PM:
What we agree on:
1. Boys begin dating a couple at an older age than girls (i think you agree with this point)
2. Being that the boys prefer to date the younger (newer girls) that creates a shidduch crisis for the girls.
3. To alleviate the crisis we need more close in age shidduchim, i.e. we need boys to be willing to date girls their own age, and not only date the new girls.
Our disagreement focuses on why boys (22) dating girls (19) creates a problem; with the resulting difference as to whether encouraging boys to date slightly earlier and girls slightly later will further alleviate the situation (my argument). Or whether that won’t make a difference, and the one thing that could be done is to further enccourage more close in age shidduchim.
Now that we are clear (I think) on this point.
That being said. Your theory that does away with population growth just doesn’t add up.
You suggest that after year 3 we are left with 60 boys and 60 girls from the year 1-3. Lets accept that those 60 girls never get married.
Going forward. years 4-6 we have 300 new girls and 300 new boys plus 60 old boys. In other words we have 360 boys competing for only 300 new girls. If as you suggest that many (50) of the old boys will marry from the 300 new girls. Than there is no way to explaining how after year 6 we would have 60 girls from years 4-6 and 60 boys from years 4-6. Either you would have 60 girls and 110 boys because 50 of the old boys (years 1-3) snatched up from the new girls. Or you would have 60 boys and 10 girls as the 240 new boys plus 50 old boys married the new girls.
In addition:
according to your theory that incoming boys and girls are equal in numbers and the old boys plus the new boys compete for the new girls; than we should have the following phenomena (as I wrote above)
1. New boys should have an increasingly difficult time in shidduchim since they are competing with the leftover older boys (years 1-3 for the new girls).
2. We should have an increasing percentage of boys who do not get married that first year. (year one 80% year two 70% year 3 65% etc. etc.) being that the older boys take many of the newer girls.
3. The new girls should be sitting pretty with the numbers stacked in their favor as all the new boys and the old boys compete for them, and not enough girls to go around.
NONE of these three points exist.
Your theory doesn’t hold up over a peorid of a couple of years. It only explains the intial group. It wouldn’t explain why we have a ongoing (and until NASI) worsening problem.
Perhaps squek or Dr. Pepper could produce a spreadsheet that would explain this theory.