
Elite Dating Apps Threaten to Make America’s Wealth Gap Worse - thisisit
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-17/the-league-and-other-selective-dating-apps-may-worsen-inequality
======
fixermark
I can see the concern, but I'd place it way down the list of things that could
make the wealth gap worse.

Debutante balls and other such classist dating practice have been around
basically forever. I don't think digitizing them adds a particular new
dimension of concern.

~~~
baud147258
Came here to say that. I don't think it will worsen the current gap, dating
has mostly been done among one's peer group, so using an app won't change
anything.

~~~
nkrisc
This app is the manifestation of the social norms that already exist, not a
catalyst for new norms.

~~~
dragonwriter
The app can increase the degree to which the existing norms are realized
rather than aspirational; to the extent that individual acheivement of the
goals of the existing norm has adverse social consequences, that is rightfully
a source of concern even if it involves nothing personally blameworthy and no
change of norms.

------
askafriend
I can’t help but think that this is really grasping for straws. Sure
technically the headline may be correct...but there’s nothing wrong with
wanting to date someone in the same socioeconomic class as you. On top of
that, the amount that this contributes to the actual gap is probably minuscule
relative to the other big contributors that are more systemic and policy-
oriented rather than cultural.

~~~
sfotm
Especially so since many people on existing dating applications probably
filter by similar criteria anyway.

~~~
Thriptic
Most dating apps filter by it too. If you are in the professional class, you
will tend to be matched with other people in the professional class.

~~~
madeofpalk
I absolutely do not find this the case in Tinder (or other obviously less
'filtered' and more niche platforms)

------
toasterlovin
Honestly, this is just the modern version of a process that has taken place
since the beginning of time. It's called assortative mating. Basically, people
tend to end up married to people who are of an equivalent
class/quality/caliber. Now there is a dating app which augments the role of
country clubs, private schools, and expensive neighborhoods in enabling the
elite to find each other. NBD.

IMO, a much more troubling development is the way that the rise of college
education in the 20th century has systematically pulled the cognitive elite
out of most of the country and concentrated them in urban centers (where all
the high paying jobs that demand elite cognition are located). Whereas the
elites have always lived an existence far disconnected from the rest of us,
now the upper middle class and lower middle class are similarly disconnected
from each other.

------
rb808
> Share of couples in which both partners have a college degree: now up to 15%

Wow I'm out of touch with the real world.

~~~
notadoc
Outside of major cities, the rate drops substantially.

Also, many more women than men are college educated now, which is distorting
dating in interesting ways, since most women (and some men) tend to want to
date someone who is at least their equal with employment and/or education.

~~~
psychometry
> Also, many more women than men are college educated now

No, not even close:

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-
attai...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/184272/educational-attainment-
of-college-diploma-or-higher-by-gender/)

[https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf)

~~~
maneesh
Err -- did you look at your graph? Your first link shows that 2017 was the
first year that more women were educated then men....and your second link is
from 2015, before the flip.

~~~
psychometry
Of course I looked at the graph. Even though women earned more degrees than
men in 2017, for nearly the entire history of the country, men earned
substantially more college degrees than women. Thus, men currently hold
significantly more than half of the college degrees right now. We're talking
about prevalence, not incidence.

~~~
jazzyk
You are correct, but current college graduates (so 56% of them women) are in
the "dating pool" much more so than the 60-year olds (where a higher
percentage of men are educated, but not much dating going on).

------
imgabe
I've learned to ignore news articles that talk about what _could_ or _might_
happen. That's not news, it's just speculation. The news is supposed to be
things that _did_ happen.

 _Could_ elite dating apps exacerbate wealth inequality? Maybe. But people
already segregate themselves by wealth pretty effectively. They would have to
actually show that people who might have otherwise married someone of lower
socioeconomic status didn't because of the app, and of course that's not
available.

------
bstar77
Dating/marriage outside of your economic upbringing presents some difficult
challenges that should not be trivialized. I don't think it's unreasonable to
want to date someone that has a similar background to you. Relationships are
much easier when you are with someone who share similar economic backgrounds
and religious beliefs.

