The height premium

Tall people earn more than shorties. This new paper (pdf) estimates that, in the UK, an extra inch of height is associated with 1.5% higher earnings, for both men and women. This means that, for men in their 30s and 40s, the pay-off to 6 inches more height is equivalent to around a third of a university degree (pdf).
Why?  A big part of the answer is that tall people tend to be better nourished as children (or even in the womb), and this is associated with being smarter.
But this might not be the whole story. The authors estimate that, controlling for education only reduces the height premium by half for men (and two-thirds for women). Something else is happening.
That something, say the authors, is that tall people are more likely to work in high-skill occupations and industries, even with the same education as shorties.
My question - which the paper doesn't address - is: why?
One possibility is that employers taste-discriminate towards the tall. Another is that tall people - specially men - have more self-confidence and so are more likely to blag their way into good jobs. Or it could be that tall people have valuable skills not measured by formal academic qualifications; they are wittier, better-looking, more charming and - yes Megan - better in bed.
I favour the third theory. I'm 6'2".

Comments

[dearieme]

Well, Shorty, buy 'lifts' for your shoes. They did wonders for the Loathsome Wee Twat.

[reason]

Yep,
significant numbers of employers are looking for second row recruits for their rugby club.

[Mike Woodhouse]

No arguments here, it all seems entirely reasonable

(6' 3.5")

[kinglear]

So why are some of the most famous people in history on the short side? Napoleon, Charlie Chaplin, Churchill... I could go on. I know both Chaplin and Napoleon were good lovers, but I'm not too sure about Churchill.....

[robr]

Just ask Stephen Lewis..aka Blakey from the on the buses. Daft and stupid but in the better paid job than the more intelligent and enterprising Stan and Arthur.

[dearieme]

Your Maj, it's the power of a festering resentment.

[kinglear]

Robr - that may be true, but Stan and Arthur were unmistakably " on the make" - and I would suggest did rather better over all than Blakey.
dearieme- perhaps - but it might also be an overwhelming belief in oneself. A similar thing happens with eldest children( especially boys). As someone remarked ( I think Freud) any first born boy who has been the cynosure of his mother's eyes has already won the lottery of life.

[Miller 2.0]

"This means that, for men in their 30s and 40s, the pay-off to 6 inches more height is equivalent to around a third of a university degree (pdf)."

Hmm. I reckon roughly a third of a degree buys you an extra 6 inches by your 40s. Comes from not having to carry stuff. :op

[Bob B]

"and - yes Megan - better in bed"

By chance, I came across this among recent press reports:

"The security services can expect a full mailbag from S&M enthusiasts volunteering to be the victims of their next sting operation. . . "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3964997.ece

Being naturally curious about such matters, I wondered whether our Chris had considered career opportunities with the security services . . .

[kinglear]

Taller men better in bed? Don't you know its not the size its what you do with it that counts.

[Jim Donovan]

I find this third explanation the most compelling, as must the BBC, who wrote about similar Polish findings in 2000. However, She-who-must-be-obeyed, standing at under 5ft, might have different opinions to which I will of course defer. I also totally understood the proposition that CEOs would rather be tall and bald than short and hirsute, and that got short shrift from SWMBO too. Ouch! No dear, I wasn’t trying to be funny; honest.

[James G.]

I seem to recall that something like 95% of flag officers in the US Navy in the 90s (back when I was in) were over 6'1" in height.