One of the things I love about Bryan Caplan is his intellectual fearlessness. It was clearly on display in his series of posts about single mothers.
It says something about both Bryan and myself that I have had many replies to him but none of them were published until Bryan offered me a smoother handle.
He says
b. Sex with birth control, unlike abstinence, does not lead to chronic burning lust.
c. Potentially poor women who delay child-bearing have a high chance of finding a reliable man before becoming infertile.
Both of these statements are wrong.
Baby lust is quite real, almost certainly genetically determined and probably explains a fair fraction of the differences in outcome among women. I don’t simply mean in income but in how one’s life turns out overall.
Second, it almost certainly not the case that potentially poor women have a high chance of finding a reliable man before becoming infertile. In a polygamous society or one that imposed an effective cartel on sex this might be true but this is not even going to come close to being true in modern America. This is because there is a serious dearth of reliable men.
That marriage market naturally clears with a fair number of women unable to find suitable life-long partners is the main driver of social-sexual institutions, customs and taboos.
I should add that Bryan’s prescription of promiscuous birth-controlled sex lowers a women’s rank in the marriage market, meaning that both baby lust and lust lust are going to make things harder for you. This is worsened by the fact that both are likely driven by sensitivity to oxytocin.
On a more general note, I think one of the core differences between Bryan and myself on this issue is my natural assumption that poor single mothers are engaging in utility maximizing behavior.
This implies that the alternatives to being a poor single mother are worse and that people accept this fate because they have low endowments in the marriage market.
For example, Bridget Moynihan commented on the – to her – shocking number of proposals she got when she was left single and pregnant. My response was that she was simply encountering men who were trying to buy an asset they mistakenly thought was available at fire sale prices.
That marriage to Moynihan was not available at fire sale prices tells you a lot about the lack of arbitrage possibilities in the marriage market. People who end up on the outs probably have little chance of ending up anywhere else.
21 comments
Comments feed for this article
Sunday ~ October 2nd, 2011 at 12:49 am
teageegeepea
Evolutionary theory would suggest that “baby lust”, whether culturally or genetically induced, will become more common after birth control alters the effect on fitness of what Eliezer Yudkowsky would call “adaptation executions”.
A dearth of reliable men means the remaining one have more leeway to behave badly. I heard that from Tim Harford in the American context, but apparently it’s a big deal in Russia where males have a very high death rate.
Precisely because they don’t want the government to intervene, libertarian economists seem more prone to assuming people maximize utility. But Bryan actually borrows a little from behavioral economists/psychologists, saying “People who have biased beliefs about practical matters, and/or exercise poor impulse control, are likely to screw up their lives across the board”. I don’t know if he explained why based on that belief he doesn’t accept a more conservative/paternalist stance on the part of the government. Perhaps it’s related to his rejection of utilitarianism.
Sunday ~ October 2nd, 2011 at 11:39 am
Becky Hargrove
At fire sale prices, or with a sacrifice of her own life that was indeed unacceptable. I absolutely agree. We need a lot more economic and social frameworks for the people who will likely remain unmarried for at least a substantial portion of their lives, if not all.
Sunday ~ October 2nd, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Sister Y
Why label men who don’t want children “unreliable”?
Sunday ~ October 2nd, 2011 at 7:34 pm
teageegeepea
I think many of these men will not stick around long term regardless of children. Although I think there’s also an implicit assumption of monogamy, which you would reject.
Monday ~ October 3rd, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Sister Y
I am fine with mono if freely chosen. Is the problem here that men promise mono and then reneg? Maybe the solution is less “implicit assumption of monogamy” in the first place. Otherwise it’s an adhesion contract entered into under questionable (non-arms’-length) circumstances.
Especially lifetime monogamy, which is pretty LOL in a free society.
Monday ~ October 3rd, 2011 at 9:58 pm
teageegeepea
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you think people shouldn’t be monogamous. Just that there’s a background assumption of monogamy, and you don’t think we should make that assumption.
Also, surprised nobody has yet referenced Promises I Can Keep.
