I don't think the data supports this. The economy has gotten better since 2008 by a significant margin. The unemployment rate has dropped consistently since 2010. But that's when the rise of lack of sex seems to really kick off and it hasn't subsided as the economy improved.
Since 2010 GDP is growing, unemployment is going down, and real wages have at least remained steady and many analysts claim it has risen. If the economy really was tied to lack of sex we should be seeing a large spike around 2008/2009 and continuing until 2010 or 2011 and then returning to normal rates by 2018.
Granted, there may be some sort of lag between economic changes and the effect on sex lives. E.g. a boyfriend loses a job in 2009, fails to find work in several years, and then gets dumped. But that seems like more of a stretch, and it seems like the pattern of less sex particularly among men is occurring even among people in age cohorts that weren't affected by the economic downturn during the end of the last decade.
Also I think you're referring to the trap of the law of averages incorrectly. The trap of the law of averages is the erroneous notion that because a random even has diverged from the average then the likelihood of it returning to the average is higher. "The coin toss came up head five times in a row, so it'll probably be tails this time" is falling into the trap of the law of averages.
GDP, unemployment, and real wages are all averages (well, technically GDP is a total, but per-capita GDP is an average).
GP's point is that while the economy as a whole is doing great, nearly all the gains are concentrated in the top quintile, and the remaining 4 quintiles have seen real wages stagnate, older men drop out of the labor force, and young men fail to enter the labor force, all while watching other people pull ahead with fortunes they could only dream of. All of this is consistent with women partnering with the portion of the population that's actually doing well economically and ignoring everyone who's struggling.
> Also I think you're referring to the trap of the law of averages incorrectly.
True, sorry, I was referring to the typical "3 chickens were eaten by 3 people, 1 chicken per person on average; in reality one man ate 3 chickens and the other zero"
Unemployment figures are not a true measure of unemployment. We all know this. The metrics they use makes the assumption that people are voluntarily dropping out of the workforce and hence don't count as unemployed, when the reality is that while many might not be seeking employment, it's not for lack of want, but rather for lack of confidence in the ability to become gainfully employed. This goes hand in hand with the mental health crisis facing this country. Even with health insurance from Medicaid, you have a damned difficult time finding a mental health practitioner that's accepting new patients.
The unemployment rate is misleading. Are there really more men with well paying stable jobs? Or are there just a lot of Uber drivers and delivery people now? In other words, lots of people with contract work that don't have benefits but also don't count as unemployed.
