Standing Tall, Making (More?) Money

Perhaps it’s coincidence—a statistical correlation that proves no connection. After all, isn’t it true that “everyone who confuses correlation with causation dies”? And don’t all drug addicts start their life drinking milk? 

But the numbers do seem to indicate that something real is occurring. To show causation for a given correlation, we need a theory.

Is it heightism? I don’t think so. Any form of irrational discrimination is not only costly for the person being discriminated against (Danny DeVito must be an exception?) but also to the person discriminating. If the average short person earns, say, 2% less each year, my hiring managers are going to be on the lookout for short, competent workers whose wages are, sadly for them but great for me, 2% lower. My profits will be higher and I will benefit from other heightist employers’ short sightedness. Unfortunately for me, competitors will notice my profits and copy my strategies, which will even out the wages and mitigate that awful heightism.

But government-sponsored racism, or heightism, or any other “ism,” is another story, and is much more significant than any market “isms.” In 1916, when Belgium took over Rwanda, the colonial rulers picked the taller and lighter-skinned Tutsis to run their administration instead of the shorter and more numerous Hutus, since the Tutsis looked more “European.” Each Rwandan received an identity card classifying them by their ethnic group. When independence arrived in 1962, the majority Hutus, who were angry at being second class citizens for over a generation, seized power, and the mutual resentment helped bring about the genocide of 1995. One thing history teaches us is that when governments favor some groups, the resulting resentment can cause all sorts of problems.

In short, we’ve understood that, while irrational isms (racism, sexism, heightism, weightism) are, of course, still with us, they are costly, and markets punish bigots. 

Which is one reason why I like markets.

Besides heightism, what other factors might bring about today’s height premium?

Perhaps tall people, starting as children, get picked first, noticed more often, and have vaulted more basketball shots than their diminutive friends; the 6’4” Abe Lincoln gets a heads up over people like Steven Douglas—who, I might add, had the nickname “The Little Giant,” since he was 5’4. These Goliaths become more confident, more assertive. Their meek-minded competitors feel about 2% less sure of their own abilities, and become physician assistants instead of doctors, teacher assistants instead of full professors, or Walmart greeters instead of businesswomen. This answer might hold some water. Being confident, life-of-the-party types who are winning friends and influencing people is often a desirable trait that makes those sales calls, or presidential runs, just a bit more successful. Unless it’s just a coincidence that 67% of American presidential races since 1900 have been won by the taller candidate?

So, it may be that shorter people have to try just a bit harder, quell any self doubt, and stand up to any heightist stereotypes. Besides, being tall hasn’t always been a ticket to success.

In the tumultuous third century of the Roman Empire, when desperate times called for extreme measures, the Romans went with an ex-shepherd and current army commander who went by the name “Big Thracian,” or, in Latin, Maximus Thrax. Mr. Big was not only (allegedly) 8’6” tall, but strong as well. 

His three year reign didn’t solve any problems, and he and his mother were both murdered en route to Rome—which he’d never visited, since he was so busy fighting the barbarian tribes. The Empire sputtered along for another 70 years until Diocletian and Constantine helped bring about a temporary revival to that doomed enterprise. Tall emperors didn’t solve the deep-rooted problems Rome had.