Autumn: Hey everyone, and welcome! Today, we're diving into something that touches all of us: relationships. But here’s the thing, ever thought about love, dating, and even marriage as… an economic system? Rachel: Hold on, are you telling me my dating life – or the lack thereof – boils down to supply and demand? Should I start thinking about optimizing my “market value” or something? Autumn: In a way, yes! Dr. Marina Adshade, in her book Dollars and Sex, argues that our intimate decisions – who we date, whether we marry, even when we call it quits – are all influenced by economic forces. She uses data, historical trends, and economic theory to show how things like gender ratios, technology, and education affect everything from hookup culture to marriage rates. Rachel: Okay, I’m intrigued. Give me the roadmap, what are we actually going to unpack today? Autumn: We're hitting three main points. First, how supply and demand create these "love markets." For example, what happens when there are more women than men in college? Or how did the birth control pill affect attitudes toward sex? Second, we'll decode modern trends like online dating and cohabitation: what they cost, who benefits, and how tech is changing the game. And finally, we'll look big-picture: how these personal choices affect society and even government policies. Basically, it’s economics, but with a human heart, you know? Rachel: Right, so love isn't free. There's always a cost, whether it's emotional, social, or, let's face it, financial. So, where do we start, Autumn?

Autumn: Okay, Rachel, let's dive right in, starting with the basics. The core idea here, from Dr. Adshade, is that relationships are, fundamentally, a marketplace. Supply and demand are the name of the game. Think about dating on college campuses, for example. Often, women outnumber men, sometimes by a lot. What happens? Well, the men, being the scarce commodity, suddenly have way more power. It's like Economics 101, right? Rachel: So, basically, the guys become the limited-edition sneakers of campus dating? Everyone wants them, and suddenly they're setting all the rules? Autumn: That's actually a pretty good analogy. The result is a shift in the relationship dynamic. Women, facing this scarcity, might adjust their expectations, maybe focusing on casual relationships rather than long-term commitments. Now, it's not necessarily that every woman wants that, but the market structure kind of pushes things in that direction. Rachel: Okay, but isn’t that a little… deterministic? I mean, if it’s all market forces, are we just puppets dancing to the tune of supply and demand? What about free will? Autumn: Well, it's not that choice vanishes, it's that it operates within constraints, right? If the majority of women compete for fewer men, those men can afford to be pickier. They might not feel pressured to commit seriously. And for women, that means navigating a dating scene where making deep connections takes a backseat to simply dealing with scarcity. Rachel: Scarcity—sounds so romantic! But this isn’t just a college thing, right? What about older singles or city dwellers? Does this apply more broadly? Autumn: Absolutely! Dr. Adshade's framework works across different demographics. In cities with highly educated populations, you often see college-educated women struggling to find equally educated men, partly due to numbers, partly due to preferences. And then there's the thing with age—older men tend to date younger women, shrinking the pool for older women. This imbalance keeps popping up at different stages. Rachel: Right, so it's not just about the “hot guy” at the party; it shapes larger trends. Okay, let's dig deeper. You mentioned education as a big factor in bargaining power. How does that play out beyond just, you know, getting a nicer dinner on a first date? Autumn: Good point! Bargaining power—basically, who has the most influence in a relationship—depends on things like education, income, stability... Historically, marriage was an economic must for many women. Without financial independence, a woman's bargaining power was very limited. Rachel: Yeah, the whole “housewife” thing. Marry young, rely on your husband, and hope you never want a divorce, because you're basically stuck. Pretty bleak economics. Autumn: Exactly. But fast forward to today. Women are getting degrees at higher rates than men. They're financially secure, they have options. And what do they do with those options? Well, they often marry later, looking for partners who are on the same educational and economic level. It’s called assortative mating—grads marrying grads. But here’s the interesting part: while this empowerment is significant, it also has some unintended consequences. Rachel: Let me guess… income inequality? So the educated and wealthy find each other, pool their resources, send their kids to the best schools, while everyone else falls further behind? Autumn: Bingo. Education and income become sorting mechanisms, widening the gap. Fewer highly educated men are marrying less-educated women. Marriage rates are higher for college grads than non-grads. So economics now affects not just who marries whom, but also who gets wealth and stability, and who doesn't—both individually and across generations. Rachel: Whoa, so romance has become a socioeconomic case study. Call me a cynic, but do you think marriage might become, like, an elite club membership? Autumn: I wouldn't phrase it that way exactly, but the data definitely hints at that. And it ties into a larger trend, right? As economic pressures increase—stagnant wages, student debt—marriage is becoming rarer for lower-income or less-educated folks. The simple truth is a lot of people view it as unaffordable or unattainable. Rachel: Totally. People in their twenties and thirties are already juggling rent, student loans, and healthcare. Throw in wedding costs or raising a kid? It’s not just delaying marriage; it’s rethinking it entirely. Autumn: Right. And for many, cohabitation becomes the alternative. It offers some financial relief—splitting bills, sharing rent—without the legal and financial commitments. But here's the other side: this can have generational effects. Cohabiting couples often have fewer financial safety nets, making them more economically vulnerable. Rachel: And those effects snowball, right? Kids born into cohabiting families face different financial and educational realities compared to kids from married families. So a short-term economic decision can reshape social structures long-term. Autumn: Exactly. It shows how personal economic choices are deeply connected to broader societal outcomes. From marriage as a sign of stability to cohabitation driven by necessity, supply, demand, and bargaining power don't just affect who loves whom—they shape how society evolves.

