It makes a lot of points about culture, both where it came from and where it's going and undoubtedly the things it mentions, missing women, bride prices, family honor, etc, all play a large part in what's going on, but for all of the article's references to an economic theory of dating I feel like it missed a really obvious factor: vastly increased supply for the same demand.

You can see similar things in good ol' waspy america when you get on a dating website; no longer are you competing against the dozen guys in the bar or the 100 guys in your school, you're competing against tens of thousands of other potential mates, all easily comparable and considered with the flick of a finger.

It also, presumably, makes it harder to compete against the more virtual companions: influencers, singers, actors, etc.

It's difficult an average guy to compete against, say, the ideal of george clooney in full makeup/clothing/movie romance mode, but at least being physically in the room gives you a few advantages over the movie star, being an image on a dating site removes even that.

The article mentions, a couple of times, (presumably appealing) information about the potential boyfriend that wouldn't fit on the advertisement his mother is displaying at the park. Why wouldn't it fit? Paper is cheap. Presumably the reason is that attention is expensive and the implication is that the people doing the shopping have a lot of choices to get through and hence don't have time for a detailed resume.

(Personally I found the above to be an issue in my personal life in america, so I solved it by going to speed dating events which put you back in a situation of only competing against a dozen or so other people in the room with you.

I went a dozen or so times before being taken off the market but it honestly wasn't a bad way to spend an evening and it was considerably better for my self esteem than sending out 500 messages a night on okcupid and getting 0 replies)