/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>16518731
yes, unless you start your own business, even then u need to hire good looking people

>>16518731
How much cum do you think has leaked out of that girl's anus?

>>16518731
Those guys were probably middle class or better to begin with. The ultimate blackpill is that life is entirely luck based. If you're lucky, you're born into a rich family who can afford to give you a good private school education. Then, life is just auto pilot for them. Me? I was born poor so I'm a NEET until I die.

>>16518731
That's correct
>>16518737
A lot, every single hole

>>16518737
Less than yours?

>>16518731
Those blokes look like movie extras in a corporate setting

>>16518731
It's not fair. I was supposed to be in that summer program....

>>16518731
God just imagine the night she had with all of them.

>>16518746
For one genes aren't luck. You aren't inserted into the world in some Rawlsian sense. Secondly studies consistently demonstrate private schools do not significantly improve life outcomes when controlled for intelligence.

>ywn gangbang a ladder climber with your bros
fuck...

>>16518796
>genes aren't luck
yeah ok, God. Please tell us more

>>16518731
if the blokes in that picture are anything to go by, no.
they all look pretty average to me. maybe second from the left is a bit more photogenic

>>16518865
Just a pic I got from Google. Anyways, I checked LinkedIn and 90% of their interns are attractive.

>>16518731
me on top of second from right

>>16518865
>t. Ugly sperg with pale skin

>>16518746
not true

you just dont want to put in the work, if you are born poor you need to do more shit but you can get rich eventually

>>16518899
Everyone looks good with a nice haircut and proper photograph where their face is blasted with light.

>>16518922
I'm probably cuter than you anon

>>16518826
How on earth can something be luck when there are no options involved. You ARE your genes, there's no 'you' to be born into someone else. It's like saying how lucky a cliff is to be a cliff and not a pond. It makes zero sense.

>>16518731
>just study programming, you'll easily get a job
>tech meme bubble
>first year CS class is now full of Chad and Stacys
I swear, the amount of "nerds" are dwindling in CS. It's a normie subject now

nah your look gets attractive after having a good job/ lots of money.

>>16519015
well, yeah. if no looks and no chink intelligence you are done if you have no luck too.

>>16519021

>>16518758
>all look like
and thats why Goldman Sachs et al are ultimately fucked. You wouldn't run any other business exclusively staffed by corporate clone drones. This herd of Hooray Henrys (and a Henrietta for eyecandy) will happily follow one another off the nearest cliff. Only the winebars of London shall mourn their passing.

>>16518731
>good jobs
that's an oxymoron

>>16518731
>GS
dead kike walking

>>16518731
It depends on the job. If you're doing some super white collar shit like in your pic, most of the advancement for women in those jobs is done through kneepads, so naturally you want the best stock of girls for you to relieve yourself with if you're a manager who has the power to promote people. So if you're a girl, you need to be attractive to make it in this field. They'll also prefer to hire attractive guys so that they attract desirable women to the job (in contrast, CS hires whatever ogres are up to the task, which is why most of the women in that field are functioning members of society rather than wh*toid cumdumps), so you need to be attractive to make it in business if you're a guy as well. You can still get hired if you're ugly, but be prepared to be saddled with the 90% of work that the rest of your team neglects because they're too busy trying to court each other. You will be miserable, but also unfireable because the entire company depends on your work to function, so some people still go for it for the job security.

>>16518786
I've been in a similar "summer programme" before, you unironically don't want that shit in your life.

>>16519688
This. I know GS workers, literally 12 hour days 7 days a week. When you break down pay by hour it's barely acceptable lmao.

If you want to make it big just work two subways shifts back to back 365 days a year, no coked up megaboomer bursting your eardrums shouting at you when you fuck up a BLT.

its now about being attractive its about being social and fun to be around which is something that is more prevalent on handsome people. no one likes to be around an awkward incel that spazes about the jews everyday

>>16519828
I'd like to be around that guy, it'd be a huge break from "footeh".

>>16518746
You just got the harder difficulty, doesn't have to be intelligent or rich to build discipline and good habits.

>>16519539
based

>>16519720
My wife is GS Worker. Comfy as fuck job for her. She started as a PM, and later learned how to excel at a bunch of tasks / processes that her bosses hated doing. Now they love her. She works from home after having our 3rd kid. Bosses are totally cool with it, which is EXTREMELY rare for GS to allow.

You should see their 401k managed plan. Professionally managed by GS with a 0.06% expense ratio.

>>16518731
Look up "Halo Effect"

>>16518746
As >>16518796 points out, you status in life isn't luck, it is the will of your substandard parents. Every time some gross welfare hoe takes a load from an employment resistant scumbag, the child that pops out has a 99% chance doomed existence. No narrative has had greater harm in the west than the slandering of eugenics as bad. For more info on the future you chose, watch the film Idiocracy.

>>16520224
1 or 2 of those kids are not yours. You got cucked

>>16519828
This and only this, everyone just wants to work with people who they find funny and don't make their job harder.
Handsome people have a leg up since childhood but ugly people have the same opportunities with good social skills. However if you look like a fish-skinned meth-hobo chances are you never got to develop those skills to begin with and ended up on 4chan instead

>>16520224
she's fucking her boss, there's no reason why they're giving her all these benefits.

>>16520224
"My wife gets passed around her office and I'm too naive to see it"

>>16518796
When controlled for intelligence no, for literally everything else yes. Intelligence doesn't matter. Ironically only idiots think it matters.

>>16520224

>>16518731
>goldman sachs
I wonder if those interns fud btc too. As long as we buy btc, we'll be richer than them

>>16518796
>genes aren't luck.
God, what a retard

>>16519539
based and NEETpilled

>>16519015
>when there are no options
Look, dumbass. If someone is born with down syndrome, they had no control over the arrangement of their genes. Arrangement of their genes is based on factors out of your control which is indeed fucking luck based. You cant choose what genes will be dominant and whoch will not. How the FUCK is that THEIR fault? IDIOT. Biz is infested with idiots. "Hardwork" can't overwrite shit genetics, fool. Is this what you tell yourself to cope with reality?

>>16519519
They made like 40 billion last year. I think they're good.

>>16518924
So how come you're still poor?

>>16522169
Describe exactly how they're luck. Describe how it makes any sense at all to be you but with different genes. The genes come first, the person follow.

>>16519539
HOLY SHIT
this post changed my life

>>16522194
It's their fault because they ARE the genes. There's no 'other way' they could be. You have this weird conception of things out of their control as if the person is distinct from the genes and there is some possible world in which a person is the person but different.

