It’s only a problem if those women don’t settle for the men they date. If they would, the balance would always be restored:
Top 20% of men settle with 20% of women. A new top of men takes over replacing the old one.
The main issue is that relationships don’t last. And that has to with the 20% of men not wanting to settle as they have free and abundant access to sex, which has been historically the primary reason for men to settle.
On top of that men are at their prime way longer than women: easily between 25 and 45. Women lose perceived value as sexual partners after 30/35 by many men.
As I said before, the problem is as bad for women as for men, it's just different: women keep getting matched with men that won't form stable relationships, because the app doesn't want to give a relationship to women either (even if they often don't have to pay, and as such are not income stream for the app, they are the product being sold so the app need them to stick as long as possible).
There's no objective “Top 20% of men”, but there is indeed a small group of men that is being pushed down every women's throat on apps because they are the easy going one that will not threaten the app's business by entering a long term relationship.
I bet any woman could just scroll down the list of their matches or make a new match with the guy who is not the best looking player guy and immediately have a chat a date lined up.
You know one the nice guys who are always other wise ignored.
Can we add to that the effects of the birth control pill? Women on the pill have a different attraction profile than without the pill. Their body thinks they’re pregnant and they settle for men with lower testosterone.
Many women report that after stopping taking the pill they no longer like the smell of their husbands.
Both can coexist. Smell/compatibility might not be noticeable until you’re already initiating the romantic relationship (kissing, intercourse, sweat smell).
You get closer, if necessary to the point your lips almost touch their face. What millions of people have done during decades. And that’s the point, yes.
The only reason you enjoy cheap food is because of the free market.
Housing in many countries is not part of a free market but part of a monopoly where the government decides how much, how many, the what and the when the houses can be built. If it was a real free market, the issue would have been long solved.
That's not the experience of most Germans - the big companies here are horrible and treat you as bad as the law allows, and oftentimes even worse than that.
I've never met anyone who prefers Vonovia etc. to housing cooperatives, or failing those small private landlords.
Private landlords have been my worse experience. Both in Germany and out of Germany. They ignore the law, they try to avoid fixing things, or they fix them badly.
My last rental with a big company was perfect: they even skipped asking me for rent deposit, my work contract was enough. Their maintenance team was full time dedicated to maintain the same buildings, so they knew perfectly how to repair everything, they were quick and diligent. They knew if they didn’t fix it right, they would have to do the work again.
Economies of scale is what allows these big companies to offer better prices and better service than private landlords.
Your anecdotes might be true, but your conclusion does not align with empirical reality. I've seen multiple separate German studies looking into renter satisfaction towards their apartment/landlord, and large companies consistently rank lowest, while private landlords are consistently rated much better (sometimes first place, sometimes after unions and municipal offerings).
It's great that your last landlord company treated you well! But that's not the experience most people in Germany have. For example, I personally know >10 individuals who rented from Vonovia and deeply regretted it, because there were so many issues that maintenance only covered up superficially while NEVER fixing the actual issue. Even for severe issues, they usually waited 3+ months before sending anyone out - in one case a wall showed obvious water damage & mold, and it took 4 months PLUS a letter from a lawyer before anyone followed up on their dozen reports!
> Economies of scale is what allows these big companies to offer better prices and better service than private landlords.
Sure, that's the theory. But when reality does not align with theory, something must be missing: your model only works as long as the market fulfills certain conditions, which the housing market in Germany (and likely most of the west) does not fulfill. If you haven't heard of these assumptions, I'd recommend looking into non-fungible & inelastic markets.
Because previous attempts at discussing such topics were usually met with hostility, I'll only go into more detail if you can bring empirical counter-evidence, or if you were sincerely unaware of the limits I've mentioned.
I just bought a house in Germany. It will remain unused for around 6 months due to renovation. It is naive to believe that any empty house is empty due to speculation.
My grandmother died some years ago, my family wanted to sell the house as they didn’t need it. It took 3 years to sell it because it’s in a location with no demand plus 6-12 months to arrange the inheritance legal details. You would say, the price was too high then! It was sold for €30K, a garden farmhouse with 6 bedrooms, garden and garage.
It’s inevitable that some houses are out of the market for some time due to many different reasons.
The main reason new housing is extremely expensive has to do with regulations themselves.
It costs a lot of money to build a new apartment building because land where you are allowed to build is regulated by the State. Also the State requires many regulations that increase unnecessarily the costs, and most of all in the name of the ideology.
For example, housing standards of Japan and the US, which are way cheaper and still serve two of the richest countries in the world, would never be allowed in Germany. That makes housing unaffordable and drives people into poverty.
> For example, housing standards of Japan and the US, which are way cheaper and still serve two of the richest countries in the world, would never be allowed in Germany. That makes housing unaffordable and drives people into poverty.
I live in Japan, so I know it first-hand.
Housing standards in Japan are awful. The average Japanese city is chaotic and ugly with zero urban planning, and the average Japanese house is built with the cheapest possible materials and has zero insulation. I remember reading that the average Japanese house uses 7 times more energy than the average German house! You do NOT want to build houses like Japan.
Obviously after 36 years many people of Die Linke were not alive when the wall fell. But it’s still the same party as the SED, just a different name.
The CDU and the CSU have nothing to do with the NSDAP.
At some point in time in Germany 30% of the population were either part of the NSDAP or the Nazi Army. Luckily most of them were not war criminals and move on with their lives. And yes, some of them ended in the CDU/CSU but also of the SED/Die Linke.
Just to give you an example, around 10-15% of the DDR state officials had held NSDAP membership pre-1945.
Does that make the DDR a successor of the Nazi Regime? Obviously not. The same about the CDU/CSU.
But Die Linke is still the same party as the SED. Same organization, which just voted themselves into different names.
What makes you think Die Linke gave up their "religion"? I don't see any indication of such a conversion in either the Party's saying or doing. The same claim was made about other communist parties, e.g. "Vänsterpartiet" in Sweden which translates to "The Left Party" (they're even walking in step when it comes to choosing new labels) but it doesn't take much (or any, really) effort to pierce that veil.
I don't believe they gave up Marxism-Leninism, they just gave the monster a new name and claim it is nothing like its predecessor. They do that a lot, changing the label on the package. Inside it is still the same monster, waiting to be unleashed.
Red Scare much? The Left of today is Democratic Socialist, if you look at their programme they're where the SPD was 30 years ago (i.e. pre Schröder and neoliberalism in the view of Tony Blair).
If you want actual bona fide Marxist-Leninists, there's the cultists of MLPD.
Answer the question much? You're just quoting labels like 'democratic socialist' as if they mean anything. Remember what PDS stands for? The modern left is just as infused with revolutionary ideology as the left in the 60's - 80's. They may use different labels but those don't mean anything. If anything it seems that the more a party claims to be democratic in words, the less they are in deeds.
I don't believe this is basically ever the case. The reality is more like that simple promises often collide with messy reality, and the compromise solution ends up solving a fraction of the original promise.
But now you're talking about a different thing. First, you said they don't even want to solve it so they'll have voters in the future. Now, you say they want to solve it, but the wrong way. So which one is it?
Top 20% of men settle with 20% of women. A new top of men takes over replacing the old one.
The main issue is that relationships don’t last. And that has to with the 20% of men not wanting to settle as they have free and abundant access to sex, which has been historically the primary reason for men to settle.
On top of that men are at their prime way longer than women: easily between 25 and 45. Women lose perceived value as sexual partners after 30/35 by many men.