[Professor Fox]

Everything Athlone Excelsior said:

[eradicator]

(02-22-2014 04:46 PM)Don Wrote:  

OP said in the top 1% of wealth. According to NY Times:

Quote:

The Times had estimated the threshold for being in the top 1 percent in household income at about $380,000, 7.5 times median household income, using census data from 2008 through 2010. But for net worth, the 1 percent threshold for net worth in the Fed data was nearly $8.4 million, or 69 times the median household’s net holdings of $121,000.

I doubt that being in the top 1% of looks could put you anywhere close to that much money. In reality you would struggle with shitty modelling gigs and try to land a big contract. I for one agree with what soup said, being a pretty boy doesn't even come close in value to being wealthy.

eh, you would be quite wrong here. If you want to be a male model and are in the top 1% in looks, and you move to los angeles, new york, paris or milan, you will easily be in the top 1% of wealth as well doing commercial campaigns. You will also be working with the top 1% looking women in the world every day(other models) and you will have a much easier time pulling them out on dates. You are pre qualified. let's say you work the fashion walk week at los angeles, new york, paris and milan for their respective fashion weeks and seasons, you will have access to the top pussy in the world and be getting paid while talking to them. If you are butt ugly and have money, sure you can hire someone like mcqueen and get tables and bottle service to hang out with models, and sure if you have that much money and ugly, you will likely be doing p4p.

Of course, if you are in the top 1% of wealth, you can hire a personal trainer and get all sorts of plastic surgery until you are good looking.

it's a pretty odd question to think about really.

[eradicator]

(02-23-2014 03:21 AM)Excelsior Wrote:  

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.

This makes no sense. You plan on dying at age 40? If you plan on living to be in your 80s or 90s, your children will be in their 50s or 60s. So you want to leave them a large inheritance so they can start their lives at age 60?!

Quote:

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.

Agreed with a lot of this, except if you are going to be picking wealth, the other half of that means you are stuck looking like this.



Is it worth it? Like i said, you can still hire a dermatologist, a personal trainer and get yourself good looking, which completely nullifies the argument, as much as saying how easy it would be to become rich by signing with a top modelling agency and making 5k/day doing easy jobs just because you are naturally good looking...

[Hotwheels]

Just because you're loaded doesn't mean you'll look like a troll.

I kinda took this to mean average looks/big bank versus greek god looks/average bank.

[Hannibal]

Pay off my debts or constantly get hit on by gay dudes and fat chicks?

I think I'll take the money. With money I can buy access to higher quality poontang and I won't have to deal with a literally unlimited stream of unwanted attention.

[eradicator]

(02-23-2014 04:00 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

Just because you're loaded doesn't mean you'll look like a troll.

I kinda took this to mean average looks/big bank versus greek god looks/average bank.

Oh, that is obviously a whole other discussion then. I was thinking you had to pick one, where you are filthy rich,but look like a troll vs being perfect looking but 0 bank.

[Excelsior]

(02-23-2014 03:52 AM)eradicator Wrote:  

This makes no sense. You plan on dying at age 40? If you plan on living to be in your 80s or 90s, your children will be in their 50s or 60s. So you want to leave them a large inheritance so they can start their lives at age 60?!

Let me be more clear.

I plan on leaving my children a large inheritance on which they can build. I probably won't father many children before I turn 40 and intend to keep doing so well after that (until 50 or 60), so it is likely that they will be in the 40's, 30's or 20's if I pass in my 80s.

Some of what I intend to pass down can be handed over well before I die in the form of trust funds, stocks, tangible possessions (houses, cars) and other assets. These are things I can pass to them as soon as they're done with schooling (which would be around the ages 23-27,as I'd like them all to attend graduate schools) to make their transition into adulthood a bit easier. This will enable me to give them a "headstart" in life that I didn't have, in addition to a debt-free start (I'll have enough money to pay completely for their education). If I build a viable business entity with my wealth (the vehicle through which I manage and expand my assets), I can have them helping me to run it well before I pass away.

This all goes without mentioning my grandchildren, for whom I could also arrange substantial benefits with carefully organized trusts that will support them long after I'm gone.

Quote:

Agreed with a lot of this, except if you are going to be picking wealth, the other half of that means you are stuck looking like this.

No it doesn't. I don't see any stipulation in the opening post claiming that one who votes "top 1% wealth" must accept "bottom 1% looks".

Quote:

Is it worth it? Like i said, you can still hire a dermatologist, a personal trainer and get yourself good looking, which completely nullifies the argument, as much as saying how easy it would be to become rich by signing with a top modelling agency and making 5k/day doing easy jobs just because you are naturally good looking...

Male models are not generally that well compensated, and they don't get that much work. Modeling is primarily a female's game.

[Feisbook Control]

(02-22-2014 10:44 PM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Quote:

Take it further, richest man alive or most attractive man alive?

