Scarcity of Women Leads Men to Spend More, Save Less

Scarcity of Women Leads Men to Spend More, Save Less

It turns out we have a lot in common with other animals. Some of our behaviors are much more reflexive and subconscious. ...more men than women automatically changes our desires, our behaviors, and our entire psychology

When led to believe women were scarce, the savings rates for men decreased by 42 percent. Men were also willing to borrow 84 percent more money each month.


While sex ratios do not influence the financial choices women make, they do shape women's expectations of how men should spend their money when courting.

Full article ===> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112134334.htm

Note: it was a study, not people's actual save/spend in real life.

What you forumite's think? See any parallels in real life in ppl around u?
 
Your title is misleading Wish-ga. It should be more along the lines of 'Men spend more when less women are around, because they do not expect to have to spend higher amounts to court a woman'. The saving comes from the perceived idea that men need to spend money on women to get - and keep - them interested.

But we didn't really need a study to tell us that.
 
But women are plentiful, and the older a man get the more choice he has.
Any American just needs to travel down south of the border to find plenty women much less demanding.
Load of BS.
 
Your title is misleading Wish-ga. It should be

My subject line is the same as the article headline (in the link)

But it made ya look.... 'n think............ *wink* ;)

Mr Fabulous.... is your title misleading? *grin* Just digging you in the ribs. I don't know you from the boards. Just having a little fun. :D
 
What you forumite's think? See any parallels in real life in ppl around u?

Yes.

My grandparents on my dad's side, my Pop was the spender, (cars + drinking), Nanna was the one to save, firstly for their children's education, providing for them, then she was the instigator for the businesses, she did all the procuring, research, and saving for deposits to buy the different businesses. So she was not only the saver but a wealthbuilder with it. I am confident her personality temperament was that of Inspector Guardian, so no surprises there.

Of my parents, mum was the saver, dad was a party boy. She had 2 jobs to educate, provide for us, they divorced, dad just spent any money he had doing what he always had done, mum bought and paid off her own little house, continued to save, but also enjoys life, she is independent financially, her 2nd husband is also financially independent, so they work it out good.

My mother's parents were both good providers, savers, both always had work, saved, were very much family orientated.

My older brother used to be money come in one hand, out the other, then he decided to marry, have a family, his wife is an excellent saver, provider, she has taught him, she is not a wealth builder though, whereas he has observed what I have done and has taken that on board, bought themselves a couple of IP's.

My older sister and her husband are buisness owners orientated, both good savers, her husband's dad died when he was very young, he learnt everything from his mum, a scottish lady, shrewd, had businesses, was a role model for him, they are a good team, but it's all business, no investing.

My younger sister is a good saver, her husband was a bit of a party guy, drink, buy cars....but they are good providers for their kids, my sister saw what I was doing, investing, she has done likewise, her husband saw what her and I were doing and got into industrial property investing, now he has fun mucking around with his hobby of restoring cars/motorbikes, and can afford to do so...

My partner was a reasonable saver, but no idea of creating or building wealth, that's been my instigation, he came from a huge family where their mother was the saver, their dad was happy for her to budget and save, he said she was the one with good financial skills.

Around me...seems mostly partnerships with couples. I know some single guys and gals that just spend, no saving, but also know some gals that are looking to invest in property, they have approached me and talked about investing, a smaller number actually then doing so.

I do know one male investor, he is single, wife died, they had built their assets together, he continues to be a shrewd investor.

My stepsister and her husband have a load of investments, all her idea, he helps any way he can, she does all researching, financing organisationals, management, she loves all that, is also an Inspector Guardian temperament.

That's just a rushed bit of info, if I think of anymore will come back O'Wishga!

Also through other involvements, I have observed the females, 'generally speaking' are the ones to provide/educate the children, so the family factor, children may be a great incentive for this ...(talking different cultures/countries, not just Aussies).
 
Women by far larger percentage arrive at 30 without anything but a makeup bag and some shoes in a cupboard expecting to find some guy who will provide for them.
They happily point out "loser" blokes who can't provide for them.
Same blokes who end up as toy boys for chicks wearing pants.
 
I understand what you are saying OO ... but your examples are all how they behaved "after" they were married.

The OP was talking about the behaviour during the initial courting period. In that instance, humans are not much different than other species (generalising warning) in that the reproductive sex is attracted to the best provider of whatever it is that they are looking for in a mate ... be it shiner feathers or loudest croak or strongest fighter or wealthiest.

What it is that a woman "needs" from a relationship is not necessary a financial provider ... but the initial display of desire to spend on her, can be very attractive to a good portion of females
 
Last edited:
Women by far larger percentage arrive at 30 without anything but a makeup bag and some shoes in a cupboard expecting to find some guy who will provide for them.
They happily point out "loser" blokes who can't provide for them.
Same blokes who end up as toy boys for chicks wearing pants.


