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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I just posted that Dh earns a seven figure income. I have realized many people cannot afford multiple weekend trips or a fancy weeklong vacation costing 20k. Some people have the money but not the time. Others have time but not the money. A guy who is in his forties likely has kids going to college soon and may not have as much disposable income.

I guess it is easy for me to say I would pay for a guy the way I may pay for my old childhood friend but I’m not in that situation. All the guys I dated have always paid for my dates and travel if we did travel. I only traveled with one boyfriend before DH and he did always pay for me.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was always uncomfortable when men tried to pay for me everything, even in my 20s. I would attempt to reciprocate in some way, or pay at least something. But I come from a family with 3 generations of working/breadwinners women.

wink wink

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't you ladies ever enjoy -some- downscaled experiences? Less elaborate, expensive travel. Less costly entertainment. No one is flexible?

I agree. You don't need to spend 20k on a long trip to have a good time. Using money as the only measure of entertainment/experience is unimaginative.

I posted before about often paying for lodging for my friends and family. I don’t want to stay at a $200 hotel when I’m used to $2000 hotels. If that is what OP wants, that is fine but it is unrealistic to find someone who can afford 20k vacations. She should pay for the 20k trip she wants and let her boyfriend join and spend 3k to fly there and hang out with her and maybe chip in for some meals. If they are not getting married and never joining finances, I don’t think the guy’s financial should matter so much.

A woman can find plenty of men to hang out with her on trips for free, at any age. I can find 5-10 years younger men to sponsor, but I just won’t respect them, so no thank you. If the boyfriend wants the benefits of a shared partnership he should pay 50% of vacation cost. The benefits are plentiful for men in middle age: lower rent, better meals, staying in a good health of the woman is a good homemaker in addition to be secure financially.

Pp here. I love to travel and used to a certain lifestyle. I’m sure you are too. We just went away for Presidents’ Day weekend and it cost us roughly 10k. One of our friends couldn’t swing the cost and did not join us and our other friends. I would have covered them as they are our close friends but Dh thought it would make them feel bad. They will be joining us at our summer home instead this summer.

Occasionally I will mention divorce to DH. I really don’t care about money. DH reminds me that I don’t care because we have money and I never think about the cost of anything. I genuinely don’t think I would mind paying for a guy but then again, I currently don’t work. I’m used to Dh paying for everything so I wouldn’t be the one paying .

You should have offered to cover your friend. How do you think your friend feels being left out of a group trip?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

$150, $2k, $10k

Anonymous wrote:I was always uncomfortable when men tried to pay for me everything, even in my 20s. I would attempt to reciprocate in some way, or pay at least something. But I come from a family with 3 generations of working/breadwinners women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I was always uncomfortable when men tried to pay for me everything, even in my 20s. I would attempt to reciprocate in some way, or pay at least something. But I come from a family with 3 generations of working/breadwinners women.

Of course I paid for some things. I often picked up groceries or take out. This was before Uber eats 20+ years ago. DH, then bf, took me on vacations but I also treated Dh on vacations. In fact, we got engaged on a birthday trip for DH. I guess I just don’t like going Dutch. It is just a personal preference. I thought it was weird if a couple went to Starbucks and ordered separate drinks. That had never happened to me but I would think the guy was so cheap not getting me a drink.

I always thought going Dutch on a date was a bad look. If a guy liked me, the least he could do is buy me dinner. Worked out fine for me. I think only one guy made me go Dutch. It was probably very obvious that I was not into him during the meal so he split the bill with me when the meal was over.

A fine example of female entitlement and parasitism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't you ladies ever enjoy -some- downscaled experiences? Less elaborate, expensive travel. Less costly entertainment. No one is flexible?

I agree. You don't need to spend 20k on a long trip to have a good time. Using money as the only measure of entertainment/experience is unimaginative.

I posted before about often paying for lodging for my friends and family. I don’t want to stay at a $200 hotel when I’m used to $2000 hotels. If that is what OP wants, that is fine but it is unrealistic to find someone who can afford 20k vacations. She should pay for the 20k trip she wants and let her boyfriend join and spend 3k to fly there and hang out with her and maybe chip in for some meals. If they are not getting married and never joining finances, I don’t think the guy’s financial should matter so much.

A woman can find plenty of men to hang out with her on trips for free, at any age. I can find 5-10 years younger men to sponsor, but I just won’t respect them, so no thank you. If the boyfriend wants the benefits of a shared partnership he should pay 50% of vacation cost. The benefits are plentiful for men in middle age: lower rent, better meals, staying in a good health of the woman is a good homemaker in addition to be secure financially.

Pp here. I love to travel and used to a certain lifestyle. I’m sure you are too. We just went away for Presidents’ Day weekend and it cost us roughly 10k. One of our friends couldn’t swing the cost and did not join us and our other friends. I would have covered them as they are our close friends but Dh thought it would make them feel bad. They will be joining us at our summer home instead this summer.

Occasionally I will mention divorce to DH. I really don’t care about money. DH reminds me that I don’t care because we have money and I never think about the cost of anything. I genuinely don’t think I would mind paying for a guy but then again, I currently don’t work. I’m used to Dh paying for everything so I wouldn’t be the one paying .

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I was always uncomfortable when men tried to pay for me everything, even in my 20s. I would attempt to reciprocate in some way, or pay at least something. But I come from a family with 3 generations of working/breadwinners women.

Of course I paid for some things. I often picked up groceries or take out. This was before Uber eats 20+ years ago. DH, then bf, took me on vacations but I also treated Dh on vacations. In fact, we got engaged on a birthday trip for DH. I guess I just don’t like going Dutch. It is just a personal preference. I thought it was weird if a couple went to Starbucks and ordered separate drinks. That had never happened to me but I would think the guy was so cheap not getting me a drink.

I always thought going Dutch on a date was a bad look. If a guy liked me, the least he could do is buy me dinner. Worked out fine for me. I think only one guy made me go Dutch. It was probably very obvious that I was not into him during the meal so he split the bill with me when the meal was over.