Autumn: So, after looking at those economic foundations, let's zoom in on how they actually affect our behavior. We're talking about taking those principles—you know, like supply and demand, but for relationships—and seeing how they play out in real life today. Think about things like hook-up culture, why people are getting married later, or even just choosing to live together. These might seem like separate trends, but they're all tangled up with economic pressures, societal shifts, and how technology is changing things. Rachel: Okay, so we've got the big picture. Now we're diving deep into how these massive economic forces influence the choices people are making every day. Whether it's swiping right, signing a lease, or deciding to skip the wedding entirely. Where do we start? Autumn: Let's start with hook-up culture. It's super obvious on college campuses, where you've got this big gender imbalance that's shaping the whole dating scene. There are way more women than men in college, which creates a "really" competitive dating market. And that gives men more "bargaining power"—it's an economics term that really fits here. Rachel: Bargaining power in hook-ups? Is that like saying guys are the "rare commodity" here, holding all the cards when it comes to commitment? Autumn: Exactly. With fewer men in the mix, things tend to lean towards those shorter, casual encounters because the guys don't feel as much pressure to settle down. Women, on the other hand, have to navigate this uneven playing field, adjusting their expectations—sometimes reluctantly—to fit the social scene. It's like a cycle, driven by scarcity: fewer partners lead to different norms. Rachel: Wow, that's… kind of a downer. An interesting theory for a class, but in real life? Ouch. And it's not just about the numbers of men vs. women, right? Adshade also talks about how binge drinking ties into this, doesn't she? Autumn: Totally. Binge drinking kind of cranks everything up a notch. I think it's something like 46% of college students report binge drinking, which lowers inhibitions and makes risky behavior, like casual sex, more common. It's both a social lubricant and something that reinforces this kind of culture. So you have this mix of gender imbalance and accepted substance use, creating an environment that's perfect for quick flings instead of anything long-term. Rachel: Alcohol and scarcity tag-teaming to redefine campus romance. Fantastic. But hey, hook-up culture is just one piece of the puzzle, right? Not everyone is swiping, or "bargaining". So why are so many people pushing marriage way off into the future? Autumn: Well, it's complicated, but a big piece is financial stability – or, you know, the lack of it. Young adults are facing insane levels of student debt, and when you add stagnant wages and sky-high housing costs, marriage starts to feel less like a next step and more like a financial gamble. The data backs this up: marriage rates for college grads are around 64%, but for those without degrees, it drops to 48%. So basically, being financially secure has become a must-have for marriage, which wasn't always the case. Rachel: So what used to be a normal part of growing up is now a luxury item for the financially comfortable? That's… fascinating, and a bit messed up. Marriage has gone from being about mere survival to being a display of wealth. Autumn: Exactly. And it's especially true for women. With more access to education and careers, women can focus on building their own independence before settling down. Historically, marriage was tied to economic survival, but now it's seen as more of an equal partnership—financially, professionally, and emotionally. Rachel: And if that equality isn't there? I guess those partnerships just never get off the ground. Autumn: Often, yeah. What you end up with is a widening divide based on education and income. College grads marry later, but they usually marry each other, pooling their resources and building a solid foundation. People without those opportunities often delay or skip marriage entirely, widening social and economic gaps. Rachel: Okay, so this is where we see these broader inequalities really taking hold. But let me switch gears here – what about alternatives? Not everyone's waiting for the financial stars to align. That's where cohabitation comes in, right? Autumn: Precisely. Living together has become super popular as an alternative to marriage, especially among couples with lower incomes. The logic is pretty straightforward: sharing rent, utilities, and other costs makes sense when money's tight. It's a way to test the waters while easing financial stress. But there's a downside: living together doesn't have the same legal protections as marriage. So if things go south, people—especially women—can face a lot more instability. Rachel: So living together can feel like the safer choice now, but it comes with fewer guarantees down the road. And the effects probably ripple out to their kids, financial planning, and just general stability. Autumn: Absolutely. Without the support that marriage often provides, cohabiting couples can be more vulnerable to economic setbacks or breakups. It's practical in the short run, but it can contribute to longer-term instability, especially when you compare it to the stability that usually comes with marriage. Rachel: And then you throw technology into the mix, and you've got a modern relationship scene that looks nothing like what our grandparents knew. Online dating, algorithms, decision overload—it's a mess! Autumn: A mess, definitely. But it's a mess with some clear patterns. Online dating platforms have created what we call "thick