• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fat Logic

I don't know about you guys, but when I am underwater I have no problem stifling my appetite.

You could start a new diet fad!

Cut me in for 10% and I'll run the website:

The new and guaranteed weight-loss program!


Every time you feel hungry, grab a Big Mac, strap on the scuba gear and eat it at the bottom of the nearest swimming pool.

(p s Don't hold your breath)
 
Further than that, there is an enormous amount of hard data to show that chronically obese people take far more sick leave than people who aren't obese. Since that money comes straight out of my pocket, I'm not cool with paying sick leave I have no need to pay for and it's a guaranteed way of spending less money. Employers who don't follow that simple rule are morons in my opinion.

Let me see if I have this right. You think that employers...who hire fat people...are morons.

I don't even know what to say to that. I thought I had heard everything about fat people hatred, but it continues to surprise me. I suppose next you people are going to tell me we should start rounding up the fat people and sending them to "fat camps", where they will be forced to lose weight. I mean, why not, right? It's for their own good! And, obviously, society will benefit!
 
Let me see if I have this right. You think that employers...who hire fat people...are morons.

I don't even know what to say to that. I thought I had heard everything about fat people hatred, but it continues to surprise me. I suppose next you people are going to tell me we should start rounding up the fat people and sending them to "fat camps", where they will be forced to lose weight. I mean, why not, right? It's for their own good! And, obviously, society will benefit!

If the premise is correct - that fat people cost more as employees - and the objective is to keep profits as high as possible, then it does seem to follow. The next question then may be whether weight should be a protected class for employment?
 
A lot of this "fat acceptance" propaganda plays like tobacco companies manufacturing doubt. They're just telling fat people exactly what they want to hear: "you're going to be super-sized regardless of your lifestyle choices, so just enjoy eating whatever you please" and "even if you lose the weight, you'll just gain it back."

It's true there are people with health conditions which make it extremely difficult to lose weight. It's also true there are hundred year-old ladies who have smoked two packs a day since they were twelve, and there are health fanatics who haven't had pizza in a decade yet die of a massive heart-attack in their mid-40s while on the treadmill.

Of course, it's also long been socially acceptable to say that smoking makes people smell "gross." It's also OK to call smoking a "disgusting" habit, and claim parents who engage in it are "selfish." Obviously taxing cigarettes and shaming smokers has never ever caused anyone to quit (or refuse to start)...

The majority of overweight people do not have thyroid conditions, and they're not on medication. They're eating too much, and not exercising enough.

As for this simple-but-not-easy stuff -- yeah, I agree. It's not a matter of just eating less, but changing. Change is difficult, status-quo bias and all of that. There are exercise nut-jobs who cannot stand missing the gym, or their morning run. Still, it's your responsibility to cultivate good habits.
 
Let me see if I have this right. You think that employers...who hire fat people...are morons.

Yep.

I am presuming an employer is also charged with making profits.

Hiring very fat people is guaranteed to eat into your profits.

The end.

I don't even know what to say to that. I thought I had heard everything about fat people hatred, but it continues to surprise me.

Has nothing to do with hatred. I don't hate fat people at all. As I've posted many times, I have a mother in law with a BMI well over 50.

I don't care at all. She's happy, she's a good grandmother to my kids - she's a good person and I like her a lot.

I wouldn't hire her, though.

I suppose next you people are going to tell me we should start rounding up the fat people and sending them to "fat camps", where they will be forced to lose weight. I mean, why not, right? It's for their own good! And, obviously, society will benefit!

Lovely strawman!

If the premise is correct - that fat people cost more as employees - and the objective is to keep profits as high as possible, then it does seem to follow. The next question then may be whether weight should be a protected class for employment?

Sedentary jobs will be best.
 
You may be on to something here. A medication that causes, as one of its side effects, a substantial increase in efficiency of the body's autonomic processes, seems like it would be a license to print money for whatever Big Pharma entity stumbled across it.

Or maybe not. "Guess what?! You now need to eat even less bread, to stay alive. By an order of magnitude! You probably only need to eat a single loaf of bread per year! Isn't that great?!" Probably isn't going to be a successful marketing campaign.

