Alcohol use helps boost income: study

[Evo]

Oh now this is preposterous. I agree that in "sales" socializing in places where you can meet potential clients can result in more sales, but I don't see how Zz or Moonbear cruising bars and tying one on will increase their income. Also, you do not need to drink alcoholic beverages just because you are in a bar.

"WASHINGTON (AFP) - People who consume alcohol earn significantly more at their jobs than non-drinkers, according to a US study that highlighted "social capital" gained from drinking.

The study published in the Journal of Labor Research Thursday concluded that drinkers earn 10 to 14 percent more than teetotalers, and that men who drink socially bring home an additional seven percent in pay.

"They also said these conclusions provide arguments against policies aimed at curbing alcohol use on university campuses and public venues." Ok, well we don't want to prevent public drunkeness on our campuses.

"We created our hypothesis through casual observation and examination of scholarly accounts," the authors said." How much drinking? One beer or scotch or 5 or ten? When does it become counterproductive? Uhm, did they take into consideration the fact that people that drink heavily take more time off from work than non-drinkers, have more medical problems and lower productivity on the job? This usually equates to less pay or even losing your job.

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

 

[Rach3]

More disposable income means greater purchasing power for alcohol, or fewer working hours -> more drinking time? Dunno.

 

[Rach3]

The study published in the Journal of Labor Research...

The authors acknowledged their study, funded by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank, contradicted research released in 2000 by the Harvard School of Public Health.

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

So they performed *casual observation" funded by a grant from an ideological think tank, coming to a bizarre conclusion which they went to very little effort to defend, but which happens to coincide with the stated goals of their funder. Hmm.

 

[Evo]

Do they even consider alcholics, or exclude them?

Sounds like their "research" consisted mainly of sitting in bars.

And then suggesting that drinking on campus should be encouraged? Ok...

 

[Feynman Follower]

Gee, I'd better have another, then...

 

[Rach3]

Found it! It's the FRONT PAGE headline of their funder, a libertarian think tank:

http://www.reason.org/

In return, page 2 of the paper is a full-page exposition of the mission goals of the libertarians:

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

First there's an introduction where they "explain" how doctors are leading an economically unsound crusade against something they call "harmful". Once the ideology settles down, they get to the analysis, which is actually a meta-analysis of 38,000 voluntary responses to the GSS:

http://webapp.icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/

(38,000, that is, over the period of 1972-present!)

Finally they define categories and subcategories (many of them), and from data where the mean values are apporximately equal to their own standard deviations, comes up with a rather weak conclusion which is two-sigma consistent with the null hypothesis. Fiddling with category boundaries had nothing to do with that, I'm sure. Finally, their Conclusion is far broader than their data set, mainly focusing on questioning various unrelated, untested hypotheses (no discussion of the siginificance of their own analysis.)

 

[wolram]

I know for a fact that my boss wormed his way into his job via his drinking buddies, he can not do the job, and it has been prooved he is wanting in every respect, i am just glad that i have little contact with him, no matter what happens as long as he keeps in with his drinking buddies he will keep his
job, to say how inept he is he gave me a transformer to fit to a machine, thinking it was a replacement for a 12v dc power supply.
So yes i can well understand how people that drink with the right? AHs
earn more money than they warrent.

 

[Rach3]

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

AFP's getting pretty bad at this. Last month I posted here about their naive reporting of a free energy scam in the UK (the one that stole tens of millions from gullible investors.)

 

[Evo]

I know for a fact that my boss wormed his way into his job via his drinking buddies, he can not do the job, and it has been prooved he is wanting in every respect, i am just glad that i have little contact with him, no matter what happens as long as he keeps in with his drinking buddies he will keep his
job, to say how inept he is he gave me a transformer to fit to a machine, thinking it was a replacement for a 12v dc power supply.
So yes i can well understand how people that drink with the right? AHs
earn more money than they warrent.

Yes, that's always going to be true, but it doesn't apply to the general public. The same could be said for golfing. I have always been at a disadvantage in my job because I don't golf. Many sales deals are closed on the golf course.

 

[Evo]

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

AFP's getting pretty bad at this. Last month I posted here about their naive reporting of a free energy scam in the UK (the one that stole tens of millions from gullible investors.)

Articles like this need disclaimers to alert the idot masses that it's a pile of horse poop.

