Dating on match com single parents dating again
“We looked at the cost of beauty salons, fitness memberships and the cost of upkeep overall that helps singles stay in the dating game and found that maintaining in between dates is a significant expense that drags bigger cities down in the ranking,” said Jill Gonzalez, spokesperson with Wallet Hub.
Read More: Tips for online dating from The Millionaire Matchmaker Alexander, who works as a retail sales professional, has benefited significantly from living in a low-cost city.
According to a Wallet Hub ranking, the top five cities for singles are Boise, Idaho; Madison, Wisc., Denver; Austin; and Lincoln, Neb.
The worst cities included Mobile, Ala.; Glendale, Calif.; Philadelphia, New York City; and Jersey City.
"I've spent thousands of dollars to get my look together and stay ahead of the game." But though dating is expensive, she's saved significantly compared to those living New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.
Other metrics Wallet Hub were percentage of singles, cost of a bottle of wine, number of nightlife options and mobile dating opportunities.
“In Boise, Idaho a haircut can cost and monthly gym membership compared to New York where gym membership can be a minimum of 0 a month,” Gonzalez said.
“When you factor all of these expenses into your spending plan, smaller cities look more attractive.” Singles in smaller towns are more likely to be employed than in big cities like Detroit, where 73% of the population is single but the unemployment rate is 15%, which is triple the national average.
Read More: Where to Find Your Soulmate But the cost of being single is not equal in all cities for those like Alexander, and various financial factors such as employment and expensiveness affect how conducive a particular city is to a single person's dating prospects.
Alexander's residence in a smaller city may actually make her dating expenses easier to shoulder.