[WestCoast]

tuth do you think the 35 millionth most handsome man in the world is actually good looking? Unlikely.

To your point you put another $440K in my pocket (no where does it say I suddenly turn ugly) and I am doing damage.

I would wait 7 years turn that into a stick, have a couple sticks at that point... Walk into EE LATAM and start a fire.

Hell with $440K anywhere outside the USA, if you can't pull you're doing something horribly wrong. ($2K a month in passive income from investments... according to the RVF you have Thailand on lock down status).

The best part is all the private wealth studies have changed, you can't include your primary residence so if you own your own spot and have $440K in cash and you can't pull 8s on the regular... There are serious problems.

Money always wins.

[Tuthmosis]

(02-22-2014 11:33 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

tuth do you think the 35 millionth most handsome man in the world is actually good looking?

Yes. I think an insane percentage of the world's population looks the same. I confirm this on a near-daily basis when I think I see a girl I banged or hit on before only to see that there are slight differences on closer examination.

The 35 millionth most handsome man probably doesn't look a whole lot different than the 1,000th most.

You don't need to "grow" that wealth, you can't start leveraging it day one. Take your 440K, I'm certain the looks are worth way more than that.

[Professor Fox]

(02-22-2014 11:03 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 10:43 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

You only need to have a net worth of greater than $440,000 to be in the top 1 percent of wealthiest people in the world.

This is a game-changing statistic. All you guys who just committed to 1% "wealth" are screwed. Enjoy your $264,000 after taxes.

I dunno, if we're talking about a country like the USA the top 1% have an average annual income of $960,000. While it's true the "floor" of that 1% is $343k, the typical 1 percenter is almost taking home a cool million pre tax, which presumably does not include all the ways besides reported income we all know that they have to gain resources. Hard to turn that down for model looks. I'd answer differently if I were a woman, I was just looking at Heidi Klum's wiki and her 2011 earnings were $20 million pre tax. I don't know of any male model who can come close to that though, hell I don't even know any male models at all.

[WestCoast]

@tuth we'll agree to disagree. I would rather have $440K cash than be 35M in looks because chances are I'm not even a US citizen at that point. Minimal leverage on looks.

[lavidaloca]

It depends on where you are on the age scale. If you get the wealth at 25 or 30 it has a huge benefit as you can easily take advantage of compounding and end up with a pretty serious net worth later on in life. However, if you get 440k at say age 50, I'd rather have the looks at that point.

I'd likely choose wealth. I know beastly looking men who bang hotties all the time in the 3rd world. They wouldn't even be considered more than middle class in North America. Now Imagine they were actually wealthy!

[Tuthmosis]

(02-22-2014 11:39 PM)Professor Fox Wrote:  

I dunno, if we're talking about a country like the USA the top 1% have an average annual income of $960,000.

Even if we round that up to a cool million, the looks still win out. With just a decent education, the good-looking guy can land a consulting job or executive position. Good-looking cats get hired for better positions and make more dough across the board. That's if you go corporate. If you go entrepreneurial, investors will throw money at a good-looking guy--surrounded by hot bitches--like nothing.

A million just doesn't cover the lifetime benefits of good looks.

[WestCoast]

^ what?

VCs will not pay for a good looking guy and consultants don't make squat (about $200K after 30 years old). From my experience in vc/funding meetings it's actually the ugly guy who gets funding lol, because he looks like shit from giving his life to project X. Smart people don't give money to handsome men just because, similar to how a real rich guy will not pay in advance for a seeking arrangement type deal.

Would abort mission immediately.

Also I am assuming the question means you as you are today in the USA. If you gave me $960K a year I would never have a pussy shortage for life.

I think tuth is over estimating the power of looks or I am underestimating the power of looks. I know a ton of handsome ass guys who have no game but bang chicks and can't make shit for money. My wing is a great example, stuck at $100K a year doesn't have the brain power to ever get promoted. Stagnant. He will unlikely ever clear the 2 handle.

Money goes to brain power these days.

Anyway, 1% money for the win! Let the debate continue.

[Beginner]

the original question is to vague. people are talking about $500,00 but thats the BOTTOM of the top 1% of wealth. the original Q said "in."

the thing is theres much more variance in the 1% of wealth than the 1% of looks. its the difference between $500,000 and $60 billion. ill take the money either way but it may change the answer for some people

[Tuthmosis]

(02-22-2014 11:47 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

Also I am assuming the question means you as you are today. If you have me $960K a year I would never have a pussy shortage for life.

There's a lot of ambiguities in the original hypothetical. For one, we don't know where within the 1% we're talking about. Right now, we're talking about the bottom of it, which makes the looks--in my opinion--the clear winner. It's different if you're talking about the top of the top, so to speak. I'd rather have Carlos Slim's money, and look how I look now, than be a broke model. That brings us to another ambiguity, are you rich and hideous or rich and look decent (bangable)?

