The economy is challenging for most people, so it's understandable that many are fending for themselves, creating a low-trust environment.

People think they can achieve better success by relying on themselves or seeking iron-clad insurance by associating with established individuals.

As if they were the only ones thinking as such. However, whether it is dating, business, or social media, the people having the upper hand within the dynamic of the two people or entities involved would have to embark on an unequal exchange willingly.

The requestor is essentially asking for the person's benevolence with the leverage. They do not understand that benevolence is not something you request; it is granted to you.

1) It could be the 5 hoping to have the 9 commit to her.

2) It could mean expecting the buyer of a company to pay more than the valuation + premium of the target company.

3) It could be a collaboration between a nano influencer and a massive influencer.

These setups do not make sense for the person with the leverage; however, the requestor, which most people are, is driven to think it is either the above or no association.

In other words, it is about staying just above water or the high-flying life.

The economy is turning people into working poor or the rich becoming richer, and so is the dating and relationship market.

Most men realise this state of affairs and are used to adapting because they can't survive without it. They initially look into finding a helpmate who can help them rise above, where a union between two individuals can yield a return above the sum of both parts.

However, the winner-takes-all dynamic cannibalises the non-winners efforts to find potential partnerships. This term has become so popular beyond the rise of equality and feminism 4.0.

The same dynamic exists in the economy, with a concentration factor in mature industries through M&A market consolidation.

Essentially, dating through applications and social media has reached the maturity stage in the economic cycle.

Loyalty and Trust, where gentleman's agreements could take place, have now been contractualised to such an extent that each individual's move has the potential to result in a lawsuit under specific legislation.

Whether it is related to Me-Too or the ever-growing Company's handbook rules and other corporate compliance liturgy.

Barriers to entry have become bigger for new players to compete, whether through the rise in women's standards or legal and compliance costs when entering new, highly regulated markets.

Information is ready and made available in almost everything and to everyone. Therefore, the death of the discovery phase, which involved higher investment, whether when starting a new company or forming a potential couple, is gone.

Why? The cost of being wrong is already priced in. People don't want to take risks. It is now less about spending money and more about wasting time. Previously, the unknown was the time and place where the challenges were addressed and overcome, establishing a potential company or couple. Less known costs associated created a willingness to try.

But now the opportunity cost of going with Mr Average is known through potentially missing Mr Top Gun.

Now, both parties rather part ways at the first hurdle. They are already risk-assessing a future outcome as they are discounting the future costs they think they now know, whereas before, they did not.

It is through the struggle that resilience in a union shapes itself. Now, everybody wants some fast tracks with high certainty to a specific destination to be bothered involving themselves in an endeavour.

This time, optimisation is becoming a highly risk-averse dynamic that leads to non-action.

Loyalty and Trust cannot be built. It is about opportunity and benefits to be received in the near to short term.

However, because only a few people can provide that option, it only reinforces the social sanctuarisation of the people making the requests based on these expectations that it is either everything or nothing.

When it comes to the making of relationships, hypergamy in a flat world (technology, communication, travel) is the societal equivalent of reverse socialism, where women are incentivised through the winner-takes-all effect that all of their lottery tickets are equal, feeding the system and penalising themselves on a second order effect and the men in their social standings.

It enables them to believe they can get to the promised land. But like every lottery player, they waste their time and money hoping for the big win, not discounting the low probabilities. The funny thing is they discount the risk in the short term:

"Why should I involve myself with XYZ because he does not have XYZ (at this point in time)?"

But completely missing the other side of the equation.

"How is she pricing the likeliness of the outcome she wishes for with the imparted given time, where she has some leverage?"

This solidifies their status by misallocating time and mispricing their future value and leverage. They discount the short term but not the long term, despite using the short term to discount the long term.

The underlying idea behind this logic is a person's place in society is a constant. Meaning T1 = T+1.

That is why they bail when T1 is not = T+1 on the negative.

If she does not, she will also have to fight other women who suggest she do so. It takes a loyal and trusting woman to overcome both dynamics.

They buy the stock at 90x PE at 0% Interest rates and expect a high return, scoffing at non-popular stocks that nobody has on their radar.

The dreams of riches offset the reality of hard work, due diligence and struggle most people go through to grow out of their situation. That is the most likely way to get out of one's own social class unless she managed to secure the bag very early.

The hook is in with the 50+-year-old pregnant mother or the single mom who bagged a millionaire when it is not the divorcee who secured a British Prince. Every woman thinks they can be that lucky person.

Men sitting on the sidelines noticed the above. They initially delved into the market in good faith, then realised they had to either adapt or check out.

Eventually, they concluded they would be better off working on and for themselves as little to no helpmates were available. It is mostly a financial drain rather than a team when they present themselves as such. Reinforcing the dynamic of winners takes all/fending for oneself.

Women created it, thinking they could all win the lottery. But this will only impact them deeper, as most won't. Their ability to bond with a man was generally their best bet to succeed in life, holding everything else equal, whether from a financial, mental health or overall contentment perspective.

They were convinced they could do it better alone when they could not secure the bag of a rich man or wealthy guy.

When you don't want to make a deal happen, one of the parties will make ridiculous demands that will not be met, and the blame can be pinned on the other party for not meeting these demands. This is what women are doing. Only the top x% can meet these requirements.

How likely can a company with negative earnings growth expectations command better offers in a mature market?

Not likely.

It is the bet most women make.

Average companies with problems increasing their top line or declining profitability ratios eventually go extinct and get bought out by a better financially backed or revenue-generating company when they don't file for Chapter 11.

Most women who have not tried to secure a decent guy before the maturity cycle starts will slowly fall into irrelevance or may get a helping hand from a source they barely appreciate.

The price of not bonding early is eventually shown and will be paid.

The main outcome was that they forgot to discount, where greed bested fear for them.

For anyone who has been in the market, fear eventually beats greed; it will be the same for women.

But their mark-to-market value when fear comes into play, if they have not been margin called by their OBGYN, will give them little residual value to settle for a poorer deal than the one they could have expected had they had more foresight.

Like Taxes, you will get more tax revenues with a lower Tax threshold than by doubling it. The incentives to leave a tax jurisdiction are much lower, so there is less missed revenue from it. This may seem counterintuitive, but it is real.

They have put a price tag so high on themselves that what would have been seen as a risk worth taking thanks to the support she could provide has become the perception of a money-grabbing leech worth leaving because their timing was out of sync.

The reality is, though, if they were to be more reasonable, for the astute observer, they would know that most women did not choose them out of design; the smarter ones were only more aware of the above and decided to get serious early.

The free market has shown that women would rather risk going for lower than what would have been acceptable when younger because money has no beauty associated with it. If they can reach their outcomes by extending their timelines even to the point where it does not make any sense, it is a small price to pay to them—only discounting how much future contempt they will have for the one who decided to take her on the way past her due date.

If she starts to think she is giving you a chance, you have none to begin with in the long run.

‍