Men 45+ on OLD: are they all broke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The best men are the ones who cheat. There's a reason they're able to cheat. They're successful and magnetic. People who don't cheat don't have good enough opportunities to do so.

Remember that when you're OLD and you see all these losers on there. The successful men aren't doing OLD. As a PP said, they're at the private athletic club and the private school fundraisers and preschool dropoff. So open your eyes and stop getting on a high horse about "cheating".

The best men are married to their first spouses, are raising their children, and (together as a team with their spouse) earning enough to support their households, educate their children and save for retirement. I know many of them. They usually get married in their 20s and 30s to people they meet in college, grad/professional school and through their work or network of friends.

I would not call them “the best men”. It does not matter if they are good providers. After 45, they turn gray, lose their looks and get fat. It’s a good thing that they are married. Heh, nobody wants to be the care-takers for old geezers. You see plenty on weekends at McLean Giant.

You wouldn't but clearly your priorities are wrong.

Oh and you won’t be old one day?

You are a pathetic POS and deserve to die alone.

Nice personality you got there. Talk about people not to grow old with!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If there isn’t a huge income disparity and you have 50/50 custody then you shouldn’t be broke.

Instead of having shared expenses, now there are two households with the same HHI. 2 mortgages instead of one combined. Two cable bills. Two electric bills. If both parties earned 250k, 500k can afford a very nice lifestyle. 250 for similar home in a good school district as a single parent not so easy.

Also think most people are not all earning 250k each evidenced by this thread.

I was already paying the mortgage and the utilities (plus paying for all the kid stuff) before I got divorced, and therefore divorce didn't increase my expenses at all. I wasn't broke then and I'm not broke now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If there isn’t a huge income disparity and you have 50/50 custody then you shouldn’t be broke.

Instead of having shared expenses, now there are two households with the same HHI. 2 mortgages instead of one combined. Two cable bills. Two electric bills. If both parties earned 250k, 500k can afford a very nice lifestyle. 250 for similar home in a good school district as a single parent not so easy.

Also think most people are not all earning 250k each evidenced by this thread.

I was already paying the mortgage and the utilities (plus paying for all the kid stuff) before I got divorced, and therefore divorce didn't increase my expenses at all. I wasn't broke then and I'm not broke now.

All these people chiming in how they are not broke. Then why is OP meeting all these broke guys????

I also would not be broke if I were to divorce and dh certainly wouldn’t be broke either.

There are people who divorce and are much worse off divorced. Maybe they weren’t making 200k each. Maybe they were making 75k and 150k or actually truly middle class both earning 50k and only able to afford the mortgage with both incomes.

[Anonymous]

What's a reasonable income to expect from a 45+ man in this area if I'm not obsessed with wealth and prestige?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's a reasonable income to expect from a 45+ man in this area if I'm not obsessed with wealth and prestige?

What do you make? It is reasonable to expect that someone with a similar income will have similar tastes and expectations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that these successful single women are spending too much on themselves. They make salaries high enough to be the sole provider for a family of five but instead of paying the huge expenses required to get children well educated from 0-21 they are living the high life. Then they don’t want to put up with a partner who isn’t comfortable spending like that.

So you are basically talking about women of a certain age who make top-1% salaries restricting their dating pool to men with top-1% salaries (who for some reason aren’t interested in younger women). No wonder they are experiencing tough sledding. Meanwhile, very few top-1%-earning single men are limiting their dating pool to top-1%-earning women.

You are right. The top 1% earners who are the same age as OP is not looking for a high earner. He is not looking to split a vacation with OP and her kids. He is going on vacation with a hot younger woman or not going on vacation at all. The more likely scenario is that he is going on vacation with his wife and kids.

Men have so many more options than women unfortunately.

Not true. I have a couple acquaintances who paired up with men their age who, like them, are high earners but not super wealthy. They met through friends rather than online, and they split costs when they vacation together, but in each case, they've avoided actually moving in together or merging finances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that these successful single women are spending too much on themselves. They make salaries high enough to be the sole provider for a family of five but instead of paying the huge expenses required to get children well educated from 0-21 they are living the high life. Then they don’t want to put up with a partner who isn’t comfortable spending like that.

So you are basically talking about women of a certain age who make top-1% salaries restricting their dating pool to men with top-1% salaries (who for some reason aren’t interested in younger women). No wonder they are experiencing tough sledding. Meanwhile, very few top-1%-earning single men are limiting their dating pool to top-1%-earning women.

You are right. The top 1% earners who are the same age as OP is not looking for a high earner. He is not looking to split a vacation with OP and her kids. He is going on vacation with a hot younger woman or not going on vacation at all. The more likely scenario is that he is going on vacation with his wife and kids.

Men have so many more options than women unfortunately.

