I have one additional question/suggestion for analysis.
How about looking at the “british accent” factor crossed with salary
in the U.S.? Just curious to see what the premium is. . .
I would like to look at a lot of factors and hopefully do a regression in up-coming years to see which ones are drivers, but with accents there are just too few people to look at. In the US, there were 31 people who gave their salaries and who said they have accents. That broke down to 3 asst. planners, 5 planners, 6 sr. planners, 8 gpds, and 9 heads of planning. Looking at the heads, all but one of those with accents is a man, 6 live in NY, one in Boston, one in SF and one somewhere else east. Those nine make, on average, $39K more than the other 28 heads (one person didn’t say whether they have an accent or not). But the majority of that set live somewhere else east, central or west rather than the big cities that were choices (NY, SF, Boston, LA, Chicago). 17 of those 28 are female. So it’s impossible to say that the $39K difference is attributed to accent, when we can’t account for geography, gender, and differences in education (the non-accents have 7 MBAs compared to the accents’ 4 MAs and 1 MS.