When she was new, she was selling herself for Y amount.

After hitting the Wall, she demands 10Y amount for an old used product.

Even if she "reduces" her price by half, it will still cost way more than a fresh new product.

It’s obviously slightly different because while everyone can choose the 14 minute drive over the 17 minute one, dating is different because you can only sell your product to one buyer.

It’s closer to what we’d see in the labor market. Companies like Amazon can go get the cream of the crop tech talent, and they can run them into the ground if they’d like because there’s always another batch of people willing to take punishment in order to say “ex-Amazon” on their LinkedIn profile. Then you may have the next tier of employers (like financial firms, old tech giants that are playing catch-up in the new world, etc) that can still command talented people, but might struggle to hire against the Amazon’s of the world. Eventually you get down to “bootstrapped startup with either no monetization strategy or an immediate need to make profit within 6 months” and they’ll be in the warm body market.

But the ascendancy remains the same. Those top employers take their choices from the top employees. Eventually you hit a point where you get to employers who can either hire from their limited pool of options, or eschew the pool entirely and try to figure out whatever project they were interested in by themselves.

This is where single moms find themselves. All of the best “employers” (dating options) don’t want them. So now they’re left with that lower tier. Some of those “employers” will simply decide that the options they have available aren’t worth the investment and make a go by themselves (MGTOW). And then there’s others where the single mom knows she’s entering a bad “work environment”, but as the person who needs the “job”, she can’t really afford to be a chooser.

And of course, when there’s more “job seekers” than opportunities, someone is inevitably getting left out. Or “working part time” and sharing a “job”.

And the thing is, she can be otherwise qualified for the “job”. But so are all of these other women, with less baggage. That’s the crux of why they remain single.

Yeah… I was responding to the ridiculous implication (assertion?) that women generally take very good care of themselves in middle age, while men almost never do.

The truth is that most people don’t take very good care of themselves, but the overwhelming majority of those who do are men. For every fit middle aged woman there are probably five fit middle aged men.

The writer makes a mistake that is common among people who complain on behalf of women: they put women on pedestals and put men under microscopes:

A woman has a BMI of 31? Look at the way she flairs her eyebrows! She’s beautiful!

A man has thin hair on the top of his head? He’s balding! No woman should settle for him!

A woman looks like shoe leather from years of tanning and drug use? Look at her sense of style! What a classy lady!

A man has a rugged look from working outside all his life? He looks like my grandfather! Gross!

A woman has a six-figure debt for a degree in Lesbian Dance Theory? She’s so smart and educated!

A man has a six-figure salary as a master plumber? He’s uneducated and working-class!

A never-married woman has three bastard children from three different men? Ready made family! She’s a great mother!

A man works as a schoolteacher? He’s probably a pedophile! He should never be near children!

Every single article bemoaning the fate of post-Epiphany women and the alleged lack of suitable men makes that mistake. Every. Last. One. They begin with the assumption that every woman is suitable for marriage by default, but that a man must be in the top 20% of multiple categories (many of which are beyond anyone’s control).

It’s no wonder why they always find a mismatch: they compare the total number of women to a small subset of men. There was a study a few years ago (I’ve linked it before but I don’t have it right now) that rates the suitability of both men and women. Guess what they discovered…

Single marriageable men outnumber single marriageable women.

I am pretty sure it was the Daily Mail, not the guardian?

That article was hilarious. It should have been titled 'The Rise of the Inspins'. Instead it was written from a deeply blue pilled perspective, about how men need to just realise that older infertile women are just so fantastic.

What the article failed to mention is that these women could probably get laid. I don't mind banging older women. I have very wide tastes, and will bang lots of different types of women. Many men are like that. If its not any effort, no hassle, I'll fuck all sorts of women.

But I would rather gouge out my eyes with a rusty nail rather than LTR/marry any of them.

These women (and the writer of that article) totally fail to realise the difference between shagging and LTRing. The women can get laid, but not married. Men at that age 45-50, can easily get married.