I don't know about the same being toyboys going for chicks wearing pants.

I'd say the same is the run of the mill broke 30yo, who's blowing all their income on beer, cars they can't afford, and clubs/going out, expecting to find a woman who will pay the rent and bills, allowing them to upgrade/hot up the Commodore ;).

PB, we see what we want to see.
 
Tales from the ground

Just reflecting on my spending habits of late under the title of 'courting'. I wouldn't know if there is a shortage or surplus of women where I am looking. I doubt there is in inner city Melbourne however. Ahh, got to love summer :)

The reality is that before you 'become' exclusive, you could be legitimately dating a handful of people. And whilst there may be a belief that the costs are borne ~50-50, my experience tends to suggest that at least early on, guys are paying for everything (or close to).

Of course, you will generally need one or maybe even few dates to know if there is a possibility of anything. It makes for an expensive exercise even without going down the flash restaurants etc... Good for the service economy though.
 
I understand what you are saying OO ... but your examples are all how they behaved "after" they were married.

The OP was talking about the behaviour during the initial courting period. In that instance, humans are not much different than other species (generalising warning) in that the reproductive sex is attracted to the best provider of whatever it is that they are looking for in a mate ... be it shiner feathers or loudest croak or strongest fighter or wealthiest.

What it is that a woman "needs" from a relationship is not necessary a financial provider ... but the initial display of desire to spend on her, can be very attractive to a good portion of females

Well, their behaviour was that before marriage, (as I described, before, meaning dating, then after, some of the people's behaviour changed)....if you mean any of them 'expecting' the guy to pay for dates, for us younger ones that is, none of us girls ever expected or wanted to be 'shouted on a date' for that matter, the guy to paying for any date, we have all been very, very independent, had our own work/incomes, it's always been pay your fair share for all us girls (sisters/stepsisters), in fact I'm not even sure I know of anyone that expects a guy to spend up on her on dating, let alone big spending...what is the point of that? All that went out with the ark? It has around these parts, (rural Australia anyway).

A man's mind, mindset, values, principles, how he regards himself, the world, people... attract me, I fiercely treasure my sense of independence, financial and otherwise, so providers or shiny plummage aint on this radar. Nor the sisters, stepsisters, no doubt some of mum's rolemodelling of independence has had some influence there.
Nothing wrong with businesses, but this is relative, my investing in property, while a business has built me far larger asset base than any of my siblings 'businesses', just the way the cards have fallen with that, obviously businesses can be of far greater value too, my Nanna for example, built herself a fortune x 2. Only through businesses, non property investing.
 
re

From my experience its more simpler than that.

If a girl is interested in you, she would make it easy, and you dont even have to spend too much money to get her attention - e.g. take her on a pinic date.

If a girl is not interested in you, then you can spend as much money as you can, but you are not going to get anywhere.

Warrenkh.2012
 
here's another example of this article.

"100% of people who got breast cancer last year ate an orange at some point in their life - therefore, oranges cause cancer"
 
here's another example of this article.

"100% of people who got breast cancer last year ate an orange at some point in their life - therefore, oranges cause cancer"

There is a name for that kind of error in stats? I was never taking much notice but I think it was first order error?

Another is that some huge number of people who have recently quit smoking get diagnosed with cancer within 12months...

It scared the heck out of me as I gave it up about 6 months ago so I hit my GP up about it.

Anyway he explained that the reason for that was that when people start coughing up blood they tend to give the smokes away first and then when they are starting to find it harder to breathe hit a doctor up who asks if they smoke to which they reply, not anymore, gave it up a few months back etc.

In other words quitting smoking does not cause lung cancer...but lung cancer causes you to quit smoking more often than not.

On the idea of less women = men spending more money, in the sense that if there was less of the fairer sex, men would have more free time to use their boat and spend time at the pub etc etc, so it seems reasonable to me that they would spend more money in that case. That does not seem to be what the survey was on about though.
 
Your title is misleading Wish-ga. It should be more along the lines of 'Men spend more when less women are around, because they do not expect to have to spend higher amounts to court a woman'. The saving comes from the perceived idea that men need to spend money on women to get - and keep - them interested.

But we didn't really need a study to tell us that.

Honestly we have too much spare time on our hands - and things like this show how much we value it.........
 
I'd say the same is the run of the mill broke 30yo, who's blowing all their income on beer, cars they can't afford, and clubs/going out, expecting to find a woman who will pay the rent and bills, allowing them to upgrade/hot up the Commodore ;).

Sounds like about 99% of the young blokes on the Southern Mornington Peninsula! :D
 
Back
Top