So You Want to Hire the Beautiful. Well, Why Not?

In times past, stewardesses were often at­tractive women, which added to the plea­sure of many heterosexual male air trav­elers. Gradually, sine a 1971 lawsuit against Pan Am, however, stewardesses have become flight attendants, who are much less likely to be attractive and are somеtimes male.

Many people view these changes as progress. Instead of pandering to the tastes of straight male customers airlines now largely ignore such traits as sex, age, marital sta­tus, and appearance and focus instеad on qualifications and seniority. Is it not a good thing if flight attendants are selected by job skills, meaning the ability to serve people well and to carry out safety procedures effi­ciently, and not at all on physical appearance?

I would say no. I believe the only mean­ingful measure of productivity is the amount a worker adds to customer satisfaction and to the happiness of co-workers. A worker's phys­ical appearance, to the extent that it is valued by customers and co-workers, is as legitimate a job qualification as intelligence, dexterity, job experience, and personality.

Almost everyone can recognise that sever­ing the link between wages and intelligence would reduce efficiency or lower the gross national product because brain power would not be allocated to its most productive uses. Yet outcomes based on intelligence are clear­ly unfair in the sense that, by and large, smarter people end up richer, and being smart is to a considerable extent a matter of luck. If one wanted the government to redistribute resources from smart to stupid people, then one would have to believe that the benefits from this redistribution would exceed the re­sulting losses in national product.

The same reasoning applies to physical ap­pearance. This trait is highly valued in some fields, and reducing its importance to employ­ment and wages would effectively throw away national product. The outcomes are also unfair, in the same sense as they are for intelligence. An interference with the market's valuation of physical appearance is justified only if the benefits from the redistribution of resources from more attractive to less attractive people are greater than the losses in overall product. Thus, it makes no sense to say that basing employment and wages on physical appearance is a form of discrimination, whereas bas­ing them on intelligence is not. The two cases are fundamentally the same.

Most people (and the law) accept this ap­proach to beauty for movie and television personalities and modeling. Obviously, there would be a great less of national product if the government were to dictate that Cindy Crawford had to be replaced by me in all of her commercials. But the difference between glamour fields and others in terms of the role of physical appearance is merely a matter of degree. If the government stays out, the market will generate a premium for beauty based on the values that customers and co-workers place on physical appearance in various fields. Probably the market will allocate more beauty to movies, television, and modeling than to assembly-line production and economic research. I have no idea how much beauty the unfettered market would al­locate to flight-attendant jobs or CEO posi­tions. But whatever the outcomes, are the judgments of government preferable to those of the marketplace?

Some solace can be taken from last fall's Hooter's settlement, which allows the restau­rant chain to continue to limit its service staff to attractive young women. Physical appearance remains legally as a "bona fide occupational qualification" in this business. Of course, economic reasoning would imply that physical appearance is always a bona fide worker char­acteristic as long as customers and co-workers think so.

UGLY STATS. Research studies, such as host by Daniel S. Hamermesh and Jeff E. Biddle in the 1999 American Economic Review, in­dicate that the wage differential between at­tractive and ugly people is about 100 for both sexes. The differential is substantially greater for women if one considers outcome in the marriage market. Less attractive, or at least obese, women are much less likely to marry than non-obese women and tend to have husbands with sharply lower earnings. Some researchers have greeted these find­ings with regret.

To really address this hard fact of life, ug­liness would have to be protected as a dis­ability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the act would have to be extended to the marriage market. After all, what could be more unfair than the tendency of attractive people to obtain higher-earning mates? Per­haps a better idea than this new intervention would be for the government, to stay out of the beauty business.

I. Find in the text:

Судебное разбирательство, рассматривать изменения как прогресс, игнорировать, быть несправедливым в смысле…, в значительной степени, вопрос удачи, превысить итоговые потери в отечественном производстве, то же обоснование относится к…, высоко цениться, вмешательство в…, не иметь смысла, принять подход, вопрос степени, стоять в стороне от…, ценить что-либо, встретить открытие (находку) с сожалением, распределять интеллектуальные ресурсы, быть оправданным, перераспределять ресурсы, каковы бы ни были результаты, рыночная оценка.

II. Explain the following:

To select people by job skills, to be a legitimate job qualification, to allocate brain power to its most productive uses, the market will generate a premium for beauty, bona fide occupational qualification.

III. Answer the questions:

1. Why do airlines now ignore such traits as age, sex, marital status and appearance?

2. Does the author view these changes as progress? Why?

3. What reasoning does the author provide to defend his point of view? Do you share his opinion?

4. Are smart people always richer than others? Prove it

5. In what fields is physical appearance valued more highly? Why?

6. Do you view the link between salary and physical appearance a form of discrimination?

7. What does economic reasoning concerning the problem of physical appearance imply?

8. What examples does the author give in the marriage market? Do you support this view?

9. What ideas does the author express in the last paragraph? What emotions does he want to convey?

IV. Comment on the statements:

10. Physical appearance of employee is a measure of productivity.

11. Being smart is to a considerable extent a matter of luck.

12. A worker’s appearance is as legitimate a qualification as intelligence and experience – so the government should butt out.

13. Severing the link between wages and intelligence would reduce efficiency.

14. Outcomes based on intelligence are clearly unfair because being smart is to a considerable extent a matter of luck.

15. The difference between glamour fields and others in terms of the role of physical appearance is a matter of degree.

16. Less attractive, or at least obese, women are much less likely to marry.

17. Less attractive women tend to have husbands with sharply lower earnings.

18. The tendency of attractive people to obtain higher-earning mates is unfair.

V. Speak on the points:

1. Hiring by appearance is a form of discrimination.
2. The link between salary and intelligence.
3. A worker's phys­ical appearance is a measure of productivity on the market.
4. The role of appearance on the marriage market.
5. The government should stay out of the beauty business.

Text 3