On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:44:41AM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Apropos the physical appearance issue, this classic is always worth a look:
>
> <http://papers.nber.org/papers/W4518>
>
> >Beauty and the Labor Market
> >
> >Daniel S. Hamermesh, Jeff E. Biddle
> >
> >NBER Working Paper No.w4518*
> >Issued in November 1993
> >
> >---- Abstract -----
> >
> >We develop a theory of sorting across occupations based on looks and
> >derive its implications for testing for the source of earnings
> >differentials related to looks. These differentials are examined
> >using the 1977 Quality of Employment, the 1971 Quality of American
> >Life, and the 1981 Canadian Quality of Life surveys, all of which
> >contain interviewers' ratings of the respondents' physical
> >appearance. Holding constant demographic and labor-market
> >characteristics, plain people earn less than people of average
> >looks, who earn less than the good-looking. The penalty for
> >plainness is 5 to 10 percent, slightly larger than the premium for
> >beauty. The effects are slightly larger for men than women; but
> >unattractive women are less likely than others to participate in the
> >labor force and are more likely to be married to men with
> >unexpectedly low human capital. Better-looking people sort into
> >occupations where beauty is likely to be more productive; but the
> >impact of individuals' looks on their earnings is mostly independent
> >of occupation.
> >
> >*Published: American Economic Review, vol 84, Dec. 1994, pp 1174-1194
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu