- Aristotle apparently said beauty was a better introduction
than any letter, and Daniel Hamermesh thinks he was on to something.
-
-
- The economist from the University of Texas is convinced,
based on his extensive research in the United States, Canada and China,
that beautiful people get all the breaks. Simply, they earn more.
-
-
- "The research makes it very clear that ... people
who are better looking earn somewhat more than your average person and
people who are worse looking earn less," said Professor Hamermesh,
who is visiting Melbourne University's Institute for Applied Economic and
Social Research and tomorrow will give a public lecture on The Economics
of Beauty.
-
-
- The chief executive of Victoria's Equal Opportunity Commission,
Diane Sisely, said he was probably, regrettably, right. The commission
fielded a flood of complaints - 130, in all - in 1999-2000 from people
who believed they had been discriminated against because of their physical
appearance. "It's very entrenched in our community and it's very unfair,"
she said.
-
-
- Professor Hamermesh's studies suggest people in the top
30 per cent in the looks department can expect to earn between 3 and 5
per cent more than people in the middle 60 per cent. And people in the
bottom 10 per cent, whom he described as "pretty ugly people",
earn up to 10 per cent less.
-
- "We are programmed almost from birth to think about
looks ... If it's not your customers, it's the fellow employees who are
revolted by working with an incredibly ugly person," he said.
-
-
- The Victorian complaints were made under the "physical
features" provision of the equal opportunity legislation, which makes
it illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of, for example,
height, weight, a disfiguring birthmark or any other feature an employer
might consider unattractive.
-
-
- Most alleged discrimination in employment, and other
claims related to provision of goods and services, but Dr Sisely was unable
to say how many were substantiated. Victoria is the only Australian state
that guards specifically against discrimination on the basis of physical
features.
-
-
- "For example, somebody might be refused a job as
a receptionist because they don't conform to 'the look' required for, say,
front of house. The blonde, blue-eyed, Anglo-Saxon springs to mind,"
Dr Sisely said.
-
-
- "What people are looking for (as customers) is information
provided in a way that's accessible, effective, courteous, and someone
who knows what they're on about. They're not looking for a glamor plate."
-
-
- She said women were far more vulnerable than men to having
their appearance scrutinised, even though Professor Hamermesh's research
suggested unattractive men fared worse in the workplace compared with their
good-looking counterparts than unattractive women.
-
-
- A handful of companies contacted by The Age said grooming,
if not natural beauty, was important for business. "That's something
I expect of my consultants," said Lisa Chapman, managing director
of PR Works, a Melbourne public relations company.
-
-
- "(But) I certainly wouldn't hire someone because
they were good-looking ... It might be a door-opener but the novelty would
wear off quickly if the person couldn't deliver the goods."
-
-
- Professor Hamermesh said hiring attractive staff had
proved a successful strategy for some companies. He studied, for instance,
250 Dutch advertising agencies and found "the agencies that had better-looking
managers did better, a lot better actually".
-
-
- How did he decide who was beautiful and who wasn't? In
two studies, interviewers rated the workers from "strikingly handsome"
or "beautiful" to "homely". And should we consider
affirmative action for the aesthetically challenged? "I sure wouldn't,
because it costs political resources, political energy and that takes away
from other areas of affirmative action, which I think, historically in
my nation, are worth spending more time worrying about."
|
