do you earn enough to compensate for your shortcomings?

[breakingnews]

Nothing remotely important, just more fodder to stir debate. Let's hear how inaccurate you think this column is because you are an exception and therefore disprove the data.

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/...-thee/#more-61

"The overall pattern of results thus suggests that low mate choice costs lead men to satisfy their variety preference by indifferently choosing any woman who falls above a minimal condition threshold, while women stayed choosy and appeared to fine-tune social-comparison processes to the situation (meaning, in this context, that their mate-value sociometer mainly reflected their physical attractiveness), adjusting their mate choices accordingly."

...

By tracking the success of online daters, the researchers calculated precisely how much extra income a man had to make (relative to the average man’s income of $62,500 per year) to offset a less than ideal attribute. Some of their findings:

Suppose you’re an ordinary-looking guy whose online picture is ranked around the median in attractiveness. (In the study, the ratings of attractiveness were done by independent male and female observers hired by the researchers.) And suppose you’d like to be as successful with women as a guy whose picture is ranked in the top tenth. Then you’d need to make $143,000 more than him. If your picture is ranked in the bottom tenth, you’d need to make $186,000 more than him.

Of particular interest:

Here’s an interesting bit from the online dating study:

“For equal success with a white woman, an African-American man needs to earn $154,000 more than a white man. Hispanic men need an additional $77,000, and Asian men need an additional $247,000 in annual income. In contrast to men, women mostly cannot compensate for their ethnicity with a higher income.”