Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[more]

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-tall-people-make-more-money-2015-1

[Body Builder]

Bs.

If you are short then there is social prejudice in everyrhing, including jobs, so yes it is obvious that you'll have kess chances finding a good job.

But 1000 dollars more per inch is the most stupid thing I ever heard.
A 5.10 man has no disadvantage compared to a 6.3 man, on the other hand it is easier to dress better, to don't be intimidating etc, things that matter a lot in jobs.
So not only the 6.3 man won't make 4k dollars per year more but literally he has no advantage and everything is up to character and other traits.

Height plays a big role anywhere but what matters is to not be short, not exactly how tall you are.
Everything else is for weirdos and forums just like in women'w forums think that men want skinny women like Kate Moss while in reality most men want women who look like Sofia Vergara etc.

[Astronomy]

So you mean Robert Pershing Wadlow was the ever richest man in the world?

[FormerKidd]

So you mean Robert Pershing Wadlow was the ever richest man in the world?

I hope you know this and are being silly, but just because something holds true in the average, does not mean that it is true for everyone.  There are some poor tall people, just on average tall people make more money.  They're also more likely to be promoted, which can help with earnings.  Interestingly, this correlation between money and height only holds true for men.

[Astronomy]

I hope you know this and are being silly, but just because something holds true in the average, does not mean that it is true for everyone.  There are some poor tall people, just on average tall people make more money.  They're also more likely to be promoted, which can help with earnings.  Interestingly, this correlation between money and height only holds true for men.

Cuz women are being discriminated all the time in most of occupations and for example women are more hardly promoted than short men even if they aren't short.So that's why you can't witness correlation holds true for women cuz women are so seldom promoted (rather than short men)that researchers can overlook the difference between short women's and tall women's earnings.
There are actually also more golden chances for tall women,such as supermodels,superstars and other careers that require one's good statue and appearance.But I think if those dull researchers did researching about the correlation between women's appearance and earning then you will knock your socks off cuz it's far more related than the thread's researching result.
And what's more,since you're considering LL,so you must have earning a lot of fund for it.Why can't you feel pride of it cause you have won a lot of tall people over earning?Why bother yourself with it.
Anyway,it's very boring to overthink in what aspect tall people can beat you.For short people's lives short influnces their dating most(It's the same with me) which results in they feeling inferior.Except for this I dont think anything can bother.

[FormerKidd]

And what's more,since you're considering LL,so you must have earning a lot of fund for it.Why can't you feel pride of it cause you have won a lot of tall people over earning?Why bother yourself with it.

Correlation is not causation.  Meaning, just between two things are linked does not necessarily mean one causes the other.  The paper suggests it's height during development that most strongly correlates with your earning, so increasing your height in adulthood may not help your earning at all (unless maybe your increased confidence allows you to get jobs or promotions that you wouldn't have gone for before).

The fact that most people here are beyond the point where additional height might benefit them in this regard does not invalidate the findings.

[Astronomy]

Correlation is not causation.  Meaning, just between two things are linked does not necessarily mean one causes the other.  The paper suggests it's height during development that most strongly correlates with your earning, so increasing your height in adulthood may not help your earning at all (unless maybe your increased confidence allows you to get jobs or promotions that you wouldn't have gone for before).

The fact that most people here are beyond the point where additional height might benefit them in this regard does not invalidate the findings.

So...I'm on the same side with you..Why were there an argument?All I wanna mean is this thread is meaningless only to make height dysphoric suffers paler.

[smalltaller]

One name: JEFF BEZOS = 1.71 m

[MeanGoal]

Also Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook. 171cm

[Astronomy]

Sorry for my blindness.
The article itself showed this following statement:
'Once again, success has more to do with our ability to be bold enough to be proactive, to think and act differently, and to step up to the plate than is does with outside attributes.'
And if you've really carefully read this article,you should pay attention to these sentences:
'"Controlling for teen height essentially eliminates the effect of adult height on wages," they wrote. "The teen height premium is not explained by differences in resources or endowments."

In other words, how tall you are now actually has nothing to do with how much money you will earn; it's how tall you were in high school that matters.

Notably, the economists found that height as a pre-teen or child did not correlate to future success. Only during those crucial, awful, self-conscious pubescent years where we struggle to "find ourselves" does height play a pivotal role in our future earnings.

