That is doing family income, not singles. It makes a substantial difference. You should really check the census data directly.
Recommend a dating site
- Thread starter W4RH34D_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 20,780
- 14,547
It's household income. I am part of a household, that household is just happens to be solely me. Some households are families with stay at home moms or trophy wives who don't work. Some, one of the adults in the household only has a part time job. It's perfectly accurate because it describes averages across the entire population. Single and Family. It has ALL the data. It doesn't make a substantial difference because who knows if I'll ever even end up with a wife. Or what her income will be? This is where I am in regards to my region at this very moment in time.
Singles are listed separately on the census. Don't believe it, you can go check. It isn't a meaningless distinction.
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 20,780
- 14,547
What about single individuals who file as head of household because they have children? Where is the distinction made? The NYT calculator I linked factors every single individual that reports their income for tax purposes (at least that's the way it reads to me).
Again, census. The income data is collected from the IRS with some projections for non-filers worked in (actually if you click the article the calculator links to, it goes over some of these things). So you can make all those distinctions in the data. If you're comparing yourself to household income when that applies across the board, do you think you're really earning the same as a dual-income family with two kids that is also making 150k? Because I don't think you're in the same place financially as them at all.
Taxes are different for married people. Taxes are different for people with kids. Financial obligations, likewise, different. There is nothing good or bad about that, but there are differences. Trying to compare yourself on a level field to when there are differences in the variables results in an invalid comparison. So I compared you to singles. You're in the top few percent of income for singles.
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 20,780
- 14,547
Well we are arguing two different things. I'm talking about percentages based on total income of a household in my region. Even though I am single I am still included in the data on the NYT data points. According to how I'm reading the attached article it lumps everyone together into those data points, so it's a valid comparison to the entire whole of my region.
The calculator does. The census data is more fine grained. I used the census data.
From that Cuddlr link:
"Find people near you who are up for a cuddle.
Have a cuddle with them.
No pressure."
Oooooooooooook
"Find people near you who are up for a cuddle.
Have a cuddle with them.
No pressure."
Oooooooooooook
Haast
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 3,281
- 1,636
Per the divorce thread, I'll be trying out online dating soon. I've been reading about the different sites, these sounded the most appealing:
eHarmony
Chemistry
OKCupid
CoffeeMeetsBagel
HowAboutWe
Looking for thoughts from people who have used them. Or if you think another site is great I've overlooked, feel free. It's all new to me.
eHarmony
Chemistry
OKCupid
CoffeeMeetsBagel
HowAboutWe
Looking for thoughts from people who have used them. Or if you think another site is great I've overlooked, feel free. It's all new to me.
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 20,780
- 14,547
Never used "HowAboutWe" but the premise sounds terrible.
CoffeMeetsBagel was a barren wasteland in my area.
OKCupid has the best interface and usability out of all of the dating sites I've used.
Chemistry is a silly mess of a site that I did a free trial of once.
eHarmony does not allow you to search for people, they send you a set amount of matches per day (based on your answers to their questions) and those are the only women you are allowed to contact.
Interesting you don't have Match on there.
I'd recommend OKCupid, Plenty of Fish and Match. I'm assuming since you'll be just getting out of a marriage you aren't looking for anything serious. You might want to try Tinder too. People say POF is bottom of the barrel, and that may be true in their area, but for me it was really no different than OKC and Match, and I've used all three. The only difference is people were more candid about who they actually were in their profiles on POF. Pretty easy to meet people and have casual sex on all three. I've never used Tinder though I know exactly what it is and know people who use it. I'll let the bros who have used it here fill you in on that one.
CoffeMeetsBagel was a barren wasteland in my area.
OKCupid has the best interface and usability out of all of the dating sites I've used.
Chemistry is a silly mess of a site that I did a free trial of once.
eHarmony does not allow you to search for people, they send you a set amount of matches per day (based on your answers to their questions) and those are the only women you are allowed to contact.
Interesting you don't have Match on there.
I'd recommend OKCupid, Plenty of Fish and Match. I'm assuming since you'll be just getting out of a marriage you aren't looking for anything serious. You might want to try Tinder too. People say POF is bottom of the barrel, and that may be true in their area, but for me it was really no different than OKC and Match, and I've used all three. The only difference is people were more candid about who they actually were in their profiles on POF. Pretty easy to meet people and have casual sex on all three. I've never used Tinder though I know exactly what it is and know people who use it. I'll let the bros who have used it here fill you in on that one.
Haast
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 3,281
- 1,636
Thanks, Khane. Match was left off because I couldn't discern any features that made it better than OKC/PoF, yet it charged one of the higher rates. Maybe that is a mistaken impression.
I'm not huge on casual sex; at least not one night stands, they leave me feeling unfulfilled. Not saying I would never do it, but it isn't my thing. I would at least like to find her somewhat interesting and worth seeing more than once.
If this helps, OKC felt a little overwhelming with all the profile options, question answering, ratings, messaging, etc. So I was looking at some more straight forward options. Maybe I just need some advice on what to focus on with OKC.
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 20,780
- 14,547
Well if you're not interested in hookups and you found yourself overwhelmed by OKC eHarmony might be your best bet. It's much more "hands off" after you've answered your questions.
OKC is very simple as long as you keep it simple. Just fill out your profile, put up good pictures (this is the most important thing, do not put mirror selfies taken with your cell phone on there) and then do some searching and message anyone who piques your interest. Don't worry about all the other features. Answering the questions will help the site figure out better "matches" based on women who answered those questions similarly to you but it's not a deal breaker.
Match is indeed expensive, and honestly not any different than OKC in my area. I've use Match twice and I will probably never use it again just because it's no better or worse than the free ones around here when it comes to the women who are on it. Hell most people who use Match I also see on OKC.
OKC is very simple as long as you keep it simple. Just fill out your profile, put up good pictures (this is the most important thing, do not put mirror selfies taken with your cell phone on there) and then do some searching and message anyone who piques your interest. Don't worry about all the other features. Answering the questions will help the site figure out better "matches" based on women who answered those questions similarly to you but it's not a deal breaker.
Match is indeed expensive, and honestly not any different than OKC in my area. I've use Match twice and I will probably never use it again just because it's no better or worse than the free ones around here when it comes to the women who are on it. Hell most people who use Match I also see on OKC.
Haast
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 3,281
- 1,636
Yeah, my concern with eHarmony is that many on it may be seeking exclusively LTR/marriage; that could go poorly. I've heard it is religion-focused, which I'm not. And it's relatively expensive.
Thanks for the tips, and for confirming my suspicion on Match. Any specific advice on profile writing or messaging on OKC? Maybe some rookie mistakes to avoid?
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 20,780
- 14,547
It is. We were at a ridiculous extravagant wedding this past weekend in Rutherford NJ. Heading back down there for a halloween beer fest on Friday.
Don't use eHarmony. It is a waste of time. I used it when I was single and it was by far the worst. You can't even send messages to your matches until you fill out some pre-defined questions (I think there were like 2 or 3 questionaires you had to send back and forth until you could unlock free-form typing) and none of them really matter for your relationship. The site pretends like the "initial spark" and sexual attraction are completely null and void and everyone is looking at a relationship like you're min/maxxing stats. Just terrible.
Haast
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 3,281
- 1,636
It feels like there should be a "highest serverwide burst DPS" joke in here somewhere. Also, thanks for the heads up.
If you're going to pay money for a dating website, go with seekingarrangement.com
otherwise okcupid and pof combined will give you access to 80% of the women who online date.
otherwise okcupid and pof combined will give you access to 80% of the women who online date.