Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
There was a NY Times op-ed yesterday by University of Texas econ Professor Daniel Hamermesh on the economics of ugly which suggests that ugly people get paid less over time relative to good looking people. The author is the same econ prof who examined Michigan Law grads from the 60s to 80s and determined that the better looking ones ended up more successful in terms of financial earnings.
Hamermesh also has found this effect of good looking people doing well among professors in the classroom.
Hamermesh is the author of the recent book Beauty Pays (Princeton University Press 2011). It is worth reading.
This makes me wonder about beauty in antitrust. Do looks matter and if so at what stage of antitrust? With case handlers? With getting clients? In court? Only for private sector people or for government people as well? Does it make more of a difference for in-house people? Alternatively, is beauty more limited to "that is a beautiful brief" or "that is a beautiful economic model"?
Comments are welcome but please no anonymous comments.