Or alternately wait a while and enjoy a big bowl of schadenfreude when she finds her options were annoying billionaire or broke couch potato.

It really depends on why she is truly breaking up with Mr. MoneyBags.

First off, any woman who can 'pull' a billionaire

a) is probably high on the 'enchanting' scale.

b) has had access to the rolodex of the Jet Set so she is already 'in', and so can find another trust fund to jump up and down on

c) probably has a golden 'pantyshield' as her walk away money which is pretty spectacular, even if it's only her jewelry.

So I doubt 'basement dweller' is in her future.

***

Here is a question about expanding that 'diminishing marginal utility'. Has the prosperity of America and the West overturned the old equations of male female relationships?

I mean, in the old days, a woman 'overlooked' the occasional pop across the chops because the guy brought in 50 bushels a harvest, had good kids, and was there to protect her from that village down the road that were a bunch of raiders.

Now, men and women have plenty of cash, plenty of low cost leisure, but only 24 hours in the day that they need to spend on maintaining the relationship instead of (insert fun activity here).

If I have 8 hours in a day, and am spending 6 hours a day on relationship, and get 1.5 Orgasmos of Life Pleasure, but can do X (not relationship) and get 1 Orgasmo per four hours...and I still have four more hours for an equally fulfilling activity which is not relationship, the economics favors NOT having a relationship.

Or to put it tersely, a videogame won't blow you, but it is a lot more bang for a lot less bullshit than a woman. Women have their own pungent analogies, I am sure. My son and his friends seem...very slow on jumping on the girl bandwagon, far slower than even I was as Dorky McDorkison.

After all, a good part of the marginal utility one gets from a spouse is resources/service. If services get cheap enough (take out, diners, etc) and one already has a basic measure of resources without a partner, then...

Does anyone else worry about this?

Let me throw out some amendments so I don't come off as totally ignorant.

What I am saying is that in the old days, the benefits of having 'Partner' far outweighed the negatives of putting up with someone else. Zog was bad in bed, but he was the lead warrior in the tribe. Myrta had the best schnitzel in town and a large well placed family.

But a lot of the leisure/resource/services are either no longer needed, provided by oneself, and/or pretty cheap in getting it from a third party non familial provider.

My example was supposed to be an example of what people overlooked, but was perhaps too crass.

A couple of things FIDO.

1. I wouldn't be so sure what option B is for this woman. Luck can play a huge role in things like this. So personal money and a list of contacts may not be real. I've seen women 'trade down' due to greed and go from 100k land to 20k land. They got lucky and they just didn't know it.

There is the old joke about the husband store. The only rule was you can't go down once you head up a level. On the first floor are men. On the second floor are men who have good jobs. On the third floor are men with good jobs who help out around the house and are good with the kids. On the fourth floor are men with good jobs, who are great with the kids, are wonders around the house, and sensitive to her emotional needs. On the fifth floor is an exit and a sign saying this proves that women are never satisfied.

2. The issue isn't just that men have access to more low cost leisure. Women have also increased the cost of a relationship too. A kid costs ~25% of your income for 18 years, by law. That is not a small issue. Men have next to no rights with their children. Increasingly women insist they shouldn't have to do anything they 'don't feel like'. So if he is horny and she 'doesn't feel like it' and isn't going to feel like it any time soon why should he 'feel like' going to work?

A partner does being many benefits. But the majority of women are not interested in a partnership. Instead they want a small dictatorship. Hence men aren't proposing and the marriage rate continues to drop.

We've entered the unusual land where men bear far more costs in a marriage than women do. Consequently if women want to get married they need to do the pursuing and the courting.

LW why are you worried about this? If it really bugs you just go for the high dollar midget OCD guy yourself. Just have an affair and get him to give you a few cars or something. Maybe your friend does not want or need the dough, maybe she needs a good life.

I have a personal 'Law of Universal Regret'.

Make whatever decision you want, because no matter what you choose, you will to some degree regret it.

Want to be single? You will regret not getting married. Want to be married? You will to a certain extent regret missing out on 'single' things.

Same with this lady. She is choosing 'happiness' over money and she will at some point regret it. But if she went the other way, it will likely be the same.

