Men 45+ on OLD: are they all broke?

[Anonymous]

I’m a 45 YO male and divorced. I’m on Raya which tends to have upper class people and sometimes celebrities. I like it because there is no broke single mothers. I’d they’re divorced they’re doing well otherwise they wouldn’t be there. If you’re not on already there’s a good chance you won’t get in. I used to be on Hinge and while it’s ok Raya filters out the single mother “business owners” (I.e they work at a salon or they’re a hairdresser) and other crazies.

Or I do what I have had the most success with and that’s meeting someone in areas I hang out like Middleburg.

[Anonymous]

DP. Hoping “there is no broke single mothers” was a typo, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a 45 YO male and divorced. I’m on Raya which tends to have upper class people and sometimes celebrities. I like it because there is no broke single mothers. I’d they’re divorced they’re doing well otherwise they wouldn’t be there. If you’re not on already there’s a good chance you won’t get in. I used to be on Hinge and while it’s ok Raya filters out the single mother “business owners” (I.e they work at a salon or they’re a hairdresser) and other crazies.

Or I do what I have had the most success with and that’s meeting someone in areas I hang out like Middleburg.

Assortative mating is strong in DC and on these websites as well. League and Raya are ok but it’s a very limited number of matches as the circle is narrow. People with really high NW often have their profiles set to invisible on mainstream sites selecting others that they want communicate with based on education, intelligence, looks and hobbies. It would be a really high standard for dates to match, if I expected then to earn more than myself. But I do select based on looks, hobbies, somewhat similar lifestyle, smartness and integrity. As long as he’s financially stable, is able to alternate paying for dates at non-trashy places, him having lower income is fine. We are both from same social class, and that’s what matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I finally met a lovely man. I think he runs deficit of about $700 every month. He works his tail off and didn't buy anything outrages. It's temporary and I will gladly help him fix it. I would even help him if we weren't together.

Really? You would financially help a single adult man? Mega turn off.

Yeah, nope. I’ve established my life independently and am not tying myself to just another dead weight.

So what kind of income/wealth do you expect a man to have?

Enough disposable income to match mine. Enough free time to match mine.

Sure, but what constitutes matching yours?

I'm a woman make about 300K a year. My average weekend outing is about $150; I take one large vacation a year at about $20K, couple small trips in the range of $5k. So it's about $15,000 on travel and $3600 on dates that a BF would need to match my expenses on entertainment and travel only. If we move in together, we would be saving on mortgage/rent so not a bad deal for him overall

I’m similar to you financially as are most of my friends. We’ve all come to realize that we are the ones that can afford our lifestyle. It means we don’t date and while we miss it, we don’t miss the drama that goes along with being in a relationship. We go out together on the weekends and always have a good time. And we travel together. I haven’t met a man in a similar financial situation yet.

Yea, because if he makes less he will resent the woman for making more, will be emasculated causing all the relationship drama. I tried to subsidize men financially, it didn't work out well either (these were professional men making about 200K but with CS obligtions which I don't have). So I guess single wealthy women should prepare for solitude entering elderly years

You want the older widowers. The ones I know were happily married, have adult children, and now have substantial assets but no one to share their lives with. We’re talking 60s and 70s.

I’ll focus on them in my 50s and 60s if I still feel like dating at that point. For now I have a younger FWB as I’m mid 40s.

No way am I spending my 50s and 60s taking care of an old man who won’t be there to take care of me and leaves his property to kids from his marriage.

Why should he take care of you or leave you anything if you’ve got your own money?

If I devote my one and only life to someone long term until death, I expect to be treated like a partner and would do the same for a partner / husband.

You expect your wealth to pass to your kids.

You also expect his wealth to pass to you, and not to his kids.

You're just another gold-digger.

Can you read at all? That is not what this reply says. But just keep seeing what you want to see.

It’s exactly what she means. In fact she’s counting on milking him because she thinks he will die first.

If men don’t want to be the one who dies first leaving life insurance to a spouse, they should date older women

Or they could just not get married because there’s no point and it’s all downside especially financially.

Older guy won’t have life insurance anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM women: “Women don’t benefit financially from divorce.”

Also DCUM women: “How come all the older single men are broke AF?”

🙄

In many cases, divorce screws up both, so no contradiction here.