>>16521326
No literally just when you control for IQ amd class room size being under 40.

>>16522860
misplaced hubris
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/business/13wall.html
their day shall surely come
I'd bet even their diversity hires are indistinguishable from these bourgeois scamps tho

>>16523122
> HATE SUCCESS
Why are you even on /biz/

>>16518731
my HS chad classmate got offered 150k starting straight out of college by a female boss of a multinational. the guy isn't completely dumb but he is utterly reckless. already got into a fight with a coworker at a party. but none of it matters because boss vagoo probably gets wet

>>16523161
>SUCCESS
What did he mean by this?

>>16523161
>implying
the fuck are you talking about
I'm saying, you need a mix of employees, maybe the odd one might think out the box while they marching merrily over the cliff edge. And none of these cunts look very different to me. Dress the same, think the same, drink the same. This is (literally IMO) how Banks Crash.
>muh diversity
well, you can also overdo it, but, my point is made - unless you are an obtusely thick cunt, like you

>>16518924
Cope, the post

>>16522968
They aren't the genes. They are an expression of the genes. Identical twins (technically clones) have different personalities.

>>16519828
Can I spaz about the Jews on imageboards and be normal in real life?

>>16518746
false. its all about inner drive. some people have it and others dont

>>16518731
Lmao I bet these wagies brag to all their friends and think slaving literally for Mr.Noseburg is admirable. I bet pounding some brews at the pub and gossiping about becky’s affair after a 12 hour day is really fun though!

>>16520316
If you tell people they aren't allowed to reproduce and try to back it up with force you will find yourself dealing with mass riots. Take that away from someone and they have nothing to lose as end of the day your genes are the only thing that matter after you die

>>16518731
ITT: Ugly people bitch about how they're too lazy to get good a trade to find a well-paying job

>>16523591
> eugenics is sterilisation
You'd be a prime candidate were that true.

>>16520847
>but ugly people have the same opportunities with good social skills
"personality" is just a function of looks, so no.

>>16523210
You know absolutely nothing about them to say they're the same. That said 'thinking outside the box' is a meme cope by failures. High IQ is correlated with higher creativity, a group of GS analysts will be able to think outside the box more than the University of L.I.F.E graduates at wetherspoons.

>>16518746
Not entirely luck based, if you're middle-class and have an IQ over 100, you 100% can "make it".

A big part is outlasting the competition. Srs, 80% of my high school graduating class gave up on self-improvement and forward career progression after graduating college. That doesn't mean mindlessly "grinding" all the time, but boom & bust cycles happen on a regular basis and the people who kept searching for career advancement and professional development have managed to ride the economic upturn of the 2008 recession recovery.

>>16523387
Phenomenal...

>>16523654
Middle class is irrelevant, parent's socioeconomic background is a very minor predictor of life outcomes.

>>16518731
they got the jobs because they were born into rich and well-connected families
they are attractive (not really, just not ugly) because they have really good diet, skincare, and are basically groomed to do this by their rich families.
other people dont have time for that shit. there are poor people with great genes, they are still ugly as fuck.

https://web.archive.org/web/20181230045958/http://How to get a job by Clique

If you're a Jock, interview with a Jock; if you're a Prep, interview with a Prep; if you're a Nerd, interview at any job that requires Engineering; and if you're a Scumbag, go to a workplace that requires manual labor and kick someone's ass. If you win the fight, you'll be hired.

If you're a High Prole (Scumbag, Ascended Form), go to a workplace that requires manual labor and kick the ass of the Scumbag who just won the fistfight on the shop floor. Then ask for a job as foreman.

If you're a Woman, go to any liberal arts firm and make $43,350/yr.

If you're a Loser, go on 300 job interviews until you catch lightning in a bottle and happen to walk into the interview room and identify the interviewer as a fellow Loser within .05 seconds. Accept the salary without negotiating, which will range between $19,000/yr and $43,350/yr. Make peace with the fact that you will never be promoted and that all your career moves will be "lateral." (Keithd, 9/10/13)


Scumbags, in earnest, just need to show up to the job site in their pickup or motorcycle (not a car) and ask if they're hiring. Same for the fast food place etc. Then, they have to call and follow up. Do this like 5 times and you'll have a Scumbag job. (theimmigrant, 9/11/13)
I talked to a roofer the other day. He was younger than me, had long hair, spoke really broken English, had forearms the size of hams, and had a hot girlfriend. A true High Scumbag. He probably makes about twice as much as me (in cash), but works his fucking balls off.

Still that's so much of a better fate than that of the Liberal Artist, who has been conditioned to fear Hard Work, and sucks at it anyhow. Plus the Scumbag can selectively ignore people by pretended to not speak English. (unemployedalcoholic, 9/11/13)

>>16518731
>>16518733
>>16518746
>>16519688
>>16520243
>>16523164
>>16523611
I have worked at 5 companies since finishing college in 2012-ish - ranging in size from startups to Fortune 500. I was living in Portland, OR, for a bit and ended up working at NIKE's global HQ in Beaverton. I swear, for the most part, NIKE has the greatest concentration of the most attractive women I've ever seen. I've traveled the world when I was in the military, then college, then random corporate jobs - I've seen nowhere the can even come close to competing with the amount of attractive women in a single defined space. It was fucking crazy. I currently live in Scottsdale, AZ, which is said to have the most attractive women in the US - NIKE fucking blows them out of the water.

>>16523720

https://web.archive.org/web/20181230045958/http://www.cliquetheory.com/

>>16518731
From pwrsonal observations a lot of jobs that require experienve dont even bother sending me a rejection letter. Lo and behold, a woman who has no experience in said field somehow got the job. In other case I have a little bit and and the woman has none yet somehow she has a job in it and i cant even get an interview. At one point I thought it was my resume. Nope. After seeing two resumes of normie females i realized mine is pretty good in its design.

>>16523713
>my sides thnx anon

>>16523730
>t. mermaid vision

>>16518731
no, engineers and skilled liars get good jobs

>>16523767
stop applying for executive assistant/secretary roles or whatever other excuse for a sexbot role you're applying for

>>16523730
i work at nike and can confirm.

love the summer when all the college interns show up. mmmm

>>16523713
Is this genuinely bait?

>>16523713
>>16523774
>>16523853
Read up faggots:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/09/its-better-be-born-rich-than-talented/

>>16523625
What's your vision of eugenics then? Convincing goyim not to breed because of muh climate?

