Anonymous wrote:I was making $220k at 32 but would never share it with a greedy bitch like you. What are you bringing to the table besides a vagina?

I'm normally horrified by the misogyny on these boards, but this is the only answer OP deserves.

Enough to be financially independent and pay all his own bills.

I was making $220k at 32 but would never share it with a greedy bitch like you. What are you bringing to the table besides a vagina?

Anonymous wrote:What's the least amount a man must make around here to be considered a catch?

I say 150k by 32.

My DH was not making much when we met, but he was very determined to get ahead. I'm glad that I wasn't focused on his current income because he's done extremely well for himself (and our family) in our 25 years together. Focus on his good qualities instead of his earning potential. Look at all of the threads on DCUM about DHs who aren't engaged with their kids, checked out of their marriages, don't help around the house. If he's a good guy but not Daddy Warbucks, he can still be a catch.

More than his wife is able to spend :p

At 32, DH was making $60. At 35, he changed jobs and got a bump to $80. At 38, he broke $100. He'll be 50 next month, he's on track for $400 this year.

Anonymous wrote:What's the least amount a man must make around here to be considered a catch?

I say 150k by 32.

So top 95 percentile of income in the US? (and those incomes also include investment income such as from family trusts)

$38,000 is the average for a 32 year old male in the US.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the least amount a man must make around here to be considered a catch?

I say 150k by 32.

Ok. 99% of women are then lonely

Uh...not in D.C.?

Honestly it depends entirely what circles you run in. I work in finance in NYC as a woman in her late twenties, so $150k would be on the low end, though I wouldn't ever be dismissive over something as superficial as current salary.

At 32 in DC? Maybe big-law associates, 150K would be the 99% in DC for the age of 150. Actually 200K. the top 10% in income is 85K in the early 30%.

So, what that means is you limit your self to 1-2% of the population, with mans 98-99% of the women would be lonely. And the rest will be lonely because there SO's are off working 60-70 hours per week to make the $$$$.

--- someone would would be in the upper 1% if I was in my early 30%, but am in the upper 7% for my age (53).

More vs the woman

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the least amount a man must make around here to be considered a catch?

I say 150k by 32.

Ok. 99% of women are then lonely

Uh...not in D.C.?

Honestly it depends entirely what circles you run in. I work in finance in NYC as a woman in her late twenties, so $150k would be on the low end, though I wouldn't ever be dismissive over something as superficial as current salary.

Relatively few men make will ever make $150k in this area. Relatively. What is your plan for outcompeting all your peers for a few percent of the available men?

01:30 again. You're talking about men as if they're only valuable as a personal ATM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the least amount a man must make around here to be considered a catch?

I say 150k by 32.

Ok. 99% of women are then lonely

+1. OP sounds like she has a huge sense of entitlement, and that doesn't make her a good catch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's the least amount a man must make around here to be considered a catch?

I say 150k by 32.

Ok. 99% of women are then lonely

Uh...not in D.C.?

Honestly it depends entirely what circles you run in. I work in finance in NYC as a woman in her late twenties, so $150k would be on the low end, though I wouldn't ever be dismissive over something as superficial as current salary.

Anonymous wrote:What's the least amount a man must make around here to be considered a catch?

I say 150k by 32.

Ok. 99% of women are then lonely

What's the least amount a man must make around here to be considered a catch?

I say 150k by 32.