Oh dear… it seems it really is all about the Benjamins. According to a new book by Daniel S. Hamermesh, called “Beauty Pays,” one’s ability to pull in the all-mighty dollar is directly related to how beautiful you are.

WHAT?!

Before we go all craazzaay up in here, let’s let the man speak. Hamermesh is, after all, a professor of economics at the University of Texas in Austin, which means he undoubtedly rocks a giant belt buckle and a Stetson – which makes him a trust-worthy cowboy. Oh, and he created a new kind of economics, which he calls “pulchrinomics”, otherwise known as the economics of beauty. And he’s a cowboy.



WHAT?! Calm down!

According to his research (and no, we’re not exactly sure how he went about said research) good-looking workers on average earned a whopping $230,000 more than those with below-average looks, students rate good-looking higher than so-so-looking professors, and good-looking politicians win out over ugly ones.

Okay, this isn’t exactly new news. What is new news, and what surprised Hamermesh, is that the effects of how attractive a person is on how much a person earns were larger among men than among women (since us ladies are still earning less than the gents – we can say a speedy amen to this one.)

To explain this phenomenon, Hamermesh takes us on a trip back to the dark ages, “We explained this apparent anomaly by pointing to the fact that men have to work, so ugly guys are stuck getting jobs that pay them less than good-looking guys. An ugly woman, knowing that she will be penalized, can stay home; and we find that ugly women are less likely to work than better-looking women, a difference that doesn’t exist at all among men.”


WHAT?! WHAT?! (Our cowboy is getting less attractive by the second, no?)

The book goes on to say that this conclusion prevails across many countries and isn’t just specific to the U.S. In fact, Hamermesh says he’s seen studies in Germany, Britain, Canada and China, too—all of them stating that better-looking people earn more, and better-looking women find spouses who earn more. (Sheesh.)

Oh, and there’s not a darned thing you can do about it. Hamermesh quotes a study in China that says that women who spend more on clothing, hair and cosmetics barely alter their perceived beauty at all. (Thank you, Professor Sunshine.)

Hamermesh continues on with his apparent quest for a soundbite, when asked in an exclusive Huffington Post e-interview how exactly he would define a “beautiful” and/ or “ugly” person?

“I wouldn’t (um… except you must have to do the aforementioned research, right?) and can’t (um… except…). It’s like pornography—I know it when I see it. (um…)” says the cowboy… I mean professor. “We all tend to have similar, but undefined standards, so if you think someone is beautiful or ugly, most other people will be in pretty close agreement.”

Again… this isn’t exactly new news with studies done on a baby’s ability to recognize and respond favorably to the symmetry of an “attractive” face. But, hey, Hamermesh—stupidly piggish pornography references probably won’t go over as well as, say, baby references. Just sayin’.

In conclusion, Hamermesh soul-lessly claims to “feel good” about the fact that being less-attractive is fraught with disadvantage. But hey! He does leave Huff-Po with this little piece of sunshine, “Emphasize those things that you are good at—your intelligence, strength, nice personality. It’s important to stress to people that our hang-ups about beauty may be overemphasized, that it’s just one of many things. It’s also important to quantify beauty’s effects to demonstrate that they are not so large as people might guess. They’re important, but not astronomical.” (Um…? But didn’t he just say…?)