(The following is an exercise in critical thinking, only shows one side of the issue, and does not reflect my opinion either way.)
Tall people don't earn "high" wages, they earn "higher" wages (only about $500 a year more according to recent studies.) And if the person is tall, and their kids are tall, $500 a year is likely not enough to cover the extra costs of food. If there should be a change, it should be that the government should pass a law that tall people should be paid at least $5,000 a year more, to cover bigger, non-entry level, non-Toyota or Honda sedans and SUV's, worse gas mileage, greater car expenses, and the price of size XL-Tall and 2XL-Tall clothing from specialty stores since regular stores don't carry tall sizes.
Why don't articles write about that? Everybody wants to point out that tall people earn $500 a year more, on average, but not the fact that shorter people come out on top. That extra $1 a day does not cover the extra food for one person, let alone a family, nor does it cover the greater car, specialty clothing, gas, car repair, car insurance, and other expenses whatsoever for even one tall person, nor their family.
A tall person may also use shampoo and soap much faster, and need to use more water in the shower.
If anything, the status quo encourages more short people to reproduce.
And, if taller people actually are "smarter" or more productive (for whatever reason, be it confidence or something else) then they're _really_ getting the short end of the stick by having to survive with $4,500 less yearly taxable income.
(I like to think from both sides of the issue, and I haven't seen that side addressed any time the issue has been brought up.)
Taller people are indeed smarter if you don't remove the malnourished from your sample. Useless information, one way or the other. It's sort of like...well, X race has a lower average IQ than Y race. As long as you're not shaping policy around the contrary, it doesn't matter at all.
I think brain volume is what matters. I think there's a correlation between height and brain volume, but perhaps it's weaker in some races, particularly those where most people are short.
Tall people don't earn "high" wages, they earn "higher" wages (only about $500 a year more according to recent studies.) And if the person is tall, and their kids are tall, $500 a year is likely not enough to cover the extra costs of food. If there should be a change, it should be that the government should pass a law that tall people should be paid at least $5,000 a year more, to cover bigger, non-entry level, non-Toyota or Honda sedans and SUV's, worse gas mileage, greater car expenses, and the price of size XL-Tall and 2XL-Tall clothing from specialty stores since regular stores don't carry tall sizes.
Why don't articles write about that? Everybody wants to point out that tall people earn $500 a year more, on average, but not the fact that shorter people come out on top. That extra $1 a day does not cover the extra food for one person, let alone a family, nor does it cover the greater car, specialty clothing, gas, car repair, car insurance, and other expenses whatsoever for even one tall person, nor their family.
A tall person may also use shampoo and soap much faster, and need to use more water in the shower.
If anything, the status quo encourages more short people to reproduce.
And, if taller people actually are "smarter" or more productive (for whatever reason, be it confidence or something else) then they're _really_ getting the short end of the stick by having to survive with $4,500 less yearly taxable income.
(I like to think from both sides of the issue, and I haven't seen that side addressed any time the issue has been brought up.)