>>16518746

No. You're a defeatist self limitation imposed piece of shit so you're a NEET until you die.

>>16524041
> washington post
> "economists found genetic endowments are distributed almost equally among children in low-income and high-income families."
> doesn't link study
I found the paper, which is 79 pages long. It is extremely weak on what it consitutes as its polygenic component and then the controls for socioeconomic environment. Given these are inherently related a pure gene analysis is pretty useless in this case. You need adoption studies, lottery voucher studies and the like. However regardless it STILL proposes genes being responsible for differences in outcomes even amongst those who both graduate.

So you have a very poor quality analysis reported in a poor way.

>>16524107
Simple processes like cessation of non-white immigration, more promotion of sexual restraint and contraception, potentially restriction of welfare, promotion of high reproduction amongst professional classes. All very easy steps which don't require ever preventing someone having as many kids as they want.

There was a period in Europe when the upper class exerted so much downward reproductive pressure they genetically replaced the lower classes twice over (essentially). You don't need much of a ratio difference to have a major effect.

>>16521326
This.
hard work & drive > intelligence.

If you work less than 80 hours a week in your 20s, know that you're up against people who do this, and that fact alone means they're progressing literally twice as fast as you are.

Whether it's working 2 jobs & saving & buying as much crypto as possible, or spending 40 hours a week learning & upskilling, it doesn't matter.

Just think about how common this is
>"smart" guy who passed tests in high school without studying then got to uni and realized you have to actually put in work and lost ""motivation"" and now feels like a disappointment because everyone had such high expectations

Intelligence means nothing without effort

>>16524197
Nope. Industriousness as a trait is second to IQ as predictor of success. Its close, so it is important but IQ is still more impactful.

>>16524141
So how come you failed in life knowing that?

>>16524041
This is a good thing for you spergs.
If it was better to be talented, then if you lose the genetic lottery, may as well rope.
Born rich just gets you a good education & less stress as well as connections. None of these things require you to win a divine coin flip.

if you cant see how this is good news, ngmi

>>16519720
It's not for money at all. It's purely for exit opps.

>>16524247
The article was trash. There's no genetic lottery, you are necessarily the outcome of genes and no good education isn't important past a very basic baseline. Like it or not IQ is the single most important factor in a slew of life outcomes including wealth, IQ is about 0.8 genetically heritable. Socioeconomic background and education quality are the results of good genetic IQ, not the cause.

>>16524208
>IQ as a predictor of success
it's a pretty shitty predictor. It predicts *not* being a retard which strangely enough correlates with not being broke.

Read:
>https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-swindle-f131c101ba39

>Industriousness as a trait is second to IQ as predictor of success.
>Industriousness, adjective. working energetically and devotedly; hard-working; diligent:
Good, this is a skill that can be cultivated.

>>16524337
wow what an amazing correlation.

all this tells us is if youre a sub 80 iQ brainlet, yes, you're ngmi but if you're literally anything else you have the opportunity to

>>16520224
Yeah but she's probably not on the banking/dealmaking/rev generating side of the business. Working at a big bank in software or operations is similar to other generic Fortune 500 jobs.

>>16518731
For Goldman Sachs? Just be jewish

>>16524394
Oh look he listens to Taleb lmao. Go read the actual study that is from, IQ predicts networth with direct linearity. A noisy distribution doesn't outweigh the data buddy.

You did... read the actual study didn't you?

>>16519539
1000 % agree
wagie here for almost 10 years now

>>16524366
Well given IQ is one of the most rigourly tested and predictive valid measures in all scientific fields i would be hard pressed to call it psuedoscience!

Industriousness is also largely genetically heritable. I don't know the exact amount unlike IQ. However as an example political beliefs are 0.3 genetically heritable. That's very specific, so your drive to work is almost certainly going to be somewhere above that.

>>16524538
>A noisy distribution doesn't outweigh the data buddy.

If you think you can draw a trend through that data you should be taken out back and shot.
You did take high school level statistics right buddy?

>>16524574
(Yes, you can) as supported in the paper itself lmao.

only attractive people get put into pr photos you idiots, most real workers are ugly as hell

>>16524612
>>16524574
I mean im really interested as to why you chose that particular graph from the paper. Im actually doubting you read it at all given you linked it as supporting evidence lmao.

>>16518731
unbutton one more, sweetheart

>>16523122
the difference is that in 2008 there was such a thing called Credit Default Swap by the AIG insurance company

>>16524990
no my friend.
the sole difference between then and now, Lehmans shit floated to the visible surface and overflowed, despite their best attempts to shove it back down the pipe. Like putting toothpaste back in the tube. Or shovel shit back down a pipe. But anyway, should you for one second believe there is not right now, even as we speak, someone somewhere in a bank backroom trying desperately to bury some shite; you're a bigger fool than I think, and that's quite a fool already. Take DeutscheBank, for instance. Go on, take it. Please. They'd be sehr, sehr dankbar, wirklich.

>>16525097
what i'm saying is companies took bigger risks because of the false safety guaranteed by credit default swaps. if we were to enter a recession now it wouldn't be as severe. of course there's always the risk of a company going under and i don't think people would call it a recession unless some do.

>>16519021
>first year CS
That's your first mistake, wait til year 3 and see how many of them are still there.

>>16524197
Yep, I'm sure you're poor due to a lack of "effort" and not because you're an ugly sperg

>>16524646
I took it from Talebs analysis of it. I trust his math/stats knowledge, seeing as he made millions off it.

download that image and draw a trend line in there & show me literally any correlation between IQ and income above 40k (the not-a-retard level )

>>16525559
Cope.
Bold of you to assume I'm poor when I'm coming in here saying anyone could make it. Surely if I was poor I'd agree with you & blame something i cant change like intelligence.

>>16520847
Yup.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2018/08/15/commentary/world-commentary/personality-affects-paycheck/

>>16524208
IQ is pretty much a meme. IQ is not anymore a predictor of success than SAT scores or parental income at childhood. Personality and finances during child are immensely important.
Never forget, children from poorer households fail the marshmallow test more because they have a 'survivalist' mentality. Whereas rich kids learn patience because if they don't get that gameboy or RC car today, they will get it tomorrow. Poor kids may never because mommy has bills to pay, or dad may spend it all on booze. Or because even if they do get one, it'll be repossessed.

If IQ is a measure for anything, it's probably how good of a bureaucrat you'd make. That is at odds with 'making it'.

