Men 45+ on OLD: are they all broke?

[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: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.

People who are currently in their mid 40s did not start working at the WB/IMF/IFC before 1998. That's when we graduated high school or were in college.

We know some WB/IMF families who seem very well off. I just assume family money. I don’t doubt they have money. I just don’t think that wealth is all from their salaries.

No one is getting rich at WB. My post about my dad's WB pension being paltry got deleted. So that means I was right about the BS she is spouting.

She's just a poor schmuck wishing she had money.

Well, you are very wrong. Copying my older post about WB plans and salaries scale:

Your dad probably wasn't even a senior specialist at any of these, if his pension wasn't 2/3 of his salary. The WB Group pension plan was based on gross salary prior to April 15, 1998 and it was 2/3 of the highest annual compensation. They don't publish this information anymore in open access, and the present defined benefit net plan is a far cry from the old one. But those who joined prior to April 15, 1998 and retire now have insane pensions. You can look up the court case that references the old plans here: https://tribunal.worldbank.org/sites/default/...20IBRD%20-%20589.pdf
And the salaries scale is here: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/64378161...l/HQSALARYSCALES.pdf

Lady, what is your deal? This is about broke guys online dating. I’m sure your dad is financially well off. Is your dad the one dating here?

People in their forties would not qualify for your 1998 pension. We were just graduating from high school and still in college.

[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: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.

People who are currently in their mid 40s did not start working at the WB/IMF/IFC before 1998. That's when we graduated high school or were in college.

We know some WB/IMF families who seem very well off. I just assume family money. I don’t doubt they have money. I just don’t think that wealth is all from their salaries.

No one is getting rich at WB. My post about my dad's WB pension being paltry got deleted. So that means I was right about the BS she is spouting.

She's just a poor schmuck wishing she had money.

I think I was responding to the woman who said she had $4.5m net worth and saved 170k per year. I was just commenting that is very unlikely on WB type salaries.

We know many diplomat families and they all seem quite classy and from “money”. I have no idea what their financial situation is.

WB top salaries don't even touch 200k. Even if it were a two parent household, 400K really isn't piss in terms of actual wealth in DC. Yes, you can pay your kid's college, drive new cars and pay off the mortgage on a house in a nice area, but it isn't generational wealth. It's just upper upper middle class. Like what it used to be having a dad as a doctor. Money doesn't start snowballing until 4 or 5 million.

What you posted is simply untrue: most people who work there with solid degrees are making around 300K. Both spouses. Yes, these are not filthy rich people but pretty wealthy, particular if on old pension plan, and if both spouses work in the group.

[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: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.

People who are currently in their mid 40s did not start working at the WB/IMF/IFC before 1998. That's when we graduated high school or were in college.

We know some WB/IMF families who seem very well off. I just assume family money. I don’t doubt they have money. I just don’t think that wealth is all from their salaries.

No one is getting rich at WB. My post about my dad's WB pension being paltry got deleted. So that means I was right about the BS she is spouting.

She's just a poor schmuck wishing she had money.

Well, you are very wrong. Copying my older post about WB plans and salaries scale:

Your dad probably wasn't even a senior specialist at any of these, if his pension wasn't 2/3 of his salary. The WB Group pension plan was based on gross salary prior to April 15, 1998 and it was 2/3 of the highest annual compensation. They don't publish this information anymore in open access, and the present defined benefit net plan is a far cry from the old one. But those who joined prior to April 15, 1998 and retire now have insane pensions. You can look up the court case that references the old plans here: https://tribunal.worldbank.org/sites/default/...20IBRD%20-%20589.pdf
And the salaries scale is here: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/64378161...l/HQSALARYSCALES.pdf

You're moving the goalposts. Just like people do when they are wrong.

[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: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.

People who are currently in their mid 40s did not start working at the WB/IMF/IFC before 1998. That's when we graduated high school or were in college.

We know some WB/IMF families who seem very well off. I just assume family money. I don’t doubt they have money. I just don’t think that wealth is all from their salaries.

No one is getting rich at WB. My post about my dad's WB pension being paltry got deleted. So that means I was right about the BS she is spouting.

She's just a poor schmuck wishing she had money.

Well, you are very wrong. Copying my older post about WB plans and salaries scale:

Your dad probably wasn't even a senior specialist at any of these, if his pension wasn't 2/3 of his salary. The WB Group pension plan was based on gross salary prior to April 15, 1998 and it was 2/3 of the highest annual compensation. They don't publish this information anymore in open access, and the present defined benefit net plan is a far cry from the old one. But those who joined prior to April 15, 1998 and retire now have insane pensions. You can look up the court case that references the old plans here: https://tribunal.worldbank.org/sites/default/...20IBRD%20-%20589.pdf
And the salaries scale is here: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/64378161...l/HQSALARYSCALES.pdf

Lady, what is your deal? This is about broke guys online dating. I’m sure your dad is financially well off. Is your dad the one dating here?

People in their forties would not qualify for your 1998 pension. We were just graduating from high school and still in college.

IKR?

She's bonkers.

[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: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.

People who are currently in their mid 40s did not start working at the WB/IMF/IFC before 1998. That's when we graduated high school or were in college.

We know some WB/IMF families who seem very well off. I just assume family money. I don’t doubt they have money. I just don’t think that wealth is all from their salaries.

No one is getting rich at WB. My post about my dad's WB pension being paltry got deleted. So that means I was right about the BS she is spouting.

She's just a poor schmuck wishing she had money.

Well, you are very wrong. Copying my older post about WB plans and salaries scale:

Your dad probably wasn't even a senior specialist at any of these, if his pension wasn't 2/3 of his salary. The WB Group pension plan was based on gross salary prior to April 15, 1998 and it was 2/3 of the highest annual compensation. They don't publish this information anymore in open access, and the present defined benefit net plan is a far cry from the old one. But those who joined prior to April 15, 1998 and retire now have insane pensions. You can look up the court case that references the old plans here: https://tribunal.worldbank.org/sites/default/...20IBRD%20-%20589.pdf
And the salaries scale is here: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/64378161...l/HQSALARYSCALES.pdf

Lady, what is your deal? This is about broke guys online dating. I’m sure your dad is financially well off. Is your dad the one dating here?

People in their forties would not qualify for your 1998 pension. We were just graduating from high school and still in college.

That was just in response to PP saying that her dad from WB group was nowhere near that pension. Her dad must be in his 40s, then

[Anonymous]

If a 45+ man divorces, he's going to be broke unless he plans it out very carefully. He can't get caught with OW and tip off the wife on what's coming.

I know a surgeon who dumped his wife for a hot nurse a couple of years out of school. But he hasn't told DW and won't until the accountant gives the all-clear. Fortunately for the surgeon the nurse knows to be discreet so that she doesn't create fault for him (it's Virginia).

It's lousy for the wife, sure, but he has way more market value now and his wife hasn't kept up. For a guy who settled for 5's and 6's all along, he's thrilled he's gotten a 9.5. Whether it's for him or his bank account, he doesn't care and says it feels great regardless.

[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: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.

People who are currently in their mid 40s did not start working at the WB/IMF/IFC before 1998. That's when we graduated high school or were in college.

We know some WB/IMF families who seem very well off. I just assume family money. I don’t doubt they have money. I just don’t think that wealth is all from their salaries.

No one is getting rich at WB. My post about my dad's WB pension being paltry got deleted. So that means I was right about the BS she is spouting.

She's just a poor schmuck wishing she had money.