Well yeah, if you are involved with someone who is divorced, their spouse gets at least half of everything - even more if they have a better attorney. What is the point of getting involved with someone who is divorced? Especially if they have kids, who are inevitably going to hate your guts? Probably in addition to your own kids hating your guts. You think YOUR being with a divorcee is going to be different than everyone else's experience?? Grow up.

My ex isn’t going to get anything when I die. We split everything up during the divorce and there is no further claim on each other’s assets. I’ve never even heard of a spouse getting half of everything when their ex dies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t judge men by the size of their wallets either- but I’ve learned that I just require a partner to have similar available funds as me to date. In other words- I’m going on the trip and I want them to come- but I’m not paying their way. I don’t need them to pay my way- but I do want a partner with similar financial opportunities as me.

+1. I think this is fair and what a lot of women want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I finally met a lovely man. I think he runs deficit of about $700 every month. He works his tail off and didn't buy anything outrages. It's temporary and I will gladly help him fix it. I would even help him if we weren't together.

Really? You would financially help a single adult man? Mega turn off.

Yeah, nope. I’ve established my life independently and am not tying myself to just another dead weight.

So what kind of income/wealth do you expect a man to have?

Enough disposable income to match mine. Enough free time to match mine.

Sure, but what constitutes matching yours?

I'm a woman make about 300K a year. My average weekend outing is about $150; I take one large vacation a year at about $20K, couple small trips in the range of $5k. So it's about $15,000 on travel and $3600 on dates that a BF would need to match my expenses on entertainment and travel only. If we move in together, we would be saving on mortgage/rent so not a bad deal for him overall

I’m similar to you financially as are most of my friends. We’ve all come to realize that we are the ones that can afford our lifestyle. It means we don’t date and while we miss it, we don’t miss the drama that goes along with being in a relationship. We go out together on the weekends and always have a good time. And we travel together. I haven’t met a man in a similar financial situation yet.

Yea, because if he makes less he will resent the woman for making more, will be emasculated causing all the relationship drama. I tried to subsidize men financially, it didn't work out well either (these were professional men making about 200K but with CS obligtions which I don't have). So I guess single wealthy women should prepare for solitude entering elderly years

You want the older widowers. The ones I know were happily married, have adult children, and now have substantial assets but no one to share their lives with. We’re talking 60s and 70s.

I’ll focus on them in my 50s and 60s if I still feel like dating at that point. For now I have a younger FWB as I’m mid 40s.

No way am I spending my 50s and 60s taking care of an old man who won’t be there to take care of me and leaves his property to kids from his marriage.

Why should he take care of you or leave you anything if you’ve got your own money?

If I devote my one and only life to someone long term until death, I expect to be treated like a partner and would do the same for a partner / husband.

You expect your wealth to pass to your kids.

You also expect his wealth to pass to you, and not to his kids.

You're just another gold-digger.

Not the PP, but in middle age marriages there could be a mix of individual and joint assets and income streams. If both are earning equally and bought a house, for example, making a downpayment during their marriage, I don’t see why this house should go to kids. A spouse on the title inherits it by law. Same with life insurance or pensions: these assets are typically split between spouse and kids as inheritance, pro-rata the share accumulated during marriage or something like that.

A house would be bought mostly with premarital money which is exactly what you want to leave to your kids. I also want life insurance and pension to go to the kids. A second spouse shouldn’t even need the life insurance or pension, they will have their own money.

Easier to not get married than to try and disentangle what the kids should get vs what the new spouse should get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I finally met a lovely man. I think he runs deficit of about $700 every month. He works his tail off and didn't buy anything outrages. It's temporary and I will gladly help him fix it. I would even help him if we weren't together.

Really? You would financially help a single adult man? Mega turn off.

Yeah, nope. I’ve established my life independently and am not tying myself to just another dead weight.

So what kind of income/wealth do you expect a man to have?

Enough disposable income to match mine. Enough free time to match mine.

Sure, but what constitutes matching yours?

I'm a woman make about 300K a year. My average weekend outing is about $150; I take one large vacation a year at about $20K, couple small trips in the range of $5k. So it's about $15,000 on travel and $3600 on dates that a BF would need to match my expenses on entertainment and travel only. If we move in together, we would be saving on mortgage/rent so not a bad deal for him overall

I’m similar to you financially as are most of my friends. We’ve all come to realize that we are the ones that can afford our lifestyle. It means we don’t date and while we miss it, we don’t miss the drama that goes along with being in a relationship. We go out together on the weekends and always have a good time. And we travel together. I haven’t met a man in a similar financial situation yet.

