Post: #26

Gonna have to go with looks. Money has a penchant of making the best of men the worst especially in the lifestyle we live. Wealth=gold digger pussy, and once your arrogance and use as an ATM is up you'll have nothing. Wealth also tends to make you lazy and reliant on money. Being of average wealth, but with great looks would make my job easy as hell and I would be much more happy struggling for a place in the world rather than having it handed to me. Money can buy you happiness, but it can't let you enjoy life completely. Being in the top 1% of men in looks also opens up a new world of women.

Post: #27

What are men in 1% looks looks like anyway, is their even a consensus on that?

Post: #28

(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.

Interesting point of view but some people are born into rich families and didn't work for their wealth.

With wealth you can make $$$ more easily, i.e. investments options, more start-up capital, buy a sports team/real estate, than a handsome broke man starting from 0.

Good looking people do get more opportunities than uggos (halo effect) but that probably works for women more.

I vote wealth. I'd rather be the guy who owns the modeling agency than their top male model.

Post: #29

Looks definitely

Post: #30

I'll take the money.

Post: #31

(02-22-2014 07:32 PM)Felix88 Wrote:  What are men in 1% looks looks like anyway, is their even a consensus on that?

Yeah, can someone post a photo of someone who is in the top 1% of looks for a man? No homo, of course.

Then explain why you'd want to look like him versus having a billion dollars in your bank account tomorrow.

Post: #32

I'd rather be in the top 1% of looks. Like someone else said, you can make money, but you can't really improve their looks. Also 1% of money isn't really 'baller' status anyway- you're making like 250,000 pounds a year, basically upper middle class (although wealth is probably a lot higher).

But Id rather be incredibly rich than incredibly good looking (which is hard to quantify anyway).

Post: #33

I have a feeling the 1% looks vs. wealth debate will the forum's version of this classic stand-off:

Post: #34

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.

Post: #35

Looks is short sighted because it wont last while the wealth will keep growing

Post: #36

Looks. Would rather be a broke Hugh Jackman than a rich Steve Buscemi.

Post: #37

My bankroll is holding my game back much more than my looks right now, so I'd definitely go wealth.

Post: #38

I chose the money but i would switch over to looks depending on whether my looks stay the same or i become butt fuck ugly ....... ain't no cure for butt fuck ugly ....

Post: #39

(02-22-2014 04:35 PM)Sugar Wrote:  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.

Face and Body of a God vs 6.86 Million Dollars?

Attractiveness easily

"Unlike those in the lower half of the top 1%, those in the top half and, particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for almost nothing, keep profits and production overseas, hold personal assets in tax havens, ride out down markets and economies, and influence legislation in the U.S. They have access to the very best in accounting firms, tax and other attorneys, numerous consultants, private wealth managers, a network of other wealthy and powerful friends, lucrative business opportunities, and many other benefits. Most of those in the bottom half of the top 1% lack power and global flexibility and are essentially well-compensated workhorses for the top 0.5%, just like the bottom 99%. In my view, the American dream of striking it rich is merely a well-marketed fantasy that keeps the bottom 99.5% hoping for better and prevents social and political instability. The odds of getting into that top 0.5% are very slim and the door is kept firmly shut by those within it."

Those with a higher net worth tend to acquire most of their net worth from capital gains, not income that has been saved and invested. Large capital gains tend to come when private businesses are acquired by private or public companies with stock or when executives are paid directly by options or stock. Wall Street and the banking industry are frequently involved, either directly or indirectly.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/an-invest...z2u6vQWEOu


WIA

Post: #40

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

Post: #41

(02-22-2014 04:43 PM)soup Wrote:  Although.. being in the top 1% of wealth is probably a full time job managing all your money

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.

Post: #42

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.

Post: #43

(02-22-2014 10:23 PM)Beginner Wrote:  Take it further, richest man alive or most attractive man alive?

I'll still take richest man. Because looks will fade. Once you hit 55 you won't be pulling 25 year old's off of your looks without fame or money to back you up.

The wealthiest man in the world can have top notch women in their prime for the rest of his life. And that's not to mention all the other perks like not having a financial worry in the world and no boss and the best lifestyle you can imagine.