Another ambiguity is whether we're talking about a one-time payment that puts you in the 1% globally (i.e., a check for $440,000) or an income stream that puts you in the 1% in the US (960K annually). Stream is a different situation.

[The Lizard of Oz]

First, this is one of the sweetest shooting the shit threads in a while. Good to have one of these.

Second, yeah I'm with WestCoast. Take the money, of course.

Good looks alone really don't get a guy all that far. There is some confusion because movie stars etc have model good looks but they're really getting pussy 95% because of their fame. Take a guy with movie star good looks but with neither fame nor money and he's got his work cut out for him.

[WestCoast]

The OP says wealth. The top 1% in wealth in the USA owns 35% of all assets!

Not even a question. That's a net worth of about $10M bucks! Fuck!

Shit if we are talking about 1% net worth worldwide or based on looks I would rather be me today by a country fucking mile!

Looks don't mean shit for making money tbh, I know too many good looking guys with shitty lives to be interested in that. Same guy mentioned above ons'd America next top model (2010) and still can't even make over $100K. No thanks!

---

Sugar should clarify the name of the game haha. I would not take $440K that's for sure we are in agreement there tuth.

[Tuthmosis]

(02-22-2014 11:54 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

First, this is one of the sweetest shooting the shit threads in a while. Good to have one of these.

Agreed. These kind of threads can be good. It's like being at a bar with the guys and talking shit about random hypotheticals.

"Would you give up one nut to be as famous as George Clooney?"

"If you had to bang one--and only--bitch for the rest of your life, who would be?"

"If I gave you $100,000 cash, would you bang Lindy West--to completion--in the ass?"

The list goes on.

[tarquin]

Not only is the original question about the top 1% in wealth, but it is the top 1% of wealth of men. I don't have any numbers to back it up, but my guess is that women are statistically clumped nearer the bottom of the 1% for all people, while the men are distributed higher... making the top 1% in male wealth more valuable.

The OP also included a time period of 20 years, so I'm assuming that it is an income stream. I'm also assuming that, as far as looks are concerned, you will age little over those 20 years in order to remain in the top 1%.

I would rather have the money, but I do recognize the advantages that good looking men get. I don't think being the best looking guy in a room of 100 people is enough of an advantage, however. Make it the best looking guy in a room of 10,000 and I might change my mind.

[All or Nothing]

(02-22-2014 11:47 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

I think tuth is over estimating the power of looks or I am underestimating the power of looks. I know a ton of handsome ass guys who have no game but bang chicks and can't make shit for money. My wing is a great example, stuck at $100K a year doesn't have the brain power to ever get promoted. Stagnant. He will unlikely ever clear the 2 handle.

See, another huge thing here is looks alone are not beneficial.

Being good looking as a man is the equivalent of perpetually having your foot in the door (until the looks are gone).

Being good looking alone does not lead to anything, BUT:

Good looks + strong social social skills = more quality pussy than the average man could dream of

Good looks + decent social skills + intelligence + work ethic = far more business opportunities than an equivalent person without the looks

Good looks + strong social skills + intelligence + work ethic = the world is yours

^This is another thing that has to be taken into account.

What are the looks being paired up with?

[Enigma]

(02-22-2014 11:09 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

^ haha not at all if you mean in the world then that means you are the 35 millionth most attractive man on the planet.

Have fun with that one.

There are less than what 2M male models (extremely high estimate) in the USA and they make.. $48K

35 million out of 7+ billion?

That's just under 6 million per continent (excluding Antartica, obviously).

That's the top 6 million from all of Canada, the US, and Latin America...the top 6 million from France, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc. combined...Russia, Japan, the Middle East? That percentile is fucking killing it with anything more than negative game.

[bacon]

I dont think this was mentioned but it seems we are referring to being born with facial symetry(maybe height as well) when talking about looks. Thats not enough these days to be considered top "1" if you are not dieting, working out and living a relatively clean lifestyle.

Therefore you are actively working to maintain your looks which are depreciating after you hit your peak. I mean a really good looking guy in his 20´s and 30´s where will he be at 50 or 60?

Meanwhile the rich guy wont have to do a lot to watch his wealth grow or stay in the 1% once hes arrived there he just needs some broad diversification of his assets across some low cost index funds. Unlike the guy with looks he benefits from time as his wealth at 20 or 30 would be far more less than what it will be when he is 50 or 60.

The members citing good looks are not looking down the road at who will be ahead at 50 and which one will have to work harder to stay in the 1% once they have reached that level.

Money wins.

[Kaizen]

I take WEALTH.

No man in the top 1% of wealth by any measure is going around saying 'Id give up all this dough to be super good looking'

With wealth you get the same quality poosy and so much more.

