Nice Guys Don't Make Any Money

[taiyuu_otoko]

Being a 'nice guy' becomes a threat to men's earning power as soon as they turn 30

(cue guru to verify this through personal examples in 5...4...3...2...1...)

A recent article in the Harvard Business Review comes to a somewhat nauseating conclusion: Nice guys don't do as well at work as mean guys.

The author, Miriam Gensowski, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Copenhagen, describes a study she published this year in the journal Labour Economics. Genswoski analyzed the results of the Terman study, which followed a group of about 1,500 high-IQ individuals from childhood to old age (1920s to 1990s).

She looked specifically at the links between childhood personality, lifetime earnings, and education to figure out which traits affect men and women's professional success, and when.

Results showed that more agreeable — i.e. nicer and friendlier — men earned significantly less than other men. This isn't typically true for young workers — the effect is only visible once men turn 30, and it's strongest between ages 40 and 60.

As Gensowski writes in HBR, a man who is in the top 20% of agreeableness will earn about $270,000 less over their lifetime than the average working man.

 

[R.U.G.]

Big difference between a push over, a nice person and an a-s-s-h-o-l-e. Just because someone is a nice person in their personal life doesn't mean the same in there career.

 

[Who Dares Win]

Thats probably cause certain qualities are feminine and not masculine, I still dont see how any man can brag about being altruistic for example.

Is it a title or merit to give priority to others people wellbeing than yours?

Also "nice" is a positive term on the dictionary but clearly not in reality when it comes of who is considered nice.

 

[zekko]

Also "nice" is a positive term on the dictionary but clearly not in reality when it comes of who is considered nice.

I don't think "nice" is necessarily bad in reality (PUAs have badly corrupted the word "nice"), but the guy in the article is talking about "agreeableness". That is a term Richard Jordan uses a lot in his videos. If you are highly "agreeable", that suggests you are passive, open to someone else's suggestions, and a follower - basically, a pushover.

Rather than "nice", I consider myself to be "respectful" - I treat others well unless they give me a reason not to. I will respect and value their opinion although that doesn't mean I will necessarily follow it. I don't think there is anything wrong with being "friendly" or "respectful".

 

[DEEZEDBRAH]

Being a 'nice guy' becomes a threat to men's earning power as soon as they turn 30

(cue guru to verify this through personal examples in 5...4...3...2...1...)

A recent article in the Harvard Business Review comes to a somewhat nauseating conclusion: Nice guys don't do as well at work as mean guys.

The author, Miriam Gensowski, who is an assistant professor of economics at the University of Copenhagen, describes a study she published this year in the journal Labour Economics. Genswoski analyzed the results of the Terman study, which followed a group of about 1,500 high-IQ individuals from childhood to old age (1920s to 1990s).

She looked specifically at the links between childhood personality, lifetime earnings, and education to figure out which traits affect men and women's professional success, and when.

Results showed that more agreeable — i.e. nicer and friendlier — men earned significantly less than other men. This isn't typically true for young workers — the effect is only visible once men turn 30, and it's strongest between ages 40 and 60.

As Gensowski writes in HBR, a man who is in the top 20% of agreeableness will earn about $270,000 less over their lifetime than the average working man.

You can listen to the following through Jordan Peterson.

Agreeable men don't make bank. I would estimate the same for getting Bae.

Gender disparity in wage gap is due to women being agreeable and poor lifestyle choices. They acquire resources with ***** be it a escorts or marriage.

Men want to spread the seed. Women and hypergamy.

Both genders need to be free thinkers and transcend beyond their biology.

Obv, go get Bae but, not to the detriment of your being and existence. Women need to recognize their hypergamy before cratering smv. With daddy government and girl power in society, it cheers women off the cliff, and there's no accountability. Extract male resources through 1. Marriage or 2. Unleashing the dogs of the state.


Fallout hits men hard. Worse, betas and low testosterone male feminists who cannot compete attack other men. Shaming language among other shenanigans. They cannot compete in the dominance hierarchy so, posing as a alley to women is the alternative route.

In caveman times, they would run away or hit you with a bolder from behind in cowardice fashion.


You see this here with man up or default blame of men rather than pushing women to choose better mates.


Quite frankly, I've evolved from blue pill to red pill. I'm unplugged.

Acquisition is my passion and purpose. Living my dream, running my biz, and getting deezed. I am currently learning and actively pushing content creation. The pursuit is self-knowledge. I am exploring consciousness. I intend to visit Peru and do the tea ceremony with shamans. I am reading the Gita, living 'unattached to the fruits of your labor.' reading the spirit molecule by Straussman and the Tibetan book of the dead manual by Timothy leary. Seeking my next 'breakthrough,' and ego death.

