No Booze, You Lose…?

By Legal Eagle

Hmm, maybe the boozy lunch isn’t so bad after all? In relation to my post earlier today, I have just found an interesting study, which has established that drinkers earn 10 – 14% more than non-drinkers. The average female drinker earns 8% more than the average female non-drinker, whereas the average male drinker earns 21% more than the average male non-drinker.

The study concludes that drinking leads to higher “social capital” and better social networks. It concludes the restrictions on drinking are likely to have harmful economic effects by (a) reducing fun and (b) potentially reducing income by reducing networking opportunities.

As I also stressed earlier, moderation is the best policy: moderate drinkers earn the best salaries. I guess it’s all a question of balance – not having functions which only centre around alcohol, but not banning it altogether either!


  1. missv
    Posted September 18, 2006 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    I read about this study in MX on Friday on the train. There was a good quote in it (which I wish I could find) which made the point that viewing drinking habits in isolation can be misleading. Is it because these people are drinkers or because they are excellent networkers?

  2. Legal Eagle
    Posted September 18, 2006 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    Hmm, if a company only arranges social and client functions which revolve around alcohol and drinking it’s likely to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn’t it? I wonder if this study goes deep enough – is it a case of the tail wagging the dog?

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *