natural selection on male wealth in humans is a X-post from /r/hbd. Some highlights:

both education and income increase reproductive success for men but that increasing income is associated with fewer children for women. significant positive associations between income and reproductive success appear for men but not for women

the best studies suggest that selection on male income is still occurring in contemporary industrial societies and that women display an opposite pattern.

the association between male income and reproductive success is accounted for entirely by the second mechanism, disproportionate childlessness in lowincome men.

There is a strong negative relationship between education and reproductive success and also a negative relationship between income and reproductive success

They (women) may compensate for (lower personal income) by seeking mates with relatively high incomes; thus, the relationship between a woman’s reproductive success and her household’s income could be positive

However, we note that there is still scope for additional male reproduction in this cohort, given that men generally have wives who are younger than they are. Indeed, the fact that the women in the cohort currently have more children than the men do suggests that this will occur. Thus, the data do not preclude the emergence of income-related multiple marriages in the next few years, which will strengthen the selection on male wealth.

The intraspecific comparative analysis found that the strength of selection on male wealth for contemporary Britain is comparable to that of Sweden and the United States, but selection in all three industrial societies appears to be weaker than for preindustrial European populations and for two African societies.

Men pursue status and resources in order to convert these into reproductive success, just as is the case in preindustrial contexts, and positive phenotypic selection on male wealth is still operative.

phenotypic selection produces evolutionary change only if the trait has some heritable basis. Information is lacking about whether genetic variation affects income-generating propensities across cultures, but estimates using twin and adoption studies suggest a moderate genetic heritability within industrial populations (Bowles and Gintis 2002; Bjorklund et al. 2006). This raises the interesting possibility that ongoing genetic evolution, as well as phenotypic selection, is related to male wealth in humans.

Childlessness vs. income in men and women

Parental age difference, educationally assortative mating and offspring count: evidence from a contemporary population in Taiwan

On Cultural and Reproductive Success: Kipsigis Evidence

Also, this guy has published a wealth of studies on evolution and social behavior.

https://sites.google.com/site/thomasvpollet/papers

In short, hypergamy has been confirmed across every known human population and culture studied. Higher income (not education, it was found to be negatively correlated for both men and women, though income can offset that in men) confer reproductive advantages to men and reproductive disadvantages to women. This selection favors sexual dimorphism in that high earning men and low earning women are favored. Since IQ more or less correlates with higher income (IQ being responsible for higher income), it is likely that this selection difference between men and women is what facilitates the sexual dimorphism in intelligence, and especially in technical aptitudes (technical aptitudes being the most lucrative and thus selected for in men and selected against in women). The most interesting part about this, is that higher male iq and technical ability is actually being driven through a sexual selection process and is the result of female mate preference.

On another note, this is all you really need to know in order to know the ultimate result of the feminist experiment and the ultimate end of feminism. More traditional cultures with traditional family values would have offered at least some protection to the fertility (and thus evolutionary fitness) of high IQ women by preventing them for wasting time on pursuing careers. Feminism has stripped this protection away from the most capable women, the result is that those traits in women will die out. Sexual dimorphism will be advanced even farther than it already exists and the population of high IQ and capable women will decrease as a proportion of the population. It is unlikely that any social force will be able to reverse this damage that feminism (as part of the greater egalitarianism movement) has inflicted on western culture. However, natural selection is much more powerful than social forces and any movement or culture that works at odds to natural selection will be crushed given enough time. It is unfortunate that western culture will likely be a casualty of current popular social forces as I feel that in many ways it is superior to other cultures. Alas, evolution cares not about our material success, or happiness, or comfort. It cares about survival fitness and reproductive fitness.