It's just people

The LW trippin. The stuff that make you happy don't make everybody else happy. Evidently money make the LW happy but not her friend. I couldn't be wit a person with no sense of humor, I need some laughter n my life. Hell matter of fact, good laughs, good sex and some good Kool Aid is all a bruh need,lol

As one married to a multimillionaire let me put a damper on how LW see this.
First the fact that he/she has assets in million or even billions does not mean they have lots of spending money. For a lot of those in this tier ALL their cash goes to maintaining illusions. They have to just to keep everything going. Warren Buffet is a very rare exception. So you may very well have a home cooked meal of ramen in a 16,000 square foot home. My actual take home is slightly smaller than hers. Slightly. Assets and income are completely separate things.

They will have very very little time for you. Learned to deal as when we do go on vacations they are stupid lavish. Most however end early and she has to fly out to east bumb fuck to deal with some fire. This is very different than won't make time for you. The effort she puts into even a 10 min phone call is herculean as I can hear the 2 dozen emails and the 6-7 texts she gets during that 10 min conversation.

She'll never have to worry about money. Which is what the LW is thinking about. Oh no first assets is not spending money as noted above. Second if he's an asshole he will most likely not share it unless it benefits him. Finally fortune is a fickle bitch. Today's billionaire is tomorrow bankruptcy. Some climb back up many don't. Seen that in person. Going from a 16k sqr foot mansion to a studio in sketchy vil fucking hurts even for a short time.

Depending on your personality it may just not be worth having your dignity shit upon everyday for this life style.

"super-picky about whether you put things back in exactly the right spot and doesn't have the greatest sense of humor" That's code for an OCD asshole. Had to maintain this type of guys fish tank as a job right after college. He HAD to have a shelf full of books on top of the tank. You had to remove the book and place them back in the exact same order or he'd flip. Had to use the servants bathroom wore booties and shower cap thingy as to not drop any hair. EVERY picture of the wife was beyond depressing. Eye's were haunted and she was basically broken as a person. Hate to use the term holocaust survivor but that's what she looked like. She did have the brand new benz every year. Didn't matter if she liked or wanted it.

In my case. In theory if she gets bought out life will be magical, jet setting and care free. We are set for life. If the company folds she'll probably spend a year in an institution if she's lucky. Then maybe and it's a big maybe she can go back to a normal life assuming there is no stroke or heart attack. I love her so I'm riding this out and being supportive till the end either way it goes. To be honest at this point I'd rather spend a weekend with her stress free than buy a brand new Z06 convertible with all the upgrades and mods which was my dream car as a kid. Money and toys can't buy happiness if you meet that special someone and can't be with that person. My vette, my 82A1 and my 300 gallon fish tank are solid and expensive proof of that.

I'll agree with your 'Law of Universal Regret' FIDO. I'm not even saying the friend should stay with Mr. Money. I have a saying, 'Money doesn't change people. It just enables you to show how much of an asshole you always were.' But I can see LW getting frustrated if the friend is really experiencing uncontrollable greed and soon LW will be sitting through the poor little me bitch sessions. You know, where Mrs Former Money bitches she has to drive a Toyota now.

Walter, I've seen that many a time. The asset curve is comically steep and most people don't understand the trade offs that are involved.

I have a friend and her sister married into money. Their wedding was paid for by his parents. The house they live in his paid for by his parents. The schools their kids go to, the utilities, the cars, ... all paid for by his parents. He makes good money (~80k range) but with no bills it is essentially play money. The price was doing what his parents wanted when they wanted it. The house was next door to the parents and they would come over at any time. I don't consider this a healthy relationship. But it is what the sister signed up for. Eventually she got so frustrated with things she convinced her husband to put some space between them and the parents, both physically and financially. (I actually approve of this decision.) But that had the cost of needing to pay their own way. So my friend got to sit through all the bitch sessions about how the sister can't afford this and that anymore and how hard it was on them. You know the simple things in life . . . like a new car each year. Or trips to Europe. My friend is quite middle class. If I had to guess they have a family income in the 60s. So even with this loss of wealth her sister is quite a bit better off than her. But she maintained the peace by going 'uh huh' and quietly smiling into her tea when her sister got off on a rant. And only laughed out loud after the sister had left.

Sometimes schadenfreude is warranted.

Taking the LW's friend at her word, as noted money can buy a certain amount of happiness. However, what it can't do is compensate for having to live with an asshole. So yes, in that regard, the friend's choice is reasonable. (And as noted, if she's dated one billionaire, she probably runs in those circles and has opportunities to meet others.)