Do you believe that constantly straw manning me is likely to lead to productive discussion?
 
The more I think about it, the more I think you're probably right.

How would you describe the method and mechanism of weaning off of a chemical dependency to heroin, in its most complicated form?

I don't understand how the question follows on from what I said. I would clarify what I meant and how it relates to the discussion at hand, but it would be a very easy thing to straw man and, since that appears to be your preferred MO in this thread, I'd rather not give you the opportunity to go down another tiresome side-avenue like that.
 
A lot of this "fat acceptance" propaganda plays like tobacco companies manufacturing doubt. They're just telling fat people exactly what they want to hear: "you're going to be super-sized regardless of your lifestyle choices, so just enjoy eating whatever you please" and "even if you lose the weight, you'll just gain it back."

They may be similar in result, but I don't see an equivalent to the tobacco industry as nefarious character when it comes to food. Is there a "big food" playing the role?
 
They may be similar in result, but I don't see an equivalent to the tobacco industry as nefarious character when it comes to food. Is there a "big food" playing the role?
Coca Cola has recently been caught out making strides in this field.

The beverage giant has teamed up with influential scientists who are advancing this message in medical journals, at conferences and through social media. To help the scientists get the word out, Coke has provided financial and logistical support to a new nonprofit organization called the Global Energy Balance Network, which promotes the argument that weight-conscious Americans are overly fixated on how much they eat and drink while not paying enough attention to exercise.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/wel...me-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/?referrer=
 
Coca Cola has recently been caught out making strides in this field.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/wel...me-for-obesity-away-from-bad-diets/?referrer=

That's very interesting. I wonder if there is a "push back" dynamic in play. That is, when politicos start looking at regulations to address the public health/obesity issue, "Big Snack" gets interested too. I think there's often a clarification (and polarization) when an industry feels threatened.

"The science is showing our products may be harmful."
"Well, we need to purchase us some favorable science then."
 
Hiring the fat might actually work out to be cheaper for a company: employees who die early don't stick around getting annual raises, and they don't draw a pension so long. And if other companies don't hire the fat you can pay them less because they can't go elsewhere.
 
Do you believe that constantly straw manning me is likely to lead to productive discussion?

I was riffing on the idea of a drug that increases metabolic efficiency in autonomic processes. It wasn't intended to characterize or rebut any argument you've made, and carries no expectation of a response or rebuttal from you. I apologize for the confusion.
 
I don't understand how the question follows on from what I said. I would clarify what I meant and how it relates to the discussion at hand, but it would be a very easy thing to straw man and, since that appears to be your preferred MO in this thread, I'd rather not give you the opportunity to go down another tiresome side-avenue like that.

It follows from me not seeing any great complexity in the methods and mechanisms of weight loss. But perhaps there is some complexity in weaning off of a chemical dependency. And thus, if we take chemical dependency as analogous to obesity, there is an analogous complexity in losing weight. I don't quite see the complexity yet, which is why I asked you to show it to me.
 
Hiring the fat might actually work out to be cheaper for a company: employees who die early don't stick around getting annual raises, and they don't draw a pension so long. And if other companies don't hire the fat you can pay them less because they can't go elsewhere.
That might make sense if they didn't cost the company so much money while they were still alive, and you didn't factor the cost of bringing new employees up to speed..


On second thought, it doesn't make any sense at any level.
 
Has nothing to do with hatred. I don't hate fat people at all. As I've posted many times, I have a mother in law with a BMI well over 50.

I don't care at all. She's happy, she's a good grandmother to my kids - she's a good person and I like her a lot.

"I don't hate conservatives, I just won't hire them."

"I don't hate Catholics, I just won't hire them."

"I don't hate left-handed people, I just won't hire them."

Your rationale, about it costing more money in sick days, could also be used to discriminate against smokers and older people...whom I assume you don't hire either, correct?
 
Last edited:
Hiring the fat might actually work out to be cheaper for a company: employees who die early don't stick around getting annual raises, and they don't draw a pension so long. And if other companies don't hire the fat you can pay them less because they can't go elsewhere.

