N
This place is full of high IQ posts, y'all might be ugly but at least you ain't stupid. I'm both, fuck me. Where do you smartcels learn stuff?
ChatGPT
I mean, a lot of the stuff is fluff but I do like the "higher" iq takes on biology that come around every once in a while. It's our best refutation to the bluepillers. Especially with "IncelTears" and shit. That place is a hate sub and I will stand by until I die.
Join the club
Thanks GrAY 
The School of Hard Knocks
This isn't soyddit
I study Blackpill at Harvard
Nexo0199
Greycel
★
JoinedNov 14, 2024Posts13
its so over for greys
I think some here use chatgpt for data and stats, it's so easy to use.
There are papers discussing about the importance of physical attraction from Harvard. This guy thinks pretty privilege shouldn’t be seen as a problem because it can benefit the economy. Brutal.
In Robert J. Barro's article "So You Want to Hire the Beautiful. Well, Why Not?" he argues that physical appearance should be considered a legitimate qualification in the workplace, just as intelligence, experience, and other personal traits are. Barro makes the case that people’s physical appearance can contribute to their productivity, customer satisfaction, and the overall happiness of coworkers, much like other job skills. He highlights that in certain industries—such as entertainment and customer service—attractiveness plays a role in driving profits because it enhances consumer experiences and outcomes.
Key Points from the Article:
- Physical Appearance as a Job Qualification: Barro argues that a worker's physical appearance, if valued by customers and colleagues, is as legitimate a qualification as intelligence or job experience. In industries like airline service, for example, physical attractiveness can contribute to customer satisfaction. He contrasts this with the idea that intelligence and job skills are necessary to succeed, which is widely accepted in society.
- Market Forces and the Role of the Government: Barro suggests that the government should not interfere in the market when it comes to valuing physical attractiveness. He believes that, like intelligence, beauty should be allowed to influence wages and employment opportunities, provided that the market demands it. Government intervention to reduce the role of attractiveness in hiring, in his view, could result in decreased productivity and a less efficient economy.
- Discrimination and Fairness: The article touches on the idea that while the unequal treatment of individuals based on physical appearance may seem unfair, it is no more unjust than the wage disparities linked to intelligence. Barro posits that such inequalities are a natural outcome of the market’s allocation of labor and should not be subject to government regulation unless the benefits of redistribution outweigh the harm to the economy.
- Wage Differentials Based on Attractiveness: Barro refers to studies that show a wage differential of about 10% between attractive and unattractive individuals. This gap is even more significant in the marriage market, where attractive women tend to marry wealthier men. These findings are often met with regret by researchers, but Barro suggests that government intervention—such as treating ugliness as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act—would not be an appropriate solution.
- The Role of Beauty in Various Industries: Barro acknowledges that certain fields, such as entertainment and modeling, place a higher value on physical appearance. However, he argues that this preference for beauty should be allowed to extend to other fields as well, as long as the market values it. The government should not regulate or restrict employers from hiring based on beauty, as this would interfere with market efficiency.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Robert J. Barro’s article challenges conventional views about workplace qualifications by asserting that physical appearance can be just as important as other traits, such as intelligence or experience, in certain industries. He advocates for the government to refrain from regulating the role of beauty in the labor market and argues that market forces should determine how much weight should be given to attractiveness in hiring decisions and compensation.
smartcels don't learn,everything just spawns right into their heads
Looks are everythingThere are papers discussing about the importance of physical attraction from Harvard. This guy thinks pretty privilege shouldn’t be seen as a problem because it can benefit the economy. Brutal.
In Robert J. Barro's article "So You Want to Hire the Beautiful. Well, Why Not?" he argues that physical appearance should be considered a legitimate qualification in the workplace, just as intelligence, experience, and other personal traits are. Barro makes the case that people’s physical appearance can contribute to their productivity, customer satisfaction, and the overall happiness of coworkers, much like other job skills. He highlights that in certain industries—such as entertainment and customer service—attractiveness plays a role in driving profits because it enhances consumer experiences and outcomes.
Key Points from the Article:
- Physical Appearance as a Job Qualification: Barro argues that a worker's physical appearance, if valued by customers and colleagues, is as legitimate a qualification as intelligence or job experience. In industries like airline service, for example, physical attractiveness can contribute to customer satisfaction. He contrasts this with the idea that intelligence and job skills are necessary to succeed, which is widely accepted in society.
- Market Forces and the Role of the Government: Barro suggests that the government should not interfere in the market when it comes to valuing physical attractiveness. He believes that, like intelligence, beauty should be allowed to influence wages and employment opportunities, provided that the market demands it. Government intervention to reduce the role of attractiveness in hiring, in his view, could result in decreased productivity and a less efficient economy.