Yea, because if he makes less he will resent the woman for making more, will be emasculated causing all the relationship drama. I tried to subsidize men financially, it didn't work out well either (these were professional men making about 200K but with CS obligtions which I don't have). So I guess single wealthy women should prepare for solitude entering elderly years

You want the older widowers. The ones I know were happily married, have adult children, and now have substantial assets but no one to share their lives with. We’re talking 60s and 70s.

I’ll focus on them in my 50s and 60s if I still feel like dating at that point. For now I have a younger FWB as I’m mid 40s.

No way am I spending my 50s and 60s taking care of an old man who won’t be there to take care of me and leaves his property to kids from his marriage.

Why should he take care of you or leave you anything if you’ve got your own money?

If I devote my one and only life to someone long term until death, I expect to be treated like a partner and would do the same for a partner / husband.

You expect your wealth to pass to your kids.

You also expect his wealth to pass to you, and not to his kids.

You're just another gold-digger.

Not the PP, but in middle age marriages there could be a mix of individual and joint assets and income streams. If both are earning equally and bought a house, for example, making a downpayment during their marriage, I don’t see why this house should go to kids. A spouse on the title inherits it by law. Same with life insurance or pensions: these assets are typically split between spouse and kids as inheritance, pro-rata the share accumulated during marriage or something like that.

A house would be bought mostly with premarital money which is exactly what you want to leave to your kids. I also want life insurance and pension to go to the kids. A second spouse shouldn’t even need the life insurance or pension, they will have their own money.

Easier to not get married than to try and disentangle what the kids should get vs what the new spouse should get.

A 25% downpayment for the house would be from pre-martial founds (and can be 50:50) but it’s jointly owned in entirety by spouses, mortgage is paid from marital funds, all maintenance and renovations. Thus both spouses are equity owners benefiting from its growth. Only a stupid person would agree to give downpayment money or be on a mortgage note but not on a deed. I personally would never move into a house that’s not joint or which I would have to vacate if my partner dies. It’s such a stress in older age!
Men usually marry younger and there is a high component of caregiving for their spouses in older age. I’ve seen couples with 15-30 years difference where the wife had to completely forgo her lifestyle, travel in her 60s etc, to make sure the husband survives. If he lacks integrity and appreciation of her sacrifices and doesn’t feel like giving back some of it in the form of life insurance, that is unfit partner. He should live alone in seniors community, and pay for his care (which is not cheap btw!)
Adult children are not the ones holding your hand in old age, in some cases they fail even to call parents. And they should be getting enough already from both mom and dad’s premarital funds. There is usually a pre-martial component in all pensions etc which can be easily appraised by actuary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm cheap af, and also poor by DC standards (only $1 million in the bank and $200k income).

But the bigger problem is that I have no intention of dissipating my wealth on an over-the-hill woman.

What wealth?

At age 55 only one or two percent of the population have $1 million or more in retirement savings. Of that one or two percent, 95 percent are married.

For my $1 million, that's just what I've been able to create since a divorce 9 years ago. By the time I retire I hope it's 2-3 times larger.

90%ile of every age bracket above 45 has NW over $1M.

I don't think so. The median household net worth (and we were discussing retirement funds not net worth) at age 55 is around $110,000, no where close to $1 million. And much of that net worth is in the form of housing, which is not liquid and which can crash in value.

If you think people in this area or on this board represent the mean I don’t know what to tell you. Op is clearly not the mean and would match well with someone who is. The mean in this country is a pathetic standard.

This board is chock full of lies and delusions. If everyone here was $5 million in net worth, the owner of the site would be an idiot to not have a huge membership fee. Also, the targeted ads are pretty middle-class.

You are delusional. A pretty average home in NW DC or Bethesda is worth $1.5mm now. How much in NW do you think the women living there have ? Of course it’s well over $1mm. Read finance forum. People who started at WB/IMF/IFC before 1998 have 300k/year pensions. Feds have military pensions, current salaries and rentals. 300k combined income from all sources is pretty common for the area and nothing to brag about.
Signed $4.5mm NW mid 40s female. In addition to this current NW, I’m very frugal and save around $170k/year in my brokerage and pension combined.