>>16525559
Why do you keep posting this cope instead of, I dunno, figuring out a way you can make it? Seems really defeatist and crab buckety.
Do you even have a girlfriend?

>>16518751
g-g-good job. set that faggot right for disrespect wamans

>>16518731
It's because they get jobs like this through family connections.
>rich, successful father
>therefore, hot, model-tier mother
>therefore, attractive, well-connected, rich kids
The guys in that picture aren't even that good looking though.

>>16525637
>just a figure a way out to make it bro!
Why haven't you?

>>16525628
Except you are poor. You wouldn't be here if you made it.

>>16525559
replace your image

>>16525637
>just figure a way out to make it bro!
Why haven't you?

How much money/year is considered a "good job"?

>>16525672
I can guarantee you that trying and failing how to figure out to make it is a better use of your time. I never said it was easy, just that you're wasting your time. Which means you have low self-worth.
And to answer your question, I'm currently brainstorming ideas for a submission for a mentorship program and negotiating for a paid gig this weekend not 5 minutes ago.
What the fuck are you doing other than shitposting?

>>16518731
>>16518746
Correct. (((Reality))) is a trap. God abandoned us a long time ago.

>>16518731
None of them are really that attactive with the exception of the woman. Nonetheless, it's really about status upon birth and luck, so it's irrelevant

>>16520224
ok boomer

>>16524538
>IQ predicts networth with direct linearity

The study says IQ has a 0.156 correlation with net worth. That's almost nothing. You'd have to be extremely biased to claim that IQ and net worth are strongly correlated.

>>16525704
>>16525697

>>16523730
You in Scottsdale Anon? Let's hit Old Town

>>16525684
Im literally posting from my comfy tech job

no where near poor my friend

>>16525700
depends on your cost of living as its more how much you have left over to invest, not just how big your salary is, as well as the likely trajectory of your career & salary over the next 10+ years.

6 figure salary gets you solid upward mobility (if you dont go full normie & try to keep up with the joneses instead of investing it). If a job pays you this or will in the future, its a good job.

Obviously you can do this with less if you live cheaper but 6 figs lets you save enough while still being comfy.

>>16524538
still waiting on that 'linear' trend line buddy

>>16518786

fuck goldman sachs. the corporate culture there they'll slave you 10 hours a day. you kids are hilariously naive.

whats more hilarious half you clowns on biz talk about crypto yet want a wagie job at dinosaur investment bank.

>>16519071
This

Appearance can be improved provided the extra money and spare time

The extra money and spare time come from success

As success increases, so should investment into appearance

>>16525604
the image was for net worth, not income. this is a switcheroo that blank slatists like to do becase the income correlation is twice as high. and it would be higher if not for minimum wage and affirmative action

>>16523730
I worked at Sephora. the company is 80% female. Dont recommend it though unless you enjoy working in mean girls. My floor was a bunch of chinks though. All the hot girls were down on the marketing and product development floors.

>>16519539
based.

>>16524553
>most rigourly tested and predictive valid measures in all scientific fields
Imagine believing some basic factor analysis in psychology can trump physics and chemisty on this score. Fucking retard.

>>16525604
So you literally didn't read the study and just rely on fucking Taleb, amazing.

Here's the table of data from the paper itself. Net worth and income rise at every IQ point. There are also many more studies showing stronger correlation all the way up. Taleb chose one study to misrepresent. What would you like: income/net worth correlations, work quality, educational achievement, criminality? I have links to studies on all because i don't just listed to one guy and NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT IVE POSTED LMAO.

>>16527913
ok lets do income

Think for a second that a nobrainer who's stupid will fail at almost everything - someone hit in the head with a hammer is going to fail many tests & probably not make much at all.

Taleb's point being that the data doesnt show anything novel - an iq test in a parallel universe could be a maths test, general knowledge or almost any test - someone stupid will do terribly in all, with a high variance in those with basic competency.

Low id correlating with low income doesnt tell us anything, & high iQ doesnt correlate with high income.

>>16527913
>>16528301

This pic illustrates this - being bad at things in general on the left, with zero correlation to the right. Noise is added, and thats what the income vs iq graph looks like.

>>16528267
>correlation 0.156, 0.297
this is pathetic lmao

>>16528301
High iq does correlate as shown there, in a second im going to dump all the studies specifically showing correlation in the """right tail""" that Taleb wilfully ignores (as best as he can when the best still shows it). However first let's laugh together at Taleb.

Firstly in the medium article you are using for your thoughts he talks about IQ being an academic sort test and not real world applicable. He says there is overlap between the smartest janitors and the stupidest professors. Yet in his very article he shows IQ is the single best predictor of work performance. The lowest IQ professors will be THE WORST professors.

Then there's pic related. Given you seem to offset your thinking to others you probably don't see the hilarity.

>>16528324
Using correlations for clearly skewed data is retarded though.

>>16528324
A point 3 correlation is substantial, as the study itself discusses yet of course you wouldn't know. Taleb doesn't source it for a reason. Despite that it's much lower than the average these studies produces. You really have to question your faith in someone who chooses unrepresentative studies MISREPRESENTS THEM, hides the source and puts nonsense charts in to look good.

>>16518746
what a massive cope

>>16523720
my entire life just started making sense.

>>16525637
Get fucked faggot cunt. Looks are absolutely critical.
>do you even have a gf
90% of getting a gf is looks

Looks can be influenced a lot though. Don't touch vegetable oils, eat lots of vegetables, not too many carbs, adequate vitamins, minerals, and proteins. Also mew.

>>16525712
you're wrong, God did not abandoned us, he is watching us and acts when it is necessary, the balance is maintained. God will never abandoned us, his presence will completely depart from us soon but know that he will always keep an eye on us, until time resets again and the universe is renewed.

>>16523720
makes sense. first boss only hired attractive white people and last two bosses have been spergs.

>>16526731
what if we discussed startups here

>>16524504
>>16520376
>>16521242
>>16520932
>>16522083
>>16525765

I just told you she was a PM. You are correct she is not a floor trader Sherlock Holmes. I see nothing gets by you and your lackey team. Steel traps the lot of you. I guaran-fucking tee you those kids in the OP pic are not all investment bankers.

She makes $90k a year with around 20% bonus. She works from home here 4 days a week in suburban Chicago and all her bosses are in New York. So passing her around the office must involve some space folding time portal shit for the logistics to work. If they're willing to put that much work into it, they can have her.

All the kids are mine to be sure. We married young while in college. Not a worry to be had.