To answer FIDO's question: It's fair to state that men and women don't really need each other for physical or economic survival, in the way that they did centuries ago. However, I think it's also fair to state that men and women generally need each other for life happiness and emotional stability. And of course, we are seeing the data validate what our ancestors knew instinctively, which is that raising children requires two parents. There are reasons why nearly all human societies beyond tribe-level have encouraged and cajoled people to marry and stay married.

Here's what I think is happening today: it's a risk-reward problem. Younger men perceive that the risks of engaging in a relationship with a woman have gone way up, and the likelihood of reaping big rewards has gone way down. These men were told stating when they were toddlers that they were inferior to the girls around them. They were told that they much always show the most deferential respect to the girls, while the girls were under no obligation to reciprocate. Now, they get older, and they are supposed to engage in mature relationships with these same girls who were taunting them a few years earlier, and take on responsibility for a girl's financial and emotional well-being. But this all can only happen under a extremely restrictive and incomprehensible set of rules. If they are on a college campus, the ever-shifting rules are enforced by Junior Anti-Sex Leagues that patrol the campus. Even if the woman is just fine with the relationship, the Anti-Sexers can file a harassment complaint on their behalf. And the man are indoctrinated that their bodies are faulty and full of evil toxins, which makes them an inherent danger to society.

So the guy is looking at it like this:
* It's a game of chance with incomprehensible and constantly changing rules, which implies that no coherent strategy is possible.
* The probability of winning is low.
* The reward for guessing right is small.
* The consequences of losing are potentially catastrophic.

Not surprisingly, a large number of young men choose not to play. This is why feminist shaming has no impact on them, except to drive them further away from the game. It's a sucker bet. Who in their right mind would play that?

I think most women would rather marry a nice millionaire than a billionaire asshole.

And most women would rather marry a nice hundredthousandaire than a millionaire asshole.

Once you get above a certain threshold (which will be different for every woman and largely dependent on the milieu in which she was raised), more money is nice but other qualities are more important.

"I think most women would rather marry a nice millionaire than a billionaire asshole."

That is a nice theory, but it isn't how the trade off typically works. Billionaires make up 0.00001% of the US population. Millionaires make up 4%. And they don't typically clump. So there aren't really millionaire and billionaire circles.

But money doesn't buy happiness. Looking like a holocaust survivor vs. an average lifestyle?

LW: Have you considered the Paul Harvey possibility (e.g., that there's a "Rest of the story") ?

Billionaires understand "The Golden Rule" -- My gold means my rules. (I'm not a Billionaire, and I understand The Golden Rule). You've heard the song "Seasons change and so do I. No time left for you." Unlike the guy Amy recently blogged about, some rich guys like to change shirts, and other things, on a regular basis:
New shirt;
New underwear;
New pants;
New shoes;
New Rolex;
New Arm Candy.

Looks and youth fade. His gold. His rules.

I had made up my mind by a VERY young age that once I got out from under the thumb of my parents, my days of financial dependency were going to be OVER.

I also never wanted kids.

As far as getting married, it wasn't on my to-do list.

I'm an extreme introvert who hates living with other people, but if you met me you'd probably find me to be easy-going and laid-back. This is probably because I live with a pug and not other people.

My boyfriend and I have been together for nearly ten years and each live in our own separate homes, yet we are partners. He usually spends weekends at my house and helps out with chores around my place. For two months we spent weekends at his place as I helped him face-lift the front of his house. We have each other's backs.

During the time we have been together, I watched him go into debt as he pursued a computer science degree and delivered pizza part-time. I cheered him every step of the way. Now he has a great job and is paying off those student loans.

I don't know if we'll ever get married and/or live in the same house. We could get married and keep our living arrangement the same as it is now, as far as that goes.

This idea that a grown-ass adult would submit to being dependent upon another adult seems like weak shit to me. I'm not all that crazy about work - never found it particularly meaningful or fulfilling - it's a way to earn money to pay the bills and that's about it. But I only have to work 40 hours a week. If I had to "get married for a living," that's 24/7, and if the guy's an asshole, not worth it.

If services get cheap enough (take out, diners, etc) and one already has a basic measure of resources without a partner, then...

Does anyone else worry about this?

I wouldn't say "worry" is how I respond.

Keep in mind when people tell you why they broke up you generally only hear some one-sided part of the story. It's possible he wasn't happy with her either (it sounds like it, based on her description), probably with reason, and she could see it wasn't working.

Since when is it OK to move other people's stuff around anyway? I was raised not to do that.