The law of supply and ‘de man’

LOLITA HARPER

I was never very good at economics.

My less-than-stellar credit rating can corroborate that. But I do

remember one basic principle regarding a “competitive market” and the

quality of goods. To refresh my memory, I looked to the experts at

the National Council of Economic Education.

“Competition among sellers lowers costs and prices, and encourages

producers to produce more of what consumers are willing and able to

buy,” the council’s Web site informed me.

Ah -- so, the more of something there is, the better for the

potential shopper. It’s all coming back to me now. This is very good

news considering the message from Yahoo news that recently popped

into my inbox.

According to this article from Yahoo news, which quoted figures

from the 2000 census, our fair state had half of the nation’s top 10

places -- with more than 100,000 people -- where single men

outnumbered single women.

In most regions across the nation, we girls with a naked left ring

finger far outnumber our male counterparts. And that still holds true

in most parts of California, where there were 6.1-million single women and 5.6-million single men, the article said.

But certain cities in the Golden State, such as Costa Mesa, came

out in favor of the ladies. That’s right chicas, there are more

eligible bachelors in Costa Mesa than bachelorettes, which puts us at

a perceived advantage.

Let’s revisit the economic lesson of the day, shall we? A few

tweaks to conventional theory and I think we’ve got ourselves a nice

little recipe for new and improved Friday nights.

“Competition among sellers (men who are trying to ‘promote’ their

‘product’) lowers costs (emotional and otherwise) and encourages

producers (men) to produce more of what consumers (women) are willing

and able to buy (put up with.)”

So, according to this, we should see more men holding doors open,

calling before 10 p.m., planning dates void of any sort of

drive-through, shaving, ironing their clothes and lifting more

weights than the customary 12-ounce-NFL-Sunday beers.

But as we all know, theory is rarely representative of reality.

Most of the women I talked to were surprised at the alleged surplus

of men.

“The way most guys act, you would assume it is the other way

around,” said a beautiful blond who didn’t want to give her name on

the off chance that some hottie Costa Mesa guy would read this

article and label her as one of those “bitter chicks.”

Mary Crosby was also surprised by the statistic. She agreed that

it seemed to be the other way around but put the blame squarely on

the women.

“Women let men get away with anything nowadays,” she said. “We are

so ‘liberated’ now that we don’t even know how to accept a

compliment, chivalry, nice gifts or a nice dinner. We are so busy

saying what we ‘don’t want’ and ‘don’t need’ from men, we forget to

articulate what we do.”

Basically, out of some deranged fear that their significant other

will angrily storm out one day and they will wind up alone in a

houseful of cats, women are spoiling their men and not speaking up

about what they want and deserve in return.

“We are stripping men of their manliness and they, in turn, are

acting like whiny little brats,” she said. “If we want good men --

real men -- we have to accept the things, good and not-so-good that

come with that package. No pun intended.”

Which brings us back to the economic lesson at hand and the second

part of that theory I found on the Internet.

“Competition among buyers (women) increases prices (emotional and

otherwise) and allocates goods and services (men) to those people

(women) who are willing and able to pay (provide) the most for them.”

And there you have it. Too many women doing too much and demanding

too little for a product that is in high supply.

I hate economics.

* LOLITA HARPER writes columns Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and

covers culture and the arts. She may be reached at (949) 574-4275 or

by e-mail at [email protected].