Beauty’s in the eye of the shareholder

A week or two ago, we reported on a poor American lady by the name of Desiree Goodwin, who was not being promoted because her colleagues saw her as ‘a pretty girl who wore sexy outfits, low-cut blouses and tight pants’.

Guru immediately took to wearing sassy ladies’ outfits in the hope his boss would be scared of discriminating against him and that all sorts of bonuses would be forthcoming.

This worked for a while until a regrettable incident occurred between Guru and the aforementioned boss in a stationary cupboard. Guru was up a ladder in his chosen outfit for the day – a little denim mini number – the boss walked in and drew the wrong conclusion about Guru’s intentions, and, well, he was forced to resign in ignominy.

This left Yours Truly in a bit of a quandary. Was it wise to keep with this new, and surprisingly comfortable, choice of attire, or return to a more conservative form of dress? Fortunately, the Yanks came to the rescue again.

An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis suggests that good-looking people tend to make more money and get promoted more often than those with average looks.

The report couldn’t pinpoint whether this is bias against less-attractive people, or if good-looking people have the self-confidence and social skills that simply enhance their marketability.

Here are a few stats for you to consider from the report: there is a ‘plainness penalty’ of 9% in wages, but a ‘beauty premium’ of 5% in your pay packet. It found that women who are obese earn 17% less than women of average weight.

Guru is presently mastering six-inch stilettos and debating the age-old question of waxing versus shaving. Any help from those more experienced would be appreciated.

Comments are closed.