~~~
magduf
I agree completely. Been there, done that. Never again will I date someone
from a a different socioeconomic class or who has any significant religious
beliefs. I tried being open-minded and it was a disaster.

~~~
simias
Was the issue the socioeconomic class or the religious beliefs?

I can see how different religious beliefs can be a very practical issue but it
seems like socioeconomic class is a little less "dogmatic" and it would be
easier to find a middle ground? That being said I can't really give life
lessons here, I don't think I ever dated anybody outside of my "socioeconomic
class", whatever that is.

~~~
magduf
Both, but the socioeconomic thing really killed it more than the religion.
With religion, at least you can agree to disagree usually. But in a marriage,
finances are shared to some extent, and you just can't get past that. When one
partner is frugal and manages money carefully, and the other thinks "we're
making all this money! why can't I spend it on xyz/tithe to my church/buy
expensive gifts for my family/etc.?" the results won't be good.

~~~
bstar77
I understand this scenario completely, but I was able to make it work with my
wife (who grew up very poor). Ironically, many people that grow up poor seem
to not realize that many people who have money tend to be frugal with it-
that's it's not a sign of weakness to be frugal. My wife and I are on the same
page now-a-days (I definitely learned some things from her as well), but it
was a struggle for a while hence why I don't think it's good to trivialize in
the name of social equality.

~~~
magduf
I tried too, but finally gave up. We just couldn't see eye-to-eye on it, and I
am not willing to try again.

My new girlfriend comes from an entirely different culture geographically, but
has extremely similar money-management practices as me, even though she didn't
grow up in the same country (though it was also a rich first-world nation).
There's challenges with her too, but finances aren't one of them.

------
lacker
Colleges themselves are a much bigger factor. If you go to an elitist college,
you are much more likely to marry someone from that elitist college, and then
to have a two-high-income household. It just seems inevitable, though - people
want to date other people like themselves.

~~~
mediaman
Yes - elite colleges, and top B-schools and the like, are often seen as part
education, part networking...and part spouse-finding. For B-schools, more
networking/signaling and spouse-finding than education.

------
Analemma_
Elite dating apps are the absolute worst. I was invited to an Ivy League alum
dating app, and I swear Mensa and /r/atheism on their worst days never came
close to the amount of smug, self-satisfied posturing as I saw there. I don't
even think there was a lot of actual dating going on, most people were just
there to show off.

On the last of major socioeconomic problems in America, I really don't think
"new apps for peacocking" is up there.

------
eezurr
I propose that the more wages stagnate and the COL increases, the more people
are going to stick to dating and marrying people in their own socioeconomic
class. I think there will be a threshold in which there is a clear choice to
made between romance and lifestyle between two socioeconomic classes (barring
the ultra rich). i.e., dating someone in a lower class than you incurs a
higher cost that will have a significant impact on your financial plans
(retirement, housing, edit: children, etc).

------
searine
I signed up for the "The League" a few months ago.

I appreciate that they added in options to be discrete, by excluding people at
your employer or friends on facebook. Not that that kind of discretion was
necessary, or worth the price.

As for results, well, imho they have been no better than tinder. Lots of
flakes, and seemingly random matches. Funnily enough I met my current partner
on OkCupid, which seems antiquated by modern dating app standards.

~~~
teirce
I feel like I hear more random success stories on OkCupid than anywhere else.
It seems the commitment of swiping on <insert any of 20 apps here> is really
thin. Not to mention that most people probably aren't looking to marry (or
even date) someone from Tinder.

I'm curious about your experience. Do you feel that anything in particular
made OkCupid more successful for you? I feel that the level of information /
detail in profiles might help for a more successful match, but I haven't put
in any time on the platform myself.

~~~
magduf
I met my current dating partner on OKcupid a couple years ago. I've tried
Tinder and while I've had more matches on there, and got more dates from it
(before I got serious with this girl), I think OKC is better for finding
compatible people for the reasons you name: there's simply a lot more
information and detail in the profiles. OKC makes it easy to weed out people
who have incompatibilities because you can see this stuff in the profiles in
also in the answers to the many questions. The only problem with OKC in my
view is that Tinder and similar low-information phone apps have basically
taken over, so it seems like the traditional sites like OKC are basically
dying out from lack of users. Just like any social network, these sites depend
on a "critical mass" of users to work well.

