patrick.net

the top factor in mate desirability was the same: men look for young and
beautiful women, and women look for rich and powerful men.

In regards to a "median" american woman who is in the dating scene - lets assume she is out of college - who do you think she would prefer for a relationship - an asshole who makes $150Gs a year or a nice guy who makes $75Gs?

2x is not that big a difference in this game.

What about the asshole who makes $1.5 million per year compared to the nice guy who makes $75K?

I would imagine that a single asshole who makes $1.5 million will be on serious golddigger alert and would most likely solicit services of an "agency" to fulfill certain perks of relationships....

Obviously the smart women pick the 1.5m per year as this will maximize the inevitable alimony/child support payments.

The dumb women marry a funny guy with no job.

Hot chicks simply do not have to work in this (or any?) country.

PockyClipsNow says

Obviously the smart women pick the 1.5m per year as this will maximize the inevitable alimony/child support payments.

The dumb women marry a funny guy with no job.

Hot chicks simply do not have to work in this (or any?) country.

Which is why he will be on a golddigger alert from day 1 or worst case scenario have a pre-nup ready just in case...

Rich single assholes don't need the agency. For them, it's all free.

Well, free like a free lunch anyway.

What about the asshole who makes $1.5 million per year compared to the nice
guy who makes $75K?

Makes you wonder what Trump says to himself about a woman that will actually listen to him and give him any attention.

Whats the point of working hard and making money if you cant get hot chicks.

dublin hillz says

Also, I would add that in order to extinguish the golddigger tendencies all that
men have to do is not give in to them.

No the laws have to change. If you are a woman married to a drunk, unemployed man who cheats on you and beats you and decide to divorce-you get nothing. If you are the same housewife who was married to Tiger Woods-you got nannies , vacations, servants, yachts, mansions, attended world level events and in divorce got 100 million. So this naturally encourages gold digging-would you not take your gold digging equipment and go dig for gold if you knew there was tons of gold in the hills nearby and it was legal to do so??

As long as you are married-enjoy-if you decide to move on, get transitory support for a very limited time and then make your own destiny. Many of us have faced career changes and have had to start from scratch. Child support should also be half of essentials and then a choice. Make those law changes and gold digging will go the way of the horse buggy.

Could something like this work?

The system the way it is now: Pimps sell the same tired doorways over and over again and stupid customers get screwed. You no like?

Of course he nearly lost his job. He defense was simply that it is true.

What's more important, truth or political correctness?

Anyone who would threaten a scientist's job to cover up truth should lose his own job and be forever banned from all scientific, academic, and political work.

dublin hillz says

the top factor in mate desirability was the same: men look for young and

beautiful women, and women look for rich and powerful men.

In regards to a "median" american woman who is in the dating scene - lets assume she is out of college - who do you think she would prefer for a relationship - an asshole who makes $150Gs a year or a nice guy who makes $75Gs?

The typical American woman just out of college would prefer an asshole who makes $0k over a nice guy who makes $150k.

Dan8267 says

dublin hillz says

the top factor in mate desirability was the same: men look for young and

beautiful women, and women look for rich and powerful men.

In regards to a "median" american woman who is in the dating scene - lets assume she is out of college - who do you think she would prefer for a relationship - an asshole who makes $150Gs a year or a nice guy who makes $75Gs?

The typical American woman just out of college would prefer an asshole who makes $0k over a nice guy who makes $150k.

thats only the first husband. #2 has to make bank.lol.

I'm not a lesbian. Working hard and making money should be a part of a normal person's DNA, not for the sake of getting a hot partner. Dang. I got that, but it wasn't purchased.

The huge downside of ending up with a great looking and talented partner though is that they are desirable to others and this causes grief. PockyClipsNow says

Whats the point of working hard and making money if you cant get hot chicks.

rufita11 says

Working hard and making money should be a part of a normal person's DNA, not for the sake of getting a hot partner.

Obviously, you are not a man. Men work hard, scheme, wage wars against other countries, and do all sorts of thing just to get a hot partner. If men could get sex with lots of beautiful women without doing anything but playing XBox all day, they would be Millennials. And now you know why Millennial men are such slackers.