Well, you are very wrong. Copying my older post about WB plans and salaries scale:

Your dad probably wasn't even a senior specialist at any of these, if his pension wasn't 2/3 of his salary. The WB Group pension plan was based on gross salary prior to April 15, 1998 and it was 2/3 of the highest annual compensation. They don't publish this information anymore in open access, and the present defined benefit net plan is a far cry from the old one. But those who joined prior to April 15, 1998 and retire now have insane pensions. You can look up the court case that references the old plans here: https://tribunal.worldbank.org/sites/default/...20IBRD%20-%20589.pdf
And the salaries scale is here: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/64378161...l/HQSALARYSCALES.pdf

Lady, what is your deal? This is about broke guys online dating. I’m sure your dad is financially well off. Is your dad the one dating here?

People in their forties would not qualify for your 1998 pension. We were just graduating from high school and still in college.

That was just in response to PP saying that her dad from WB group was nowhere near that pension. Her dad must be in his 40s, then

You really are all over the place. Even if we took you at your word for the 2/3 salary calculation, one would need to be banking 900k at the WB to have a 300K pension. And would have had to have been there for either 26 years, or they would have to have been making the equivalent of 900K but back in .... 2012 or whatever.

It's bologna, and we all see it. Just give up already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Modern divorce bankrupts many men, no joke! It is why men are shying away from marriage. It is too much of a financial risk now. They could lose everything they've built.

I agree. The marriage rates have dropped and most men aren’t in relationships and haven’t had sex in a year. And they’re not looking. Most women have had munitions sexual partners in a year and it shows that they’re all hooking up with the same men. The men they want or that won’t cheat on them have just left the market and decided not to play. They’ve opted out of marriage has it’s a losing prospect for them and there is no benefits. They’ve also opted out of the dating market because there’s no point.

The men women want aren’t swiping all day, they’re out minding their business, at the gym, doing their hobbies and building wealth. Women have said time and time again “we don’t need no man”…yeah, we’ve heard. You’ve told us numerous times. Enjoy your winced wine and cats, the good quality men have loving wives already and some have gone overseas to find better quality women. American women have a bad wrap, even foreign guys don’t want them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 2cents advice for divorced moms is to not risk your sanity and children's lives yet again. Enjoy life, raise kids, succeed in career, have friends, have hobbies, build wealth, take care of physical and mental health. Perimenopause is right around the corner, don't add unnecessary stress in your lives.

Excellent advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a 45+ man divorces, he's going to be broke unless he plans it out very carefully. He can't get caught with OW and tip off the wife on what's coming.

I know a surgeon who dumped his wife for a hot nurse a couple of years out of school. But he hasn't told DW and won't until the accountant gives the all-clear. Fortunately for the surgeon the nurse knows to be discreet so that she doesn't create fault for him (it's Virginia).

It's lousy for the wife, sure, but he has way more market value now and his wife hasn't kept up. For a guy who settled for 5's and 6's all along, he's thrilled he's gotten a 9.5. Whether it's for him or his bank account, he doesn't care and says it feels great regardless.

I know a surgeon who had to pay his ex wife 26k per month in VA. Pretty sure it was a no fault divorce. The wife moved on faster so if anyone was cheating, it was the wife. I’m not sure what your surgeon friend plans to do to hide this money from his wife. Or if he is only a few years out, he probably doesn’t have much net worth built up yet.

Do they have kids?

I have heard of various scandals with surgeons cheating with nurses or reps. It doesn’t end with the surgeon marrying the affair partner. Divorce, yes. Surprised how many wives stick around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My point was that whether it is a friend or boyfriend, as long as that person is not trying to take advantage of you, covering the cost of a trip the other person can’t afford should not be offensive.

Wouldn’t you rather have that person’s company?

I don’t know. Having a hot lover on vacation sounds pretty good to me.

Yes, as long as the man is not sensitive about the disparity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See men would totally be willing and want to pay for a girlfriend to go on vacation together.