~~~
dictum
Maybe the audience for this was always smaller, but the niche of "find people
who share interests with you" is under explored. FB cornered the social
network market, but it was always deliberately the opposite of this: you only
add people you already know.

I used to be a part of a social network which had more of an open-world
policy, and I miss it.

~~~
magduf
Well, there is meetup.com for that: it's all about local groups organized
around common interests. It's not meant for dating specifically (though there
are singles' groups), but many people do say a good way to meet dating
partners is to attend events that you have an interest in so you might meet
someone who shares that interest.

------
chalkandpaste
I have two issues with this article.

First, aren’t people going to be looking to pair up with someone in the same
socioeconomic class anyway? That’s what we’ve mostly been doing over the
course of history. That an app is based on this is not surprising. And I have
a hard time believe apps perpetuate what we are already doing or exacerbate
it.

The second is the graph in the middle regarding distance from city center and
population with a degree. Haven’t we, in general, been getting more degrees
since the points of comparison? How is this, again not already distributed
according to pre-existing trends? The curve also does not change significantly
besides being shifted up (corresponding a generally high rate of university
degrees). Is there a actually significant shift happening with those without
college degrees with regard to distance from city center? I think not, or they
would have showed it and it would have been more convincing.

------
ghostbrainalpha
So if we date someone of equal earning potential we make the wealth gap
worse...

If we date someone from a different economic class then one party is prone to
abuse that power imbalance and take advantage...

Sounds like what we all need is an app that just randomly assigns partners to
fuck each other.

 _It 's really the only fair thing to do... _

Sign up for the Beta at www.sex-with-randos.com.

~~~
magduf
>If we date someone from a different economic class then one party is prone to
abuse that power imbalance and take advantage...

Yep, been there, done that. It isn't even always intentional, it's just that
when someone from a very different economic background, and who has a very
different approach to handling finances, marries someone who has high earning
potential, I've found they just can't reconcile these very different
viewpoints.

------
opportune
On a societal level, yes it's bad when romance stratifies along classist
lines, not only because people miss out on potential compatible partners, but
also because it increases inequality and cements generational wealth/prestige.

On an individual level, it's definitely a good idea if you're wealthy. Since
so many things correlate so well with wealth, or have wealth as a
prerequisite, it could highly reduce someone's signal-noise ratio if they're
looking for someone with those traits. For example, if you're an entrepreneur,
or an amateur tennis player, or someone trying to play the corporate ladder
climbing game like the example in the article, and you want to find someone
similar, you'll have much more success finding someone similar to you among
wealthy people, even though wealth is not necessarily a prerequisite to any of
those things.

~~~
dragonwriter
> On a societal level, yes it's bad when romance stratifies along classist
> lines

I disagree. It's bad when the society has poor mechanisms for distribution of
the gains of economy, and with certain deficiencies the magnitude of the
impact will be exacerbated by wealth-stratified life partner selection,
independent of the degree to which this associated with romance. However I
partner selection _is not th source of the harm_ , it's a factor which
aggravates the impact of some actual distributional defects if they are
present.