I'm 37 so I guess that makes me a boomer. We have our house paid off, $1,5M investment retirement account and great benefits. Boomer life is peak comfy I guess.

Have fun in your shitty gig economy Europoor. I heard Deutchbank is hiring at 14Euro per hour. Or maybe not. Pic related.

>>16522860
This. The business I'm involved in has a core group of people that is responsible for like 95% of the company's revenue. Everyone else we hire/hired to be really really honest just makes us feel good about being able to give people jobs and adds some accountability to ourselves Our decision to hire more people really came down to "do we buy nicer desks, computers, maybe expand to more square footage or do we hire people?" At the level of GS, they know their core and as long as they nurture and grow that, you can hire a bunch of good looking frat and sorority types to just LARP around. I don't think I'd do that, but then again, I don't have billions in revenue.

>>16530333
Isn't prime brokerage their largest revenue generator? Or is it IB?

>>16523720
So, what, I'm just born to suck and lose and die? What's the point of this?

>>16520316
>will of his parents
>future he chose
>>16523591
if death is the cessation of meaning then why would genes matter goofus, we’re all dead in the long run. meaning has an immediate context, what comes afterward is irrelevant. there’s no need for such unwarranted grandiosity, it only leads to baseless pessimism
>>16524187
yeah and you’ll never enact any of those policies in any modern country, realistically all you could hope for is the development and management of a eugenic minority as dysgenics take hold of the rest of the population, without coming across as a cult leader you would need to promulgate some decentralized cultural ideal appealing to upper crust whiteoids, who are already relatively exclusive

>>16524522
It doesn't work, fren. I applied to Goldmans and didn't get a job there after the interview. I went into prop instead. Working at GS is just wagecuckery.

>>16530507
Great choice. I'm at a prop firm right now and the culture and everything is much better.

>>16518731
the jews are getting desperate

always low blows and demoralization before the night of the long kvetch

>>16523720
hahahahahahahahha holy shit

>>16530722
who is the woman with the bobs?

>>16525659
gross, have sex

>>16518731
>GS
dead kike walking

no janny
you don't
>>/biz/thread/S16518731#p16519567

>>16530146
>smug reddit post
Get lost.

>>16530485
You say they won't but stranger things have happened. Sure you won't change society overnight but political change is a parabola, you spend forever getting nowhere then momentum starts and before you know it there's bromine in mcdonalds burgers.

>>16518746
>life is luck based says the guy who could have bought chainLINK two years ago

>>16519519
>t. Ugly incel

>>16518786
I applied for a similar programme, but then Nintendo rejected me.

>>16519539
fucking screencapped lad

>>16519021
Infinitely better than what CS currently is.

>>16519021

My CS year started with 200 students, only 12 graduated. Lol.

>>16519129

>>16519129
It just looks incorrect

>>16531621
You are the reason this site sucks so much.

>>16525630
No... IQ is almost entirely genetic.

>>16525630
Can i get an idiot check?

SATs are a proxy IQ test so bravo on that. Parental income is literally irrelevant in final life outcomes when you control for IQ.

I honestly don't know what to say about your marshmallow test statement. Lower socioeconomic people are more obese champ, they aren't struggling for food. Low iq is also correlated with low impulse control meaning they treat themselves MORE. There's no doubt they'll get the gameboy.

I actually this has to be bait and I've just wasted time.

>>16532938
>my conclusion of this inconclusive study is the right one
Found the idiot

>have to take photos with your "team" holding up a corporate branded social media square
>"good jobs"

>>16518924
>if you are born poor you need to do more shit but you can get rich eventually
either do more or be smarter, but then we also need to figure out how much sway genetics has in the determination and intelligence of an individual.

>>16519519
>Only the winebars of London shall mourn their passing.
it's funny becaise it's true

>>16519539
>>good jobs
>that's an oxymoron
to an extent, this is correct. Employment is slavery, but become self-employed in a field you love and your chains are broken.
The true purpose of employment is to learn the skills needed for self-employment; anyone ,past 30, that stil works for someone else other than themselves are true slaves.

>>16532718
why? is CS just hard or people realize it's not as what they thought?

>>16518796
>For one genes aren't luck.
But the entire premise of his post is that you don't choose your parents. You get your genes from your parents. How is that not luck based, within the context of his post?

>>16531612
But that's also luck. Choosing 1 out of 1000+ shitcoins (especially eth tokens) that actually moons 700%...

>>16532718
How the fuck do you build your forearms if they look like this? Is it even possible?

>>16529446
You're both wrong, reality is just a simulation which exists for the purpose of calculating tomorrow's stock price in God's reality. It's our duty to sin and fuck up the simulation as much as possible so that we can fuck up that sadistic bastard's trading algo

>>16530485
>yeah and you’ll never enact any of those policies in any modern country, realistically all you could hope for is the development and management of a eugenic minority as dysgenics take hold of the rest of the population, without coming across as a cult leader you would need to promulgate some decentralized cultural ideal appealing to upper crust whiteoids, who are already relatively exclusive

This is actually my plan.

>>16524394
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSXYhnrwjQE&t=453s

BTFO

>>16530485
>>16533611
So basically what BAP is doing?

>>16524366
cool story

glad hard work is an even shittier predictor than a shitty one

>>16525684
actually you own internet access and the time to post

thats pretty successful

>>16526041
>job
Doesn't scale with time. You're the definition of poor.

>>16528358
>point 3 correlation is substantial

It's "substantial" only if you're biased. A 0.3 correlation literally means that most of your income is decided by something else than your IQ.

>>16534835
Lmao oh dear anon.

>>16532938
>SATs are a proxy IQ test so bravo on that.
Chicken and the egg. Remember IQ was created by Binet to determine if kids should be bumped ahead or held back in classes... it was originally a test FOR CHILDREN.
But both incomplete tests of the 'g-factor'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

>I honestly don't know what to say about your marshmallow test statement.
Because "intelligence" is believed to be housed in the pre-frontal cortex which inhibits impulses from the Limbic System, the pre-frontal cortex is also where abstract reasoning goes on (the kind that makes you score on G-Factor proxies like IQ, SATs, learning dead languages like Latin and Ancient Greek).
Okay I'll make this as simple as I can and leave out the details and filigree
so prefrontal cortex is where abstract reasoning goes on.
Abstract reasoning allows us to plan for the future - delayed gratification
The marshmallow test is a test of a child's capacity for delayed gratification
The habits children pick up in childhood can imprint future behaviors
You with me?

