4 ms·

Totally click-bait: my immediate reaction was that there were already studies to show that taller people are wealthier, and it seemed more reasonable to expect

Totally click-bait: my immediate reaction was that there were already studies to show that taller people are wealthier, and it seemed more reasonable to expect wealthier people to (in general) care less about wealth redistribution. That selection bias was already confirmed in the abstract, but obviously not in the title. However, as a tall person myself at 6'5"/195cm, I find that I do have to earn more (actually spend more) just to get the same lifestyle. All my out-of-pocket expenses for business travel to upgrade my economy seats on long-haul flights, bigger cars just to be able to fit my kids in the back, custom, longer beds and mattresses (and when looking to vacation somewhere, checking photos to ensure bed is not bounded at the bottom by a rail or I'll be spending nights crunched up)..., increase costs just so I can "fit" into many places people take for granted. So while there is some preferential treatment for taller males (I've seen it too), nobody mentions the extra costs their lives generally require. It's like comparing absolute salaries between countries.

CincinnatiMan 6y ago
I would imagine it's not mentioned because those costs are somewhat negligible compared to the positives of being a tall man. The things you've listed seem pretty trivial to be honest, and I imagine any man shorter than 5'9" would trade positions with you in an instant. It's like listing the bad parts of having more money, sure nothing is ever 100% positive but when it's 99% positive, it's not always worth mentioning the negative 1%.
- necovek 6y ago
  Or maybe they are not mentioned because nobody thought of it? Like, the OP study happened, and it's nothing but "wealthy people are less likely to want wealth redistribution, even if they are tall". From personal experience, I'd say it's far from negligible when you put it down on paper. Only people outside the average size (5-95th percentile usually) have to think about these. I'd go on to say that everything in life is on average 50% more expensive for me (eg. custom bed is 2-3x more expensive than those available in stores of comparable quality, my custom height kitchen-top as well, or baby changing station... But plenty of things are the same price, thus only a 50% increase). For the same amount of money, "average humans" are getting more out of it. If that should not be accounted for when it comes to "wealth", I am not sure what should. But I guess without properly accounting for all the things I've "had" to pay extra for just to get basic comfort, people are going to continue to claim costs are negligible. Not saying I'd change with anyone, and I am probably lucky to have ended up in IT (otherwise, my feet would be dangling off my bed :)). And sure, it's way better for males to be taller than average than shorter than average in the society today, but there's a whole lot of average in there that simply don't have to think about any of the things I do.
maddyboo 6y ago
I don’t disagree with your logic, but I want you to re-read your third paragraph and then to honestly consider the realities of the people who are most negatively affected by wealth inequality.
- necovek 6y ago
  You are talking about an extreme: those "most negatively affected" are definitely not comparable to my situation. FWIW, I have not stated my position on "wealth redistribution", since you seem to be arguing as if I said I am against it (and no, I still haven't stated it). I am personally just well-off and in no way "wealthy" (as most senior software engineers likely are today). I am not complaining, I am just putting out a data point that I've never seen mentioned, let alone studied. I am fully aware of the non-direct benefits things like "good looks" (height being one of those in males — my sister is over 6' herself and you can guess what her experience being above average height has been) have on people's success: it's easy enough to notice a difference in how people treat you—one single person—depending on what you are wearing (sweatpants, jeans, or more formal attire).

CincinnatiMan 6y ago

I would imagine it's not mentioned because those costs are somewhat negligible compared to the positives of being a tall man. The things you've listed seem pretty trivial to be honest, and I imagine any man shorter than 5'9" would trade positions with you in an instant. It's like listing the bad parts of having more money, sure nothing is ever 100% positive but when it's 99% positive, it's not always worth mentioning the negative 1%.

necovek 6y ago
Or maybe they are not mentioned because nobody thought of it? Like, the OP study happened, and it's nothing but "wealthy people are less likely to want wealth redistribution, even if they are tall". From personal experience, I'd say it's far from negligible when you put it down on paper. Only people outside the average size (5-95th percentile usually) have to think about these. I'd go on to say that everything in life is on average 50% more expensive for me (eg. custom bed is 2-3x more expensive than those available in stores of comparable quality, my custom height kitchen-top as well, or baby changing station... But plenty of things are the same price, thus only a 50% increase). For the same amount of money, "average humans" are getting more out of it. If that should not be accounted for when it comes to "wealth", I am not sure what should. But I guess without properly accounting for all the things I've "had" to pay extra for just to get basic comfort, people are going to continue to claim costs are negligible. Not saying I'd change with anyone, and I am probably lucky to have ended up in IT (otherwise, my feet would be dangling off my bed :)). And sure, it's way better for males to be taller than average than shorter than average in the society today, but there's a whole lot of average in there that simply don't have to think about any of the things I do.

maddyboo 6y ago

I don’t disagree with your logic, but I want you to re-read your third paragraph and then to honestly consider the realities of the people who are most negatively affected by wealth inequality.

necovek 6y ago
You are talking about an extreme: those "most negatively affected" are definitely not comparable to my situation. FWIW, I have not stated my position on "wealth redistribution", since you seem to be arguing as if I said I am against it (and no, I still haven't stated it). I am personally just well-off and in no way "wealthy" (as most senior software engineers likely are today). I am not complaining, I am just putting out a data point that I've never seen mentioned, let alone studied. I am fully aware of the non-direct benefits things like "good looks" (height being one of those in males — my sister is over 6' herself and you can guess what her experience being above average height has been) have on people's success: it's easy enough to notice a difference in how people treat you—one single person—depending on what you are wearing (sweatpants, jeans, or more formal attire).