The former, and you're an idiot to pick otherwise. That's world domination wealthy.

I agree, yet what surprises me is just how unimaginative and downright beta some of the richest guys in the world are. You'd better believe that if I were the richest guy in the world I'd be pulling some James Bond super villain crazy shit. Has Bill Gates ever seen Moonraker or Live and Let Die? Instead he wants to give every kid in Africa a laptop. Screw that. I'd have space shuttles and henchmen with metal teeth or claws for hands, alligator farms, and chicks reading tarot cards in my living room.

Incidentally, of all the people commenting about how being exceedingly rich wouldn't be that great, I wonder how many 1) have been/are that rich and know what that would entail, 2) know wealthy people who live the life (not wealthy people who are just rich schmucks with no imagination).

[Maciano]

In House of Cars Kevin Spacey says this after running into his former protege Remy:

"Such a waste of time, he chose money over power. In this town, a mistake nearly everyone makes. Money is the McMansion in Sarasota that starts falling apart after ten years. Power is the old stone building that stands for centuries. I can not respect someone that doesn’t see the difference."

So, I guess the choice should be between 1% in looks & 1% in power.

If that's the choice, the latter would be better: power > money or looks.

[rudebwoy]

Looks are subjective, money isn't.

Looks fade, having 1% income won't fade anytime soon.

Once you leave the western world and have money it is game over. Christ with a million I would set up shop in Eastern Europe, buy a fancy pad for a 100k euro, entry level Benz or Bimmer and I am way ahead of the competition.

Having that in North America makes me another face in the crowd.

[Moma]

To add to what rudebwoy said, with wealth, you have options. And saying that having 1 percent in looks doesn't mean shyt in the grand scheme of things.
Women are judged by looks more than men. It will only matter if the world is run by women or if you live in a gay or female dominated industry and whichever industries those are, they don't dominate the world.

When we say 1% in looks, does race come into it? Top 1% of looks for a white man or South East Asian man vs top 1% of looks for a black man or Oriental man, who wins?

*Giggles as can of worms is opened on race*

[MikeCF]

Seems like money wins due to "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

Let's take a look at looks:

It's easier to make money than to be really good looking - not just cute, but a male 10 (essentially what a 99% is, as that's 9.9 out of ten.) I'm assuming we're talking an "American male 10," i.e., a white guy - preferably tall.

If you're a handsome man you'll always have a job paying decent enough (insurance sales or any other type of sales). It's the halo effect. Study after study has shown that more attractive and taller people are better paid.

So many ways to leverage good looks with a little charm - real agent comes to mind. The most successful agents tend to be good looking. (Halo effect: People assume that good looking people are more competent. People want to be around good looking people. When people find a good looking real agent, that's who they want.)

Ashton Kutcher and Mark Walberg levereaged their 99% looks into film careers.

You could also marry rich and divorce rich.

But the top 1% of wealth in the U.S. is $6,816,200. You're already a multi-millionaire.

Even with Justin Timberlake's looks (or whoever most girls find to be a 10), are you going to make nearly seven million dollars? (Plus you have factor the present value of the cash. Even if you made 7 million, it' wouldn't be done at all once but would take years or decades. While you're trying to catch up to that 7 million, the 7 million is earning dividends and growing.)

The 1% man starts off with such a huge head start that I'd take the money over the looks.

[Comte De St. Germain]

Realistically I would take power>looks>money. I would make the money myself, but if I could get the looks I could get the power. Get into the in crowd through your looks by becoming a model, and forge a name for yourself through the capital you get through that job. Solidify your powerbase by being involved with said power base and earn the money yourself. Proceed to do some James Bond level bad guy shit and sleep with the wives and girlfriends of the powerful as well as creating your own harem. I see nothing wrong with this.

[soup]

Also, looks are guaranteed to eventually fade over time.

This another reason why all guys should learn game.

Here's one- would you rather be a well rounded player or be extremely good only at particular type of game?

The second would get better results but wouldn't be able to function in a lot situations and also might have inconsistencies.

[Comte De St. Germain]

Might I also add in that if you don't manage your money right you'll burn it all through. Just ask those ex-NFL/NBA stars or actors/actresses whose salary was in the millions. They are nowhere now because they couldn't maintain it.

[soup]

Would you rather have a huge cock or a very handsome face?

[PoosyWrecker]

If I was given the option of being sent back in time to when I was 21, without any of the knowledge I have today I'd take being 9.9/10 in looks as in 6 ft 6, 230+ lbs Euro facial features vs inheriting several million since I'd probably have squandered most of it. Now if I started with good looks I could learn how to make money over the years and I'd still have my looks and height, we've all heard of men going from rags to riches. On the other hand I don't think a man can increase his looks that much using surgeries no matter how much money he spends, the late Michael Jackson for example.

