Economics is the study of how individuals with limitless wants choose to allocate scare resources in order to satisfy these aforementioned wants. Additionally, scarcity creates the need for economics. My economics professor told us on the first day of class that the concepts can be applied to pretty much anything, so, in honor of Valentine’s Day, I’ve decided to turn the dating scene on campus into an economic model as follows:
In our situation, the limitless wants pertain to qualities in a potential significant other but also individual needs affected by having or not having a relationship. Scarcity applies to any good for which there is an opportunity cost for obtaining the good. In this case, the scarce good would be potential dates, because time and precious effort must be put forward in order to obtain a potentially unworthy candidate. Good relationships are rare, especially on this campus. Just kidding.
The concept of supply and demand comes into play when making a decision to date or not to date. The demands are marginal benefits of the decision to date, and supply refers to the marginal costs of each significant other you attain. The intersection of supply and demand will determine the optimal number of relationships you should maintain, simultaneously or otherwise. Additionally, economic institutions are mechanisms that provide incentives for people to effectively use resources. For instance, in America, property rights encourage people in competition to produce better goods. So in this model, property rights over a boyfriend or girlfriend would cause each individual to make the best of positive attributes and market himself accordingly in order to ensnare the most attractive, most intelligent of the bunch.
These concepts seem a tad abstract, so an example or a case study is clearly in order. I selected from a random sample a model male to apply these concepts. Let’s call him Dave.
Now in order for a female to decide whether or not to date Dave, she would first have to weigh the marginal costs and benefits. The costs will vary from woman to woman, but they might include things like seeing fewer chick flicks (or hearing more whining about them) and having less general alone time in which to view pornography, bake cookies, water plants, etc.
In order to ascertain the marginal benefits, one need only look at Dave: objectively good looking, great sense of humor, laid back and athletic. In addition to these mundane excellencies, however, Dave has secondary benefits. His father is an ophthalmologist, so cataracts will never again be a problem. His mother knits and his uncle owns an alpaca farm, for all those in need of a new pair of alpaca boots. He can sew like Martha Washington, quote “Troop Beverly Hills” with ease, work a guitar like John Mayer and play Trivial Pursuit like a pro. Best of all, his name has an extremely high Google-ability factor.
All of this is from the female perspective. Dave, if he was at all intelligent, would maximize his dating benefits (potential popularity, regular orgasms, tender loving care) by specializing according to comparative advantage. For instance, within the category of athleticism, he should focus on his soccer skills, as opposed to his weaker squash game, which wouldn’t impress the ladies anyway. This strategy is necessary for Dave to reach the Global Production Possibility Frontier. A graph of this function would elaborate on how many chicks Dave can get while expending the least amount of time and energy.
Given all these factors on both ends of the deal, it really becomes quite easy to determine whether or not you should date Dave, and additionally, whether or not Dave should date anyone, and who it should be. And you thought economics didn’t apply to you.
Fair warning: I’m also taking a game theory class, and my professor has also claimed global applicability, so the dating game may next appear in a simultaneous game matrix.