tl;dr: Taller men and women earn more than their shorter counterparts. Weight also has an effect: slimmer women earn more and men within certain weigh ranges (with relation to their height) earn more.
(I'm no expert so if I've gone wrong anywhere please feel free to correct me.)
Skip to the figures at the bottom of this post if you can't be bothered to read anything!
I saw this on /r/economics. The original discussion is here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/2mgscs/iza_big_and_tall_is_there_a_height_premium_or/
Link to the study: http://ftp.iza.org/dp8606.pdf
Some interesting quotes:
> There is a height premium for males (column 1), with a 10 cm increase in height corresponding to a 3.4% increase in wages. Weight controlling for height (column 2) and BMI (column 3) do not appear to be significantly related to wages.
> For men, wages appear to peak at a BMI of between 25 and 32 whereas for women, wages start to dip noticeably after a BMI value of 22. These findings generally echo the results found in this literature
>Weight also does matter but it appears that it matters only to the degree which it is deemed to be proportional relative to height. For example, a male who is 1.80 meters tall maximizes his wages if he weighs between 70 kg to 100 kg and a male who is 1.95 meters tall maximizes his wages if he weighs between 95 kg to 110 kg.
>The results for females shown in Figure 6 also suggest that increases in height are highly associated with higher wages. However, there is a wider range of heights and weights where expected wages are close to its highest levels. It is interesting to note that part of Figure 6 also
>For males aged 25-39 (Figure 7), it can be seen that a height premium exists and that taller men generally earn the highest wages. These wage differences are economically significant. For example, consider a male aged 25-39 in the top panel of Figure 4 who is 1.90 meters tall and weighs 100 kg. Compared to a shorter male who is 1.70 meters tall but who is of the same weight, the taller person earns a wage premium of 0.1 log points or approximately 10%. According to the OLS model whose key results were presented in Table 2, this is almost economically equivalent to a difference between having a high school degree versus not having a high school degree.
> For young women aged 25-39 (Figure 9), the slopes of the iso-contour lines suggest that there
... keep reading on reddit ➡>We all recognize that the status quo isn’t working. We spend more per person than any other country on health care, but we aren’t getting any bang for our buck. We have lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality rates and more preventable deaths, and too many personal bankruptcies are due at least in part to medical bills.
>Where we disagree is the solution. The favorite new “reasonable” plan is “Medicare for America,” a bill from Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Rosa DeLauro that has won the support of big names like Texas presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke and the Center for American Progress, the left-of-center think tank where the plan originated as “Medicare Extra for All.”
That's enough for me to know it's a crappy solution.
Two good points he makes:
>Commercial insurance companies are nothing more than middle men. They add no value to our system, but they do drive up costs with their bloated claims departments, marketing and advertising budgets and executive salaries. We pay for all of these things before a single dollar is spent on the delivery of care.
>They also create extra costs for providers who need large administrative staffs to deal with billing systems, accounting for as much as $100,000 per physician.
>Any plans short of Medicare for All leaves these costs in place. In other words, they leave hundreds of billions of dollars a year in savings on the table.
And this:
>The waste goes beyond administrative savings. While pharmaceutical companies and hospital groups are consolidating and forming regional monopolies, our fragmented, multipayer system leaves no one insurance plan with a large enough share of the market to negotiate effectively. That allows these companies to essentially set their own inflated prices and bilk the public for hundreds of billions of dollars.
One point he left out is that insurance companies spend a lot on advertising (I think I've read it was about 15% of their total operating costs.) Medicare wouldn't have these costs. Then again, the MSM media would lose all kinds of advertising from the insurance & pharmaceutical companies, so no wonder they hate it.
I assume Santa uses magic to conjure up the materials needed to manufacture the various toys. I also assume his elves work for free (maybe they get some room and board, but that too is provided via magic), and they can perform specialist tasks, like forging microchips for game systems, etc. His reindeer also serve as a super efficient global distribution network, so he doesn't need to hire any deliverymen or procure any delivery services. With all these presents being delivered to Christmas trees around the world without contributing anything at all to the global economy, what economic impacts can we expect? Mass unemployment? Commodity crashes? Deflationary pressure? Inverted yield curves? How bad is it going to be?
Hey there.
I'm an economics student. I want to know how can new technologies like AI and Machine learning contribute to the economics literature?
The Center for the History of Political Economy at Duke University will be hosting another Summer Institute on the History of Economics this summer from June 20-29, 2022. The program is designed for students in graduate programs in economics, though students in graduate school in other fields as well as newly minted PhDs will also be considered.
Students will be competitively selected and successful applicants will receive free (double occupancy) housing, a booklet of readings, and stipends for travel and food. The deadline for applying is March 1.
We are very excited about this year’s program, which will focus on giving participants the tools to set up and teach their own undergraduate course in the history of economic thought. There will also be sessions devoted to showing how concepts and ideas from the history of economics might be introduced into other classes. The sessions will be run by Duke faculty members Bruce Caldwell, Steve Medema, and Jason Brent. More information on the Summer Institute is available at our website, http://hope.econ.duke.edu/
Recommended.
The post Duke 2022 Summer Institute on the History of Economic Thought appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
... keep reading on reddit ➡