[Mujeriego]

Give me the money, and I say that as a handsome man. Game and money are a lethal combination.

[WanderingSoul]

(02-22-2014 11:03 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 10:43 PM)JJ Roberts Wrote:  

You only need to have a net worth of greater than $440,000 to be in the top 1 percent of wealthiest people in the world.

This is a game-changing statistic. All you guys who just committed to 1% "wealth" are screwed. Enjoy your $264,000 after taxes.

And being in the 1% of looks doesn't even come close to making you a famous model or actor. Take 100 dudes from your high school, how many of them have any fame based on their looks?

I think the top 1% of 1% is where the real wealth and fame building type of looks is at, not just 1%.

[Tuthmosis]

(02-23-2014 01:08 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

Take 100 dudes from your high school, how many of them have any fame based on their looks?

I wouldn't go using my high school as any indicator of anything. I went to a school populated by an especially busted population of ogres and trolls--female and male. I probably was in the top 100 dudes there, which speaks volumes. This fact alone probably indirectly accounts for the entire course of my life, including my membership on this forum.

[Lucario]

Another thing one take into account is that looks are subjective.

There is classically good looking, but then there are unique looking faces a man can have that will also make an impact, and hence affect a certain niches of women he can get.

Like there are women that want a sharper chin and wavy strong hair rather than the classical square jaw .

there are some women that want an athletic looking man rather than the buff muscular looking man.

Ofcourse being 6'3+ is a given to be in the top 1% of looks.

[Ingocnito]

(02-22-2014 08:30 PM)j r Wrote:  

The question needs some clarification. Extreme wealth beats extreme good licks, but top 1% isn't extreme wealth. For one, are we talking top one percent globally or top one percent of Americans? Even with Just America, we are talking a few million dollars.

Top one percent looks makes you a male 9, which is going to open up a world of possibilities. If we're talking tens of millions in wealth, I'll take wealth, but if we are talking a few million then I will take male model good looks.

I think JR's on it right here. If you want a fully fulfilled life, and pussy is a strong part of that, 5m vs 50m ain't changin much. But again it's sad if you're a 50m+ mofo knowing every broad you've got is a purchase and not an accommodation.

[Hotwheels]

I'd rather look like Steve Buscemi and have $10 large in the bank than have Brad Pitt's looks and a shit job barely making ends meet.

Easy choice.

And I'm actually closer to the former than the latter...

[Excelsior]

Top 1% in the USA with regards to wealth gets me at least $8.4 Million.

Top 1% in the USA with regards to looks gets me...I don't even know, really.

There are things I want to accomplish that go beyond pussy, and these things require wealth. I want to have many children and leave each of them a great inheritance with which to start their lives. I want to go back to my ancestral homeland and pave roads, build schools, fund the national soccer team, build fields, fund scholarships, etc, etc.

Money buys you the access and influence you need to get this done. With money, I can not only afford to do all of the things I want to do (while simultaneously guaranteeing that myself and my descendants never want for anything), but I can make a real impact. People who ignore my broke, unknown ass now might be compelled to listen to someone with financial clout ($8 million can buy you plenty of political clout in the developing world and/or in state/local politics here in the USA).

Money also begets more money. That $8.4 million, if given to me right now, could be doubled by the time I hit my 45th birthday if I play my cards right. $8 million is enough to be considered a "very HNWI" by asset managers and other corporate interests, giving me access to investment opportunities and deals that I'd never see as a normal dude. Taking advantage of these opportunities and investing wisely, I could die with a net worth north of $50 million.

I could allow my mother to retire right now instead of waiting 5-6 more years, and allow her to enjoy her life immensely in its twilight. I could cover our home mortgage and ensure that we never pay another rent/mortgage bill ever again. I could clear up all of our debts, finally get a decent second car, cover my student loans, pay in full for graduate school with no debt, etc, etc. These things are all very important to me, more so than merely racking up a lot of notches.

There are also tangible game advantages offered by money,however. I could buy a great bachelor pad in a central location, eliminating any logistical problems with girls I meet on nights out. I can dress to the nines all the time. I can travel the world without any worry of financial limitations, acquiring experiences in the process that make for great conversational material whenever I meet a girl I like. And think of all the date ideas I can use - prime box seats at sporting events, surprise private jet trips to tropical destinations, blacks cars to pick her up, backstage at fashion shows, etc, etc. I can be far more creative.

I really and truly cannot see what 1% looks can get me that matches up with all of that, especially when women (especially the non-western ones many on this forum rate highly) are known to weigh non-physical attractions cues (like wealth and style) far more heavily than men do, and have proven entirely willing to overlook unspectacular looks when said non-physical cues are present.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I voted "looks" as a misclick. Woooopsie.