luis is a co-founder and social software architect at SyndeoLabs, and a director at Exist Global. he likes building small web toys a whole lot. More ...

quick links to the good stuff

  • 25 First Dates 25 May 2009
  • True Crime: Confessions of a Criminal Mastermind 17 Feb 2009
  • Finding Your Soul Mate: A Statistical Analysis 27 Jan 2009
  • Sex and Schrodinger's Cat 07 January 2009
  • An Extended Rant on Heroes 26 September 2008
  • Zero Barrier 05 May 2008
  • Sweatshop Blogging Economics 08 April 2008
  • The Doomsday Singularity 25 February 2008
  • Piracy and Its Impact on Philippine Music 21 January 2008
  • The Manila Pen-etration by the Hotelier Antonio Trillanes 29 November 2007
  • Journey of a Thousand Heroes 17 December 2006
  • Shake, Rattle & LOL 30 December 2005

    elsewhere online

    • Last.FM
    • Del.icio.us
    • Flickr
    • Plurk
    • Multiply
    • Stumbleupon

    guttervomit

    • 7

      The Economics of the LDR

      4 Sep 2009

      I’ve been musing recently about LDRs – those long-distance relationships that I keep hearing about but have never actually experienced myself. Recently, I saw it mentioned again in Tim Harford’s “Dear Undercover Economist,” in which he analyzes its utility, and found myself profoundly enlightened.

      First, some definitions. The Wikipedia entry is frustratingly vague in that it defines an LDR simply as “an intimate relationship that takes place when the partners are separated by a considerable distance.” But what kind of distance is considerable? And even if you lived far apart, if you still saw each other once a week, is that an LDR?

      I offer a more specific definition: an LDR is an intimate relationship in which the parties involved can not physically see each other more often than once every two months on average, without incurring prohibitive costs. (I believe that the concept of “distance” in “Long-Distance” is so ambiguous and relative that I’ve avoided including it in the definition altogether.)

      Under the proposed definition: if you were living in Manila and your boyfriend was in the States, it would not be an LDR if either of you could afford to fly over and visit regularly. Likewise, even if he were somewhere closer, like say Baguio, that would fall under the definition of an LDR if it were too costly for him to come down more than once every 8 weeks. (Keep in mind that “costs” are a broad umbrella term that includes money, time and other personal resources. He could, for example, be deathly afraid of wheeled transports, and insist on walking the whole way – an unreasonably high personal cost.)

      Why two months, instead of, say, one? I have to admit it’s an arbitrary number: if both parties are busy individuals, seeing each other once a month can sometimes be all they can manage. That would not necessarily mean they were in an LDR, it just means their respective calendars are often full.

      Using this definition, what does the science of economics have to say about LDRs? Well, a lot, as it turns out. The Alchian-Allen Theorem, commonly known as the “third law of demand” offers a great analysis of how to carry out your infrequent encounters. Here’s the nose-bleed version: “the Alchian-Allen Theorem is often associated with the phenomena in which a common fixed transportation or shipping cost added to the price of a high and low quality good results in a relative increase in consumption of the high quality good.” Fun, huh?

      The layman’s version is elegantly clarified by economist Tyler Cowen:

      “The theorem [...] implies that Australians drink higher-quality Californian wine than Californians do, and vice versa, because it is only worth the transportation costs for the most expensive wine.”

      LDRs, or the notion of being in an LDR, act like the most stringent of filters. No one really prefers being in one – it is a situation borne of unfortunate circumstance. And so it happens that during those few, happy moments that you are able to spend with your partner, you will not stand for anything but the most scintillating of conversations, the finest restaurants, the most vigorous of sexual encounters. You need to maximize the fixed costs of shuttling one (or both) of you back and forth, after all.

      The converse can also be said to be true: when our partner is in close proximity, our standards tend to be lower. There’s very little effort involved in seeing a partner who lives 15 minutes from you, so vegging on the couch in front of your television suddenly becomes an acceptable activity.

      (The Alchian-Allen Theorem, btw, also explains why countries like the Philippines only get mainstream movies in its cinemas, and very few of the arthouse variety. The costs of shipping of either the Hollywood production or the independent release are the same, and in the interest of generating the largest profit margins, the former is the most rational choice for the majority of theater owners.)

      Economics does not, unfortunately, put forth an opinion on whether an LDR is a good idea or not, although I imagine that they are bound by the same free-market rules as everything else: Because it’s the higher quality stuff that gets traded over long distances, only LDRs involving truly exceptional parties will usually last any significant period of time. Anything else would simply not justify the costs.

      Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

     

    categories

    • Home
    • No categories

    archives

    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • August 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • September 2007
    • August 2007
    • July 2007
    • June 2007
    • May 2007
    • April 2007
    • March 2007
    • February 2007
    • January 2007
    • December 2006
    • November 2006
    • October 2006
    • September 2006
    • August 2006
    • July 2006
    • June 2006
    • May 2006
    • April 2006
    • March 2006
    • February 2006
    • January 2006
    • December 2005
    • November 2005
    • October 2005
    • September 2005
    • August 2005
    • July 2005
    • June 2005
    • May 2005
    • April 2005
    • March 2005
    • February 2005
    • January 2005
    • December 2004
    • November 2004
    • October 2004
    • September 2004
    • August 2004
    • July 2004
    • June 2004
    • May 2004
    • April 2004
    • March 2004
    • February 2004
    • January 2004
    • December 2003
    • November 2003
    • October 2003
    • September 2003
    • August 2003
    • July 2003
    • June 2003
    • May 2003
    • April 2003
    • March 2003
    • February 2003
    • January 2003
    • December 2002
    • November 2002
    • October 2002
    • September 2002
    • July 2002
    • May 2002
    • April 2002
    • February 2002
    • January 2002
    • December 2001
    • November 2001
    • October 2001

    friends

    • Dementia
    • Gabby
    • Gail
    • Gibbs
    • Helga
    • Ia
    • Ina
    • Jason
    • Kaye
    • Lauren
    • Lizz
    • Luna
    • Mae
    • Migs
    • Mike
    • Ryan
    • Sacha
    • Vicky
    • Vida
    • Yuga

    search

    notes

    Guttervomit v3 went online in January, 2008. It uses Wordpress for publishing, and was built largely with Adobe Illustrator and Textmate. Logotype and navigation is set with Interstate.