Post: #1

I'm interested in the mindset of the RVF hivemind on this one.

Let's assume neither status would fade for a long period of time, say top 1% in looks or top 1% wealth over 20 years.

I vote top 1% wealth.

Post: #2

I'm really curious on why anyone would pick looks over wealth.

Post: #3

I would go with looks. You have to be born with good looks whereas you can make wealth. Wealth also becomes much easier to collect if you were in the top 1% of the world in looks.

Post: #4

We all know that you don't need to be the best looking or wealthiest to get girls.

Therefore, it's not about getting girls when putting these two against each other.

Aside from game boost from looking good, being handsome doesn't have any other value in life.

On the other hand, being wealthy does.

It is for this reason that I'd chose to be wealthy instead of having the top 1% of looks.

Although.. being in the top 1% of wealth is probably a full time job managing all your money and you'd probably need security everywhere you go.. it's probably like living in a bubble.

Post: #5

Top 1% of looks while starting broke vs. 1% of wealth but buttfuck ugly.

I would pick looks, this is assuming that looks = healthy greek adonis form of male "beauty". Use looks to acquire wealth. You can always lose your wealth but you will always have your body. And to be fair one should not look at it purely as "acquiring wealth via looks in a traditional sense (modelling)" but all the intangibles you achieve when you're presentable and deemed attractive by the populace. You're instantly high value with people treating you better, use this to improve social interactions and dealing in the quest for wealth.

Post: #6

Tch! Wealth! Not even a question. Only a woman should choose looks to this question.

Post: #7

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.

Post: #8

(02-22-2014 04:43 PM)J DOE Wrote:  Tch! Wealth! Not even a question. Only a woman should choose looks to this question.

I don't think so. I really think that if your in the top 1% of wealth you would of have had to work extremely hard, make many sacrifices, and dedicated alot of your life to it. But if your in the 1% of the world in looks, you will probably accumulate a tone of wealth by practically doing nothing. Now if you said you get all this wealth by doing nothing and it is given to you, then of course you take being wealthy over good looking. But if you have to earn it, then I would take looks every time.

Post: #9

The top 1% of looks doesn't own 70% of the world's pretty faces. Wealth.

Post: #10

Money ages much better than looks.

Post: #11

(02-22-2014 04:50 PM)Snuke Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 04:43 PM)J DOE Wrote:  Tch! Wealth! Not even a question. Only a woman should choose looks to this question.

I don't think so. I really think that if your in the top 1% of wealth you would of have had to work extremely hard, make many sacrifices, and dedicated alot of your life to it. But if your in the 1% of the world in looks, you will probably accumulate a tone of wealth by practically doing nothing. Now if you said you get all this wealth by doing nothing and it is given to you, then of course you take being wealthy over good looking. But if you have to earn it, then I would take looks every time.

So, is the question would you rather work hard to gain wealth while not being extremely good looking or work hard to gain wealth while being extremely good looking? In that case looks, but that isn't really a question.

I know plenty of good looking guys who aren't rich and don't even get laid all that much.

Post: #12

Would a move into the top 1% of looks physically change your appearance or the perception of your appearance?

Post: #13

I've always been money over bitches, and the older I grow the more it's becoming money over everything.

Post: #14

If you have top 1% wealth you could be ugly and have a damn harem of women in the FSU, Latin America or SEA.

Post: #15

(02-22-2014 05:17 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  If you have top 1% wealth you could be ugly and have a damn harem of women in the FSU, Latin America or SEA.

Exactly. I'd take that money, move to Belize or some shit, and live like a goddamn boss with enough impoverished pussy to last a couple lifetimes.

Post: #16

Post: #17

(02-22-2014 05:30 PM)void Wrote:  

Anyone here actually try that tongue wiggle thing on a girl?

Post: #18

1% of wealth is better.
1. you can buy better looks
2. you can go to a country where your looks are i nstyle9looks are subjective based o nculture).
3. you can buy chicks that look better, fuck better and cook for you than the guy with the top 1% of looks.
4. Many top 1% look guys don't make money.. male models for example most don't make squat. .and for how long?

It is not even a contest because a guy in the top 1% of looks probably won't even get the hottest chicks. The hottest one don't need a guys Looks. If you look at the top guys they end up dating down. So a guy who is top 1% gets a girl in the top 20% but a guy in the top 30% with game can also get a girl in the top 20%. But the guy
with top 1% of wealth can get MULTIPLE girls in the top 1% of looks..maybe even at the same time lol.

Post: #19

Is this even a question? wealth combine with game is obviously the answer, looks fade and you can't get it back, with money you can always make more.

Also with money you can still bang young girls when you get old, I like the perk

Post: #20

Looks hands down. I modeled throughout Uni and banged a lot of women in the industry with older rich guy 'boyfriends'. They used those guys like walking ATMs and then used the cash to buy me dinner lol. Money can't buy sexual attraction but maybe some guys don't care as long as they're getting their dick wet.

Post: #21

(02-22-2014 04:39 PM)Snuke Wrote:  I would go with looks. You have to be born with good looks whereas you can make wealth. Wealth also becomes much easier to collect if you were in the top 1% of the world in looks.

Co-sign. Anyone picking wealth is smoking the most serious of cracks. Or, you've never seen the kind of ass that gets thrown at one-percenter-looks guys.

And, as we know, pussy is money.

Post: #22

What would a broke 1% looks guy is gonna do once he wants to start a business? Is he gonna put his face as an asset to get credit at the bank?
Being born with money automatically gives you lifetime connections that you cant get even if you become rich later on in life.

High society preppy girls might look at a guy like that from the distance, but no girl like that would want to be seen with a broke guy no matter how good looking he is.

There is a common saying in latin america "billetera mata galan" means wallet beats pretty boy.

Post: #23

(02-22-2014 06:46 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Co-sign. Anyone picking wealth is smoking the most serious of cracks. Or, you've never seen the kind of ass that gets thrown at one-percenter-looks guys.

Post: #24

You can fix your looks with 1%er wealth. You can get your teeth fixed, get a personal trainer and/or chef, buy fly clothes, and bitches will be on your nuts.

While extremely good looks may help you get money, it is easier to do it the other way around. I'm taking the wealth.

Post: #25

I think we can all imagine what top 1% of looks would entail. What exactly is top 1% wealth?

http://www.joshuakennon.com/how-much-mon...ed-states/

Quote: Yes, this data is several years old at this point, but that means that the entry point to the top 1% of wealth would be less than $1.5 million (probably around $1.2 million).

Any other sources?