IQ test associated with pre-frontal cortex
Pre-frontal cortex also where delayed gratification happens

What happens when you go long on a stock option? You're delaying gratification. What happens when you loan money for interest. You're delaying gratification.
What do rich people do? Delay gratification
Do you see why I tie them together now?

>Lower socioeconomic people are more obese champ, they aren't struggling for food.
When did I say 'food', way to derail the conversation with something irrelevant. I'll address this in a second post.

>>16528267
Not him but please link these studies or where to find them, I've been looking for something similar.

>>16532938
The marshmallow test is about TREATS, not food. Also you could make an argument they binge eat and overindulge precisely because of the inconsistancy of their finances that makes them 1. stress eat, 2. indulge in cheaper indulgences, 3. eat now because they don't know when there won't be food on the table.

>There's no doubt they'll get the gameboy.
Yes there is!? But it'll be impulsively bought, not diligently saved.

Why the hell are you married to the idea that scribbling a few grammatical inferences and rearranging some shapes invented by a French Child psychologist is in anyway a meaningful or important measure of a human beings capacity to navigate the multi-ferious, multi-causal, and symbolically broadly complicated minutia and grand strategy of life in all it's forms?

Parental income AFFECTS IQ not the other way around. Why? More time to spend with the child helping them with school homework, better nutrition meaning better gut flora, better medical care meaning less parasites taking glucose from the brain, they can hire tutors...
I'll even find some studies...

>>16534999
I can't give a full response right now so I'll be very brief and try to post more tomorrow.

Yes we prefer G to IQ, fortunately we can weight G in studies and G components are MORE heritable and intractable.

I honestly have no idea what you intended to say about the prefrontal cortex: iq is highly dependent on it? Okay, we agree.

Food doesn't derail the argument, it precisely demonstrates the low iq don't have poor impulse control due to scarcity, quite the opposite really.

IQ is the single biggest predictor of life outcomes, health outcomes and criminality. A low intelligence creates poor choices and an improvised environment. We have countless studies showing this exact path of causation, whether adoptive twin studies, genome wide association studies, longitudinal observation etc.

Parental income does not meaningfully affect IQ. In fact when you control for IQ parental income isn't much of a predictive metric for any life outcome.

As i said i can't give a full response here so I'll post a link containing a resource of ireffutable supporting evidence.

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/race-and-iq/

>>16532938
The weird thing is I'm evidence against my own thesis - neither of my parents completed university, none of their parents completed university. I have a master's degree.
But I'm not rich, I've accomplished nothing spectacular in my life, all my high IQ was good for was academia. Therefore IQ means only how good you are at filling in forms and checking bureaucratic lists.

https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bejeap.2010.10.1/bejeap.2010.10.1.2449/bejeap.2010.10.1.2449.xml
>Measures of family structure and social problems account for very little of sibling similarities beyond that already accounted for by income, education and occupation. However, when we add indicators of parental involvement in schoolwork, parenting practices and maternal attitudes, the explanatory power of our variables increases from about one-quarter (using only traditional measures of parents socio-economic status) to nearly two-thirds.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1475.x
>Results demonstrate that the proportions of IQ variance attributable to genes and environment vary nonlinearly with [social economic status]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080448947012331
>Children in poor health are absent from school more often, less able to benefit from instruction. Children whose families have inadequate housing are more mobile, thus receiving less continuous instruction. Better quality schools can raise the average achievement of disadvantaged children, but cannot be expected to fully overcome these predictors.

>>16534999
You're trying really hard to equate intelligence and delayed gratification but they just aren't the same thing. The marshmallow test probably is probably more like a conscientiousness(look up big five) test than an IQ test. People confuse conscientiousness and intelligence all the time it seems.

>>16535144
No. Within jobs IQ is correlated with performance. It is directly linear with criminality, health outcomes even creativity, patent creation, positive risk taking.

Its not the ONLY predictor. Someone with an IQ of 150 but significant disease won't do well that's why we deal with large sample sizes to avoid anecdotes.

>>16535144
Also fucking lmao referencing turkheimer's old paper that had failed replication multiple times. It basically spurred on a total blowing out of his position because every following trial found the opposite.

>>16535122
>I honestly have no idea what you intended to say about the prefrontal cortex: iq is highly dependent on it? Okay, we agree.
I was basically trying to say that the supposed effect of IQ on socio-economic status is more about delayed gratification habits learned in early childhood that are not indicative of someone's capacity for problem solving or ability to envision the future, but more about habits that totally bypass capacity for abstract reasoning. But the prefrontal cortex is associated with intelligence, which IQ is mean to be a measure of... but it's a shitty measure only is useful in concert with other factors like personality, parental income, health, and wealth.

I also heard a convincing argument that since the humans have multiple specialized mental agents for problem solving - visual, linguistic, kinetic etc. etc. that Herbert Simon's analogy of the ant on a beach notwithstanding, that the idea that you can reduce a measure of human intelligence in all it's specialties to even an approximation in the form of a test is impossible because the Kolmogorov Complexity of such a 'program' for want of a better word be prohibitively over complicated. (i.e. you couldn't put it in a test that can be sat in a single day).

>Parental income does not meaningfully affect IQ. In fact when you control for IQ parental income isn't much of a predictive metric for any life outcome.

>>16535144
I have two studies right here that say otherwise

>>16535144
As I said i can't go through everything but also that first paper showing parental involvement impacts achievement? Doesn't control for IQ, something that quite clearly will have a substantial effect. So the paper isn't testing for the material effect of parental involvement.

>>16535157
>You're trying really hard to equate intelligence and delayed gratification but they just aren't the same thing.
I'm trying to do the opposite see here>>16535191

>>16535165
If you're parents are criminals and you don't go to a good school and you don't have the stability in your enviroment to instill habits of delayed gratification of course you're going to take more risks, be more likley to be a criminal, and have pooer health.

>>16535165
I already linked a study >>16525630
that showed that personality traits attenuate or multiply the supposed effects of super high IQ... what use is IQ then if we still need other measures?
What is it actually measuring?

>>16535191
No, literally none of the studies were good. First, poorly controlled so it cannot show your takeaway. Second is a well and truly put away Turkheimer study which your posting must surely be wilful dishonesty desu. Final one shows kids with poor attendance perform worse in school? Okay. IQ is one predictor of school attendance but sure, you seem to be of the position that if something else impacts performance then IQ predicts not at all? In no way is it anything like an argument for environmental causes of low IQ. This is odd reasoning across the board.

