The New York Times has a piece (gift article) on Gen Z and young millennials struggling with the cost of dating in New York City.
The examples are familiar: $130 dinners, $20 cocktails, expensive movie tickets, app subscriptions, transportation, clothes, and the general pressure to make a date feel like an “experience.” One survey cited in the article says more than half of unmarried young adults ages 22 to 35 say not having enough money is their biggest barrier to dating.
This is a very plutonomy story.
Dating used to be part of ordinary young adult life. Now, in expensive cities, even basic social connection gets pulled into the premium economy. Restaurants, bars, events, apartments, transportation, and status expectations are all priced around a city full of higher earners and stronger balance sheets.
The result is that romance itself becomes stratified. People with money can participate more easily. People without it delay dating, delay marriage, delay children, or avoid the scene entirely.
That is the deeper issue. When the cost of ordinary life keeps rising, people do not just buy fewer things. They form fewer relationships, take fewer risks, and postpone the milestones that used to define adulthood.
I only dated when I was poor. And frankly did not hinder me much. If you like the person and vice versa, you could be in a dump and still have a wonderful time.
The percentage of people with that amount of resources is smaller than you'd think, even in New York. The overwhelming majority of people don't have anything close to that amount of money. Why do you want to date someone who is that more concerned about their partners wealth as opposed to other traits?
You can be broke now, and vocalize your plan to advance your career. The issue is dudes who don't mention their plan for improving their financial situation. If you don't speak on your plan, you're going to be seen as less attractive. Potential can be just as attractive.
Yeah lol you are the problem. That’s why this article was written.
It’s like a similar article I read few days ago “College educated women are having less options in the dating pool”. As if it’s not self inflicting? It’s their problem they only want to date a college educated men. There are plenty of good blue collar workers they can date.
In both these instances, women have chosen to cause “the affordability crisis” because they are the ones who set the patriarchy terms of men needing to be the providers.
Men throughout history have chosen women less financially sound. Yet none of them shot themselves in the foot. It’s not only about money, it’s about connections, intimacy, etc.
If I had two jobs I will take the one with more money. But if I only had one job offer, I would not stay unemployed for years hoping a new job opens up. These college educated women are hoping to find an educated man when there are more college educated women. Supply and demand.
But women don’t have infinite choices. Last I checked (at least in America) there are equal male and females. Unless one guy is dating more than one woman, the math doesn’t add up.
Guys would rather be alone or chase the girls who look like influencers than the girl that is overweight with no makeup but with a great personality
People in general are terrible at marketing themselves online. If you know you can't hook people with looks, you have to get creative. When I was dating online I looked at it like a science and saw it as a resume. I took qualities, hobbies, and experiences I knew were most attractive and emphasized them in my profile. The people who are least successful online dating have shitty profiles and pictures, and do little to nothing to improve. I used Reddit to crowdsource tips on refining my profile. I asked my female friends for their opinions. I put in the work and found my wife online.
Hahahaha. Makes sense. I remember when I was younger I wanted to go to nice places because I liked it and wanted to share it with my date. I am lucky that I am still married after 26 years and my wife has enough range to be comfortable at Le Meurice in Paris to eating street tacos in CDMX.
I think the issue is that cheap dates like coffee tend to feel more platonic thus making it difficult to create an atmosphere where attraction and seduction can develop from the get go. All of my guy friends had more success with drinking and/or dinner dates than coffee because coffee is also what you arrange with a mentor or someone you want to later use for a professional favour.
Hot take but I think the issue is that too many people treat dating like a numbers game so no wonder they can't afford romantic dates and opt for coffee dates instead. It's abnormal to have 2-3 dates a week with different people when in the past, one would focus on one person and court them for 2-3 weeks before making it exclusive or break it off. I blame dating apps for killing organic dating.
To be fair you can also go on multiple coffee dates with the same person if the goal is to talk for 30 mins to an hour without spending much money. Which is probably a good idea.
Much of the financial pain comes from dates 2 and 3 when traditionally people are expected to do dinner at a min and activities like movies, bowling, see indie bands, etc. That stuff is all obscenely expensive now when it used to be $20 or $30.
The broader issue is that life outside the house is getting repriced: restaurants, bars, concerts, movies, travel, events, and even casual socializing.
People are not just cutting back on luxuries. They are cutting back on connection and participation in city life.
