Anonymous wrote:I'm a millennial, my best friend is a single man in Chicago. Educated, earns around 220, 6'0, in shape. He has a problem dating because he wants a woman who earns "around" the same. Then he has looks requirements (must be thin, busty, and he likes light eyed brunettes, ideally tall). Then he wants her job to be flexible because he doesn't want a "code slave".

I thought about setting him up with my friend, she's pretty, works in fintech, makes around 180, but I know she's not "good enough". My DH was more realistic. He wanted most of the same things as my friend, but he only cared that I'm debt free and could pay my own way.

Anonymous wrote:Men who dated me cared for several things ..
My looks
My education and my career goals
My temperament, personality
My good name and my family

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t think I did, until I started dating an actor. He was college educated and worked hard on his craft. But he was early 30’s and had just had his best year ever — $18,000. This was in the 90’s, but my first job out of collage several years before I made $25,000.

I knew my salary was always going to go up. His was probably never going to be that high again. Being with someone who didn’t have a salary close to mine was going to severely impact my life. Once we had kids, he’d either have to quit acting (which wasn’t an option for him) or we’d take a huge lifestyle hit when my salary had to pay for our bills and child care.

So it was a factor in what I saw as long term potential. And last I heard, he married a very very successful lawyer and didn’t have kids.

I think the question you are asking is loaded. Having a baseline salary idea (plus future potential) is very different than a gold digger only dating someone who make over $200k or $500k. One is an understanding that money can impact your life and should be considered. The other is wanting someone to elevate your life or take care of you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from this is that work around the home has a real monetary value to women, and men who are real partners are as valued or even more valuable than men who earn a high income.
The women who feel they lost the dating game are those that marry men who are neither good partners/fathers or high earners.

The problem is, you have a lot more information about career/earnings earlier on, whereas you really only know what he's going to be like post-kid when there's already a kid.

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from this is that work around the home has a real monetary value to women, and men who are real partners are as valued or even more valuable than men who earn a high income.
The women who feel they lost the dating game are those that marry men who are neither good partners/fathers or high earners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from this is that work around the home has a real monetary value to women, and men who are real partners are as valued or even more valuable than men who earn a high income.
The women who feel they lost the dating game are those that marry men who are neither good partners/fathers or high earners.

My DH earns a high income, is a good father and helps around the house. I think I just lucked out. I met him when I was 24 and he was in med school. He is just an all around good guy. He had no income when we met and earned ~50k resident salary when we got married.

In our circles, most guys are professionally successful and help with kids and house.

The bad ones don’t earn a lot and also don’t help. Oddly the ones who have the worst jobs are also the ones who are the worst at home. I think they are just lazy.

DH likes things organized so he is always picking up and cleaning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from this is that work around the home has a real monetary value to women, and men who are real partners are as valued or even more valuable than men who earn a high income.
The women who feel they lost the dating game are those that marry men who are neither good partners/fathers or high earners.

I feel that my generation (older millennial) is the least sensitive to social economic status when it comes to marriage.

Most of us wanted someone interesting with a big heart. Then 10 years later most who married below her own potential suffered greatly, lost half of real estate investment and even furnitures.

Gen Z is actually more savvy with $, my young colleagues frequently talk about finding trader boyfriends, it was mind boggling to us.

Young men are also very calculating, they definitely target data scientists over bookkeepers.

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from this is that work around the home has a real monetary value to women, and men who are real partners are as valued or even more valuable than men who earn a high income.
The women who feel they lost the dating game are those that marry men who are neither good partners/fathers or high earners.

Anonymous wrote:My takeaway from this is that work around the home has a real monetary value to women, and men who are real partners are as valued or even more valuable than men who earn a high income.
The women who feel they lost the dating game are those that marry men who are neither good partners/fathers or high earners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's be real, making 60 out of school is rich. Making 60k as a professor /research staff /scientist is respectable. Making 60k at a dead end desk job at 42 is all great if this person already has family. But making 60k at that desk job as 42 yr old on the dating market? that would be a tough situation. And being honest about it doesn't make us toxic.

You care more about the guy’s money than his character, so yeah, toxic.

NP. That’s not how I interpreted the PP. Character is important, as is the financial contribution a man makes to the household/partnership. Not because you’re relying on his money, but because you want someone who can afford your lifestyle. Making 60k at a dead-end desk job at 42 in this area (where salaries are generally high) also is more likely than not to correlate with lack of ambition or education, which are character traits that many people value.

Sneering at people who work hard for their money is not a good character trait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's be real, making 60 out of school is rich. Making 60k as a professor /research staff /scientist is respectable. Making 60k at a dead end desk job at 42 is all great if this person already has family. But making 60k at that desk job as 42 yr old on the dating market? that would be a tough situation. And being honest about it doesn't make us toxic.

You care more about the guy’s money than his character, so yeah, toxic.

NP. That’s not how I interpreted the PP. Character is important, as is the financial contribution a man makes to the household/partnership. Not because you’re relying on his money, but because you want someone who can afford your lifestyle. Making 60k at a dead-end desk job at 42 in this area (where salaries are generally high) also is more likely than not to correlate with lack of ambition or education, which are character traits that many people value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Let's be real, making 60 out of school is rich. Making 60k as a professor /research staff /scientist is respectable. Making 60k at a dead end desk job at 42 is all great if this person already has family. But making 60k at that desk job as 42 yr old on the dating market? that would be a tough situation. And being honest about it doesn't make us toxic.

You care more about the guy’s money than his character, so yeah, toxic.

NP. That’s not how I interpreted the PP. Character is important, as is the financial contribution a man makes to the household/partnership. Not because you’re relying on his money, but because you want someone who can afford your lifestyle. Making 60k at a dead-end desk job at 42 in this area (where salaries are generally high) also is more likely than not to correlate with lack of ambition or education, which are character traits that many people value.