markets" – they offer access to a huge pool of potential partners. But this abundance often leads to decision fatigue. With so many choices, people start second-guessing their matches or holding out for someone "better". It's like online shopping—with every swipe, your standards shift, and sometimes, you miss out on the "perfect" match because there are just too many options. Rachel: It's like subscription pricing for your love life. Endless choice, minimal commitment. You've gotta love – or hate – that whole paradox of abundance creating dissatisfaction. Autumn: Exactly, and we see similar patterns with advances like birth control. By separating sex from reproduction, women gained more control over their lives, including when—or whether—to marry. Birth control redefined relationships by empowering those choices, proving that even technological advances have profound economic dimensions. Rachel: So, to wrap things up, from casual dating on campus to delaying marriage because of money, and swiping late into the night, it sounds like modern relationships are basically a reflection of our economic realities, huh? What a time to be alive.

Autumn: So, after grasping these shifts in behavior, let's talk about the broader societal impacts, shall we? Let’s zoom out from these individual choices—things like marrying later or living together before marriage—and start looking at the societal and structural factors that are both driving and resulting from these trends. This next step is about connecting those personal decisions to wider patterns, such as changes in gender roles, what happens when there are gaps in education, and even the results we see in public health. Ultimately, we want to tie these small, individual actions to the broader picture of how society is shaped. Rachel: Okay, so we're diving into the deep end here. We've seen how personal choices around love—whether people are thinking about them or not—are linked to economic factors. But now you're telling me that these choices also play a role in shaping and reflecting things like shifting gender dynamics and policy failures? Autumn: Precisely. Let’s kick things off with one of the most obvious examples: how the increasing economic opportunities for women are changing traditional gender roles at home. Historically, many societies were built on the idea of men as the primary breadwinners and women as caregivers. This wasn’t just a cultural thing—it was economic. Women didn’t have the financial means to “really” negotiate for a more balanced role in their relationships, let alone leave if things weren’t working. Rachel: Exactly. It wasn't that women "didn't work" in the past, but more that they were shut out of good education or high-paying jobs. Without a way to be independent, marriage was “really” their only option financially, regardless of whether things felt "fair" at home. Autumn: Absolutely. But if we jump to today, we're seeing a “real” shift. As more women pursue higher education and build careers, that old economic reliance on men has decreased. This situation—where women earn as much as, or even more than, their partners—is changing the face of relationships. Financial independence gives women the power to challenge old norms: to insist on a fairer division of labor at home, to walk away from unhealthy relationships, or even to delay or skip marriage altogether. Rachel: So, nowadays, relationships are less about "needing" someone and more about "choosing" them, right? But what does this mean on a larger scale? Is feminist theory doing a victory lap, or are there still areas where policies need to catch up? Autumn: While we've made a lot of progress, those old expectations are still hanging around. Unequal division of labor at home is still common, even when both partners work, which tells us that changes in gender roles at work haven’t fully changed things at home. This is where policymakers could “really” make a difference—implementing family leave policies, helping with childcare costs, and making sure workplaces are fair could “really” help to dismantle some of these remaining power imbalances. Rachel: I get it. So, women are making moves in their careers, but they're still more likely to be doing the laundry at the end of the day. Let's switch gears and talk about education, because I know that disparities there can also have ripple effects on relationships and even our society. What happens when women start to outpace men in education—or the other way around? Autumn: Education is “really” the foundation here. Right now, women are enrolling in college much more than men, making up about 57% of students. In some groups, like black people, this gap is even more pronounced. We've already touched on how this can lead to problems when women are looking for partners with similar education levels - the marriage rate among black women dropping from 62 to 33 percent is just one example. Rachel: That statistic is shocking. And it’s not just a dating problem but more like a diagnosis of some pretty big systemic flaws, right? The growing educational gender gap is compounded by issues like mass incarceration, and this shrinks the pool of available partners for a lot of women, specifically in certain communities. Autumn: Exactly, and this has ongoing effects on relationship dynamics, family structures, and even the ability to build wealth across generations. If we want to solve this, we need to look at the root causes—why are fewer men finishing higher education? How can we dismantle societal roadblocks, like the school-to-prison pipeline or unequal access to academic resources? Rachel: Because it's not just about having a romantic partner, is