The Economics of Being Beautiful  

      By: Art Javier

            Perhaps it is now an adage that old saying I always hear in my younger years “It is not what you know, but it is who you know.” In this ever-changing world we live in, this old saying does not always work. We cannot (always) get what we want or think we have the economic advantage if we always rely on this saying.  Faced with this reality, people now try to lean on other variables such as intelligence, aptitude and qualifications and probably an x-factor that can play a major role where one can have an advantage in getting what he or she wants. This x-factor refers to those who are gifted with physical beauty and their ability to enhance this priceless possession. Let’s look at the background of my thesis above and review some facts where being beautiful and good looks do play an economic advantage.

            Current statistics prove that physically attractive women and men earn more than the average-looking ones, and those people who are plain-looking earn less. The “Economist” a weekly published magazine, contends that, “if we look at the labor market as a whole, good looks have a bigger impact on earnings than education, although intelligence is still a highly regarded value. Beauty is naturally rewarded in jobs where physical attractiveness would seem to matter such as prostitution, entertainment, customer service and so on.” But believe it or not, it manifests itself in very unexpected fields, too. Not so good-looking NFL quarterbacks earn less than their good looking counterparts, despite the fact that they have identical yards passed and years in the league. The report goes on to say, “the same is true in other markets. Women have traditionally traded looks for economic support in marriage.” A Chinese study confirms that husbands of unappealing women earn about 10% less than those who have good looking wives. “Attractive people also have an easier time getting a loan than plain folks, even as they are less likely to pay it back. They receive milder prison sentences and higher damages in simulated legal proceedings. In America, more people say that have felt discriminated against for their appearance than because of their age, race or ethnicity.”

            As you can see, a pretty person seems to have all the luck.  Why?  The Economist refers to three books now available in the market, “Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful by David Mamermisch, The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Life and Law by Deborah Rhode and Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital, which attempt to explain why this is so and if there is anything that can be done about it.        

            The first book, Beauty Pays, by David Mamermisch, an economist at the University of Texas, asserts that over a lifetime, a good-looking worker in America on average makes $230,000 more than a plain one. Surely, any company can justify that attractive workers can bring in more business, so it only makes sense for firms to hire them. Have you ever been inside “In and Out” hamburgers?  Look at all those young, energetic and good-looking guys and gals!

            The second book, as the Economist reviews, The Beauty Bias, by Deborah Rhode, a law professor at Stanford University, is perplexed why any woman would embrace fashion willingly as in wearing high heels in an office environment. She is also outraged why virtually all females consider their looks as key to their self-image. The book cites a survey where more than half of young women said they would prefer to be hit by a truck than be fat. The indignation of Ms. Rhode is mostly akin to morality. Billions of dollars are now spent on cosmetic surgery-more than 90% of it by women- at a time where more than 1/5 of the entire population does not have basic health care and a national average of 8% unemployment rate.  More and more women are so engrossed in improving their looks than they do care about others.

            Ms. Rhode continues to say, “Discriminating against people on the grounds of personal appearance should be banned. It limits a person’s right to equal opportunity, reinforces the subordination of groups where unappealing characteristics, including obesity, are concentrated and restricts self-expression. “

            The third book, Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital, by Catherine Hakim, as the Economist continues to review, is a totally different work from the two other books. While Mr. Hammermesh and Ms. Rhode see discrimination, Ms. Hakim sees an opportunity for women to enhance their power “in the bedroom and the boardroom.” Ms. Hakim argues that “erotic capital” is an underrated class of personal assets to set beside economic capital (what you have), human capital (what you know) and social capital (who you know). Ms. Hakim attempts to quantify a complex mix of physical and social assets, consisting of beauty, sex appeal, self-presentation, social skills, livelihood, and sexual competence. Like all other capitals, the “erotic capital” is important for success. It is especially valuable for poor people, young people, the newly arrived and the otherwise unqualified. In heterosexual settings, it belongs primarily to women.

            Ms. Hakim suggests “that women have more erotic capital than men because they have had to work at it for centuries. Also, women have the upperhand in “erotic capital” for another reason: the male “sexual deficit.” While both sexes are more sexually active than ever before, from the age of about 30, women’s libido tends to fall off while men’s does not. Because women have less interest in sex than men, to put it crudely, it is a seller’s market.” Ms. Hakim continues, “In the power dynamic of couples, controlling access to sex is more important than earning more money. It is the woman’s main bargaining chip, as most still earn less than their partners. Feminists who are throwing away their feminity are overlooking a powerful asset.”

            The Economist stated these three authors are in or fast approaching their 60’s. They are contemporaries of the generation of feminists who waged war against the beauty culture, leaving unshaved legs and allegedly burned bras. 

            “But life has moved on. Sexualized images are everywhere and the world that has emerged is one in which no one can afford to pretend beauty does not matter.” We note that men, too, having lost their monopoly of high paying and prestigious jobs and careers are investing in their “erotic capital” to enhance their appeal to mates and employers. They are like an army, coming in all shapes and sizes, marching off to the gyms and discovering face creams in record numbers.

            Perhaps my above thesis “whom you know” which was referred to by Ms. Hakim as “social capital,” would just be insufficient in these modern times. One needs to invest in his or her “erotic capital,” or simply put, the economics of being beautiful, to be successful.

           (Source: A reprint from the magazine “The Economist” with the same title)