![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Marriage for Love vs Money
Mar. 24th, 2015 10:50 amConsider a simplified model where a couple marries for prudential reasons. That is, the husband desires sex while the wife desires financial security. (to make it gender neutral we can replace husband and wife with Spouse 1 & Spouse 2).
What are potential implications for the Labor-Leisure trade-off?
Clearly, in such an arrangement sexual intercourse is leisure for the husband and labor for the wife; therefore, the wife expects to be compensated. It also decreases the couple's total leisure budget because the husband has to work more in order to make money for compensating his wife, while the wife provides sexual labor, which reduces her own leisure time. In short, the family's labor goes up and leisure goes down. The couple is linked through a market-like arrangement b/w a customer and a service provider.
By contrast, a relationship based on love (assuming good sex) increases the couple's leisure time and, correspondingly, reduces the amount of labor.
It looks like the choice is obvious: with regard to the Labor-Leisure trade-off, marriage for love is better than for money. What's the catch?
The problem is that love can be considered to be a perishable good. Unless the couple makes consistent efforts to maintain their "love" relationship, including(?) children, the arrangement deteriorates into the "money" scenario with unspecified compensation requirements.
On the other hand, the "money" scenario has its own problem – a potential dissatisfaction of the customer with the quality of sexual services. Nevertheless, the problem has a standard solution through a pre-negotiated divorce contract. (here we can get into bad incentives for misbehavior if the contract is not done right).
It looks like the best strategy would be a mix of "love" and "money" where the couple maintains love for as long as possible, while pre-negotiating a separation agreement prior to their marriage.
Theoretically, eternal love between the partners would be the ultimate solution because it could create the best Labor-Leisure trade-off outcome. In an environment with short life expectancy a marriage for love would be preferable, provided children have enough resources after one of the spouses (or both!) dies.
What are potential implications for the Labor-Leisure trade-off?
Clearly, in such an arrangement sexual intercourse is leisure for the husband and labor for the wife; therefore, the wife expects to be compensated. It also decreases the couple's total leisure budget because the husband has to work more in order to make money for compensating his wife, while the wife provides sexual labor, which reduces her own leisure time. In short, the family's labor goes up and leisure goes down. The couple is linked through a market-like arrangement b/w a customer and a service provider.
By contrast, a relationship based on love (assuming good sex) increases the couple's leisure time and, correspondingly, reduces the amount of labor.
It looks like the choice is obvious: with regard to the Labor-Leisure trade-off, marriage for love is better than for money. What's the catch?
The problem is that love can be considered to be a perishable good. Unless the couple makes consistent efforts to maintain their "love" relationship, including(?) children, the arrangement deteriorates into the "money" scenario with unspecified compensation requirements.
On the other hand, the "money" scenario has its own problem – a potential dissatisfaction of the customer with the quality of sexual services. Nevertheless, the problem has a standard solution through a pre-negotiated divorce contract. (here we can get into bad incentives for misbehavior if the contract is not done right).
It looks like the best strategy would be a mix of "love" and "money" where the couple maintains love for as long as possible, while pre-negotiating a separation agreement prior to their marriage.
Theoretically, eternal love between the partners would be the ultimate solution because it could create the best Labor-Leisure trade-off outcome. In an environment with short life expectancy a marriage for love would be preferable, provided children have enough resources after one of the spouses (or both!) dies.
