Economics & marriage: a bad fit

I fear Bryan Caplan is pushing conventional economics a bit too far here. He criticizes Megan McArdle's claim that "in an ideal world, of course, women and men would take equal responsibility for the household." It completely ignores comparative advantage, he says:

What if a man has a much higher wage than his wife, but can't clean, cook, or shop to save his life? Should he still do half the cleaning, cooking, and shopping? Wouldn't husband and wife alike be better off if he specialized in bringing home the bread, and she specialized in baking it?

And, he adds, it

...totally ignores market forces. What if there are two men for every woman? Men are naturally going to offer a better deal to potential spouses than they would if the gender balance were reversed. What's so bad about that?

Now, I'm even less expert here than I am on most things, but I fear Bryan's overlooking three things:
1. Symbolism. Food and cleaning are not just source of nutrition and tidiness. They have symbolic meaning. Cooking and cleaning for others, outside the market, are signals of hospitality, love even. If one person specializes entirely in cooking and cleaning, such symbolic offerings go in only one direction. Something gets lost.
2. Social norms. The norm has  evolved that marriage is, or should be, a partnership of equals. Now, this norm might be irrational for reasons Bryan mentions. But given that it exists, violations of it - expecting parties with a stronger bargaining position to get more out of a marriage - are frowned upon. 
This might be rational. Take a parallel with the ultimatum game. In this, people often reject offers that would make them financially better off, if such offers violate norms of fairness. But is irrational only in the narrowest sense. It's quite rational, once we realize that people value norms, as well as material gains.
3. Signalling. In ordinary economic life, a fantastic offer is a fantastic offer - end of. But in dating, it's not. Women reject men who are rich and good-looking, fearing there might be something wrong with them; their high eligibility sends an adverse signal, sometimes correctly so. This means bargaining power is more equal than Bryan thinks.
There's a common theme here. Bryan is treating marriage as if it's an agreement between homos economicus - people who are instrumentally rational with full knowledge and no moral values. Whilst this view can be tremendously (pdf) insightful, it has its limits.

Comments

[Maynard Handley]

"Bryan is treating marriage as if it's an agreement between homos economicus"
And Megan McArdle is not? She certainly sees everything else through the lens of economics.

This is an argument between blind and blinder; no different from two theologians of whatever faith you prefer to make fun of arguing over the color of god's hair. Why bother getting involved?

[dearieme]

Word to the wise, Dillowbert. When you do get a wife, do not teach her to use your tools. For then you will never find one in the right place again. Whether you rage or plead, never again.

[Shuggy]

Agreed - fairly poor use of economic concepts by Caplan.

From the post you link:

"What if a man has a much higher wage than his wife, but can't clean, cook, or shop to save his life?"

He should bloody well learn, I suppose most women would say - and not just women. Surprised he didn't justify marriage inequality in terms of the division of labour...

[Katherine]

Dearieme - since I am quite a proficient with tools (and where they go) as my husband, could I suggest you might wish to adjust your stereotypes to take account of, like, individuals?

[reason]

I wonder why anybody takes Caplan seriously. He is just like the 9 grade class stirrer.

[arturo pena]

I sincerely believe men and women are equal in marriage, but, been a man, I tend to look for handy women every time I try. Given the chance I think men will always chouse an orderly woman, at least for us that's more important than money.

Get a quick divorce at WDALAW, http://www.wdalaw.com

[Laura]

Men don't want to do their fair share of housework because it's not fun. Working for pay is more fulfilling. Since men almost always make more money than women (even for the same work) they will use this con to get out of housework, which is unpleasant for all of us, every time. Men do not do things they don't like to do. Period.

[ways to make money]

Although there are many myths involving eating certain foods that cause break outs or make already existing acne problems worse, studies have failed to prove than any one food (including favorites like chocolate or deep fried foods) have the potential to spur on pimples, blackheads, or blemishes. greater northdale credit repair service.