Comments (13)

• quasibill

  ugh.

  Studies like these always set off the "broken window fallacy" alarm in my head. Sure, the more time you put into you career, the more money you'll make, on the average.

  What's "unseen" in studies like this is the cost in terms of neglecting families and children.

  Not saying "there oughta be a law" or anything like that, but unfortunately studies like these tend be touted by supply-siders and other Chicago school types that inordinately obsessed with monetized "productivity", such that you get the quote from some NYU MBA student a few years back to the effect that (paraphrasing)"if we cut taxes enough, cabbies will want to work 90 hours a week, and think how much our GNP will increase!" Mainly, I'm just saying to beware the trap of thinking that all value in the world is captured in monetary units.

  Published: September 14, 2006 12:16 PM

• M E Hoffer

  "Seen and Unseen"

  Published: September 14, 2006 12:52 PM

• Ron Brown

  Depending on how much they spend on alcohol, the remainder of their disposable income may or may not be higher than their nondrinking peers.

  Also, I seriously doubt this study applies to blue collar workers.

  Published: September 14, 2006 1:25 PM

• DC

  Well, there does seem to be a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy in play here. That is, we know it is likely the case that drinkers earn more on average, but not that the drinking causes it. After all, perhaps there is an innate personality "allele" if you will that manifests itself both in more frequent drinking (that is, non-abstension) and in some other way that makes for higher pay. Perhaps people who are socially confident feel more comfortable throwing one back with co-workers.

  It could be the fundamental social confidence rather than the alcohol itself that is responsible for the higher average income. It is an interesting study, though.

  Published: September 14, 2006 1:38 PM

• DC

  For that matter, it could be simply that men who go out more often than abstainers do so because they are invited out more often. If that were the case, the increase in (or basic presence) of moderate alcohol consumption could be a result of greater popularity or charisma to begin with.

  I would be interested to see if the income difference was still statistically significant between drinkers and non-drinkers who are socially active in general.

  Published: September 14, 2006 1:42 PM

• DC

  Okay, okay... so after further review, it appears that the authors did attempt to control for the social activity factor by comparing social drinkers and non-social drinkers. It looks like they also compared "barhopping abstainers" to "non-barhopping abstainers" as well. I'm not sure, though, that this answers the question about causation...

  Published: September 14, 2006 1:46 PM

• banker

  I think the point to take from this article is that commerce is centered around people and the interactions between them. Getting a job or selling a new product requires social skills that are not distributed evenly amoung the population. If you also consider the many references that show that IQ is not directly linked to financial success (brand equity for colleges for instance), you will find that there is an inherent social/inner mind type of phenomenon common to successful entrepreneurs and business people.

  So, people who stay at home all day or only go from work to home and don't sociallize in environments like bars usually lack that "ambiance" required to leverage contact with other people. The people who can be successful in bar social setting usually have a much easier time navigating the intricacies of social interaction in a business environment (ie more money).

  Published: September 14, 2006 5:06 PM

• Luke Fitzhugh

  It would be interesting to compare the pay of Baptists and other organized-religion types that oppose the drinking of alcohol with the rest of us who think that what we drink is none of their business.

  Published: September 14, 2006 5:58 PM

• Vanmind

  George Thorogood drinks alone and seems to make out all right.

  Published: September 14, 2006 7:27 PM

• Dale

  This may be a confusion of cause and effect. Doing something you love and working with people you respect and enjoy spending time with is going to be good for your career too. You are going to spend time with them. Networking is good for your career. When it is motivated by a love of what you do, I think it shows.

  Published: September 14, 2006 8:52 PM

• TGGP

  I think I've seen a study that said non-drinkers have shorter lifespans than drinkers. Then it turned out the vast majority of abstainers used to be extreme alcoholics.

  Published: September 15, 2006 7:37 AM

• happy lee

  As much as I love the paper, the topic and the authors, it seems to me that the paper embodies all that's wrong with modern economics ( I should say "economics"). Uh, let's see, grab some data, plug it into a spreadsheet, run it through some regressions, and, viola!, the veil is dropped and new knowledge reveals itself to us like some Playboy centerfold.

  One day, back when I was a spreadsheet monkey, my boss came into my office after a day of getting ripped to shreds in cross-examination at trial. Lo and behold, dressing the pig up in lots of pretty equations don't make it a gurl! Imagine that. Ditto for cause and effect, especially in human relations.

  That said, I've passed this paper around, especially to mormon friends. haha, take your lemonade and shove it, buddy.

  Published: September 15, 2006 12:59 PM

• happy lee

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060914/hl_afp/afplifestylehealthalcohol

  It mades the news!

  Published: September 15, 2006 2:36 PM