Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
far vosMember
To DassYochid, AZ, and Passfan:
This is going in circles and not accomplishing anything. I have never posted before on the Coffee Room and I do not plan on posting again. I just felt that I had to point out some potential flaws in the plan. I have said my piece and the public can decide what they want. I never intended to criticize anyone, and hope that there are no hard feeling held against me. All the best.
Far Vos
far vosMemberDaasYochid:
“The NASI project is designed to bring the overall average age gap closer to zero. This is not happening without NASI, currently.”
I agree it is designed to bring the age gap down. However, sometimes, doing something is worse then doing nothing. I am pointing out that there are unintended consequences. This plan doesn’t allow for any other variable to change. It assumes everything else stays the same. Why?
“It will work to whatever extent the age gap is closed. My example was an extreme (halevai it should work that well) to illustrate the point.”
Again, this doesn’t allow for anything else to change.
far vosMemberAZ: “humble suggestion: prior to offering a “authorotative” opinion on the issue why not first spend some time understanding the issue.”
This doesn’t seem like a “humble suggestion”. Why try and make things personal? I went out of my way to NEVER criticize NASI on a personal level–only questioning the solution proposed. There is no need to offer up statements like, “that is simply a statement of total lack of undestanding of the situation, the project in general, and this program in particular.”. I would hope that someone whose goal is to solve a problem, would be open to feedback and questions and not resort to belittling those who question a proposed solution.
DaasYochid and AZ: Neither of you have yet to refute (AZ hasn’t even attempted) my question as to how this will cause there to be any less older girls in the future. The only answer you keep coming back to is that in a mathematically perfect world, everything evens out. But I repeat, that is not our reality! It comes down to one simple question that I would hope you would be able to answer: what makes you think that every other factor will remain “constant” in the face of manipulation?
far vosMemberpassfan:
“But it won’t cause some of the current younger girls to not have a husband; it’ll just cause them to get married at an older age than they would have under the system as it stands currently.”
That is not necessarily true. This is what I was referring to above when I said that predictions like these are assuming that everything else will remain “constant” despite the changing of a “variable”. You are assuming that the same girls will get married just at a later age. But says who? Guys that they were being redt to (and subsequently marrying), will now be redt to older girls and marry them instead. In a best case scenario, these same girls will get married but at a later age and to different guys. In a worst case scenario, many of these girls will be looking for a shidduch for a lot longer period with some maybe being left out. But either way, there will be a much larger shidduch crisis of “older” girls, down the road, due to the attempted manipulating of the market.
“Actually, all that is needed is for the AVERAGE age gap to be about zero. So one chosson could be 5 years older than his kalla, while another kalla could be 5 years older than her chosson.”
Yes, but this holds true with or without the NASI project. The point I am raising is that the project might end up having the opposite effect of closing the age gap.
“it might fix the problem -say- 85%”
How do you get that percentage?
Please don’t get me wrong. I applaud NASI for attempting to help solve the problem. I just feel that that there are always unintended consequences, and that this might not be the best way to go about things.
far vosMemberDaasYochid: I don’t think he definition of “older singles” will be changing. At least according to NASI, it seems pretty clear that 22+ is “older”. That is their definition.
“In a “perfect” scenario (mathematically), every girl will have a potential husband.”
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfectly mathematical world. If we are going to solve problems, let’s try and do it while dealing with reality. NASI’s idea will work only if EVERY person marries someone born in the exact same year. That is definitely not going to happen, nor should it. The fact is that, as things currently stand (meaning without economic incentives), there is a percentage of girls who get left out. What is that percentage? There is no firm answer, but let’s assume it is the 3 or 4% that you say. Now, once there are incentives to redt shidduchim to older (in place of younger) girls, the amount of “younger” girls will quickly turn into “older”. Meaning all NASI is doing is replacing who gets married now, without taking into consideration the future older girls (however you want to define “older”). I’m not arguing with the concept of the age gap. I am just pointing out that there are unintended consequences to the plan set forth by NASI.
far vosMemberDaasYochid:
NASI might achieve the goal of getting more CURRENT older singles to get married. However, as I keep saying, this will adversely affect the FUTURE amount of older singles. The NASI initiative doesn’t take into account the unintended consequences. They are changing one “variable” while assuming (incorrectly) that everything else stays “constant”. In other words, even if everything goes according to NASI’s plan–there will be more older singles than there currently are. I just don’t think that, mathematically, it would makes sense to implement this.
far vosMemberDaasYochid: As I mentioned, I was using “10%” as an example to keep things simple.
“With the proposed system, all of the girls get married, albeit a few years later. “
First off, only Has-em has the ability to say “all of the girls get married”.
Second– I think mathematically it just is not true. All you are doing is creating MORE older girls in the future. Instead of the 3 or 4% that you say get left behind….that will become 8 or 10% (due to the incentives skewing who gets married). You will have an even BIGGER problem in a few years. You still haven’t solved the “supply” side of the equation. Those 8 or 10% of girls are still going to be up against the “younger population” for dates.
far vosMemberDaasYochid: Unfortunately the age gap is not that simple. Let’s say for example that there are equal amount of boys and girls at every age. Let’s also assume that every year there is a 10% increase in the population (to keep things simple). Now take 3 different ages. For example, there will be 10 boys and 10 girls who are 22. There will be 11 boys and 11 girls who are 21. And there will be 12 boys and 12 girls who are 20. This means that there are 33 boys and girls between the ages of 20-22. However, because the boys don’t start dating until later, there are in reality less boys then girls who are going out. This means that every year there will be roughly 10% (or whatever is the actual increase in population) of girls who don’t have a guy to go out with. What I just described is the age gap theory. The NASI plan attempts to solve this by encouraging boys to date girls closer in age to their own. However, NASI doesn’t take into account the UNINTENDED consequences this will cause. If, in the current state, there are “10%” of girls who don’t have an equal guy to date…then with the manipulation of the numbers that will increase to lets say 20%. There won’t be any more girls getting married. They will just be DIFFERENT girls getting married. These different girls (i.e. older) will be taking the place of the younger ones. Unfortunately, what will end up happening is that this plan will only lead to MORE older singles in the future. Not less.
far vosMemberDaasYochid: “Yes, but there will be a boy for all of them!”
Not necessarily. Under the NASI plan, older girls will be taking the place of younger girls. This will cause the younger girls to go longer before getting married…thereby causing there to be more older singles in the future. Everyone knows there are unintended consequences whenever implementing ideas attempting to manipulate an outcome. See above on what I said about “cash for clunkers”. This plan is not solving anything. If anything, it will be causing more older singles in the future than there otherwise would have been.
-
AuthorPosts