It's surprise that in this post-modern era our incomes are influenced so strongly by our physical statures. The figure of $9600 per year, in example above, should be a stark enough example of this - but practice seems even more unsettling when multiplied over a career spanning 30 years. Just by being a foot shorter than your peers, you are likely to earn $288,000 less over 30 years than they do.

You would think that in an 'enlightened era,' such as one in which we live, that payscale would be based on individual and team results rather than physical height characteristics. Unfortunately study shows otherwise.

So, what are we to do?

Should we form an affirmative action group to pursue correction of these practices?

It’s too tough to legislate changes into people minds. Plus, there’s a ton of other baggage that goes along with it. You’d have to define what ‘short’ is. You’d have to create a government entity to monitor and enforce penalties against discriminators. Too expensive. Too negative. Too divisive.

My solution focuses on blatantly impressing upon people that shorter people are worth paying more.

Let me illustrate with an example out of world of real estate.

Not on arm of your passenger seat--on reality, history, and incredible accomplishment of human flight.

We've just celebrated 100th anniversary of Wright brothers' historic flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina. Although there werecertainly others who were experimenting with flying machines--most notably, Alberto Santos-Dumont, a Brazilian who is widely celebrated in his native country as being father of aviation--the Wright Brothers are generally regarded as first to get humans off ground.

The fascinating thing about Wright brothers is that they were not idealistic dreamers you might expect them to be. They were serious, studious, and determined to figure things out. It wasn't that they were obsessed with dream of soaring high above ground. They were mechanically-inclined brothers who owned a bicycle shop, and they couldn't forget brief but exciting flight of a cheap toy airplane they'd received as children. They were intrigued by engineering challenge.

Let's just say it--they were geeks. Good thing. Like geeks everywhere, they dug in, immersing themselves in their research. By following their hunch and testing heck out of it, they found key component that enabled them to create that first flying hunk of wood, fabric and wire capable of carrying a man and--key point here--landing without crashing.

The Wright brothers had same access to records of tried and failed attempts at flight as all other would-be aviators of time. They studied birds, they analyzed physics properties, and they built wind tunnels--just like everyone else. Sure, it was their dogged persistence that led them to success, but there was something else that really helped them nail it. They took one piece of puzzle and worked relentlessly to decipher it.

Instead of focusing on force needed to lift contraption, or engine required to power it, they zeroed in on concept of control. No sense having a great flight only to crash into trees after a few moments of jubilation. It was issue of control that captured their imagination and led to a design featuring both maneuverability and safety.

But as focused as they were on directing movement of flying machines, they failed to pay attention to continued testing and refinement of their ideas. They got distracted by their efforts to control sales, and research and development division was left flapping in breeze. While Wrights got caught up in patent struggles and contracts, adventurers around world were improving on their original design and savvy businessmen were building airplanes, airports and flight schools. By 1912, Wilbur had died and Orville was losing interest in flying.