So only people in Bethesda and NW DC are on this board?

The population of the metro DC area is 6.5 million and there are around 5,000 World Bank staff in DC so you're talking about .0007 percent of the population.

I've dated women from Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and NW DC. Rather than present several case studies, I'd say nearly all were poor despite where they lived. They leased their fancy cars, and they had no idea how they would pay for their kid's college. Some were in the process of losing their 6-bedroom homes and facing downsizing to a Rockville townhouse.

Rich, divorced World Bank guys all seem to have a second wife or girlfriend in another country. One of the guys I once knew had two girlfriends in the field, both had children with him (his wife back in DC eventually got a divorce).

I know people with $2 million homes and they have $1.5 million mortgages. That's not being rich.

Your post is part of the reason the rest of the nation hates Washington DC (and the World Bank).

My targeted ads today are for Adobe and Grainger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DCUM women: “Women don’t benefit financially from divorce.”

Also DCUM women: “How come all the older single men are broke AF?”

🙄

In many cases, divorce screws up both, so no contradiction here.

Well yeah, if you are involved with someone who is divorced, their spouse gets at least half of everything - even more if they have a better attorney. What is the point of getting involved with someone who is divorced? Especially if they have kids, who are inevitably going to hate your guts? Probably in addition to your own kids hating your guts. You think YOUR being with a divorcee is going to be different than everyone else's experience?? Grow up.

My ex isn’t going to get anything when I die. We split everything up during the divorce and there is no further claim on each other’s assets. I’ve never even heard of a spouse getting half of everything when their ex dies.

+1 ex spouse already had their bite at the Apple. Assets accumulated after that go to some mixture of kids and current spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I expect the man to be similarly situated.

Excellent credit
Retirement savings
Emergency fund
Car
Nice house or apartment
Entertainment funds to eat dinner, lunch, or brunch at least once a week
Funds for 3 to 4 short weekend trips annually
Funds for a longer week long vacation annually

I don't have high expectations.

Also non smoker who works out regularly

specifically how much for each? $100, $1k, $10k?

Good point. You should always nail down the floozy's price before the date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I finally met a lovely man. I think he runs deficit of about $700 every month. He works his tail off and didn't buy anything outrages. It's temporary and I will gladly help him fix it. I would even help him if we weren't together.

Really? You would financially help a single adult man? Mega turn off.

Yeah, nope. I’ve established my life independently and am not tying myself to just another dead weight.

So what kind of income/wealth do you expect a man to have?

Enough disposable income to match mine. Enough free time to match mine.

Sure, but what constitutes matching yours?

I'm a woman make about 300K a year. My average weekend outing is about $150; I take one large vacation a year at about $20K, couple small trips in the range of $5k. So it's about $15,000 on travel and $3600 on dates that a BF would need to match my expenses on entertainment and travel only. If we move in together, we would be saving on mortgage/rent so not a bad deal for him overall

I’m similar to you financially as are most of my friends. We’ve all come to realize that we are the ones that can afford our lifestyle. It means we don’t date and while we miss it, we don’t miss the drama that goes along with being in a relationship. We go out together on the weekends and always have a good time. And we travel together. I haven’t met a man in a similar financial situation yet.

Yea, because if he makes less he will resent the woman for making more, will be emasculated causing all the relationship drama. I tried to subsidize men financially, it didn't work out well either (these were professional men making about 200K but with CS obligtions which I don't have). So I guess single wealthy women should prepare for solitude entering elderly years

You want the older widowers. The ones I know were happily married, have adult children, and now have substantial assets but no one to share their lives with. We’re talking 60s and 70s.

I’ll focus on them in my 50s and 60s if I still feel like dating at that point. For now I have a younger FWB as I’m mid 40s.

No way am I spending my 50s and 60s taking care of an old man who won’t be there to take care of me and leaves his property to kids from his marriage.

Why should he take care of you or leave you anything if you’ve got your own money?

If I devote my one and only life to someone long term until death, I expect to be treated like a partner and would do the same for a partner / husband.

You expect your wealth to pass to your kids.

You also expect his wealth to pass to you, and not to his kids.

You're just another gold-digger.

Not the PP, but in middle age marriages there could be a mix of individual and joint assets and income streams. If both are earning equally and bought a house, for example, making a downpayment during their marriage, I don’t see why this house should go to kids. A spouse on the title inherits it by law. Same with life insurance or pensions: these assets are typically split between spouse and kids as inheritance, pro-rata the share accumulated during marriage or something like that.

