Snobby egalitarianism means less attractive women

Lazy sunday reading brought me Tyler Cowen's simple theory of where women are beautiful:

My simple theory of where the women are attractive has two variables: income inequality, and the willingness of wealthier men to marry beautiful women from the lower income and social classes. Women then compete for lucrative marriage prizes. That puts Cuba (the wealthy men are the tourists) and Brazil near the top of the list, where they belong.

Supposing his theory is true, would it not then mean that you'd expect a paucity or absence of beautiful women if the two variables were reverse? That is, if the incomes were equal and men of higher status/class[1] unwilling to marry lower class women (or vice versa, the direction of the snobbery doesn't matter), would one then logically expect women to generally look frumpalicious?

Probably not, though that would explain a lot of crunchy nut granola gatherings I've been to over the years. I imagine that there is some sort of floor for beauty where the two variables lose effect, and that Tyler's theory is how baseline beauty is affected by the exacerbation of those two variables.

(footnote below)

fn1. arguendo we've established that there are no longer economically wealthier men, so the 2nd variable either collapses at equality or loses its wealth aspect on the male side.

Share this