The laws of attraction are nearly as unique as snowflakes. Or just about. That's why SW has a "women who get off on men who eat cereal standing up" (I made that up, but it's not really exaggerated).
People who use physical characteristics, as their only attraction factor, are using a depreciating asset, and in the mid to long run, are betting against the survival of their coupling.
But then again, they may understand that full well, and in some cases, may be able to compensate, by finding another coupling, based on any other assets they may have, especially if they don't care if the situation if temporary.
The idea of life long couples, who die holding each other's hand, is perfect, but so far, society has not really prepared us for it, and I hope we get there.
Those who throw stones, whatever gender they belong to, should be concerned about the viability of their own assets, and how that will factor in any relationship, or hookup, they choose to pursue.
@Northwest Couldn’t agree more…the ones who are too beauty obsessed generally hop from one to the other like locusts. And don’t have anything better to do.
@Northwest no . But you'll believe what you want . Also I'm talking about human capital , intelligence , education etc. I thought it was clear ,considering the topic lmao
Also I'm talking about human capital , intelligence , education etc. I thought it was clear ,considering the topic lmao
Let me repeat, as you seem to have missed it the first time around:
People who use physical characteristics, as their only attraction factor, are using a depreciating asset, and in the mid to long run, are betting against the survival of their coupling.
Intelligence, and education do NOT depreciate.
As to financial assets, and those are MOST DEFINITELY part of the attraction formula, for some, as I explained already, do not always depreciate.
@Northwest in economics we have models where account for education and skills depreciation over time The mind depreciates as much as the outside of the body does
in economics we have models where account for education and skills depreciation over time The mind depreciates as much as the outside of the body does
In economics, we also account for continuing education and experience, on income levels, and not surprisingly, an out of school software developer, today, makes $100K, and an engineer, with 5-7 years of experience, who kept up with technology, makes $150K.
But I would love to see your economic models, as no one bothered to create an economic model with the assumption that an individual will stop learning and stop progressing, 10 years out of school.
@PepsiColaP Jesus Christ, please understand what the Solow–Swan model is used for.
When augmented with human capital, it predicts that the income levels of poor countries will tend to catch up with or converge towards the income levels of rich countries if the poor countries have similar savings rates for both physical capital and human capital as a share of output, or what's known known as conditional convergence.
However, there are wide variances across countries, in particular when it comes to investments in as a function of cultural and ideological characteristics in each country.
Refocus on the simple proposition I gave, and try to disprove it: A fresh out of school engineer, makes $100K, an engineer with 20 years of experience, in the same field, could be making $250K-500K. I'm not going to bother with differential equations, which is what you need to start exploring Solow–Swan, use simple arithmetic: On any given day $250K-$500K is larger than $100K, and that, in the real world, is not depreciation.
@Northwest it doesn't matter if it's augmented or not that's the purpose of the solow model entirely. But that's not my point. The point is that even economics accounts for depreciation in human skills and intelligence over time ,and that's not the only model with mathematical parameters that include that. Over time and with the body aging mental capabilities decline. That is factual whether you look at biology economics or pure observation. Yes experience is important but experience can't prevent physiology from its ultimate decay
Says no one with any level of macro-econ experience.
The point is that even economics accounts for depreciation in human skills and intelligence over time
Given the right context, which may or may not include certain types of labor, AND contextually accurate classification of labor.
As in, and that's really econ 101: a laborer in Africa, manually building dirt irrigation channels, depreciates along a time scale, while a nuclear physicist's contribution appreciates along a time scale.
Which is why, today, in technology, medical and other professional fields, as well as white-collar fields, up until retirement, there is appreciation, rather than depreciation, and that's econ 101.
When when it comes to looks, it's a continuous downward slope.
