Good looking workers earn more than their average counterparts, according to U.S. study
Apparently, it pays to be beautiful. A study, by economists Daniel Hammermesh and Jeff Biddle of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, found there is a beauty premium, and a plainness penalty, when it comes to income.
The study found there was a “plainness penalty” of nine per cent and a “beauty premium” of five per cent, even after controlling for variables such as education and experience, according to an article published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis’s The Regional Economist.
Put into dollars, a typical male worker in 1996 in the U.S. would have been penalized $2,600 for being ugly while a better-looking colleague would have been awarded with an additional $1,400 annually.A typical female worker in 1996 would have been penalized $2,000 for plainness and rewarded $1,100 for looks.
Similar facts held true for weight (the heavier, the less the pay) and height (the taller, the more the pay.)
The study found there was a “plainness penalty” of nine per cent and a “beauty premium” of five per cent, even after controlling for variables such as education and experience, according to an article published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis’s The Regional Economist.
Put into dollars, a typical male worker in 1996 in the U.S. would have been penalized $2,600 for being ugly while a better-looking colleague would have been awarded with an additional $1,400 annually.A typical female worker in 1996 would have been penalized $2,000 for plainness and rewarded $1,100 for looks.
Similar facts held true for weight (the heavier, the less the pay) and height (the taller, the more the pay.)