It'd work if pensions were paid by the employer, which they aren't - they're paid by a pension fund.

Invest in pension funds with lots of obese members!


"I don't hate conservatives, I just won't hire them."

"I don't hate Catholics, I just won't hire them."

"I don't hate left-handed people, I just won't hire them."

Except there is no financial incentive to not hire those people, so your analogy fails completely. Funny coincidence, I hired a Seventh Day Adventist yesterday.

You're confusing pragmatism with discrimination.

Your rationale, about it costing more money in sick days, could also be used to discriminate against smokers and older people...whom I assume you don't hire either, correct?

Smokers, absolutely not. They're even more costly than the obese.

Old people, no problem. The SDA I hired yesterday is 59 and another guy I hired last month turned 70 the day after he started.

I have yet to see evidence that hiring older people in good health has any negative impact on profitability.
 
That might make sense if they didn't cost the company so much money while they were still alive, and you didn't factor the cost of bringing new employees up to speed..


On second thought, it doesn't make any sense at any level.

It makes sense if the numbers go that way. Find the costs of fat employees vs skim employees and compare them. Don't just assert that all the numbers go one way without looking for them. Isn't the proper methodology to collect data first, then reach a conclusion?

What exactly are the costs of fat employees? Health insurance? Insurance is run via pools of individuals, can you be certain the extra healthcare costs of fat employees are actually being passed on to the employer? To a degree significant enough to actually matter? (Fatty O'Bese may have five heart attacks but since MegaHuge ConglomoCo has 300,000 employees there was no effect on their insurance costs.) It seems unfair to insist that every iota of unhealthiness in an employee costs $X in "healthcare" without actually looking at the data.
 
It will be interesting to see how Obamacare succeeds or fails with obesity in the long run, the early signs are not particularly encouraging, but here is info on employers:

Myth 4: Obesity has little impact on employers.

A friend who struggled with his weight used to comment, “Guess I won’t be a male model, then.” Of course, his weight wasn’t the only reason why he wouldn’t become a male model, and appearance is only one of many effects of being overweight. Excess body weight, even seemingly small amounts, can lead to many immediate and long term physical, psychological, and social ailments. Examples include musculoskeletal problems such as back, joint and muscular pain; chronic diseases such as high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease; various cancers and psychological issues such as depression, anxiety and a general decreased sense of well-being. Each of these ailments can then in turn decrease productivity, increase healthcare costs, and decrease morale, which then all affect a business’s bottom line, revenues and costs. Studies such as one from Claire Wang and her colleagues at Columbia University have shown that obesity can lead to more missed work days and less productivity while at work. A study by researchers at Duke University tabulated that obesity-related absenteeism and presenteeism cost U.S. employers $73 billion annually. Another study measured that while normal-weight employees cost on average $3,838 per year in health are costs, overweight to morbidly obese employees cost between $4,252 and $8,067. Each additional body mass index (BMI) point above normal weight costs $194-$222 per year per employee.

Linky.

Previously I've seen things like smoking debated along similar lines, with comparisons to other classes (sex, age, race, etc.). Where do we draw the line? So far the precedent is that we decide on a case by case basis to add to a blacklist of classes that are off-limits.

Personally I dislike working with smokers because (at my workplace) they are always going on smoking breaks. I should get Mountain Dew breaks, no? Smartphone breaks?
 
What exactly are the costs of fat employees? Health insurance? Insurance is run via pools of individuals, can you be certain the extra healthcare costs of fat employees are actually being passed on to the employer? To a degree significant enough to actually matter? (Fatty O'Bese may have five heart attacks but since MegaHuge ConglomoCo has 300,000 employees there was no effect on their insurance costs.) It seems unfair to insist that every iota of unhealthiness in an employee costs $X in "healthcare" without actually looking at the data.

The evidence is clear that obese employees require more medical care and sick days than non-obese.

The fact that large companies can hide the costs doesn't escape the fact that all of the other employees are covering those costs.

In my case, none of that applies as our health system doesn't work that way.

Regardless of any direct health costs, sick days are always a cost on the employer.
 

Back
Top Bottom