Beauty as an economic advantage from the cradle onward

Beauty as an economic advantage from the cradle onward

The idea that beauty is a form of capital has been circulating in labor economics for years: several studies place the "beauty premium" at around 10-15% of salary. The debate has now found a more uncomfortable front: the cradle. According to a study that has reignited the discussion, mothers treat their good-looking babies better. If this is the case, the aesthetic advantage kicks in before the child can even crawl.

The extrapolation is direct and somewhat unsettling. If the mother, who supposedly loves unconditionally, falls into the bias, what can we expect from the teacher, the HR committee, or the boss? The differential treatment accumulates: more attention, more patience, more opportunities to speak. Little by little, the good-looking child collects an invisible income that later materializes into better grades and better jobs.

Some beg to differ. Maternal partiality is not due to the baby's beauty, but to something subtler: the mother projects her own worth onto her child. Saying the baby is ugly would amount to admitting low-quality genes, and that affects adult self-esteem. So the mother does not see a perfect baby: she needs to see one to maintain her own image. The bias would not be aesthetic, but narcissistic.

The deeper question also remains: does beauty act as a cause or as a symptom? In schools, good-looking children from well-off families receive different treatment, but it is hard to tell what comes first. Beauty blends with socioeconomic status, with clothing, with the environment. Solid evidence has not yet managed to isolate the purely aesthetic factor. Meanwhile, the debate remains on murky ground: nobody disputes that beauty opens doors; the question is how many more doors it opens when they are already open in other ways.