it? These disparities lay the groundwork for economic inequality. If fewer men are getting higher education, that translates to fewer men in stable, well-paying jobs, which then makes income inequality worse and limits families' ability to move up the economic ladder. Autumn: Precisely. And while some might see this as just a personal issue—like, why not just "change your preferences" when it comes to education—it's much more complex than that. Partnering with someone of similar education often doubles a household's income. This growing gulf between well-educated, financially stable couples and those without that advantage has huge implications for society as a whole. Rachel: Okay, let’s connect the dots. We've gone from the problems in education to the consequences for family stability and even how wealth is passed down through generations. But speaking more broadly, what about health? Surely these shifts are making an impact on public health, especially sexual health. Autumn: Definitely. Public health issues, especially when it comes to sexual education and reproductive health, are directly linked to what we've been discussing. Take sexual education in the U.S., for instance. Abstinence-only programs, which are common in many parts of the country, often avoid any meaningful discussion of contraception or sexual health. Rachel: Right, that would be the programs that basically say, "Just don't do it," and hope for the best. Not exactly a comprehensive class on preparing kids for adulthood. So, what's the result? Autumn: The results are pretty clear. Teens who go through abstinence-only programs have higher rates of unintended pregnancies and STIs compared to those who learn through comprehensive sex education. Comprehensive programs don't just promote abstinence, they also give “realistic” advice on safer choices, covering contraception, consent, and healthy relationships. For example, teen birth rates are lower in areas that teach this “real-world” knowledge. Rachel: So, being practical actually works. Shocker. But there’s another pattern too, right? Access and outcomes vary drastically based on socio-economic factors. Wealthier schools offer comprehensive sex education, while underfunded, lower-income areas often get stuck dealing with the consequences of abstinence-only education. Autumn: Exactly. And broader access to sexual health resources is critical. From dealing with teen pregnancies to managing STIs, these inequalities are made worse by a lack of access to affordable reproductive healthcare. Policymakers can step in here with targeted initiatives to make sure that underprivileged kids get comprehensive sex education or to help subsidize contraception in economically disadvantaged areas. Rachel: So, once again, we come back to the interaction between personal choices and broader systemic inequalities. Whether we're talking about education, relationship patterns, or health outcomes, everything seems to be linked to the larger systems we have in place. Autumn: That's why understanding these dynamics is so important. Relationships and personal choices might seem private or unimportant, but they're “really” like a smaller version of much larger trends. If we want to create healthier and more equitable societies, we need policies that take these connections into account—whether through education, healthcare, or support systems in the workplace.

Autumn: So, Rachel, we've “really” dug deep today, haven't we? From the economics of dating to the broad social impact of modern relationships. Marina Adshade's work “really” drives home that these intimate decisions – who we date, when we settle down, whether we have kids – they're not just about us. They're so tied into supply and demand, who holds the cards, and larger societal forces like education and income inequality. Rachel: Absolutely, Autumn. And it’s fascinating how these seemingly small, individual choices snowball into something much bigger. Whether it's the gender imbalance on college campuses leading to hook-up culture, delayed marriage because of economic pressure, or people living together because it’s financially smarter, it paints a picture of relationships that's both deeply personal and inescapably economic. Autumn: Precisely! And the effects ripple outward. These relationship dynamics shape everything from family structures to public health trends. And that shines a spotlight on things like equal access to education, reproductive healthcare, and workplace policies. Understanding all these connections is key if we want to tackle the inequalities that are woven into the system. Rachel: You know, what “really” sticks with me is this: We might think of relationships as matters of the heart, but they’re also a mirror reflecting the world we've created. If love is a marketplace, then the “real” question isn’t just how we navigate it, but how we change the rules to level the playing field. Autumn: Exactly. And that's the takeaway, right? From our own choices to large-scale change, we each have a role to play in fostering healthier relationships – both individually and throughout society. So whether it means rethinking policies that support families, or simply being more aware of the forces that are shaping our own relationships, there's always room to grow. Rachel: Well, Autumn, it looks like economics “really” is the sneaky language of love—or at the very least, helps us understand it. Until next time, let's keep untangling the data, one heartstring at a time. Autumn: Definitely. And listeners, remember, that invisible hand of economics? It is not just about your bank account. It is playing a role in your relationships, too. Take care!