[Moma]

(02-23-2014 01:09 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

Realistically I would take power>looks>money. I would make the money myself, but if I could get the looks I could get the power. Get into the in crowd through your looks by becoming a model, and forge a name for yourself through the capital you get through that job. Solidify your powerbase by being involved with said power base and earn the money yourself. Proceed to do some James Bond level bad guy shit and sleep with the wives and girlfriends of the powerful as well as creating your own harem. I see nothing wrong with this.

Is it possible to have power without wealth? Or wealth without power

[j r]

The thing to rember about looks is that it's about more than just pussy. Male model good looks paired with a modicum of knowledge about game and social dynamics means entre into just about any social circle you can imagine. That kind of networking ability can be easily monetized. Just think about what it would mean if you showed up at college and could join any fraternity or associate with any social scene you choose. That's a leg up on getting jobs. That's a leg up on conducting business when you have a job. That's a leg up on fundraising if you ever decide to start your own business.

The question is how much is that power worth to you. If someone offered 18 year old merge choice between a million dollars cash and looking like Tyson Beckford, I'd take the looks. Punch it up to $10 million and the choice gets a bit more difficult. I'd still probably take the looks, because I think the looks would be worth more than $10 million over the course of my lifetime.

A lot of this is goin to come down to personal preferences. If you're dream in life is to be an actor or a musician, then you would probably take the looks. If your dream in life is to live on a private tropical island with a harem of constantly rotating twenty-something year olds, then you might take the money.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-23-2014 01:32 PM)Moma Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 01:09 PM)hwuzhere Wrote:  

Realistically I would take power>looks>money. I would make the money myself, but if I could get the looks I could get the power. Get into the in crowd through your looks by becoming a model, and forge a name for yourself through the capital you get through that job. Solidify your powerbase by being involved with said power base and earn the money yourself. Proceed to do some James Bond level bad guy shit and sleep with the wives and girlfriends of the powerful as well as creating your own harem. I see nothing wrong with this.

Is it possible to have power without wealth? Or wealth without power

Wealth is achieved on the road to power. Just ask our good friend Rasputin during the end of the Russian Empire. He achieved power through stopping the prince's bleeding, but he him self was not wealthy. He got wealth through his relation to the Tsar.

[j r]

A couple of things:

At the top of the looks spectrum, ethnicity doesn't matter all that much. Take a bunch of girls who will only date white guys and put them in a room with Shemar Moore or Daniel Sunjata or Daniel Dae Kim and more often than not, they will give up the drawers.

In most of the developed world, power without money is overrated. There are lots of people working on Capitol Hill or in the White House right now who have power by virtue of who they work for. Five years from now, most of those people will be out on the wilderness. They will be working at think tanks or lobbying firms waiting for their next chance to get back in the game. Money is tangible. Power is largely ephemeral.

[WestCoast]

Back when I was a newbie here I stated "when you double your income your quality goes up a point" so far that has been tried and true.

$100K a year you can get 6-7s no problem
At a two handle you're easily getting 7s and some 8s
At the 4 handle...

You give me $8M ... forget about it man! I'm pouring ace down your throat and have drugs for all. Haha

You can basically push and move be whole atmosphere. McQueen can give more detailed analysis of this but basically.

1. The staff is at your feet
2. You don't "wait" for shit
3. The staff stops you as you move about the club to make sure you're having an amazing time
4. Your logistics are "i can do whatever the duck I want"

You guys should all try to go party with real ballers and you'll be turning back to cash for sure. It's another level of consciousness

[Slim Shady]

If it means top 1% wealth looking like I do now, then yes. Already in that 1% looks bracket.

But actually, looks does sound appealing. Then again, I'm a vain narcissist who would rather jack off to himself in the mirror.

[rudebwoy]

Unbelievable, guys are going on about looks over money.

Have you seen rich dudes? Generally they aren't the best looking guys on the planet and by rich I mean very wealthy.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(02-23-2014 01:47 PM)j r Wrote:  

A couple of things:

At the top of the looks spectrum, ethnicity doesn't matter all that much. Take a bunch of girls who will only date white guys and put them in a room with Shemar Moore or Daniel Sunjata or Daniel Dae Kim and more often than not, they will give up the drawers.

In most of the developed world, power without money is overrated. There are lots of people working on Capitol Hill or in the White House right now who have power by virtue of who they work for. Five years from now, most of those people will be out on the wilderness. They will be working at think tanks or lobbying firms waiting for their next chance to get back in the game. Money is tangible. Power is largely ephemeral.

I agree with your sentiment about Congress because power is an end game to them. They don't make contacts or enhance their quality of life, but instead waste it with their preconceived notions of power. Also note they use their wealth to get there, and once they are on the big stage they don't know what to do. All we have is idiots with money in our government simulator to the corrupt Roman Senate(with notable exceptions such as Pompey the Great, Julius Caesar, Cicero, and Cato(both elder and younger). Caesar is one of those people whom used his power to achieve something greater.