 

[Ronnin]

Anyone who gets plastered on a regular basis is not going to be my first choice to hand a raise out to. I personally don't conduct business within the confines of a bar, but I can understand (especially for salespeople) how people can use the setting to expand their social network. Alcohol does make it easier to engage in bolder conversation. It is also a usefull tool to obtain answers to questions that many times wouldn't be answered as truthfully. All of our sales guys play golf and I could care less for the game. I personally like to bowl but that is a bit too "blue collar" for most customers. One reason I prefer bowling to golf, two words-Air Conditioning.

 

[Moonbear]

How many people really are teetotalers though? The only people I know in that category are either 1) former alcoholics who had to quit drinking completely to deal with their problems, or 2) avoid alcohol due to religious restrictions. In the first category of former alcoholics, when someone reaches that point of addiction, it's not much surprise if their career prospects have been adversely affected by their addiction. In the second category, those who have those sorts of religious beliefs also have other aspects of their belief system that probably hinders advancement in the most competitive, high paying careers, possibly by choice (the sort of back-stabbing and swindling that goes on there may not be very appealing to someone with such strong moral/religious convictions).

Other than that, I don't know of anyone who doesn't sometimes drink socially. So, how much of a comparison is that? It doesn't mean the social drinking is what is advancing your career or pay, it just means on average, you'll find that highly paid people also drink socially, whereas that small percentage of people who entirely abstain may not seek such careers in the first place, or have lost their competitive edge due to an earlier battle with alcoholism.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't know if the study holds any water, but it is true that any discipline you adopt, like refusing to drink, cuts you off from anyone who doesn't adopt the same discipline. You are perceived as looking down on them. At the same time I am, thus, cut off from people who drink and smoke pot, I've felt equally pushed away by people who used to smoke cigarettes but then quit. The fact is that we are uncomfortable around people who have vices we don't or, conversely, who don't have the vices we do. This could be a problem when business dealings are conducted in casual settings.

 

[Evo]

My mother doesn't drink at all, and it's just a choice she made, just like I made a choice not to smoke. I do not drink alcohol if I am out with a client, or if I have to drive, I usually just request water wih a slice of lemon. You do not have to drink when you go out. And holding a drink in your hand, they don't know that's it's not a gin and tonic.

This study specifically says "alcohol", that's obviously not true.

 

[Pengwuino]

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

So they performed *casual observation" funded by a grant from an ideological think tank, coming to a bizarre conclusion which they went to very little effort to defend, but which happens to coincide with the stated goals of their funder. Hmm.

Ill take Harvard's word thank you

 

[Pengwuino]

Other than that, I don't know of anyone who doesn't sometimes drink socially. So, how much of a comparison is that? It doesn't mean the social drinking is what is advancing your career or pay, it just means on average, you'll find that highly paid people also drink socially, whereas that small percentage of people who entirely abstain may not seek such careers in the first place, or have lost their competitive edge due to an earlier battle with alcoholism.

Or 3) people who see how idiotic even casual drinkers can act (but they don't tend to remember it ). You have no idea how much dirt you can get on people just by walking them into a bar and remembering not to drink for yourself I know a guy who basically has enough dirt on about 3 or 4 of his friends to ... i dunno, make them commit suicide haha. Plus I hate people who drink, period, so i don't. They act like jerks, and then they don't remember, then get pissed at you because they think you should let them off because they can't remember it themselves.

And yes, that's just casual drinkers.

Then again maybe "casual" and "excessive" drinking around here means something different then you guys.

 

[zoobyshoe]

And holding a drink in your hand, they don't know that's it's not a gin and tonic.

I'm sure it's sufficient to merely appear to be drinking. The point is not to alienate an authentic drinker by seeming to reject his or her vices.

 

[Moonbear]

Or 3) people who see how idiotic even casual drinkers can act (but they don't tend to remember it ).

They said social drinking, not going out and getting plastered! Social drinking can mean as little as one drink. But, that's a big problem with just saying social drinking, because that can mean almost anything in terms of the amount of alcohol you drink. I've even gone out, ordered a drink to toast a special ocassion, got a glass of water with it, and after a few sips, only drank water. That would still count as social drinking, as would the other people who had two and three martinis and needed to call their spouses to drive them home.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm sure it's sufficient to merely appear to be drinking. The point is not to alienate an authentic drinker by seeming to reject his or her vices.