~~~
opportune
If class-based partner selection is not the source of the harm, but
exacerbates the harm of inequality, how is it preferable to the alternative?
If something is on fire, I would generally say it's "bad" to add fuel to it,
hence my opinion. Of course I agree that this is more of an emergent effect of
the classist society we inhabit than a cause of it, but most of the reasons
that class-based partner selection can be "good" are precisely due to class
inequalities in the first place.

~~~
lotsofpulp
"Classist society" is instinctive to all animals, it's just how mating and
evolution works. I don't think we should, or are even able to, curb class-
based partner selection to try and reduce wealth and income inequality.

My preference would be to strive make sure that all people have the
opportunity for a quality education and upbringing, by ways of guaranteeing
shelter, quality food, and work protections to allow parents to spend time
with children.

------
simonsarris
"Elites are studiously silent about the familial basis of their relative
success. Marital stability is now a form of competitive advantage for the
upper tier ... amplified by the insistence that family formation is ... an
obstacle to autonomy." \- Patrick Deneen

Most of the upper crust finds marital/family stability to be very necessary to
success, while many cultural currents try to express that its not a big deal
(or that it is better to be a forever bachelor and forever child). Many of the
upper crust probably try to downplay it too.

Think of how even the Clintons and Weiners[1] and Trumps are together _and
stay together_ , for instance.

The problem isn't elite dating apps though, the problem is the common man and
woman's perception and treatment of marriages/families. Elite dating apps are
just signaling out in the open something that the elite have known for a very
long time. The big advantage that the elite have here is recognizing the
importance.

[1] wiki says:

> Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner withdrew their divorce case from court in
> January 2018, claiming they did so in order to spare their six year-old son
> further embarrassment.

The claim is one thing, but the truth is that in spite of his terrible
flaws/nature/whatever, they both agreed they still have work to do, be it
ambition or family.

~~~
notyourday
> "Elites are studiously silent about the familial basis of their relative
> success. Marital stability is now a form of competitive advantage for the
> upper tier ... amplified by the insistence that family formation is ... an
> obstacle to autonomy." \- Patrick Deneen

Divorce destroys wealth. Wealthy people understand that marrying partnering is
a partnership which a sprinkle of romantic interest. Middle class and below is
fixated on "finding the one" who will complete them and with whom he or she
can be happy together in a crappy studio apartment without realizing that the
crappy studio apartment they are going to be stuck in because "love conquers
all" is going to seriously negatively affect their relationship.

------
kyledrake
> Ladies, you asked for quality gentlemen: Men are verified grads of top
> universities

So was the "quality gentleman" that sexually harassed a friend of mine.

Get an OKCupid account, and actually answer the questions. You'll get a list
of people that are actually compatible with your values and beliefs. It's a
far better way to date than any system that's based on superficial crap.

People on OKC actually took the time to sit down and think about their
relationship goals. You shouldn't be surprised that people that are good at
communicating goals generally tend to be good at accomplishing other goals
too. So you end up with a better way to find goal-oriented people like that
(if that's your thing) than this approach would ever provide anyways.

------
supernintendo
Am I the only one who sees the silver lining in this? I don't want to date
rich people.

~~~
gravy
For that reason? Yeah probably.

------
notadoc
I doubt it.

Water finds its own level.

Most people date/marry someones equally attractive, from an equal class, with
equal education. That's fairly standard and always has been, which is why most
people marry someone from their college, a job, church, or some other shared
experience. It's the shared experience that typically brings people together,
and keeps them together.

And of course there are many cultures around the world with arranged
marriages, and those almost always specifically aim to match equals from the
same class background (or higher).

~~~
dragonwriter
> Most people date/marry someones equally attractive, from an equal class,
> with equal education.

Historically, the second has been strongly true, the first much less so, and
the last basically false, though somewhat less untrue if you read “equal” as
“in a roughly similar point on the distribution for their gender”.

> And of course there are many cultures around the world with arranged
> marriages, and those almost always specifically aim to match equals from the
> same class background (or higher).

If someone is getting higher, the other partner is getting lower. There is a
necessary symmetry there.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Since women weren't typically attend higher schooling until very recently, it
doesn't make sense to compare it historically. I've seen people go higher and
lower within their class, but not really go from one class to another, unless
the person is supermodel worthy.

------
asdsa5325
This is silly. Wealth inequality is a serious concern, but implying that
wealthy people dating other wealthy people is making it worse is ridiculous.
People can date whoever they want, it makes progressive movements look
terrible if you push the notion that there must be economic balance among all
relationships...

