The shorter your name, the higher your pay?
Career website The Ladders found that every letter over 5 in your first name may cost you $3,600 a year. Hey, William, make it Bill.
We've seen studies about how physical factors such as height, weight, looks, eye contact and even the firmness of your handshake can influence your success in business. Well, how about the length of your first name?
A new study by the job and career website The Ladders says people with shorter given names -- or shorter nicknames -- appear to enjoy bigger salaries than the folks whose parents gave them multisyllabic monikers.
The Ladders says it's not just making this up: It analyzed data from the site's nearly 6 million members -- matching first names against other variables such as location, salary level and industry -- just to prove "the null hypothesis that what your mother names you makes a difference."
The website also put together some lists comparing the top five corporate executive position names, along with the top five highest-paid names.
"One point we noticed," the site says on its blog, "was that shorter names seemed to be higher ranked across all categories and metrics, so we investigated further. It turns out we were right, and there is a correlation between the number of letters in your name and the average salary."
On the whole, according to the study, people whose first names have four to five letters have higher annual salaries than those with first names of six or more letters. And every letter beyond five accounts for a $3,600 drop in yearly pay.
There were, of course, exceptions. The name "Christine" appeared in both the top five and top five highest-paid names. Names with seven letters, like Stephen, apparently did well. But the study points out that seven-letter names "lend themselves to males over females, so it's higher paid males over-indexing and inflating the seven-letter bucket."
A short nickname also does the trick: The study says workers who go by their shorter nickname earn more. In other words, a Bill will get larger paycheck than a William. Same for Debbie vs. Deborah or Chris vs. Christopher. (Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) CEO Meg Whitman, who, like late Apple (AAPL) chief Steve Jobs and Facebook (FB) founder Mark Zuckerberg, draws a symbolic $1 annual salary, notwithstanding.)
The Ladders says it tested 24 full-name-to-nickname pairings and in only one case (Lawrence vs. Larry) did the longer name come out on top.
"Still not convinced?" it asks. "The definitive proof for this theory can be seen in Sara vs. Sarah, Michele vs. Michelle or Philip vs. Phillip -- one letter less positively correlates with increased salary."
So perhaps a good answer to the Shakespearean question "What's in a name?" is earning power.
could be simply that say 50 years ago people being born in usa had generally short names?
figures don't lie, but liars can figure. so who's really reviewing the data and to what intented result?
I wonder if they just throw the alphabet against the wall and whatever sticks becomes the kids name ?
I wonder if this data was tainted by racial factors. Did they consider the possibility that minorities have a larger percentage of longer names? I am not saying they did or didn't, but I wonder if this is another case of researchers thinking they stumbled upon a simple secret while missing something really obvious. It is a clever headline, all you have to do is name your kid Buba and he will be wealthy, but I think it takes more then just that.
Susy, Sara, Jill
Seems to me that these three
Common as they are
Are never the names of the famous made
Their money in a jar
Every Hollywood actor
That quarterback or running back
Or your friendly neighborhood trader
Alice Walton, Jim and family too
Is there anyone I missed?
I see no Joe
Billy Bob or Thorton
No Susy who sells
Or Bob who builds
You want money, honey?
It isn't in a gift bag
Work with talent
Hard and creative
Stylize and emphasize
Long and short names
They are given at birth
But from that point on
You are the one that shows your own worth!
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] The major averages began the new trading week on a slightly lower note with small caps leading the weakness. The Russell 2000 shed 0.3% while the S&P 500 slipped less than a point with six sectors ending in the red.
Equity indices began the day in negative territory with only the Nasdaq (-0.04%) making a very brief appearance in the green. After sliding through the first hour of action, the major averages reversed and spent the remainder of the session climbing off ... More
More Market News
Like many companies this winter, the fast-food giant blamed a drop in same-store sales on the weather. But could its problems be bigger than a snowbank?
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'