Dan8267 says

they would be Millennials. And now you know why Millennial men are such slackers.

I cannot argue with the truth.

I wanted to come back to this thread to see what Patrick was doing with his idea for home sales. Here you guys are talking about mate selection? Good grief.

The strawman argument:

rufita11 says

This site gets more misogynistic by the day. Dagnabit! Do you NOT know any women who are NOT financially dependent on a man?

The response:

Remember, no one is saying that there are not financially independent wom(e)n, just that the dating scene is primarily about looks and money.

Well put. Can everyone see the original fallacy? Nobody said "ALL women are financially dependent on men". Most women are financially independent of men, but that does not stop them from WANTING a wealthy mate.

And by the way, financial independence is exactly why so many women spend an inordinate amount of time avoiding making any sort of realistic commitment, and instead engage in a lengthy and mostly unsuccessful quest to commit a wealthier mate than themselves. The whole scheme works great for population control, that's for sure.

justme says

Most women are financially independent of men, but that does not stop them from
WANTING a wealthy mate

Yup look at recent divorces. Russell Brand divorced Katie Perry and he was entitled by law to get 20 million dollars for their one year of marriage. He walked away and didn't take a penny from her.

Demi Moore divorces Ashton Kutcher and asks for alimony. Now she is a big movie star herself and already got a ton of alimony and money from her other ex Bruce Willis. When is it enough? Some say she may be worth 150 million and she still wants alimony!

Then there is Bethheny Frankel who is worth an estimated $55 million dollars. She files for divorce and wants alimony retroactive from the date of divorce, child support, a life insurance policy the husband has to take,as well as medical, dental, optical, therapeutic and orthodontic expenses for her and their child. Additionally, she wants to live in the house the couple has shared and this woman has about 55 million dollars.

That is the problem with modern western women. They have been conditioned by laws to take and take from men. Is it any wonder that alimony from men to women is 97% of alimony. Show me a single woman who has walked away from 20 million dollars and kept her dignity by making her own way? if a woman worth 150 million dollars is asking for alimony and a woman worth 55 million asks for dental care-that shows why our nation is screwed. The entitltment mentality with single moms getting welfare without having to do anything-clean toilets, walk dogs-do something and get your dignity back.

But our nation encourages this entitled mentality and until laws change and give women true equality by asking women to be responsible for their own lives without having men as a safety net -this nation is doomed. But a good thing, the usual misogyny card by the likes of rufita are not sticking any more, becuase more and more men are waking up to this horrid state of affairs-where Hulk Hogan who worked so hard to get there, had to give 70% of his fortune in a divorce and she ended up shacking up with a 21 yr old in his-well now her house. Laws are out of whack and there is no sense of shame. You enjoyed all the trappings of being Hulk Hogan's wife-vacations, servants, yachts, shopping all over the world, events-don't want it-move on and make your own destiny-it is unfair to get anything more than transitory support.

Yes there are plenty of financially independent women like Demi Moore and Bethenny Frankel and they still try and get something from the man. The laws need to change to reflect current reality.

That's just more of the same old "herding the sheep to slaughter" in the commission system. They're setting up buyers with realtors which is worth less than zero.

I'm trying to do something else: putting buyers in a position where many different sellers contact them personally. No realtors involved, hopefully, though filtering out seller's agents is not as important as filtering out buyer's agents.

Can anyone say Paul McCartney? Heather Mills! After his
1st wife died he married a very Wealthy woman and she only had 1 FREAKIN LEG!! After a few years she divorced him and kicked his ARSE with 2 legs! Like she did not have enough money already before she married him? WTF is wrong with those kind of people? I think he had to give her app $35 Million dollars plus lifelong alimony and all kinds of other BS. Of course why would he marry anyway in his situation? Not bad for dogging him in the press after they were married.

No doubt the sellers will lovingly pass on any savings to the buyers..just like they have always done? I guess that is why Sellers always come back and say we want the MOST MONEY we can get from this house..and create multiple offers and then say "bring your highest and Best offer" by this date and crete a bid war.

Oh yea, that will work real well.

Of course sellers want as much money as they can get for their house, but using an agent does not get you the best price on your house.

