靚就是本錢

Good looks bring a handsome return - $32,000 a year

DateJanuary 7, 2013



''People say I'm lucky to be tall'' ... Stephen Zamykal who played AFL and is now a successful businessman, at his Kensington home on Sunday. Photo: Angela Wylie

GOOD looks matter for men - far more than previously believed.

The first Australian study of the financial return for physical attractiveness finds it is worth an astounding $32,150 in annual salary, with men of above-average looks typically commanding $81,750 compared with $49,600 for men with below-average looks.

The authors, Melbourne University economist Jeff Borland and a former Australian National University economist, Andrew Leigh, find the "plainness penalty" more important than the "beauty premium". Men whose looks are rated as below average by door-to-door interviewers typically earn 26 per cent less than average. Men whose looks are rated as above average earn 22 per cent more. For women the effect is smaller and harder to measure.

"I found something similar when I looked at the effect of politicians' appearance on their electability," said Dr Leigh, who is now a Labor MP. "Good looks helped male candidates more than they helped women. It could be that attractive women come up against the stereotype that they can't be both attractive and intelligent. There's no such thing as the dumb-blond syndrome for men."

Property and mortgage expert Stephen Zamykal agrees.

A partner in five successful businesses, including National Property Buyers and a Mortgage Choice franchise, Mr Zamykal said he had never felt discriminated against because of his looks and it was possible they had helped.

''It's hard to know,'' said the 1.93 metre former AFL footballer who played for Essendon and North Melbourne in the 1990s. ''I don't know if I am even good looking … I know some people say I'm lucky to be tall, as height gives you presence.''

The researchers were asked to rate the appearance of interviewees on a six-point scale from "very much more attractive than average" to "well below average". Dr Leigh separately asked the interviewers to rate photos and found widespread agreement.

"It turns out beauty isn't in the eye of the beholder," he said. "There is a strong literature showing views about beauty are shared.''

Men with below-average looks were 15 per cent less likely than normal to be employed and were typically employed for a 9 per cent lower wage. They were also less likely to be married and less likely to be married to a woman of high income.

The findings about men remained constant in two surveys of 2000 individuals - an ANU survey in 1984 and one constructed by Dr Leigh and Professor Borland to replicate the ANU survey in 2009.

But the findings for women changed, with looks now more important than in the past when it came to securing a job and getting married.

"It's probably that the labour market for women is a whole lot different than a quarter of a century ago," said Dr Leigh. "Nothing much has changed for men but with many more women being employed there's more opportunity for 'lookism' to matter. I am not confident enough to speak about why looks are mattering more for women in the marriage market."

A University of Texas economist, Daniel Hamermesh, has raised the possibility of subjecting poor looks to anti-discrimination legislation, in the same way as is done for race.

But Dr Leigh said: ''You would run into all sorts of definitional problems and it would water down the importance of existing categories of discrimination. Not every piece of research needs to have policy implications.''
(Sydney Morning Herald 7.1.2013)

高大威猛又靚仔，唔使講都殺食。研究更加顯示這種優勢有價，收入可以多3萬2澳幣一年，即26萬港幣，所指的只是interviewer的工種。事實上這也是人之常情，你會親近身材高佻樣貌標緻的女士，多過五短身材滿身贅肉的人。男性也一樣，蛇頭鼠眼，相貌猥瑣，你也敬而遠之。當然，樣貌平凡也無需氣餒，一眨眼的印象始終拼不過實際能力。又高大威猛又有真材實學始終都是少數，命中注定，羨慕不來。幸好也不是每一份工都以貌取人，對過份漂亮的人，你可能沒有信心。而且，研究的結論只是講一般情況，例外的例子也多不勝數。陳振聰不令人刮目相看嗎？以他那副尊容，誰想得到一千億也幾乎入袋。所以，只要有信心，不畏縮，厚面皮，再以天圖佈局，就可富甲一方，袋袋平安，他之後的下場卻與樣貌無關。看另一個例子，先前在區域法院不是審了一宗男模為冨太包養，用她的信用卡「碌」幾十個ipad換錢，為此而坐幾年監。由此可見，高大威猛又靚仔也未必殺食。

話說回頭，舉陳振聰為例作反證，難以服人。連標少自己以前都講過，任憑陳振聰有甚麼魅力，都不值27億，箇中微妙之處，法官也搞不清，真相恐怕會長埋地下。標少不能再胡說八道，再講就變誹謗，還是閉嘴好了。