>>16535217
If your parents are criminal without life security chances are they have low impulse control and IQ. We have plenty of already discussed studies showing which way causation goes there.


Finally we're repeating IQ must predict everything or nothing? What an odd standard.

>>16535193
Well you fuckign should because IQ is fucking useless, what does it actually measure?
You're ability to take tests? Your potential aptitude to learn latin? Your ability to write a thesis on the postmodernist narratives in Chinese apartment architechtural design between 1981-1986?
It's fucking useless.

>>16535245
Well it predicts socioeconomic status, criminality, health, intra-job performance, education attainment, creativity and more.

Makes it the single most predictive valid metric in all is psychology/social sciences.

I'd say that's a good start.

>>16535219
>Turkheimer
Never heard of him, but sounds very ad homenein. Agree ot disagree. push to the side.

>IQ is one predictor of school attendance but sure
Chicken and the egg. Poor attendence BECAUSE of parental SES status

>>16535243
What is the discussion about - what is IQ actually USEFUL for? Show me what percentage of upper-middle class people got their by sole virtue of their IQ.

>>16535245
From what I can tell IQ seems to mainly measure how complex information you can handle and how fast (if the test is timed). It's not really important for simple jobs but for more complex jobs (engineering was used as an example in one study) it actually is pretty useful. I'm guessing that for simpler jobs things like extroversion and conscientiousness are far more important than IQ.

>>16535257
No it doesn't - read that article in the japanese times! And answer >>16535279

>>16535281
What does 'complex information' mean? That's an incredibly nebulous term. To the best of my knowledge IQ doesn't correlate with how good of a football coach you are, or tango dancing - both which require you to process huge amounts of complex information and react to them quickly.
>It's not really important for simple jobs but for more complex jobs (engineering was used as an example in one study) it actually is pretty useful
So why has it been found that agreeableness means you earn less money than assertiveness? That makes it sound like IQ is basically measuring how good you are at Engineering and Engineeringesque jobs rather than something else, a unique causal factor.

>>16535279
No its not an ad hominem at all. I pointed out HIS STUDY had failed replication multiple times. Don't try to misrepresent.

You can say chicken and the egg but we have a wealth of data showing IQ causes the behaviour and long term environment not the other way. For example US school voucher studies showed that low socioeconomic children who won lottery vouchers to attend private schools faired no better than those who didn't.

I've said what IQ is useful for. There's a reason the armed forces have a G component test. It tells you more about a person than any other single measure.

>>16535287
I've linked a source of dozens of studies conclusively showing it does. Though post the japenese article.

>>16535281
It is important for less complex jobs as well, because for someone with an IQ of 70 a job requiring say 100 will be just as insurmountable as a job requiring 130 to an average person.

Across the range IQ predicts job performance.

>>16535326
>I've linked a source of dozens of studies conclusively showing it does
Which category will answer my question about ascension to middle class? under the poverty thing it says that IQ is a better predictor of a child's own SES than their parents and that siblings can have different adulthood SES.
Which is interesting because it firstly throws out the idea of IQ being strongly heritable (it doesn't mean it's not heritable), but crucially it doesn't answer my question: can IQ alone predict if you can make a substantial rise in socio-economic class? All it says is that if you're IQ is higher you'll do a bit better...
That's not subsntially causative enough for me - which is why I believe IQ is largley a 'meme'. It should be a smoking gun in my eyes.

And the article is here.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2018/08/15/commentary/world-commentary/personality-affects-paycheck/

>>16535281
To add to this I remember some interesting statement from Juden Memerson that automation and advancing society is leading to certain bottom ranges of societal IQ just being ineligible for any job. This will rise with time where below a certain threshold you will simply be unable to perform any needed job.

Of course we still have lots of manual work so it's a bit away.

>>16535310
What does 'complex information' mean?

That's a good question actually. I don't know what it is but some things just seem more complex than others, harder to "grasp" somehow. Maybe intelligence is like the "strength" of your brain or something. I've no idea how exactly you'd define it.

>football coach
>huge amounts of complex information and react to them quickly.

I agree that a coach needs to be a quick thinker but I don't necessarily agree that the information he is dealing with is complex though(literally just dudes running around with a ball) , not when you compare it to an engineer's job for example.

>>16535392
Environmental factors section.

No an individuals own IQ being more predictive than their parents does not invalidate heritability, what a totally bizarre statement. Hair colour is highly heritable, whether you will be employed as a blonde hair model is more dependent on your hair colour than your parents'. Heritability explains what VARIANCE is caused by genes. With IQ it's about 0.8.

As for what variance IQ causes differs on outcome. Socioeconomic most studies show 0.4-0.5. That's enormous. Even 0.2 is enormous. But for you unless IQ is the only causative factor its dismissable? What an unscientific approach but i am sensing a much more ideological commitment than objective, though I appreciate engaging with the studies.

>>16535245
What you need to keep in mind is that IQ also necessarily measures things like attention span which aren't exactly the same thing as intelligence but still useful.

>>16535392
>>16535341
I have a hard time understanding the utility of IQ.
I remember reading something about learning Latin as costly signalling because it's a proxy for IQ, but again, you need to be in the cultural environment to have access to that kind of education, or even for it to be presented as an idea
>yes dude, learn Latin, then you can study at Cambridge and become a politician and then 10 years later be made Life Peerage
Already there's a lot of causal factors that, yes, in CONCERT with IQ are predictors of success. But it still isn't a smoking gun.
Again I go back to the marshmallow test, because those early habits about controlling impulsivity, irrespective of one's ability for abstract reasoning (even smart people can make stupid decisions because they will come up with highly complicated rhetorical self-justifications).
Also it seems to skew IQ very heavily towards academia, the wankiest and least truly efficacious of high-status careers?
Is my view just wrong? Should I see Social Studies as just as valid as other careers like, oh I don't know, being a A formula one racing driver? A petrochemical engineer who often goes out on the field? someone like Proust or Dostoevsky who had even more perspicuous views of human nature than you're average PhD in the social sciences but also the creativity and ingenuity to present them in engaging narrative?

>>16535392
Jesus anon. Your japenese paper controls for IQ......

Beyond that it also uses data sets from 1920 but that's really by the by. I feel like I'm going overly hard but these are some really basic mistakes in study interpretation.

>>16535462
Well not really. As a direct point IQ correlates with lower reaction times AND fewer car crashes. So top drivers are unlikely to be stupid.

That said as for academia side, I mean academics will be somewhat high IQ. But iq also correlates slightly with risk taking and creativity. For example patent producers are extremely high IQ.

