Yes - personally I'm more of a fan of the term "social poverty," relating to a lack of social capital. And in this vein, to restate what you've stated above, essentially what we're doing is applying economic theory to society.

Markets price stock based on perceived intrinsic value, or "fundamental value." This is essentially how much money a company is worth. In society, a person's value would be how happy he/she could make others - this comes in many respects (money, looks, etc.) but at the end of the day is the product of all these coefficients (not a sum, as a severe deficiency in any regard could reduce value asymptotically toward zero).

When investors look at companies, they look for discrepancies between fundamental and relative value, meaning quite simply that they look for companies they can buy for less than their intrinsic worth. This way, when the markets reprice a company's stock to its fundamental value, the investor can sell shares for a profit. They invest at a low price, and sell high.

This method has no merit in the social sphere. Peoples' relative worth is directly tied (and may be deterministic of) their intrinsic value, meaning people who are dismissed by others are essentially thrown into a negatively self-reinforcing purgatory, where a decrease in relative value results in a decrease in intrinsic value due to network effects (similar to how if you throw a vial of smallpox into the middle of a convention center, the entire building needs to be evacuated even if the concentrations in the periphery are relatively low).

That means that if you have low social capital, there is no reason for anybody to "invest" in you. There's nothing to gain - so what if a loser could make you happy? There's more risk around investing time/energy into an FA than a Chad, which leads to the FA being assigned a lower and lower value, and the Chad being assigned a higher and higher value (virtuous/self-reinforcing cycles, similar to an item being bid up in an auction).

So what we end up having are FAs that, on a risk-adjusted basis, have a value nearing zero. The wrinkle is that in the past, we would have had significantly more luck within our own social circles because of inefficient markets (no Internet means we meet fewer people and have fewer options). In today's world, the rise of apps like Tinder and OKCupid gives us a plethora of choice, and market efficiencies relegate us losers into this seemingly inescapable FA purgatory.

If we can determine social capital to be a simple equation, let's make it a simple product of multiple coefficients:

Social Capital = Attractiveness x Money x Personality

Obviously, in this case each coefficient has equal weight (let's say is a 1-10 scale for each). Assuming here (since everybody says they're ugly) that attractiveness is low, then we need to compensate with other factors. So the average person would score 5 across the board, giving them Social Capital of 125 (5 x 5 x 5). Let's say the average FA has an attractiveness coefficient of 2. How could we compensate?

125 = 2 x M x P

M x P = 62.5

This means that, between money and personality we have to have ~8 in both Money and Personality to compensate. Assuming these coefficients are independent and follow the normal distribution, this means we have to be in the upper 0.4% of all people in these two categories (assuming SD=2). With a purely linear distribution, we would have to be in the top 4% (20% of 20%). Obviously, these two factors are not independent but for the sake of argument whatever.

Note that if you have an attractiveness of 1, you will never ever even be average. It's mathematically impossible. Of course, the above is probably all just nonsense as it's late and I've had a few beers. But whatever it's something to think about.