Not true. I have a couple acquaintances who paired up with men their age who, like them, are high earners but not super wealthy. They met through friends rather than online, and they split costs when they vacation together, but in each case, they've avoided actually moving in together or merging finances.

I cannot imagine paying my share on a date or vacation. I didn’t do this in my twenties and not in my forties. Where has chivalry gone? Are guys just cheap now?

A man earning 500k+ is not treating a woman on a trip??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that these successful single women are spending too much on themselves. They make salaries high enough to be the sole provider for a family of five but instead of paying the huge expenses required to get children well educated from 0-21 they are living the high life. Then they don’t want to put up with a partner who isn’t comfortable spending like that.

So you are basically talking about women of a certain age who make top-1% salaries restricting their dating pool to men with top-1% salaries (who for some reason aren’t interested in younger women). No wonder they are experiencing tough sledding. Meanwhile, very few top-1%-earning single men are limiting their dating pool to top-1%-earning women.

You are right. The top 1% earners who are the same age as OP is not looking for a high earner. He is not looking to split a vacation with OP and her kids. He is going on vacation with a hot younger woman or not going on vacation at all. The more likely scenario is that he is going on vacation with his wife and kids.

Men have so many more options than women unfortunately.

Not true. I have a couple acquaintances who paired up with men their age who, like them, are high earners but not super wealthy. They met through friends rather than online, and they split costs when they vacation together, but in each case, they've avoided actually moving in together or merging finances.

I cannot imagine paying my share on a date or vacation. I didn’t do this in my twenties and not in my forties. Where has chivalry gone? Are guys just cheap now?

A man earning 500k+ is not treating a woman on a trip??

Yea, for sure they don’t want to treat women (of any ages). A date who is a law partner (probably makes couple million/year) was telling me how his younger exGF (associate making good money but times less), didn’t pay her way for a trip to Paris. He also was cheap never giving her flowers. They broke up when she noted he didn’t bring a bottle of wine to dinner she cooked for him at her home . I didn’t see that man again, even though I do split vacations. Just hate cheap guys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that these successful single women are spending too much on themselves. They make salaries high enough to be the sole provider for a family of five but instead of paying the huge expenses required to get children well educated from 0-21 they are living the high life. Then they don’t want to put up with a partner who isn’t comfortable spending like that.

So you are basically talking about women of a certain age who make top-1% salaries restricting their dating pool to men with top-1% salaries (who for some reason aren’t interested in younger women). No wonder they are experiencing tough sledding. Meanwhile, very few top-1%-earning single men are limiting their dating pool to top-1%-earning women.

You are right. The top 1% earners who are the same age as OP is not looking for a high earner. He is not looking to split a vacation with OP and her kids. He is going on vacation with a hot younger woman or not going on vacation at all. The more likely scenario is that he is going on vacation with his wife and kids.

Men have so many more options than women unfortunately.

Not true. I have a couple acquaintances who paired up with men their age who, like them, are high earners but not super wealthy. They met through friends rather than online, and they split costs when they vacation together, but in each case, they've avoided actually moving in together or merging finances.

I cannot imagine paying my share on a date or vacation. I didn’t do this in my twenties and not in my forties. Where has chivalry gone? Are guys just cheap now?

A man earning 500k+ is not treating a woman on a trip??

Yea, for sure they don’t want to treat women (of any ages). A date who is a law partner (probably makes couple million/year) was telling me how his younger exGF (associate making good money but times less), didn’t pay her way for a trip to Paris. He also was cheap never giving her flowers. They broke up when she noted he didn’t bring a bottle of wine to dinner she cooked for him at her home . I didn’t see that man again, even though I do split vacations. Just hate cheap guys.

This thread isn’t about rich tightwad guys. It’s about middle-aged rich dames who are frustrated that there are so few guys in their dating pool that are rich to a matching degree. But so many of those guys are married, seeing younger women, or have no need for OLD it’s not really surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that these successful single women are spending too much on themselves. They make salaries high enough to be the sole provider for a family of five but instead of paying the huge expenses required to get children well educated from 0-21 they are living the high life. Then they don’t want to put up with a partner who isn’t comfortable spending like that.

So you are basically talking about women of a certain age who make top-1% salaries restricting their dating pool to men with top-1% salaries (who for some reason aren’t interested in younger women). No wonder they are experiencing tough sledding. Meanwhile, very few top-1%-earning single men are limiting their dating pool to top-1%-earning women.

You are right. The top 1% earners who are the same age as OP is not looking for a high earner. He is not looking to split a vacation with OP and her kids. He is going on vacation with a hot younger woman or not going on vacation at all. The more likely scenario is that he is going on vacation with his wife and kids.

Men have so many more options than women unfortunately.