A house would be bought mostly with premarital money which is exactly what you want to leave to your kids. I also want life insurance and pension to go to the kids. A second spouse shouldn’t even need the life insurance or pension, they will have their own money.

Easier to not get married than to try and disentangle what the kids should get vs what the new spouse should get.

A 25% downpayment for the house would be from pre-martial founds (and can be 50:50) but it’s jointly owned in entirety by spouses, mortgage is paid from marital funds, all maintenance and renovations. Thus both spouses are equity owners benefiting from its growth. Only a stupid person would agree to give downpayment money or be on a mortgage note but not on a deed. I personally would never move into a house that’s not joint or which I would have to vacate if my partner dies. It’s such a stress in older age!
Men usually marry younger and there is a high component of caregiving for their spouses in older age. I’ve seen couples with 15-30 years difference where the wife had to completely forgo her lifestyle, travel in her 60s etc, to make sure the husband survives. If he lacks integrity and appreciation of her sacrifices and doesn’t feel like giving back some of it in the form of life insurance, that is unfit partner. He should live alone in seniors community, and pay for his care (which is not cheap btw!)
Adult children are not the ones holding your hand in old age, in some cases they fail even to call parents. And they should be getting enough already from both mom and dad’s premarital funds. There is usually a pre-martial component in all pensions etc which can be easily appraised by actuary.

+1 precisely this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm cheap af, and also poor by DC standards (only $1 million in the bank and $200k income).

But the bigger problem is that I have no intention of dissipating my wealth on an over-the-hill woman.

What wealth?

At age 55 only one or two percent of the population have $1 million or more in retirement savings. Of that one or two percent, 95 percent are married.

For my $1 million, that's just what I've been able to create since a divorce 9 years ago. By the time I retire I hope it's 2-3 times larger.

90%ile of every age bracket above 45 has NW over $1M.

I don't think so. The median household net worth (and we were discussing retirement funds not net worth) at age 55 is around $110,000, no where close to $1 million. And much of that net worth is in the form of housing, which is not liquid and which can crash in value.

If you think people in this area or on this board represent the mean I don’t know what to tell you. Op is clearly not the mean and would match well with someone who is. The mean in this country is a pathetic standard.

This board is chock full of lies and delusions. If everyone here was $5 million in net worth, the owner of the site would be an idiot to not have a huge membership fee. Also, the targeted ads are pretty middle-class.

You are delusional. A pretty average home in NW DC or Bethesda is worth $1.5mm now. How much in NW do you think the women living there have ? Of course it’s well over $1mm. Read finance forum. People who started at WB/IMF/IFC before 1998 have 300k/year pensions. Feds have military pensions, current salaries and rentals. 300k combined income from all sources is pretty common for the area and nothing to brag about.
Signed $4.5mm NW mid 40s female. In addition to this current NW, I’m very frugal and save around $170k/year in my brokerage and pension combined.

So only people in Bethesda and NW DC are on this board?

The population of the metro DC area is 6.5 million and there are around 5,000 World Bank staff in DC so you're talking about .0007 percent of the population.

I've dated women from Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and NW DC. Rather than present several case studies, I'd say nearly all were poor despite where they lived. They leased their fancy cars, and they had no idea how they would pay for their kid's college. Some were in the process of losing their 6-bedroom homes and facing downsizing to a Rockville townhouse.

Rich, divorced World Bank guys all seem to have a second wife or girlfriend in another country. One of the guys I once knew had two girlfriends in the field, both had children with him (his wife back in DC eventually got a divorce).

I know people with $2 million homes and they have $1.5 million mortgages. That's not being rich.

Your post is part of the reason the rest of the nation hates Washington DC (and the World Bank).

My targeted ads today are for Adobe and Grainger.

The point is that dmv is the area where these 0.0007 percent folks are concentrated, just like Manhattan in NY. Your dating experience is very adverse selection of females. I'm not from the WB, but do you realize what 5,000 staff in DC means? All these people live in one small area, plus you add to that multiple gov contractors, consultants, real estate professionals, lawyers etc. And all these organizations hire just as many women as men, so why would divorced females from WB staff be so far behind their ex-husbands? Unless of course there is a major jobs/salaries discrimination, women should be doing just as well as men. And it looks from this board like they are in fact doing well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm cheap af, and also poor by DC standards (only $1 million in the bank and $200k income).