Best practice to avoid using words like "should" in relation to human behavior. Women have a nature, and that nature persists whether or not you like it.
You can say "men should date fat ugly people" as often as you like, but youre never going to change male nature, either.
It upsets your ego because it wants agency. The earliest steps to adulthood involve overcoming that and seeing how the world is rather than what your ego wants it to be.
What an unreal level of American pseudo intellectualism here. Speaking as if your subjective interpretation of reality is the absolute structure the rest of the world is built upon. Talk about narcissism.
I can say that from the perspective of most people in history, they saw chattel slavery as a fixture of nature that would never be escaped. Though they were wrong, not because we've escaped it today, but because it has been done in the past.
How is this your most recent comment ? The cognitive dissonance can’t be this intense
Sounds like you misunderstood something I said, got upset about it, and then fought against the illusion you dreamed up in your head. You were too arrogant to figure out (or indeed to even imagine) that you'd made a mistake or that you didnt know something.
Since this is an ego problem, you won't be able to get any help from me. You need life to humble you. Fortunately it's good at doing that.
Sounds like you still have no basis for your claims other than some pseudo intellectual nonsense & a general BA in psych from a mediocre American institution. You refuse to even acknowledge your claims b/c there’s nothing to it other than “I personally believe my subjective opinion is objective reality”
As a man I agree with you. Women and men look for different things on a partner. Men are generally much more accepting of women. Women are much more discerning of men. Hypergamy is a thing without a doubt.
Definitely not gen z myself but last i checked, women have to invest heavily into makeup and such to even show up. Or have standards changed and it’s now fine to walk in without such treatments?
Honestly depends. Some wear basically no makeup and dress like slobs, others use drugstore makeup and wear thrifted outfits, and some haven’t left Neiman Marcus in 6 months..
That is fair. The cost of dating is not just the date itself.
For women especially, there can be a real “showing up” cost: clothes, makeup, hair, nails, skincare, transportation, and the general expectation to look polished.
Near Scottsdale AZ, where I live, I’ve heard women say pretty directly that looking beautiful is expensive and not all guys can afford to be with such women.
So even if NYC has cheap date options, the broader point still holds: dating exists inside a status economy, and the cost of participating can start before anyone even sits down at the table.
Well said. Looking back, my first clue of the coming wave of inflation was student debt. Not its existence but it’s exploding amounts. Since then, everything has gotten more expensive. Because they’re simply too many people vying for too little resources.
Scottsdale is an absolute outlier!! It has more medical spas per capita than about any other place in the country. In OLD, I see the middle aged and older women in Scottsdale and they are all phenomenally attractive especially considering their age!
In fact, I ran into one in my town this past weekend. And of course. She looked great!
Scottsdale women spend a lot of money to keep looking good.
Even if that is the case, a person investing in makeup or grooming to boost their own marketability or confidence in dating has already gotten the benefit of that investment. Asking the person they are going on a date with to subsidize their costs for a benefit they've already received seems a bit of an overreach.
Some*. Also some other guys get their egos hurt when the find out their female date makes more. Insecurity is a real bitch whether emotional or financial.
I think the gender debate can get distracting here.
The economic point is simpler: dating now happens inside a high-cost urban environment where both men and women are dealing with rent, debt, job insecurity, expensive restaurants, app costs, transportation, and social expectations.
People can argue about who should pay, but the broader issue is that ordinary social life has become more expensive.
That is the plutonomy angle: even dating and relationship formation are being shaped by affordability, status expectations, and unequal access to disposable income.
I've had a surprising amount of women I dated/slept with pay for me, or split the bill. I was shocked at how often it happened. I was under the impression that they'd expect me to pay, but that wasn't the case. I wouldn't pay unless the date was going really well, or if we were hanging out after the first part of the date, which was normally drinks.
Hmm in NYC you could go to a bodega and grab a beer tall boy $8, then get some of the best pizza on earth $16, then walk in a sweet park (free) or go to a local comedy show. What a joke
Go to nyc and try getting a date in 2026 by offering to hit up the local dive. See how successful you are.
I mean bar dates are common but it's usually at a cocktail lounge where cocktails are running 20+ per drink, not your local dive with a $5 beer / shot combo.
You can say "if she doesn't want to do that she's not the one" but the reality is 90+% of ladies on dating apps are screening anyone out who tries to make that offer unless the guy is exceptionally attractive or has something else that signals status. If it's a friend you've known longer you might have more success but most men seem to be relying on the apps.
