A recent article on Forbes.com was brought to my attention the other day. Arthur C. Brooks, author of Who Really Cares and Gross National Happiness, lists some of the ways that people who drink moderately (one or three drinks a day) have it better than people who don’t drink alcohol at all.
Moderate drinkers are richer than teetotalers, too. In 2001 the University of Michigan’s Panel Study of Income Dynamics found that light drinkers … had a mean income of $49,000, versus $36,000 among teetotalers. This is a nuanced statistic; drinking may be associated with other variables (like education) that influence income. So the researchers did their best to strip these other causes out. If two adults were identical with respect to education, age, family status, race and religion, except that the first had one or two drinks each night after work while the second was a teetotaler, the drinker would tend to enjoy a “drinker’s bonus” of about 10% higher income.
I have to wonder if causality can really be shown here. I mean, it seems likely that kind of people who are social and gregarious and like to take clients out to lunch or socialize with bosses and coworkers are going to do better. Those situations often involve some alcohol, and someone who is dead-set against booze is less likely to participate and, thus, won’t do as well. (It kinda reminds me of the false causality rife in sports, like the analysis that a team does better when its running back rushes for over 100 yards in a game.)
Still, there’s something there. The health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption are well-documented and seemingly reinforced on a weekly basis. I’m not advocating starting drinking to get ahead or anything, but the “evils of drinking” you hear about from some corners seems all the more hollow.