Not true. I have a couple acquaintances who paired up with men their age who, like them, are high earners but not super wealthy. They met through friends rather than online, and they split costs when they vacation together, but in each case, they've avoided actually moving in together or merging finances.

I cannot imagine paying my share on a date or vacation. I didn’t do this in my twenties and not in my forties. Where has chivalry gone? Are guys just cheap now?

A man earning 500k+ is not treating a woman on a trip??

Chivalry is gone because feminism killed it. You are a Strong Independent Woman Who Don’t Need No Man, remember? You have a job and a house, right?

Don’t tell me you want all the benefits of both chivalry and independence but none of the drawbacks or obligations of either? That would be… (cough typical woman cough) a touch hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that these successful single women are spending too much on themselves. They make salaries high enough to be the sole provider for a family of five but instead of paying the huge expenses required to get children well educated from 0-21 they are living the high life. Then they don’t want to put up with a partner who isn’t comfortable spending like that.

So you are basically talking about women of a certain age who make top-1% salaries restricting their dating pool to men with top-1% salaries (who for some reason aren’t interested in younger women). No wonder they are experiencing tough sledding. Meanwhile, very few top-1%-earning single men are limiting their dating pool to top-1%-earning women.

You are right. The top 1% earners who are the same age as OP is not looking for a high earner. He is not looking to split a vacation with OP and her kids. He is going on vacation with a hot younger woman or not going on vacation at all. The more likely scenario is that he is going on vacation with his wife and kids.

Men have so many more options than women unfortunately.

Not true. I have a couple acquaintances who paired up with men their age who, like them, are high earners but not super wealthy. They met through friends rather than online, and they split costs when they vacation together, but in each case, they've avoided actually moving in together or merging finances.

I cannot imagine paying my share on a date or vacation. I didn’t do this in my twenties and not in my forties. Where has chivalry gone? Are guys just cheap now?

A man earning 500k+ is not treating a woman on a trip??

Yea, for sure they don’t want to treat women (of any ages). A date who is a law partner (probably makes couple million/year) was telling me how his younger exGF (associate making good money but times less), didn’t pay her way for a trip to Paris. He also was cheap never giving her flowers. They broke up when she noted he didn’t bring a bottle of wine to dinner she cooked for him at her home . I didn’t see that man again, even though I do split vacations. Just hate cheap guys.

This thread isn’t about rich tightwad guys. It’s about middle-aged rich dames who are frustrated that there are so few guys in their dating pool that are rich to a matching degree. But so many of those guys are married, seeing younger women, or have no need for OLD it’s not really surprising.

It’s inconclusive whether there would be fewer rich men or rich women in each age group on OLD. As a rich woman I also date extensively outside OLD and decline many unattractive but wealthy men.
Women in their 40-50s have less incentives in looking for a partner than men. Orgasms are not the same anymore, burdened by kids. So on OLD the net worth could be still in favor of men and I never felt a deficit that OP is describing. LOTS of wealthy unattractive guys!
Once you factor in attraction, the level of compensation usually goes down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Asking bc that has been my experience. Met multiple nice good looking men who all have enormous financial liabilities. Either they earn very little or are broke after divorce and are too old to fully recover, or earn well but have huge obligations and/or are cheap AF. It’s a pity bc I’ve really liked several of them, but need someone similarly secure and am not getting into a financial quagmire.

You only think they are broke. Men can smell a gold digger miles away. They go out of their way to make you think they are poor, have some fun, and then move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking bc that has been my experience. Met multiple nice good looking men who all have enormous financial liabilities. Either they earn very little or are broke after divorce and are too old to fully recover, or earn well but have huge obligations and/or are cheap AF. It’s a pity bc I’ve really liked several of them, but need someone similarly secure and am not getting into a financial quagmire.

You only think they are broke. Men can smell a gold digger miles away. They go out of their way to make you think they are poor, have some fun, and then move on.

Haha that happened to me: matched with a good looking teacher. He was extensively describing his academic experience on the video call and they suggested a date. In RL turned out he was an executive who gives lectures at a university as side hobby. Second date was at Del Mar.

[Anonymous]

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.

You have no wealth to dissipate.

I nearly spat out (dissipated!) my coffee. Spot on.

What kind of gold digging losers are you guys dating when all you can think about is how much the women want you for your money?

It’s not the flex you think it is.

Right!?

This is DCUM. Everyone has 3M in liquid and 10M in the market.

Actually I have $4M in liquid and about $18M in the market and properties but I didn’t want to brag. And the women I date have no idea of my wealth. I don’t pay their way and they don’t pay mine though we do pay for each other’s dinners and other things from time to time. When we traveled to places like Mallorca, Corfu, Palawan, St Kitts, Antarctica, etc we each pay our way and split costs for any shared expenses (rooms, etc). Works well that way.

[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 Agree