And they shouldn't be ok with that, TBH. When I was dating my now exH, I was younger and still contributed to our vacations pro-rata our incomes. And I do think he married me in part due to seeing me as partner, not a bimbo. A lot of men in their 50s become incredibly cheap, and even if they make serious money (200k+), they are just staying back home, not traveling etc. I think it's part of a mental decline for that age group, not necessarily a sign of financial instability. I've met men who were making $500k but incredibly cheap relative their income. Generosity is a character train, and it's always related to ability to give in a relationship in many other ways. That cheap guy was also pretty a bad lover, and a multi-dater.

I never expect a man to pay for me. I have plenty and I am not for sale.
A man paying for a woman is the gentlemanly thing to do. Why is the girl a bimbo? Isn’t this whole thread about men who can’t afford to pay for himself let alone the woman???

DH earns a high income now but he also paid for me when he was a poor grad student. He has always given me his all.

[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'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.

People who are currently in their mid 40s did not start working at the WB/IMF/IFC before 1998. That's when we graduated high school or were in college.

We know some WB/IMF families who seem very well off. I just assume family money. I don’t doubt they have money. I just don’t think that wealth is all from their salaries.

No one is getting rich at WB. My post about my dad's WB pension being paltry got deleted. So that means I was right about the BS she is spouting.

She's just a poor schmuck wishing she had money.

Well, you are very wrong. Copying my older post about WB plans and salaries scale:

Your dad probably wasn't even a senior specialist at any of these, if his pension wasn't 2/3 of his salary. The WB Group pension plan was based on gross salary prior to April 15, 1998 and it was 2/3 of the highest annual compensation. They don't publish this information anymore in open access, and the present defined benefit net plan is a far cry from the old one. But those who joined prior to April 15, 1998 and retire now have insane pensions. You can look up the court case that references the old plans here: https://tribunal.worldbank.org/sites/default/...20IBRD%20-%20589.pdf
And the salaries scale is here: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/64378161...l/HQSALARYSCALES.pdf

Lady, what is your deal? This is about broke guys online dating. I’m sure your dad is financially well off. Is your dad the one dating here?

People in their forties would not qualify for your 1998 pension. We were just graduating from high school and still in college.

That was just in response to PP saying that her dad from WB group was nowhere near that pension. Her dad must be in his 40s, then

You really are all over the place. Even if we took you at your word for the 2/3 salary calculation, one would need to be banking 900k at the WB to have a 300K pension. And would have had to have been there for either 26 years, or they would have to have been making the equivalent of 900K but back in .... 2012 or whatever.

It's bologna, and we all see it. Just give up already.

Your math is seriously math: in order to get 300k pension as 2/3rds of your former salary, the salary should be 400K. Which is what senior level staff makes there pre-retirement age. I didn't say 900K

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Modern divorce bankrupts many men, no joke! It is why men are shying away from marriage. It is too much of a financial risk now. They could lose everything they've built.

I agree. The marriage rates have dropped and most men aren’t in relationships and haven’t had sex in a year. And they’re not looking. Most women have had munitions sexual partners in a year and it shows that they’re all hooking up with the same men. The men they want or that won’t cheat on them have just left the market and decided not to play. They’ve opted out of marriage has it’s a losing prospect for them and there is no benefits. They’ve also opted out of the dating market because there’s no point.

The men women want aren’t swiping all day, they’re out minding their business, at the gym, doing their hobbies and building wealth. Women have said time and time again “we don’t need no man”…yeah, we’ve heard. You’ve told us numerous times. Enjoy your winced wine and cats, the good quality men have loving wives already and some have gone overseas to find better quality women. American women have a bad wrap, even foreign guys don’t want them.

By mid 50s your wealth should be already built, if you claim to be a man that all women want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My point was that whether it is a friend or boyfriend, as long as that person is not trying to take advantage of you, covering the cost of a trip the other person can’t afford should not be offensive.

Wouldn’t you rather have that person’s company?

I don’t know. Having a hot lover on vacation sounds pretty good to me.

Yes, as long as the man is not sensitive about the disparity.

Men are usually extremely sensitive about disparity, and grow resentful. I tried it many times, never worked for me as a woman and not because I was against banking them