Ever sat at a dinner table and wondered why your friend, who works roughly the same hours as you, pulls in double your salary? Or why that one house in a slightly "better" ZIP code costs three times as much as yours? It feels random. It feels unfair. But there is a logic—sometimes cold, sometimes brilliant—underpinning who gets what and why in our world.
Economists call this matching theory.
It isn’t just about money. It’s about kidney transplants, dating apps, and why elite colleges reject valedictorians while accepting kids with lower SAT scores. We are constantly being sorted. Every day, markets—both the ones with price tags and the ones without—decide your "value" and where you belong in the social and financial hierarchy.
Honestly, most of us are playing the game without knowing the rules. If you want to understand the distribution of resources, you have to look past the "hard work" narrative and see the market design at play.
The Invisible Auction: Why Prices Aren't Just Numbers
Prices are signals. They are the loudest, most obnoxious way we determine who gets what and why. If there are ten people who want a vintage Porsche and only one Porsche exists, the person willing to part with the most cash gets the keys. Simple, right?
Not really.
Think about the work of Al Roth, a Nobel Prize winner who basically wrote the book on this stuff. He points out that in "commodity markets," money is the only thing that matters. If you want wheat, you pay the market price for wheat. The wheat doesn’t have to like you back. The wheat doesn't care about your resume or your personality.
But most of the things we actually care about—jobs, spouses, spots at Harvard—don't work that way. These are "matching markets." In a matching market, price isn't the only factor, and sometimes, it isn't a factor at all. You can't just show up at Yale with a pile of cash and demand a degree (well, usually). They have to choose you, and you have to choose them.
The "Star" System and the Winner-Take-All Effect
Why does a mediocre benchwarmer in the NBA make more than the best high school teacher in the country?
It’s about scale.
In his 1981 paper, The Economics of Superstars, Sherwin Rosen explained that in fields where technology allows the "best" to reach a massive audience, a small number of people get almost everything. Before radio and TV, a great singer could only perform for a few hundred people at a time. Local singers could make a living. Now? Everyone listens to the top 0.01% on Spotify.
Because we can all access the "best," the person who is 1% better than the runner-up might earn 1,000% more. This is a huge part of who gets what and why in the modern economy. We've built a world where being "pretty good" at something that can be digitized or broadcast is a recipe for struggle, while being the absolute best is a ticket to generational wealth.
Fairness vs. Efficiency: The Kidney Problem
Sometimes, letting the "market" decide who gets what is actually ghoulish. Take organ transplants. We have a massive shortage of kidneys. If we used a standard market, the rich would buy kidneys from the poor. Most societies find that morally repellant.
So, how do we decide who gets a life-saving organ?
💡 You might also like: Why the Shaggy Haircut for Long Hair is Actually Making a Comeback (and How to Get It Right)
This is where matching algorithms come in. Al Roth helped design a system that uses "kidney exchanges." If Person A wants to give a kidney to their spouse (Person B) but they aren't a biological match, the system finds another pair (Person C and D) in the same boat. It swaps the donors.
Nobody paid. Nobody got rich. But the "what" (the kidney) went to the person who needed it most because of a clever mathematical loop. It’s a reminder that when we talk about who gets what and why, "why" can be driven by ethics and code just as much as greed.
The Signal and the Noise: Why Your Degree Is a Badge, Not a Tool
Why do you need a degree to get a job that doesn't actually use anything you learned in college?
It's signaling theory. Michael Spence, another Nobel laureate, argued that the value of a degree isn't necessarily the "human capital" (skills) you gained. It’s a signal to employers that you are smart enough to get in and disciplined enough to finish.
Employers use these signals to sort the pile. They aren't looking for the person who knows the most about 18th-century literature; they are looking for the person who can jump through the hoops. If you're wondering why the "unqualified" guy got the promotion over the "hard worker," it’s often because he sent a better signal—confidence, networking, or the right pedigree—that the internal corporate "market" values more than raw output.
High-Stakes Dating: The Sorting Hat of the 21st Century
Dating apps are the most visceral version of who gets what and why.
If you've ever felt like Tinder is a wasteland, you're seeing the "Gini coefficient" of attraction in real-time. Data from various apps suggests that a tiny percentage of users receive the vast majority of "likes." This creates a feedback loop. Because the "top" tier is so overwhelmed with choice, they become hyper-selective. Meanwhile, everyone else feels like they're shouting into a void.
It’s a matching market with "friction." In the old days, you married the person in your village or your office. The market was small. Now, the market is everyone. Paradoxically, having more choices makes it harder for most people to get what they want because the "high-value" targets are chased by everyone, leaving the rest of the pool feeling like leftovers.
Why "Deserve" is a Dangerous Word
We love the idea of meritocracy. The idea that you get what you deserve.
But luck is the silent partner in every success story. Robert Frank, an economist at Cornell, wrote Success and Luck, where he explains that in a world of eight billion people, the difference between the person at the top and the thousand people just below them is almost always a lucky break. A teacher who noticed them. A bus they didn't miss. A genetic lottery ticket.
🔗 Read more: Why 10 10 10 All Purpose Fertilizer Is Still the King of the Garden Shed
When we ask why someone "got" the big prize, we often ignore the "why" of timing. Being the first to market or being born in a specific decade can matter more than your IQ or your work ethic.
Real-World Nuance: The Labor Shortage Paradox
You’ve seen the "No one wants to work anymore" signs.
But look at the data. It's not that people don't want to work; it's that the "why" of the labor market has shifted. Workers realized that for years, the "what" (the wages) didn't match the "cost" (childcare, commute, stress).
When the supply of labor dropped, the price (wages) had to go up. This is a basic market correction, but it feels like a crisis because we grew accustomed to a world where the "who" (the employer) had all the leverage. Now, the leverage is drifting.
Actionable Insights: How to Navigate the Sorting Machine
Understanding the mechanics of distribution isn't just an academic exercise. It’s a survival strategy. If you feel stuck, you're likely misaligned with the market you're playing in.
- Audit your signals. If you're struggling to get hired or promoted, stop looking at your skills and start looking at your signals. Are you "coded" as a high-value asset? Sometimes a certification or a specific project is worth more than five years of quiet hard work because it's easier for the market to "read."
- Pick smaller ponds. In a winner-take-all world, don't compete on a global scale if you don't have to. Being the best plumber in a growing town is a more reliable path to wealth than trying to be the next big tech influencer.
- Recognize matching vs. commodity. If you're in a matching market (like dating or high-level sales), your personality and "fit" are your currency. If you're in a commodity market, efficiency and price are your only levers. Don't get them confused.
- Stop obsessing over "deserve." It leads to bitterness. Focus instead on "positioning." Position yourself where the "why" of a market is currently shifting. Right now, that's in specialized AI implementation, trades, and localized services.
The world doesn't hand out rewards based on a scorecard of your soul. It hands them out based on the rules of the specific market you inhabit. Once you see the algorithm, you can start to tilt it in your favor.
The sorting process is constant. You are being evaluated right now by your boss, your peers, and the apps in your pocket. Knowing the "why" won't make the world perfectly fair, but it will keep you from wondering why you're still standing on the sidelines while the game moves on without you.
Everything is a trade. Everything is a match. Figure out what you're actually trading, and you'll finally understand why you're getting what you're getting.
Next Steps for Implementation
- Identify the specific "market" you are currently struggling in (is it the labor market, the social market, or the attention market?).
- Determine if that market is a "commodity" market (based on price/speed) or a "matching" market (based on mutual fit).
- Shift your focus from increasing "output" to improving your "signal" for the next 30 days to see how the distribution of rewards changes in your direction.