I think you're likely onto something there. If you KNOW someone is a teetotaler, it's likely they've been vocal about that choice to not drink, or their objections to drinking, and have alienated others in the process. Otherwise, you'd really never know. If you all go out to a bar, and one person just volunteers to drive, or just orders soda, you don't know they're a non-drinker, or if they just are being generous offering to be the driver, or just aren't in the mood for alcohol that night.

 

[Evo]

I think you're likely onto something there. If you KNOW someone is a teetotaler, it's likely they've been vocal about that choice to not drink, or their objections to drinking, and have alienated others in the process. Otherwise, you'd really never know. If you all go out to a bar, and one person just volunteers to drive, or just orders soda, you don't know they're a non-drinker, or if they just are being generous offering to be the driver, or just aren't in the mood for alcohol that night.

You guys went off on a side road somewhere. This study is stating that ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION is directly related to income. They put "social drinking" in an added bonus category.

Study: Drinkers Earn More Money Than Nondrinkers
Social drinkers who hang out in bars bring home even bigger paychecks

Numerous studies have shown moderate alcohol use can have important health benefits and now a new report finds drinking can help your wallet too. Drinkers earn 10 to 14 percent more money at their jobs than nondrinkers - and men who drink socially, visiting a bar at least once a month, bring home an additional 7 percent in pay.

This is on the home page of the company that funded the "research".

http://www.reason.org/

Did you read that this is opposite the Harvard findings?

 

[zoobyshoe]

You guys went off on a side road somewhere.

Yes, and I used my turn signal before departing from the main road:

I don't know if the study holds any water, but it is true that ...

I wasn't intending to address the study. I got to thinking about Wolram's boss, and how people with the same vices stick together.

 

[Evo]

Yes, and I used my turn signal before departing from the main road:

I wasn't intending to address the study. I got to thinking about Wolram's boss, and how people with the same vices stick together.

But that's not what the study is about.

WHO MOVED THE SMILIES AGAIN?

 

[zoobyshoe]

But that's not what the study is about.

Could be, but I can't help it: some guy went back in time and stepped on a butterfly and changed the course of the thread.

 

[larkspur]

Could be, but I can't help it: some guy went back in time and stepped on a butterfly and changed the course of the thread.

 

[Moonbear]

But that's not what the study is about.

I was just going with the flow there. I hadn't realized it's not a legitimate study (I was initially thinking it was an issue of the media distorting the conclusions of a legitimate study), just something being pushed by a political agenda...hadn't looked at the actual study. Now that I have...the most obvious flaw is that they're assuming causation when all they've demonstrated is a correlation. You should take a look at their standard deviations too! And, if you were to believe their surveys were representative of anything, you'd also have to swallow that women are only earning HALF what men earn! Did they lump in all the unemployed with the employed? Oh, and their statistics were a 2-tailed t-test...with how many variables?! I think someone should find funding for them to take a statistics course.

 

[Rach3]

You should take a look at their standard deviations too!

I already posted about that! 2 sigma is "conclusive" for them.

Now that I have...the most obvious flaw is that they're assuming causation when all they've demonstrated is a correlation.

They acknowledge this on the bottom of page 6, and basically admit they do nothing to address this (they deflect the question, pointing to some other study involving different data and different questions. )

 

[Rach3]

Actually I think the most obvious flaw is the lack of methodology - how they chose their data, why it involves data from four different decades, and in particular why they have so many categories and subcategories. Fiddling with so many boundary definitions makes it easy to fiddle with the conclusion, there's nothing that convinced me their setup was meaningful and objective.

I especially enjoy this sub-category: "Barhopping abstainers: N = 36 / 23"

 

[Moonbear]

Actually I think the most obvious flaw is the lack of methodology - how they chose their data, why it involves data from four different decades, and in particular why they have so many categories and subcategories. Fiddling with so many boundary definitions makes it easy to fiddle with the conclusion, there's nothing that convinced me their setup was meaningful and objective.

I especially enjoy this sub-category: "Barhopping abstainers: N = 36 / 23"

Maybe the thread should have been a poll of which of the major flaws is the worst?

 

[Rach3]

Maybe the thread should have been a poll of which of the major flaws is the worst?

I'd like to see that vote spontaneously happen in the middle of a particularly awful conference talk, just once...