostitution must pay better than other jobs to compensate for the opportunity cost of forgone-marriage market earnings," Edlund and Korn conclude.

Ouch.

Another zinger: "This begs the question of why married men go to prostitutes (rather than buying from their wives, who presumably will be low-cost providers, considering that they can sell nonreproductive sex without compromising their marriage)." Guys, nothing says "Happy Valentine's Day" more than "low-cost provider."

Of course, it's easy to pour cold water on some of the assumptions made in Edlund and Korn's mathematical model. But these so-called "stylized facts" are supposed to predict human behavior; they don't necessarily pretend to mirror it.

In particular, the assumption that there is no "third way" between wife and whore is problematic, if not outright offensive: "The third alternative, working in a regular job but not marrying, can be ruled out, since we assume that the only downside of marriage for a woman is the forgone opportunity for prostitution."

Be sure to let all your married friends know what they're missing.

Also, the emphasis on the utility of children is puzzling. In most Western democracies, fertility rates have plummeted as wealth has increased. Empirically, men not only buy fewer whores as they get richer, but they have fewer children.

Still, the economic analysis of marriage explains one age-old phenomenon: gold digging.

"In particular, does our analysis justify the popular belief that more beautiful, charming and talented women tend to marry wealthier and more successful men?" wrote Becker. His answer: "A positive sorting of nonmarket traits with nonhuman wealth always, and with earnings power, usually, maximizes commodity output over all marriages."

In other words, yes, supermodels do prefer aging billionaires. And Gary Becker proved it mathematically decades before The Donald married Melania.

Knowing
Posts: 34487
Joined: 2003-11-22 20:37

Post by Knowing » 2006-08-29 12:47

这个作者观点很十年如一日嘛。基本上他就是说:做男人呢,娶个老婆最要紧是能生,不然就跟叫妓女区别很小,钱花的冤。做女人呢,肯定是要用性交换食宿的,区别就是批发还是零售。什么?你说他没考虑到工作的女性?而且是非性行业的,真正的,跟男人一样的工作?哇塞,饱暖思淫欲,数据证明,这些女人很容易出轨的,不照着“sex for food" 这个正统模式构造的家庭,,幸福不了.
有事找我请发站内消息

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Post by Jun » 2006-08-29 13:11

我比较佩服他的拿来主义,把人家的什么什么研究都断章取义地拿来支持自己的观点。人家研究的是夫妻双方对工作和婚姻的满意程度和离婚因素,他搞来变成"女人一工作男人就如何如何惨"的论点。人家的数据是单身男人生活如何的惨,被他拿来连个推理也不必,直接跳到如何找个不会甩掉你的女人。人家研究的是为什么妓女赚钱比家庭妇女多,他立刻联想到女人结婚就是为了掘金。这样推理下去,其实让男人真的很难做人,讨个老婆不是掘金就是靠你吃饭,一出去工作贴补家用必定会把你甩了,真的是日子也不用过了,压力好大。这就是Forbes杂志的主编先生的大作,真的好佩服他们杂志的高水准,且不必提一百多年来的市场"智慧"说花钱买东西做决定的都是女人,要卖东西得巴结女消费者。

Jun
Posts: 27816
Joined: 2003-12-15 11:43

Post by Jun » 2006-08-31 12:35

Today I caught bits of a talk--chat program on NPR/BBC (I think) about this Noer editorial. Two hosts (male) with spiffy English accent taking calls and asking callers to comment on the dichotomous arguments of whether women should or should not "have a career." An ex-nurse from Maryland, who is married to a doctor, called in and said that she gave up her job to be a stay-at-home mother to care for the children and some women are selfish to choose career over children blah blah blah. I don't know why a BBC radio program would get so many American callers. Strange. Apparently even an English accent does not a better radio host make. Why is this topic about women? The original editorial is entirely about men's mating choices, not about women's career choices.

I support men's choice to marry women with no "career" (obviously for Mr. Noer a menial job as a maid or a waitress or a shopgirl is OK with him). I also support women's choice to be a stay-at-home mother and do not work. As long as other people are free to choose a different lifestyle to have children or career. Given the housing price and living expense in big cities nowadays, given the ease for one spouse to divorce another spouse, given the pending recession in this country (or are we already in one?), all I say to them is: Take care buddy/sista, and good luck.

Knowing
Posts: 34487
Joined: 2003-11-22 20:37

Post by Knowing » 2006-08-31 12:43

I suggest Mr. Noer marry the pathetic japanese phone operator. They would be perfect for each other. Happy spouse-shopping!
有事找我请发站内消息

tiffany
Posts: 24866
Joined: 2003-11-22 20:59

Post by tiffany » 2006-08-31 12:49

哦,对,有研究发现有工作的妈比全职home-maker的妈健康,肥胖问题轻。
乡音无改鬓毛衰

Post Reply