cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/3768443
Researchers estimate that each additional centimeter of height is associated with a 1.30% increase in annual income.
i wonder about confounding variables like childhood nutrition. in a study like this height may actually be a proxy for socioeconomic status.
edit: and if i’d bothered to read the article i’d have noticed it said exactly that:
Instead, the authors favor an “early environment” explanation, such that people who grow up in healthy, constructive environments become taller, smarter, and more successful than those who grow up in impoverished, destructive environments.
One million percent my first thought
Someone here posted a study of contemporary stats of colonized countries in Asia (particularly India, I believe). It found that the stagnation and even decrease in height correlated with colonization and imperialism since much of the nutritional resources were being redirected elsewhere. The stereotype of Asians being short is largely the cause of crackers in many Asian countries
Most rational economic system thats totally a meritocracy bro trust us
“Meritocracy” is when you get free stuff on the merit of being a 6’+ gigachad lording over ‘manlets’!
Median income in US: $74580
Median height in US: 175cm (5’9")
Jeff Bezos’s income in 2023: $70 billion
Jeff Bezos’s estimated height: 530cm (17’4")
I mean… he is a Dragon on his lair full of gold, so that height makes sense.
At a 100,000,000% salary increase, I make Bezos to be about thirty million inches taller.
This would suggest his space flight didn’t even reach his own knees.
I assumed it was exponential.
74580 * 1.013^355
That’s how it’s phrased, but with their numbers quoted the 6’4" guy gets $107,919 vs a linear scaling giving $103,740. The latter rounds to the $104,000 stated, so I’m assuming that’s the intended reading
Yet here I am: 6’7" and can’t find a job
Nobody can afford to pay you your $120k salary.
have you tried just taking over a small country.
Time to wear absurdly long stilts so I’ll be a billionaire
actually it’s just guys named Kyle
people take taller people more seriously, associate them with leadership when maybe it’s not warranted. it’s not an accident that the vast majority of CEOs and practically every president is >6’ and so many lie about their height or wear lifts or whatever.
I may be 6’1 but I am unemployed and unemployable
Mentally short
I think of it as a little bonus earned by crying myself to sleep from growing pains
Don’t forget that constant little twinge in the back when you’re older from a lifetime of slight bending because tabletops, sinks, and other everyday designs are all just a few inches out of reach.
we need a tall guy tax and short guy reparations but nobody gives a shit because they either have bigger legitimate problems (racism, misogyny, etc) or they want to be andrew tate.
this is super funny to me, a short person who can’t reach the top shelves of her cabinets
In defense of tall dudes like my husband, they’re already paying a Personal Comfort tax: they’re constantly bonking their heads into things, and their legs don’t fit anywhere.
he can wipe his tears with the extra 3.3%
Living like a king with my extra 3.3% of fuck all.
Tall people also need to eat more just because they’re tall. That effects monthly food expenses.
Tall people food grants/welfare when lol?
PLEASE jfc 😭 that man can EAT 😂
between him our teen son, there is no keeping food in this house
Me, holding up my tallbux just above the shorties who are reaching and straining on their tiptoes.
I am 5’6’’ (168cm). Now I know why I cannot find a job.
when the ridiculous aliens in Invader Zim have a more consistent society
Manlets be broke
deleted by creator
Importantly, this estimation assumes other factors associated with earning potential — for instance, gender, age, years of schooling, and location — are held equal.
See, the gender/pay gap is a myth! It’s a height/pay gap!
Academia is a fucking joke
Huh? This is saying that a height-pay-gap exists in the absence of other variables (like a possible gender gap), not that there is no gender gap.
What does it mean that the other factors are held equal? If difference is negated doesn’t that skew the results? I guess I don’t understand the study
You want to study the effect of a certain trait on a group. So you take two groups and try to make them as even as possible, aside from the trait you are testing. Ideally you’d match every guy in your sample with someone who is mostly identical in upbringing, location, etc, but taller. That’s how you make sure it’s actually height causing the effect and not something else. If you don’t account for this, you might end up with a bunch of bourgeois short kings getting compared to 6 foot tall poor people, and might even come the conclusion that height has a negative correlation with wealth.
It’s not saying “height matters, not those other things.” But rather “height is one of those things that effect socioeconomic status, statistically.”
I don’t get how making sexual difference equal does anything other than make sexual difference disappear. When half the population is shorter because of sexual difference, and also paid less due to structural discrimination on the basis of gender/sex, making those differences equal makes the actual causes disappear. I just don’t get it. I have no background in labs or experimentation so sorry if I’m being dense.
Marx flattens some differences in order to illustrate class distinctions and disappear certain confusing elements before working them in later, but he explains why and how, and what effect this will have.
But how would you do this with sex, when the thing you are measuring, height and pay, are both directly related, either physiologically or socially? I couldn’t find the link to the study or more info, and the fact this is in Forbes makes my
register a beepThe purpose is to measure the effect of a single variable, so you make sure to correct for all other variables. For example, to measure the effect of height you might compare white men only against white men, black women only against black women, etc.
In a study measuring the gender pay gap, they would be correcting for variables other than gender.
Is that what “this estimation assumes other factors associated with earning potential — for instance, gender, age, years of schooling, and location — are held equal,” means? Cuz that’s not what it sounds like. Assuming things are equal isn’t this statistical matching thing you are talking about
Edit: I found the study so I’m trying to figure out how these other factors are controlled for.
Yes, that’s what it means - if all other factors they list are equal, meaning if the only difference is height.
Yes. And usually these factors are controlled for when picking your study’s sample.
https://www.statisticshowto.com/matched-samples/
“All factors held equal” doesn’t mean the different factors are equal in effect, just that the sample is chosen such that the other factors are identical across the two groups.
Jokes and incel catastrophizing aside, lookism is indeed a thing with material consequences in society. People just like conventionally-attractive people more and that leads to preferential treatment.