It's the journey. Not the destination. There is no end to this. Day or night. It's game time. Go get baes.

She will not complete me. I will not complete her. I will not detour from my path in life. I won't marry plummeting smv or raise Chad's baby. Top form smv or Netflix and chill. No exceptions. Come at your best or not at all.

What is the alternative? Escorts? Paying strippers for a bj? I rather that then divorce and getting cucked.


The solution is to seek out the best life one can have. It is a very important decision to make. Allocation of money and time to Chad's booty call is laughable.

It's chaotic. Embrace it. If war comes tomorrow, zero ****s will be given. I will protect my family and friends. It's time for change.

Women and children first is over.

 

[R.U.G.]

I consider myself a fair decent man. I am not generally an a-s-s-h-o-l-e, but I have my days. However, my tolerance for stupidity and childish behavior is very low these days. Some people, women included, confuse kindness with niceness. I do not consider myself nice. However, I do have empathy for my fellow person, and I will help if asked or I see someone in need of assistance. That's called human compassion and kindness, not a "nice guy". It's something lost over the last 30 years. Life is too easy for people these days. Many do not suffer and have to work to improve their situation. Either family or the government is there to pick them up when they are down. A person grows when they face suffrage and limits. A person learns more from their failures and struggles then when something is given to them. I find that is the problem with the 21st century. For things I and millions of other Americans have had to work for is now given to the public. It hurts more people then helps. When the sh!t hits the fan and the gravy train is over, the majority of these people will be up sh!ts creek without a paddle saying WTF do I do now?

The entitlement of millennials.... Don't get me started. It's a **** storm out there. Welcome to the ME ME ME generation. It's one of the reasons why I now live in rural Westchester, NY. Less people the better.

 

[evan12]

That is true , Strong always do better than Weak, all the other "nice" title will not hide our nature.
It is always pay to be strong physically , mentally or financially. All animals know that!

 

[Serenity]

Let's not forget the high score of conscientiousness mentioned, indicating that these guys are not mean. I think the writer is a little confused here. Not being too agreeable is a good trait, not just for oneself, but also for others (in a big picture sense). It is sometimes necessary to disagree to get things done which are far more important to far more people than the one guy asking for something. That one guy might perceive it as mean, but it would be a greater evil to be distracted and go along to serve their selfish needs, which is pretty much what these "mean" guys disagree with.

Is it a title or merit to give priority to others people wellbeing than yours?

This is literally what gives a person value. If you contribute nothing, you gain nothing. You might think that by working you're only serving yourself, but that is not true. The truth is that by working we provide something of value (be it goods or services) to the community and we're rewarded for what we provide. This is true regardless of what level you're at in your career, all the way from the bottom to the top.

The truly selfish don't work, they chase the next thing that will satisfy their bottomless selfish needs and have zero shame about giving nothing in return for what they're given. Not only do I find such people worthless, I find them to be of negative worth, a burden to everyone else.

So yeah, it's a good thing to be giving to others, but not unconditionally without reward. I guess this concept was easier to understand before it got abstracted away by money, when people literally traded the fruits of their labor for the fruits of others labor. While we don't do that directly today, we still do it indirectly with money serving as a universal intermediate. It's still so that you ain't worth sh!t if you have nothing to give.

I think maybe the reason the agreeable man fails is because he is distracted too much by agreeing to too many petty needs to ever produce anything of substantial value. His resources are spread out thin at less important matters rather than focused on what's worth most to the most amount of people. This is where the conscientious man is disagreeable, he knows what's important and turns down what's less important to not waste resources. Only the selfish who do not understand will perceive this as mean.

Mean and nice is completely backwards in that article, because it uses narrow perceptions. I find the writer unreflective.

 

[Red Legg]

That is true , Strong always do better than Weak, all the other "nice" title will not hide our nature.
It is always pay to be strong physically , mentally or financially. All animals know that!

Not being a doormat has always worked for me,you can be dominant as hell and be nice.Last week I had my pickup truck engine worked on, the shop had it for a week.When I picked it up it still ran rough,I told the mechanic that the truck still drove like sh!t he then retorted sir, "I think you exaggerating a little bit" I looked him dead in the eye and said "never call me a liar do you understand me" ? he got his ass chewed by the manager and I got some free work done on my truck to make up for the mechanics attitude and workmanship....just don't let people walk on you or try and take advantage of you,if they do call them on it hard and fast and do not back down,do this in all areas of life..."I won't be wronged.I won't be insulted.I won't be laid a hand on.I don't do these things to other people,and I require the same from them.-John Wayne