I'm guessing the majority of us

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

are going to be making more money than other folks out there.

http://webcenters.netscape.compuserv...socialdrinking

[Ugly Bastard]

This article is so stupid. They're assuming that it's a direct correlation.

Specifically, the researchers determined that social drinkers earn 10 to 14 percent more than teetotalers. 'Social drinkers are out networking, building relationships, and adding contacts to their BlackBerries that result in bigger paychecks'.

They're assuming the alcohol consumption is directly responsible for the 10-14% advantage. The article never pauses to consider the possibility that people who drink alcohol are just generally smart, open-minded, well educated people; the type who are a better fit for high paying/high responsibility jobs than some stupid Christian who won't touch alcohol and is too busy striving to make 40k as a teacher or cop or some other dumb fuck profession like that.

[Beebs]

I don't think they are assuming that at all, I think they are saying that drinking encourages situations where you interact socially.

[Ugly Bastard]

Well I'll be damned. What groundbreaking research that is.

That's not what they're trying to say. They're trying to say that those who drink are likely to make more money.

I say those who make more money are likely to drink. The drinking itself is accountable for very little of the 10-14% pay disparity.

[Beebs]

Well apparantly it is somewhat groundbreaking as a similar study by Harvard in 2000 didn't find the same result, you can't really draw any conclusion as to what causes what, just that they are correlated.

[Ugly Bastard]

Here is the theory of the researchers:

"Social drinkers are out networking, building relationships, and adding contacts to their BlackBerries that result in bigger paychecks,"

They are saying that, by drinking socially, people are able to build relationships which directly result in bigger paychecks. They also say that these paychecks are 10-14% bigger. Quite clearly they are saying that drinking socially results in making more money.

I'm simply saying that, with regard to explaning this correlation, it makes far more sense to suppose that those who make more money are more likely to be social drinkers; and that the social drinking, in and of itself, is responsible for just a small portion of the 10-14% pay advantage.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Here is the theory of the researchers:



They are saying that, by drinking socially, people are able to build relationships which directly result in bigger paychecks. They also say that these paychecks are 10-14% bigger. Quite clearly they are saying that drinking socially results in making more money.

Don't you agree with that?

I'm simply saying that, with regard to explaning this correlation, it makes far more sense to suppose that those who make more money are more likely to be social drinkers; and that the social drinking, in and of itself, is responsible for just a small portion of the 10-14% pay advantage.

That is pretty hard to quantify, your theory being true doesn't mean theirs isn't.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

UB's conclusion is logically correct. This fallacy is a common problem with statistical analysis. Correlation is NOT causation.

[DJ FC]

Yeah, UB my thoughts exactly.

The people who are out making money just so happen to more often be in the atmosphere of alcohol consumption. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet that if you compared people of the same careers, that the non-drinkers would out-earn the drinkers. Unfortuneately this study has taken the entire job-market as a whole, lumped the $40k school teachers (who don't drink) with the $125k investment bankers (who drink like fishes) and made the assumption that drinking alcohol makes you earn more.

Edit: Maybe this is how they did it. I always want to see the numbers and their methods when people release a story, but alas we never get them.

[Beebs]

I really don't see why you guys are reacting to this in such a pain in the ass way, the article is saying that drinking acts as a great social lubricant, which leads to increased networking and networking skills. It is not making a concrete claim as to how much of the increase in pay is due to the common traits of succesful people and drinkers and how much is due to the actual practice of social drinking.

Personally I don't think it matters if they are drinking because they are succesful or succesful because they are drinking, social drinkers are more succesful.

Here is a little better article.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/14/news...ion=2006091410

Happy hour for drinkers' wages
New study reveals that those who enjoy a tipple now and then earn 10 to 14 percent more than teetotalers.
September 14 2006: 2:06 PM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- If you thought swigging beer or indulging in a glass of chardonnay was putting your career on a fast-track to nowhere, think again.

In fact, a study conducted by two economists and published Thursday by the Reason Foundation and in the latest edition of The Journal of Labor Research, says that drinkers earn 10 to 14 percent more than those who refrain from drinking.

"Instead of earning less money than nondrinkers, drinkers earn more," authors of the study, Bethany Peters and Edward Stringham, wrote. More specifically, the study found that workers who drank in a social setting earned more than those who tipped a glass at home.

The study contends that social capital, which entails everything from a person's charisma to the size of their social network, can be enhanced by drinking.

Those who drink socially, for example, may have an easier time finding a new job if they had made more business contacts, the authors claim, or they might strengthen relationships with co-workers or clients that could ultimately affect their salary.

While earnings for both men and women benefited from drinking, the study discovered a few noteworthy differences between the two groups.

Female drinkers earned 14 percent more than non-drinkers, while males who drank earned 10 percent more than their teetotaler counterparts.

At the same time, men who went to a bar at least once a month earned an additional 7 percent on top of the 10 percent drinking premium. But women who engaged in similar behavior did not experience any effect on their earnings.

The authors said their research came in response to growing efforts to restrict drinking on college campuses, limit alcohol advertising and raise taxes on liquor.

A spokesman for Reason Foundation, a libertarian public policy research organization which was founded in 1968, said the group was not commissioned by any outside parties to conduct the study.

The study could be good news for big makers of beer, wine and liquor, notably Anheuser-Busch (Charts), Molson Coors (Charts) and Fortune Brands (Charts), the parent company of such brands as Jim Beam and Absolut.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

Yeah, UB my thoughts exactly.

I always want to see the numbers and their methods when people release a story, but alas we never get them.

So look for them

http://www.reason.org/pb44.pdf

And they do seem to include most demographic features that would be relevant.

[SittinOnDubsWGW]

Originally Posted by THEINCREDIBLEdork

UB's conclusion is logically correct. This fallacy is a common problem with statistical analysis. Correlation is NOT causation.

Exactly.

I wasn't taking this article to full heart, as in more finding it somewhat humorous that this study took place. I really don't think that it has anything to do with the drinking at all. Just as if you were to look at the second article that Beebs posted it states that Social Drinkers earned more than the people that drank at home.

Its just the going out and being social and making contacts is more likely to help in ones rate of pay or being more successful.

[DJ FC]

Originally Posted by Beebs

So look for them

http://www.reason.org/pb44.pdf

And they do seem to include most demographic features that would be relevant.

Thanks for that, but they still didn't split the most important catagory in my oppinion: career or industry.

Also, I find it interesting that "barhopping absainers" earn the least of anybody. Aparently socializing is only beneficial if you are drinking, and detrimental if you are not.

[Mr. Blonde]

Yeah FC, i was going to make a comment that if someone knows how to have fun if they're not drinking, but still out, it really shouldn't make a difference if they're drinking alcohol or not...especially if they have a cranberry juice or coke in-hand to give the illusion that they are.

[DJ FC]

But on the other hand: think about the kind of people you know of who go out to clubs and bars and don't drink... in my experience they are pretty weird people.

[Mr. Blonde]

good point.

[angry pancake]

gotta agree with George FC. That seems to be painting with very broad brushstrokes and jumping to conclusions. I'm not sure that the bar scene/social drinking makes a bit of difference one way or the other for neurosurgeons or professional athletes. Whereas financial planners can give out lots of cards.

I'd also think that there's a dramatic difference between "client development" in trying to land the big contract and knocking down a few cold ones with a few co-workers after work.

If they're trying to say "it never hurts to know a lot of people" and "having contacts is good", I can see that. But booze by itself being the factor? Just seems hard to believe.