[kyleschiller]

One factor largely absent here (and actually obscured by their choice to interview investment bankers) is the huge amount of financial anxiety facing young people in America.[0]

Crippling student debt, a lack of savings and inability to find high-paying jobs can make the prospects of starting a family or even serious relationship hugely unattractive.

The assertion in this article that Tinder is great because you can hook up “without spending any money,” sounds callous coming from investment bankers, but for a ton of people, that's just the reality of the current dating landscape. If you're focused on paying back loans and working pretty much anywhere other than tech/finance/consulting, it really can feel hard to afford to date the conventional way.

[0]http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/28/pf/financial-anxiety/index.h...

[sverige]

There's also the high risk of marriage ending in divorce and losing half (or more) of your financial assets when the relationship falls apart. That has been keeping a lot of men from marrying, which is another factor that drives some portion of them to avoid marriage by design.

[DrScump]

It's not a binary choice between only marriage and only random looks-based hookups.

I hope.

[smnrchrds]

Wouldn't that only be the case if there is a huge disparity in wealth and income between spouses? If professionals marry other professionals, similar to how doctors mostly marry other doctors, that shouldn't be a problem.

[paulddraper]

> Wouldn't that only be the case if there is a huge disparity in wealth and income between spouses?

IDK about "huge", but that is often that case, one way or the other.

[closeparen]

Given the gender pay gap, we should almost always expect there to be such a disparity in straight couples.

Women's representation in a field (like software engineering, at 16%) is an upper bound on the share of men in that field who could possibly marry female professional peers.

[smnrchrds]

I didn't mean that software engineers should marry software engineers, geologists marry geologists, etc. What I meant was professionals should consider marrying other professionals, e.g. a software engineer marrying a geologist.

[closeparen]

What the gender pay gap tells us is that the category of "professionals" at any given income level is far from gender-balanced. It's not mathematically possible for everyone to marry within their income bracket.

[Mz]

Yeah, love should have nothing to do with marriage. It should totally be about bank balances.

/s

[smnrchrds]

Love is important, but it is not the only factor. I think we both agree that future plans, e.g. whether or not one wants to have children, are important factors that should not be overlooked. I believe that economic status, religious and political beliefs and affiliations, risk tolerance, etc. are also important considerations. None of them is a deal-breaker, but these are all things one should carefully consider before getting married.

[sverige]

With the current divorce rates, the odds are greater than 50% that bank balances will come into play eventually. Love doesn't pay the mortgage at that point.

[sverige]

Income is one factor, but it's still a crap shoot even if both make similar salaries. That's why divorce lawyers make such a good living.

[sokoloff]

Shouldn't...unless there are kids in the picture.

[monksy]

Dating on the cheap isn't hard at all. The problem is dealing with a potential partner that expects to be treated is the problem.

That being said I've had women friends of mine loose their mind when they hear that I don't pay for the girl on dates I go on.