Whether we're short or tall, we've always known that tall people are superior, and now we know that this superiority earns them a higher wage. Professor Andrew Leigh of the ANU and Dr Michael Kortt of Sydney University have used the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics Survey results of 2006 and 2007, when height was a survey question, to put a figure on the monetary value of tallness.

They found that each 10 centimetres in a man's height gives a 3 per cent increase in his hourly rate, which means that a man who is six foot in the old money or 183 centimetres in the new earns $948 a year more than a fellow who's shorter by two inches or five centimetres. As a six footer I know it has always been convenient to be six foot rather than five foot 10, and while I knew this should be worth money I was unaware that it was.

The difference in the earnings of men extends up and down the height scale, making the disparity more than interesting as the heights vary more. The wage differences for women of different heights was insignificant, by the way.

In my column in The Herald today I write of my belief that the biases for tallness and against shortness are implanted in childhood, which ensures that they will be a powerful influence perhaps all our lives. The exclamations that greet the sight of a growing boy spell success for him and failure for the boy not growing tall. "Hasn't he grown!" This ingrained superiority and inferiority would be enough to ensure a difference in confidence and presentation in adulthood, but, cruelly, the mere difference in physical presence adds another dimension. Then, of course, there's the little man syndrome that at once dismisses and ridicules short men.

The study by the two academics is the first time I've seen confirmation of discrimination against short men, or men who are not tall, and the fact that is can be measured in dollars is extraordinary.

Are you a perpetrator or a victim of height discrimination? Tell us your story.