<p>Posted from the WSJ Online today, interesting op-ed on the correlation of moderate drinking with higher income. (only a portion re-posted here from <a href=“http://www.wsj.com%5B/url%5D”>www.wsj.com</a>)</p>
<p>COMMENTARY</p>
<p>Drink More, Earn More (& Give More)</p>
<p>By ARTHUR C. BROOKS
July 13, 2005; Page A14</p>
<p>W.C. Fields once recommended, “Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake.” Traditionally, practical rationales for drinking were unconvincing, at best. </p>
<p>Economists assert that benefits from alcohol are also financial, showing that moderate drinking is associated with higher earnings. If two workers are identical in education, age, and other characteristics except that the first has a couple of beers each night after work while the second is a teetotaler, the first will tend to enjoy a “drinker’s bonus” in the range of 10% to 25% higher wages. (Don’t get carried away with this information, though. Research also shows that beyond about two drinks per day, wages start to fall.)</p>
<p>While it is clear that drinking and prosperity are related, the reasons why are still obscure. Some economists believe that the health benefits of moderate drinking make for greater productivity. Others argue that alcohol is a social lubricant: People who drink together get along better, and make deals. Another possibility is that people who enjoy professional success tend to experience pressure, and so “self-medicate.” Whatever the reason, a little drinking might seem like a pleasant way to invest in one’s career.</p>
<p>Mr. Brooks is associate professor of public administration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.</p>
<p>No, cause drink is relatively cheap…its the balance in life that is key…I don;t consider a glass of wine self medicating, btw, wine tastes good and a glass or two is pretty harmless as long as no driving</p>
<p>Alcohol has been around about as long as people have been able to pick grapes (or wheat) or grain or melons or whatever</p>
<p>Another possible explanation: a significant subset of the abstainers could be recovering alcoholics. Their prior years of problem drinking could have continuing repercussions for their current job and earning ability.</p>
<p>Other teetotalers may be abstaining because they grew up in a household where one or both parents were alcoholics–again, the sequelae of that trauma may also depress earnings ability. </p>
<p>And yet another possibility: people who choose not to drink alcoholic beverages <em>might</em> be, on average, less materialistic than those who choose to drink. (Mother Teresa probably didn’t drink, to take an extreme example. And, given her vow of poverty, I assume her personal income was very low also.)</p>
<p>Could it be that those who are given to drinking have more liberal propensities that also serve them well in business? Or, those who drink relax themselves in that way, while others who do not drink relax themselves in more expensive ways?</p>
<p>Try the simplest explanation first: disaggregate by race and gender and religion. Drinking rates among African Americans (as well as need for treatment) are roughly 50% lower than for whites; among Hispanics it is one-third lower, and among first generation Hispanic and Asian immigrants it is about 50% lower. It is also lower among women than among men. It is lower among fundamentalists, especially in the South, where incomes are lower.</p>