Here is proof from Freakonomics:

It is the quintessential blend of commerce and camaraderie: you hire a real-estate agent to sell your home. She sizes up its charms, snaps some pictures, sets the price, writes a seductive ad, shows the house aggressively, negotiates the offers, and sets the deal through to its end. Sure, it's a lot of work, but she's getting a nice cut. On the sale of a $300,000 house, a typical 6 percent agent fee yields $18,000. Eighteen thousand dollars, you say to yourself: that's a lot of money. But you also tell yourself that you could never have sold the house for $300,000 on your own. The agent knew how to ---what's the phrase she used?---"maximize the house's value." She got you top dollar, right? Right? ... A recent set of data covering the sale of nearly 100,000 houses in suburban Chicago shows that more than 3,000 of those houses were owned by the agents themselves. Before plunging into the data, it helps to ask a question: what is the real-estate agent's incentive when she is selling her own home? Simple: to make the best deal possible. Presumably this is also your incentive when you are selling your home. And so your incentive and the real-estate agent's incentive would seem to be nicely aligned. Her commission, after all, is based on the sale price. But as incentives go, commissions are tricky. First of all, a 6 percent real-estate commission is typically split between the seller's agent and the buyer's. Each agent then kicks back roughly half of her take to the agency. Which means that only 1.5 percent of the purchase price goes directly into your agent's pocket. So on the sale of your $300,000 house, her personal take of $18,000 of commission is $4,500. Still not bad, you say. But what if the house was actually worth more than $300,000? What if, with a little more effort and patience and a few more newspaper ads, she could have sold it for $310,000? After the commission, that puts an additional $9,400 while she earns only $150, maybe your incentives aren't aligned after all. (Especially when she's the one paying for the ads and doing all the work.) Is the agent willing to put out all the extra time, money, and energy for just $150? There's only one way to find out: measure the difference between the sales data for houses that belong to real-estate agents themselves and the houses they sold on behalf of clients. Using the data from the sales of those 100,000 Chicago homes, and controlling for any number of variables---location, age and quality of the house, aesthetics, whether or not the property was an investment, and so on---it turns out that a real-estate agent keeps her own home on the market an average of ten days longer and sells it for an extra 3-plus percent, or $10,000 on a $300,000 house. When she sells her own house, an agent holds out for the best offer; when she sells yours, she encourages you to take the first decent offer that comes along. (My italics.)

You call that proof? Some obscure article from Chicago that talks in generalities? I don't know 1 agent today who encorages anyone to take the first offer that comes along? Every agent I know is marketing their properties over a 2-3 week minimum time before offers are looked at unless the SELLER is doing a scam short sale deal on their own house and selling it to a pre arranged buyer usually someone in thier famaily at a low price and they take control of the house at a later date. I recently listed a house I have for Sale in Oakland Ca with an agent that has sold some of my properties before. He listed it at $259k and did 3 open houses and set a day for offers, I received 6 offers and the highest offer received was $320k which I accepted. So my agent got me an extra $60k by not taking the first offer. The consumer is not stupid. If they thought they could get more $$ without an agent they would do it everywhere and it is just not happening. Whether you want to believe it or not in this High Tech, super computer era, internet savy peopl still go to a Broker to sale their property 90% plus of the time. WE have heard and seen on this site many times the argument for not using an agent but the argument does not hold water or the public would be doing it like they did other industries. I know you WISH you could make it happen bc you are anti agent and that is your choice. No one is forced to use a Broker but 90% or more choose to bc it is a proven method of success.You should have bought RE a few years ago when you were crying that the sky is falling and NEVER BUY RE..Renting is so MUCH Better?
Maybe it is better for you to rent but not for the majority o Americans who continue to buy.It is a choice. Live with your choice.

Think of money as male and houses as female. Then the real estate market is just like the dating scene, where, basically, the money is looking for good-looking houses and the houses are looking for a lot of money. Maybe there's more to it than that, but not much more in the real estate scene.

Good Program Patrick! This system bypasses the "pimp realtor"

mike2 says

Some obscure article from Chicago that talks in generalities?

This was on NPR within the last month.