-----Original Message----- From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> To: lbo-talk <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:51 PM Subject: beauty
>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
>