I did a multiple regression analysis using the ATHLETIC variable along with dummy variables for age, educational attainment and region.
Men who said they were in the two least athletic categories suffered a $7,000 loss of income (t=-2.4). In comparison, there was a $13,000 gain in income for having a bachelor’s degree, and a $35,000 gain income for having a graduate degree. This is based on a relatively small sample size of 567 men who reported working full time. This is one of the higher coefficients to appear in my income analyses.
Surprisingly, men who placed themselves in the most athletic category didn’t have any increased income with respect to their peers of average athleticism. This is very similar to what I found with men’s height using the 1991 National Health Interview Survey. Men who were shorter than average had lower income, but men who were taller than average didn’t have higher income than men of average height. And like the athleticism coefficient, being 5’7” or shorter was the income equivalent to losing approximately half of a college degree.
Do businesses discriminate against men who look unathletic (as well as men who are short)? Or does this have something to do with adolescent experiences?