The crucial difference between more and less successful people, it appears, is not height, but what height bestows at age 15: confidence. And just like getting started in sports early correlates to higher chances of professional success, a confident teenager will do more, get more, and be more confident at age 40 than an anxious one.'


,which means the reason why taller people can earn more money is that when they were pubescent,they felt confident cuz of their heights.Thus they could perform better in academy and socialization.So if height didn't bother you so much in your adolescence,why you should unplease yourself with this article?

[Vibes]

Sorry for my blindness.
The article itself showed this following statement:
'Once again, success has more to do with our ability to be bold enough to be proactive, to think and act differently, and to step up to the plate than is does with outside attributes.'
And if you've really carefully read this article,you should pay attention to these sentences:
'"Controlling for teen height essentially eliminates the effect of adult height on wages," they wrote. "The teen height premium is not explained by differences in resources or endowments."

In other words, how tall you are now actually has nothing to do with how much money you will earn; it's how tall you were in high school that matters.

Notably, the economists found that height as a pre-teen or child did not correlate to future success. Only during those crucial, awful, self-conscious pubescent years where we struggle to "find ourselves" does height play a pivotal role in our future earnings.

The crucial difference between more and less successful people, it appears, is not height, but what height bestows at age 15: confidence. And just like getting started in sports early correlates to higher chances of professional success, a confident teenager will do more, get more, and be more confident at age 40 than an anxious one.'


,which means the reason why taller people can earn more money is that when they were pubescent,they felt confident cuz of their heights.Thus they could perform better in academy and socialization.So if height didn't bother you so much in your adolescence,why you should unplease yourself with this article?

This is key.

The height matters ONLY within the context of character development etc. AKA the tall kids in high school were rewarded for their height which is just a generally-awesome springboard for opportunities in life vs. those who are short/ugly and have a much much different experience in high school.

[HateLAPELoveSTEM]

I am regretting sparing my time on browsing several pages of Offtopic and I happened to see you polio cunt for one more time.
Are you fond of harassments or spamming?
Either harassments or craps like this,I have seen them for several times and I'm really doubting admins and mods' authoritative efficacies.
Why didn't they give you a 'justice punch' and shut your mouth?
Also I'm really having enough of incel theory such as short guys in general are more poor than tall guys.

[SirStretchAlot]

It's correlation, not causation, as the title suggests.

If it's causation, then African Americans would be the richest, and Asian Americans would be the poorest in USA. Reality is the opposite.

The article also concludes that the reason for the income difference is confidence from being taller at a young age.

The study is controlled for your height in high school, meaning that unless you're 16, LL will not make you richer.

[HateLAPELoveSTEM]

It's correlation, not causation, as the title suggests.

If it's causation, then African Americans would be the richest, and Asian Americans would be the poorest in USA. Reality is the opposite.

The article also concludes that the reason for the income difference is confidence from being taller at a young age.

The study is controlled for your height in high school, meaning that unless you're 16, LL will not make you richer.

This cerebral palsy wretch was just selective about statements addressed in this article and by his elaborations,he was misleading short guys to think I'm too short so I'm doomed to earn less money no matter what I do.
Let's say he is just a poor incel and psychopath.

[dexter1930]

It's correlation, not causation, as the title suggests.

If it's causation, then African Americans would be the richest, and Asian Americans would be the poorest in USA. Reality is the opposite.

The article also concludes that the reason for the income difference is confidence from being taller at a young age.

The study is controlled for your height in high school, meaning that unless you're 16, LL will not make you richer.

I do understand what you meant, lol, after LL Being over 6' 1m845.5 I feel like the whole new person, confidence is through the roof and ready to do anything, before it was bad bad bad. Being short is sucked

[HateLAPELoveSTEM]

I do understand what you meant, lol, after LL Being over 6' 1m845.5 I feel like the whole new person, confidence is through the roof and ready to do anything, before it was bad bad bad. Being short is sucked

Exactly and that's why numerous LLers volunteer to do LL.What this incel article is talking about is just what you said.
Height is the causation of earnings and the determinant of personalities,which are the criminal resulting in high or low earnings.
End of story let's get over this stupid topic.