- Discrimination and Fairness: The article touches on the idea that while the unequal treatment of individuals based on physical appearance may seem unfair, it is no more unjust than the wage disparities linked to intelligence. Barro posits that such inequalities are a natural outcome of the market’s allocation of labor and should not be subject to government regulation unless the benefits of redistribution outweigh the harm to the economy.
- Wage Differentials Based on Attractiveness: Barro refers to studies that show a wage differential of about 10% between attractive and unattractive individuals. This gap is even more significant in the marriage market, where attractive women tend to marry wealthier men. These findings are often met with regret by researchers, but Barro suggests that government intervention—such as treating ugliness as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act—would not be an appropriate solution.
- The Role of Beauty in Various Industries: Barro acknowledges that certain fields, such as entertainment and modeling, place a higher value on physical appearance. However, he argues that this preference for beauty should be allowed to extend to other fields as well, as long as the market values it. The government should not regulate or restrict employers from hiring based on beauty, as this would interfere with market efficiency.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Robert J. Barro’s article challenges conventional views about workplace qualifications by asserting that physical appearance can be just as important as other traits, such as intelligence or experience, in certain industries. He advocates for the government to refrain from regulating the role of beauty in the labor market and argues that market forces should determine how much weight should be given to attractiveness in hiring decisions and compensation.
I like to back up my statements with research
Bluepillers won’t touch any of them
Thanks for bringing this study to the discussion. I was recently thinking about how capitalism could be considered the economic system in which genetic determinism plays the biggest role. The market rewards efficient allocation of resources by agents, and this efficiency is only achieved by the capabilities of the agent when put i competition against other agents. The justification of why CEO's and other managerial/leadership positions earn so much money is, to simplify a lot, that they create the most value and contribute most to the economy so they should be rewarded accordingly.There are papers discussing about the importance of physical attraction from Harvard. This guy thinks pretty privilege shouldn’t be seen as a problem because it can benefit the economy. Brutal.
In Robert J. Barro's article "So You Want to Hire the Beautiful. Well, Why Not?" he argues that physical appearance should be considered a legitimate qualification in the workplace, just as intelligence, experience, and other personal traits are. Barro makes the case that people’s physical appearance can contribute to their productivity, customer satisfaction, and the overall happiness of coworkers, much like other job skills. He highlights that in certain industries—such as entertainment and customer service—attractiveness plays a role in driving profits because it enhances consumer experiences and outcomes.
Key Points from the Article:
- Physical Appearance as a Job Qualification: Barro argues that a worker's physical appearance, if valued by customers and colleagues, is as legitimate a qualification as intelligence or job experience. In industries like airline service, for example, physical attractiveness can contribute to customer satisfaction. He contrasts this with the idea that intelligence and job skills are necessary to succeed, which is widely accepted in society.
- Market Forces and the Role of the Government: Barro suggests that the government should not interfere in the market when it comes to valuing physical attractiveness. He believes that, like intelligence, beauty should be allowed to influence wages and employment opportunities, provided that the market demands it. Government intervention to reduce the role of attractiveness in hiring, in his view, could result in decreased productivity and a less efficient economy.
- Discrimination and Fairness: The article touches on the idea that while the unequal treatment of individuals based on physical appearance may seem unfair, it is no more unjust than the wage disparities linked to intelligence. Barro posits that such inequalities are a natural outcome of the market’s allocation of labor and should not be subject to government regulation unless the benefits of redistribution outweigh the harm to the economy.
- Wage Differentials Based on Attractiveness: Barro refers to studies that show a wage differential of about 10% between attractive and unattractive individuals. This gap is even more significant in the marriage market, where attractive women tend to marry wealthier men. These findings are often met with regret by researchers, but Barro suggests that government intervention—such as treating ugliness as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act—would not be an appropriate solution.
- The Role of Beauty in Various Industries: Barro acknowledges that certain fields, such as entertainment and modeling, place a higher value on physical appearance. However, he argues that this preference for beauty should be allowed to extend to other fields as well, as long as the market values it. The government should not regulate or restrict employers from hiring based on beauty, as this would interfere with market efficiency.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Robert J. Barro’s article challenges conventional views about workplace qualifications by asserting that physical appearance can be just as important as other traits, such as intelligence or experience, in certain industries. He advocates for the government to refrain from regulating the role of beauty in the labor market and argues that market forces should determine how much weight should be given to attractiveness in hiring decisions and compensation.
The point missed by normies who argue in favor of this economic system, is that this contribution to the creation of value is only achievable by having traits like IQ, looks, talent, etc. It's funny that, currently, WOMEN are most inclined to overthrowing the system in favor of socialism. The only people who are an active underclass are those in the worst occupations like garbage men or 30+ yr old burger flippers. The market placed them there, and will keep most of them there, according to their potential given since the moment they spawned.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
