Yahoo! news reported an Australian study that showed that tall Australian people on average made better incomes than short people:
"The researchers found a strong link between wages and height, particularly for men, with each additional 10 centimetres (four inches) of height adding three percent to hourly wages."
"They calculated that every five centimetres (two inches) above the average height of 178 centimentres (5 feet 10 inches) boosted a male's wages by the equivalent of an extra year's experience in the labour force."
This might make people mad because it shows bias and supports the idea that taller people are more desirable due to their healthy genes, but you really shouldn't be upset. If you think logically about it, tall people need more money, and not a lot more, but a 9% pay increase for being 6'10 is okay. Odds are a 6'10 bastard has to pay more for clothes and food than an average sized person.
Should a giant be paid the same as a normal sized person? What if the World Wrestling Federation paid Andre the Giant the same as an average sized wrestler? People enjoy tall freaks! They want them around! When they're in a good mood, they brighten people's day. So paying them an extra 80 cents per hour over a boring average sized titnibbler seems perfectly suitable to me.
There could be a chance this study outrages shorter Australians who will protest and demand pay equal to their ceiling scratching counterparts. They didn't mention if dwarfs experience a drop in pay compared to the average Australian. I'd imagine they do, but if that's the case then screw that! That would be wrong! You pay them more than the giants because they make the workplace an even more fun place to be in addition to not being able to go on a giant limb swinging rampage. The pay scale should go:
short/average/tall -> giant ---> dwarf