A high iq person in general is more likely to push boundaries in intellectual senses, though not criminal.

Anyway i really do have to go. I appreciate the discussion.

>>16535449
>No an individuals own IQ being more predictive than their parents does not invalidate heritability, what a totally bizarre statement.
i think I didn't structure that sentence correctly, what I was saying was that there can be vast differences in child and parent and sibiling IQ.
Meaning that you're not a carbon copy of your parent's IQ.

>>16535449
>But for you unless IQ is the only causative factor its dismissable? What an unscientific approach but i am sensing a much more ideological commitment than objective, though I appreciate engaging with the studies.
That's a unbecoming statement. Yeah I'll tell you, I had a freakishly high IQ as a kid, I have a masters degree. My mother never finished high school, my dad never got a degree.
Is my IQ higher than my parents? Probably?
Is my IQ a predictor of my personal success? Academically, yes, in the 'real world' not at fucking all.
IQ is therefore useless in my eyes. I'm willing to admit I probably made poor choices, but also, wouldn't that make me dumb?

>>16535462
Well we ARE talking mainly about correlations here and usually the correlations are also pretty weak too (0.3 is not a strong correlation lol). So imo some people get a bit too excited about IQs utility in that sense. Also I've never seen any actual proof that IQ actually measures INTELLIGENCE, just that it measures something that correlates with success in some areas a little bit.

>>16535497
Yeah but it becomes a problem when people take weak correlations (causation???) and make extreme assumptions.

>>16535462
the marshmallow study when replicated to a much larger sample set was inconclusive. your use of citing this study is irrelevant.

>>16535523
Yes sorry it was just being rude. I've been so busy with work this week and am only going to be getting 5 hours of sleep again tonight so am irritable.

>>16535410
>but I don't necessarily agree that the information he is dealing with is complex though(literally just dudes running around with a ball) , not when you compare it to an engineer's job for example.
They are both doing complicated calculations on physics and dispertation of energy (the weight of the players, their speed and stride, the trajectory of the ball etc. etc.), except the coach does it in real time without equations and has a social component on top of it.
This is where I start to have a trouble with it - if you start trying to represent the world mathematically, then IQ seems valuable - but you don't have to and it's not necessary for success.
It's like testing for intelligence by only asking the questions in Sanskrit... or madlibs...

>>16535538
>Also I've never seen any actual proof that IQ actually measures INTELLIGENCE, just that it measures something that correlates with success in some areas a little bit.
But it seems to only correlate when you attach it to other things. So like you say, seems weird that people get so excited about it

>>16535523
>Is my IQ a predictor of my personal success? Academically, yes, in the 'real world' not at fucking all. IQ is therefore useless in my eyes.

A weak correlation quite literally means you can't make accurate predictions about individual's (like yourself) success in life purely based on IQ. This explains why there are dumb successful people and smart losers. Only with big numbers of people is it somewhat useful.

>>16535631
man appreciate your apology and appologize for my own snippiness. Get some sleep anon.

>>16535584
0.3 is on the low end of iq co-variance. That said it isn't weak. 33% of the variation of almost all life outcomes being down to IQ at the low end of findings? That is hugely substantial. There's no possible world in which we'd expect to find say a 0.8. It just wouldn't make sense with reality.

IQ and conscientiousness are literally all you need in life to get rich.

IQ, oh average, is a better predictor of job performance than anything else. Degree, interview, training, none of it matters compared to IQ. Of course, on an individual level it’s not that predictive.

>>16535642
>They are both doing complicated calculations on physics and dispertation of energy (the weight of the players, their speed and stride, the trajectory of the ball etc. etc.)
Imo it's more like he's making rough estimations based on his previous experience interacting with the physical world instead of accurately calculating the forces(I doubt he'd even know what forces he'd need to calculate for accurate prediction) etc but I get what you mean.

I've actually been thinking about the "complexity" question recently and I'm not sure how it works exactly.

>>16535659
>That said it isn't weak. 33% of the variation of almost all life outcomes being down to IQ at the low end of findings?
Ok, I see what the problem is now. A 0.3 correlation actually means it explains 0.3^2=0.09 of the variation. Simply put IQ only explains only 9% of the variation and THE REST 91% IS EXPLAINED BY SOMETHING ELSE. If you think 9% is strong we'll never agree.

>>16535643
Exactly! And let me stress, I'm well aware of my own agency in my life and causality of potentailly poor decisions... bladdy blah blah... I can't blame IQ or whatever.
>life purely based on IQ.
This is what vexes me so much about those who insist on saying IQ is a important measure, when it's so easily washed over by other things.

>>16535693
True they're inaccurate estimates. Gerd Gigerenzer however has argued that those intuitive heuristics work a lot better than most researchers of Cognitive Biases would have you believe.
>I've actually been thinking about the "complexity" question recently and I'm not sure how it works exactly.
Depends on the context, there's like the Informational definition of how short of a 'program' or algorithm could reproduce a random string.
Complexity Science says basically it's anything where there's two or more components that behave differently because of their interaction. And I think that relates to the idea of multi-dimensional functions.
Extreme complexity, like in financial markets, social networks, and those in 'wicked problems' are marred by recursion.

>>16518731
Holy shit I went to college with all these people

>>16536387
Yeah I went to college with all these guys. It was an extremely expensive elite private school, I'll tell you that much.

Actually know the guy on the right. He is an NCAA Champion athlete.

Kind of know the guy on the left. Don't know the rest but the two I do know are extremely intelligent (GPAs above 3.8 in Econ), extremely hardworking (networked their asses off for this shit since freshman/sophomore year), and finally they have phenomenal social skills. They just project class and decency, almost like young aristocrats.

They absolutely deserve the prestigious jobs they got. They did come from highly privileged backgrounds, but they are in fact very smart and very hardworking.

>>16536424
All you people saying they are assholes or incompetent, chosen solely based on looks, you need to cope. To get a job at Goldman Sachs it is not enough to be great looking. You need to be above the 95th percentile in brains, social skills, and work ethic to even be considered. If you have all those things looking the part certainly doesn't hurt.

>>16518731
>Only attractive people get good jobs right?
Yes. I went to vacation in singapore once and there was a club, all 10/10 supermodel guys (above 6 foot) and girls. They were wearing the best clothes and Rolex watches I've ever seen. They're cars were getting parked by the valet. The worst of all, they all had the biggest smiles and laughing together. They were happy. Absolutely disgusting.
I literally felt like I should just kill myself right there and then.