Good looking librarians are hot but it is hard to make bank just based on that. I think you would have to offer special ‘tutorial’ services to all the unemployed men that hang around the library to translate it into actual income and most of them don’t have much money to spare by definition.
Masseuse.
This can be true no matter how strictly “legit”, or not, said masseuse is. A strictly “legit” masseuse (stays fully dressed, no skimpy clothes, no sexy massage, works for a reputable day spa or similar), can earn more money the prettier she is because (a) can more easily find and keep a job at a day spa because they like to hire young pretty masseuses (and masseurs too), and (b) better tips and © all other things (like massage skill) being equal, can probably develop a more steady clientele.
Masseuses who work in private practice (as opposed to working at a spa), and who choose to offer various degrees of “extras”, obviously can do better the prettier they are.
ETA: In some areas, where there is a substantial gay male populations, the same can be true of gay male masseurs.
Not to dampen an upbeat (?) thread, but one of my good friends was a pharma rep who committed suicide in part due to a feeling of “aging out.” It’s a nasty cutthroat business with a faux-respectable veneer. I think it got even worse once the really good physician perks got cut out due to the Sunshine Act.
I would never recommend this to anyone, and I’ve also known reps who have retired well. I would sooner tell my daughter to work at Hooters. No lie.
Round here advertising and PR are much “easier” if you’re a young and good looking lady - particularly PR, where a pretty face is often thought of first before any actual skill when hiring at the executive level. (which translates all the way through to senior management)
And no - we’re not talking about sleeping your way to the top or anything of that nature - just that a pretty face is seen as much of a job requirement as is actual skill
What about Flight Attendants? Not sure how well they get paid.
Believe it or not - teaching. You would be surprised how many districts have an “image” and want attractive female, and male, teachers. Granted they have to be good teachers also.
Face it. Good looks equate with the feeling that person is smarter.
Oh and Sea World. Know those dolphin and whale trainers? They are hired for 1. their ability to swim and 2. good looks. They are then trained in how to work with the dolphins.
How sexist.
Frankly, I think in most business it is a mixed bag. For every person who looks out for you because you are young and cute, there is another person doubting your actual, real skills. While its a little easier to rise in customer facing positions, it’s much harder to get into managing, decision making positions. And then there is the mommy penalty, which people sometime preload even before you have kids.
It’s a role, just like “super smart geek” or “rising star” or “nothing but business, hard as rocks.” It can be leveraged well, or it can be leveraged poorly. But it’s just another tool in the toolbox.
From what I read somewhere, being an attractive woman is a career double-edged sword: It helps one get hired if the hiring manager is male, but may lead to rejection if the hiring manager is female.
Sure, but that’s good news for us *hot guys.
*for small values of hot
Good Lord. Have I stepped through a time portal to 1950?
This. All of them.
Good looks help in a wide range of professions. To some extent for men, as well as for women.
Yes, the OP is kind of horribly sexist and the answer is indeed “All of them”.
The question as rephrased in post #3 is more interesting and allows for a proper discussion as long as you operate on the assumption that this is about how modern society views women and not a request for career advice.
Every pharma rep I’ve ever known was a good looking person, though not necessarily female.
Jewelry salespeople are disproportionately young and hot.
Being young and beautiful and female is, in my experience, a disadvantage in both appliance and used car sales.
I don’t know what a bottle girl is.
I regularly lose attractive young sales reps of both genders to the pharma industry, but they’re not generally bimbos. Certainly not the last four or five.
I know this is a pretty PC place but I am baffled by how such a simple question can get so complicated here. Yes, in every job, for both sexes, you tend to earn more if you are more attractive (or taller), but the distribution is not huge.
But there are some professions where being attractive is pretty much a requirement for being the most successful, not just an added benefit. Some of them have been listed. Drug reps, news reporters. How about pop singers?
Yea, there are a few big name female singers that aren’t gorgeous, but how often do you see their face in ads or promotions? The top earning women in music (in order): Beyoncé, Taylor Swift, Pink, Rihanna, Katy Perry, Jennifer Lopez, Miley Cyrus, etc.
How many female nightly news reporters have you seen with a BMI of greater than 30 and a below average face? Pretty much none.
Why, do you disbelieve that being young and attractive is an asset in many sales, service and PR style jobs? Or that people get hired based on their looks (at least in part) for those positions?
I feel obliged to point out that two of my sisters, both quite attractive (judging by the number of their male former classmates who ask me if they’re still single and if I can give them my sisters’ phone numbers) have found that being pretty is a considerable disadvantage in their fields. One of them is a chemical engineer; the other an IRS agent.