Sunday ~ October 2nd, 2011 at 11:19 pm
weichi
Where is Smith (or Caplan) labeling men who don’t want children “unreliable”?
Monday ~ October 3rd, 2011 at 11:26 am
Sister Y
Smith discusses a dearth of “reliable” men, and seems to use it synonymously with “will go along with a female’s mating choices.”
Monday ~ October 3rd, 2011 at 8:36 pm
weichi
Sister Y,
There is absolutely nothing in Smith’s post to indicate that he is using “reliable” to mean “will go along with a female’s mating choices.” The fact that you read it this way says a lot about the pre-existing views you bring to this discussion, and nothing about Smith’s views.
Sunday ~ October 2nd, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Sister Y
And seriously, given political equality, why do we still think it’s okay for women to demand resource transfers from men? Gross.
Sunday ~ October 2nd, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Becky Hargrove
Sister Y, as to your second question, I took for granted that women no longer did, but there are spring loaded legal traps in this regard that ruin life for everyone whose lives are connected to the resources themselves. No wonder Mexico is debating temporary marriage contracts.
Monday ~ October 3rd, 2011 at 11:27 am
Sister Y
Yes – my family law students, male and female, both tend to be horrified when they learn the reality of community property.
Monday ~ October 3rd, 2011 at 12:16 pm
IVV
How so?
Monday ~ October 3rd, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Sister Y
The idea that the money you earn is not your own, but belongs equally to yourself and your spouse. Ditto the labor you perform on your own business that you may have owned prior to the marriage.
People’s thinking has become pretty gender-egalitarian, except when it comes to babies – women’s decisions to have babies are seen as sacred and any objection by their partners is seen as evidence of a character flaw.
Friday ~ October 7th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Nathanael
Thank goodness many states are separate-property states.
Sunday ~ October 2nd, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Assorted links — Marginal Revolution
[...] Smith on Caplan on single mothers; “Baby lust is quite real, almost certainly genetically determined and probably explains a [...]
Sunday ~ October 2nd, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Psychohistorian
“Baby lust is quite real, almost certainly genetically determined and probably explains a fair fraction of the differences in outcome among women.”
I don’t really buy this. Just because the phenomenon is real does not mean it explains single motherhood, especially by very young mothers. It’s not that they find some random dude and decide to have his baby; it’s that they have sex with some random dude and don’t really think of the consequences so much. Some people really just don’t put much thought into the future or the consequences of their actions. Misinformation about birth control is likely also a factor.
This is a common error in thought among libertarian-leaning types. Other people don’t think like you, and assuming that they must have their will overborne by something like baby lust is not reasonable.
Monday ~ October 3rd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Anthony
Psychohistorian – there is plenty of anecdotal evidence, and possibly some studies, that show that most teen single mothers really are choosing to have a baby, even if they’re pretty much letting it happen randomly. It’s also been observed that for a woman from a poor background, whose best reasonable career options are clerking in a large bureaucracy, having children *early* gives a career advantage by not having a large break mid-career, and losing one’s seniority, etc.
As evidence, notice that even most improvident “welfare mothers” don’t often have more than two or three kids, relatively closely spaced.
Monday ~ October 3rd, 2011 at 1:14 pm
IVV
I distinctly remember a number of teenage girls where I grew up and went to high school who couldn’t wait to get pregnant, drop out of school, and get welfare (and out of their parents’ home). It was a pretty low way of handling it, but it was, on the surface, rational.
Tuesday ~ October 4th, 2011 at 10:52 am
MD
“This is a common error in thought among libertarian-leaning types. Other people don’t think like you, and assuming that they must have their will
overborne by something like baby lust is not reasonable.”
Funny you’d say that, because you and Caplan have the same position in this respect, and he’s wildly libertarian.
Friday ~ October 7th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Nathanael
Bzzzt. Women who engage in promiscuous birth-controlled sex actually have a very *high* value in many parts of the market.
You might ask the question of why other parts of the market have virgin fetishes, and I think it relates to pre-birth-control, pre-DNA-test culture — because culture changes SLOWLY. Notably inability to identify paternity. That’s dying, slowly but surely.