But the bigger problem is that I have no intention of dissipating my wealth on an over-the-hill woman.

What wealth?

At age 55 only one or two percent of the population have $1 million or more in retirement savings. Of that one or two percent, 95 percent are married.

For my $1 million, that's just what I've been able to create since a divorce 9 years ago. By the time I retire I hope it's 2-3 times larger.

90%ile of every age bracket above 45 has NW over $1M.

I don't think so. The median household net worth (and we were discussing retirement funds not net worth) at age 55 is around $110,000, no where close to $1 million. And much of that net worth is in the form of housing, which is not liquid and which can crash in value.

If you think people in this area or on this board represent the mean I don’t know what to tell you. Op is clearly not the mean and would match well with someone who is. The mean in this country is a pathetic standard.

This board is chock full of lies and delusions. If everyone here was $5 million in net worth, the owner of the site would be an idiot to not have a huge membership fee. Also, the targeted ads are pretty middle-class.

You are delusional. A pretty average home in NW DC or Bethesda is worth $1.5mm now. How much in NW do you think the women living there have ? Of course it’s well over $1mm. Read finance forum. People who started at WB/IMF/IFC before 1998 have 300k/year pensions. Feds have military pensions, current salaries and rentals. 300k combined income from all sources is pretty common for the area and nothing to brag about.
Signed $4.5mm NW mid 40s female. In addition to this current NW, I’m very frugal and save around $170k/year in my brokerage and pension combined.

So only people in Bethesda and NW DC are on this board?

The population of the metro DC area is 6.5 million and there are around 5,000 World Bank staff in DC so you're talking about .0007 percent of the population.

I've dated women from Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and NW DC. Rather than present several case studies, I'd say nearly all were poor despite where they lived. They leased their fancy cars, and they had no idea how they would pay for their kid's college. Some were in the process of losing their 6-bedroom homes and facing downsizing to a Rockville townhouse.

Rich, divorced World Bank guys all seem to have a second wife or girlfriend in another country. One of the guys I once knew had two girlfriends in the field, both had children with him (his wife back in DC eventually got a divorce).

I know people with $2 million homes and they have $1.5 million mortgages. That's not being rich.

Your post is part of the reason the rest of the nation hates Washington DC (and the World Bank).

My targeted ads today are for Adobe and Grainger.

WB/IMF/IFC pays for staff colleges if they go abroad (Canada, UK, Switzerland, Germajny). If women you dated were from these orgs, they wouldn't be worried about college tuition. You are full of BS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm cheap af, and also poor by DC standards (only $1 million in the bank and $200k income).

But the bigger problem is that I have no intention of dissipating my wealth on an over-the-hill woman.

What wealth?

At age 55 only one or two percent of the population have $1 million or more in retirement savings. Of that one or two percent, 95 percent are married.

For my $1 million, that's just what I've been able to create since a divorce 9 years ago. By the time I retire I hope it's 2-3 times larger.

90%ile of every age bracket above 45 has NW over $1M.

I don't think so. The median household net worth (and we were discussing retirement funds not net worth) at age 55 is around $110,000, no where close to $1 million. And much of that net worth is in the form of housing, which is not liquid and which can crash in value.

If you think people in this area or on this board represent the mean I don’t know what to tell you. Op is clearly not the mean and would match well with someone who is. The mean in this country is a pathetic standard.

This board is chock full of lies and delusions. If everyone here was $5 million in net worth, the owner of the site would be an idiot to not have a huge membership fee. Also, the targeted ads are pretty middle-class.

You are delusional. A pretty average home in NW DC or Bethesda is worth $1.5mm now. How much in NW do you think the women living there have ? Of course it’s well over $1mm. Read finance forum. People who started at WB/IMF/IFC before 1998 have 300k/year pensions. Feds have military pensions, current salaries and rentals. 300k combined income from all sources is pretty common for the area and nothing to brag about.
Signed $4.5mm NW mid 40s female. In addition to this current NW, I’m very frugal and save around $170k/year in my brokerage and pension combined.

BS. My dad was a well known bigwig at one of those (ie very googleable) and his pension isn't barely a fraction of that. And military pensions top out at about 90K.