Now if you asked me if I wanted to be the best looking man in the world with $10 million in the bank account versus an ugly or average man with $1 billion, then I'd have to think a bit harder. But if the top looks guy has average income, hell no.

Post: #44

(02-22-2014 10:02 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(02-22-2014 04:35 PM)Sugar Wrote:  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.

Face and Body of a God vs 6.86 Million Dollars?

Attractiveness easily

"Unlike those in the lower half of the top 1%, those in the top half and, particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for almost nothing, keep profits and production overseas, hold personal assets in tax havens, ride out down markets and economies, and influence legislation in the U.S. They have access to the very best in accounting firms, tax and other attorneys, numerous consultants, private wealth managers, a network of other wealthy and powerful friends, lucrative business opportunities, and many other benefits. Most of those in the bottom half of the top 1% lack power and global flexibility and are essentially well-compensated workhorses for the top 0.5%, just like the bottom 99%. In my view, the American dream of striking it rich is merely a well-marketed fantasy that keeps the bottom 99.5% hoping for better and prevents social and political instability. The odds of getting into that top 0.5% are very slim and the door is kept firmly shut by those within it."

Those with a higher net worth tend to acquire most of their net worth from capital gains, not income that has been saved and invested. Large capital gains tend to come when private businesses are acquired by private or public companies with stock or when executives are paid directly by options or stock. Wall Street and the banking industry are frequently involved, either directly or indirectly.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/an-invest...z2u6vQWEOu


WIA

Money. Not even a discussion. If i can bang 7s and 8s in the USA with minimal spending it's not even a question that the entire club would be shut down if I had $10M. That's $500K a year FOR LIFE. Over $1370 a DAY to spend. Forever.

Go hang out with a guy who makes $1M+ a year and gets a table with "20+ bottles of ace of spades" and you quickly realize there is no game needed at that point.

Beyond the chicks, you guys would rather be a pretty boy than be able to 1) afford the best health care for your parents and, 2) ability to raise a kid if you wanted to with no repercussions because you're so wealthy. 1% of looks does not mean you get rich, I know more than enough good looking guys who pull serious ass but are broke as fuck. They will have a gruesome 40s.

Guys choosing looks are just trolling for sure (zero chance they are serious). Or they are just having fun and looking at it from a girls only view IE: short sighted. $10M > looks.

--

Side note: Good thing the creators of whatsapp, mark zuck, serge brin, bill gates, warren buffet, should I go on? Went with their dreams and started a company of serious value instead of assuming defeat.

Post: #45

(02-22-2014 04:46 PM)Don Wrote:  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.

People are misconstruing "using your looks" to make money as just standing around and looking pretty. In reality, attractive people have the advantage in almost every area possible. People perceive them as smarter, they're more likely to get a raise, they can sell things easier, etc. I'm thinking the guys who don't understand how powerful looks can be for a man either aren't very attractive to begin with or are attractive and don't realize how good they have it.

(02-22-2014 04:55 PM)J DOE Wrote:  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.

There are plenty of millionaires that look like slobs and don't even get laid all that much....what's your point?

Guys are talking about living it up in poorer countries but don't realize that an attractive foreigner with 50k would have a chance at every woman there. He also wouldn't have the lower or middle class girls trying to use him as a sponsor.

Post: #46

Money.

Like WC said, hang with some serious ballers, I'm talking guys worth $100-200 million who are average to unattractive in looks.

Their LIFESTYLE is so incredible they pull bad chicks into their 'world' because it's so much damn fun.

Post: #47

(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.

Post: #48

^ 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

"A Model gets an average salary of around 32000 to 48000 based on levels of tenure"
http://www.recruiter.com/salaries/models-salary/

I would rather be me.

Note the $440K figure is not taxed its net worth... So this is still a no brainer.

Get dat dem dere green backs my brothas.

Post: #49

imo looks trump wealth, except at the peak end, where wealth overpowers. top 1% wealth is hardly baller status however. top 0.01% wealth would be more appropriate.

Post: #50

(02-22-2014 11:09 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  There are less than what 2M male models (extremely high estimate) in the USA and they make.. $48K

Male modeling is the least creative (and lucrative) way to parlay extremely good looks possible.

Furthermore, a $440,000 net worth could come down to owning a pretty modest condo in a big US city outright. That's it. An ugly dude with a condo isn't going very far.