------
ryanx435
This is an ad for the elite dating sites. It's on bloomberg, for Christ sake.
Their target market is elites.

~~~
thwd
This. And it's written in a cancerous SEO-advertising prose, spelling out "The
League" verbatim once every paragraph.

> But the med student says he prefers Tinder, a site with a reputation for
> facilitating hookups, and the League.

That suffixed ", and the League".

------
almost_usual
Doubt it. More than anything I believe this caters to a population who enjoys
the feeling of being "exclusive" or "elite". Whatever, if someone is buying
someone will sell.

------
Chevalier
...no, they don't. Or at least not in the way that this article suggests.

First, we should divide "dating" into two markets -- one for sex and one for
long-term relationships.

In my experience, existing dating apps overwhelmingly cater to the sex market.
Even the ones supposedly designed to set up professionals are used by both
genders to find quality people for quick flings. There IS massive "inequality"
in the sex market -- women overwhelmingly judge men by a Pareto distribution,
as evidenced by multiple studies (that I can cite upon request) -- but the
fact that the average woman is uninterested in the average man doesn't stir
within me a call for equitable distribution of sex partners.

Then there's the long-term relationship market, which I admittedly don't know
has been successfully addressed by any app. OKCupid's premise was that it
would set up compatible people for long-term relationships, but I think OKC is
out of vogue now. This is the void that apps like The League are trying to
fill, I guess, though I'm baffled as to their appeal.

For women (or either gender that wants to secure long-term commitment from a
high-status, high-income mate), The League sort of makes sense. When you're
done with your Tinder carousel and want to move on to a relationship, here's a
pool of wealthy, connected men whose bank accounts suit your lifestyle
aspirations. That's not a pitch that will inspire lust, but at least it's more
palatable than admitting to being a sugar baby.

For men, though... why would you want The League? Even if you're an
unattractive guy, making what amounts to a Tinder profile for your bank
account is just a terrible idea. If you're attractive enough, you can just
have sex via Tinder. If you want to pay for sex, there are existing options.
If you want someone to love... apps that brag "half of its active members earn
more than $500,000" and its kin are frankly not going to provide that.

\- - - - -

This article conflates two important ideas without really addressing either.
There IS a very real, accelerating trend of what's called "assortive mating,"
where highly intelligent people move out of Nowhere, Kentucky to major cities
where they meet spouses in line with their intelligence and success. These
successful couples have more successful children, who then mate with other
successful children, and so on. The less successful people are left behind,
mate with other less successful people, and have less successful children who
mate with other left behind children. This brain drain is both international
and intranational.

Then you have the question of mating strategies, particularly the
(traditionally female) interest in securing long-term commitment. The recent
book "Date-onomics" did a decent job describing the massive demographic
challenge facing educated women in this market -- educated women
overwhelmingly desire more successful men, but men generally don't care about
their mates' education or status. In fact, as men prefer to date younger
women, aging women face the twin challenges of narrowing interest and
increasing competition (due to population growth or cultural differentials
like age gaps). The League and its kind deserve some respect for nakedly
addressing these mating strategies -- men offer up their status and wealth,
and women presumably only need to be young and attractive.

Dating apps probably DO accelerate assortive mating. Women are particularly
sensitive toward status in men, especially educational attainment. (At least
in the long-term relationship market, not necessarily in the sex market.) So
ideas like The League and its competitors aren't necessarily a bad idea -- if
you can market it as "OKCupid for successful people" rather than "Saudi prince
seeking Instagram model." As far as I can tell though, anyone mature enough to
want a long-term relationship is not in the douchey Vegas-ish market that The
League is targeting. Anyone tasteless enough to want The League is probably
more interested in its clique than its offerings. And that leaves wide open
the potential market of "successful professionals who desire other successful
professionals for long-term commitment without having to sort through the
proletariat."

------
FussyZeus
There are a lot of things making the wealth gap worse, dating apps catering to
the wealthy is a symptom, not a cause.

~~~
rhizome
My sense is that this article is submarine PR, but I can't quite discern which
of the companies mentioned commissioned it.