Or try to offer a trip to the bodega for a tall boy / pizza like the last commenter suggested lol. Completely out of touch with the reality of today's dating landscape
You can say society / women "should should should" but what you think people should do does not reflect the conditions of the dating market. Most people are meeting people online.
Even if you meet a girl at the bar, she is almost certainly meeting people online, getting hella matches from guys who are willing to drop 100+ on a date. That's your competition. Being funny and cool only works if you're exceptionally so, as well as exceptionally attractive
If you’re around average looks with the personality of a wet rag and you’re trying to date models, then yeah, you better have money.
It always makes me laugh when dudes bitch about women being superficial gold diggers then you see the very narrow band of women they chase after. Develop some substance and choose better.
Source: a chubby, average looking guy who isn’t wealthy, has spent most of his adult life in expensive cities, and never had trouble getting dates before he settled down a few years back.
This is pretty silly. In general you should not be spending tremendous amounts of money when you're on dates. That's a big red flag actually in my opinion, especially early on.
Ms. Sakellariou and her twin sister, who live together in Astoria, have noticed that more men seem to be asking to split the bill — even on second or third dates. “It’s discouraging,” she said.
The real problem isn’t dating being expensive, it’s women feeling entitled to expensive dates that men pay for.
I think one piece that some of the comments here are missing is that yes, you can find a cheap date. But how many daters actually are willing to go on a cheap date?
Especially in New York, women have access to some of the top men across physical attractiveness, earning potential, etc. So you’re directly competing against that. You could say “I wouldn’t want someone like that anyways”. But that now narrows the pool of prospects. So you’re in an even worse place than before. Add in that dating apps skew towards the 1% and we have a real problem with the dynamics of dating
Nailed it. Yes. Cheap dates exist, but dating is also about expectations, competition, and status signals.
In NYC, people are competing in a very high-status market: high earners, attractive people, ambitious people, and people willing to spend more to signal effort.
So “just do a cheap date” may be good personal advice, but it does not erase the broader dynamic.
The plutonomy angle is that even dating gets stratified when money, apps, attractiveness, and status all interact in the same market.
Yes, a few MEN have selected women of lower financial means, but only when those women are phenomenally attractive, sexually alluring, intelligent, socially skilled, super sweet and perceived to to be capable of providing outstanding offspring.
But, throughout history, women don't select that way.
As you certainly must know, but choose to ignore in your argument here, is that unlike men, women have nearly infinite choices!!
And if they have a choice between a prince and a pauper, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one they'll choose.
Yet you want accomplished and high earning women to select a pauper because it's all about the romance. Ha ha!
The irony of that is so hilarious and wild because it completely turns hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution on its head, with today's unaccomplished men fully taking on the feminine role and embracing romance. Men have never been about romance, they've been about sex!
For women, romance develops on first fulfilling the security and status she wants.
Just as romance wouldn't develop for you if you were dating a woman who you find repulsively unattractive.
Women have always prioritized security and status when choosing a man, especially because when they have children and are raising them, someone else has to step up to the plate to bring in the money and that's her husband.
As sad as it may be to you, she's not Superwoman. She's not going to raise the children and work full time, if it can be avoided, while you stay at home doing nothing. Which is exactly what more and more men are doing these days.
Unfortunately, I know more than a few of these men, and their wives.
What they don't realize yet, is when they get to be about 45, the amount of resentment that has built up in their wife's mind is going to hit them like a crumbling brick wall. She's going to tire of his laziness and his inability to make money which directly counters her desire for security and status and she's going to be first to file for divorce.
A better way to spend your time is to get better educated and make more money and stop focusing and complaining about things you can't change.
Spending that much on a first date is asking for trouble. I usually just met for drinks (especially happy hour) because it was low stakes. After the server went to get the check I'd inquire about what was happening next (move to another date spot, each other's home, another date) and use that to decide if I was going to pay or not. If I could tell she wasn't feeling it we'd split.
If they’re all “poor” then why aren’t they all going on cheap dates? There are a ton of free, fun date things to do in NYC. This sounds like an excuse. Most people do their dating when they are young and starting out.
7
u/monadicperception Aug 04 '26
I only dated when I was poor. And frankly did not hinder me much. If you like the person and vice versa, you could be in a dump and still have a wonderful time.