Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting topic, and not just about the extra expense on food, snacks, sodas, ice cream, etc.
The "fat" families I know always have the giant vehicles. It's very rare to see a big person in an economy car. So if they have 2-3 cars in the family they have huge car payments, higher gasoline costs and higher insurance.
Interesting topic, and not just about the extra expense on food, snacks, sodas, ice cream, etc.
The "fat" families I know always have the giant vehicles. It's very rare to see a big person in an economy car. So if they have 2-3 cars in the family they have huge car payments, higher gasoline costs and higher insurance.
Giant pick-up trucks, especially. A lot more cost there.
Increased medical costs would be the "biggest" factor.
I got thinking about what the long term impact of being fat is.
What about the economic impact of being a fat family?
Take a family I know for example — the dad is probably 250lbs, the mom is 200lbs and their two teenage sons are 200lbs+. That’s 850+ pounds of human which actually seems fairly common in America. Now contrast that with a family where the father may be 150lbs, the mother and two kids are like 115lbs — that’s 495 lbs.
Given the same types of food, the 850+ family may spend $100/day on food whereas the 495 family spends $60. $40 x 365 = $14,600/year.
Given a 7% annual return at 10 years that’s over $200k. That same $200k with $0 annual contribution gives the slimmer parents over $1M in 25 years.
What about on a individual level? What got me thinking about this is my friend since high school. Since high school he has fluctuated between 250-290lbs (he’s 6’1”) whereas I have always been between 145-165.
Over the course of our lives, given say a 7% return, I bet I would have $1M+ more if I just invested the extra money it takes to feed him.
This also doesn’t take into account money saved health wise by not being overweight.
What makes you think thinner people eat less or are healthier? Weight is also determined by metabolism. There are many thinner people who eat more than heavier people. There are also many unhealthy thinner people.
As others have pointed-out, food expenditures may be the same or less, for the "bigger" families, since low-price/low-quality food tends to make one "big".
However, a car loaded-down with human flesh, is going to get lower mileage, than one transporting less flesh. A car's upholstery will retain its shape (and the integrity of its seams), under the weight of a small person, while upholstery impacted by big people, will more quickly deform and rip. Sooner or later, all of this translates into money.
A car's air conditioner will need to run more, if big people are inside. Greater degrees of stress and wear will apply to tires, suspension systems, and the systems which propel a car (engines, gears, belts, transmissions... ). In near-invisible increments, mile-after mile, year-after-year, it all adds up.
Then there's the stress placed upon footwear - and upon KNEES. Replacing the former, costs a bit. Replacing the latter, costs a LOT. In fact, the expensive replacing and repairing and managing of all sorts of body parts and body systems, becomes necessary more often, and costs significantly more, for "bigger" people and within "bigger" families.
What does insulin cost, for treating Type 2 Diabetes? What do those assorted medications cost, which seem inevitable within "bigger" families, but with which thin families are unfamiliar?
Imagine yourself as an employer, managing risk exposure, and contemplating sick leave. Which employee is going to be more profitable? If one helms a law firm, or an accounting firm (or any enterprise where one hopes one's new hires will grow in competence, over long professional lives), who do you think is going to be one's best bet? Which family do you want to insure? Which family is going to require its bread-winner(s) to take time-off? Which attorney is more likely to drop-dead of a massive heart attack, at 40 - wasting all the years and effort developing him/her toward "partner worthiness"? Which accountant is going to go, earlier, into his dotage?
And which new hire/new intern/new associate, is likely to bring in business? ...is likely to make an employer or institution look richer/more important/more competent/more relevant/more viable?
Who do you think is going to get the better jobs? DH and I, who met in 'Bodybuilding 101', and who adopted a fitness lifestyle as 17-year-olds, did not have to job-hunt or submit resumes. We'd already been recruited, before we left school and moved to our state's capital (a glimpse of me, in that place and time: https://www.city-data.com/forum/miss...le-parrot.html ). Our level of fitness had everything to do with it. The fabulous clothing I managed to scrounge-up, at pennies-on-the-Dollar, would not have fit us, nor would it have looked like much, even if it had fit us (Nor would it have LASTED. Our fur vaults are still crammed with Grade A cashmere sweaters I bought, as a penniless teen, in the early '80s) As a young associate, would I have been the one invited by the bosses, to float between cities in fabulous cars, if I'd required much space within those cars?
What is the cost of NOT getting the job? What is the cost of lengthy periods of job-hunting?
And then, there's housing. Upholstery wears out faster, beneath bigger bodies. Beds deform. For a while, I shared a Personal Trainer with an arbiter of architecture and interiors - someone whose books are used as references, by the same sorts who refer to Renzo Mongiardino, Anouska Hempel, Jacques Garcia, and Diane von Furstenberg. Per the Trainer/Muscle Icon: "We were moving his bed. He bought his mattresses in NINETEEN SEVENTY NINE! They don't sag or creak or anything! And he's got these big black satin pillows, that he made for his college apartment.... in Nineteen Seventy FIVE! ...nothin' wrong with 'em! You know those Italian crystal plates he uses for the first course? Milan, NINETEEN EIGHTY! An' he's just inherited black wicker that some dictator's wife gave his grammomma in NINETEEN TWENTY FIVE. Those little tiny people have been sittin' on that furniture made out of VINES, for a HUNDRED YEARS!"The astonished Trainer, is from a family of "bigger" people, whose stuff does not last. The Designer/Arbiter/Author, even after five personal trainers, and four decades of heavy weightlifting, weighs 150.
When I got into Tulane, for my doctoral travails in Economics, I bought an apartment building, Uptown, as had been our habit. So, I was kibbitzing with a doc who also owned some Uptown rentals. I shared the Landlord's Mantra of our own pod of friends, describing our ideal tenants: "No kids. No pets. No frying food. No cigarettes." That other landlord quickly and forcefully added (be prepared: offensive language ahead), "And no fat girls!"
I was shocked - first, because this sounded cruel and insensitive - second, because he was being honest, and I was from Mississippi, where being plain-spoken is basically forbidden. Anyway, when I pressed him on exactly WHY this was regarded as a useful prejudice, he explained: "They bang-around and disturb your other tenants. They tear things up. They leave a mess." True? False? The impact upon the "bigger" person/"bigger" family, is the same: discrimination - at least for housing in luxury markets.
What is the cost of NOT getting that great right-off-campus apartment, which hasn't been advertised? In University District New Orleans, it means only being shown that listed apartment - the one on the 'Lake Side' of St. Charles, rather than on the safer 'River Side'. It means your car will be broken-into more times. It means you'll definitely get robbed, rather than probably(based on the stories one heard, daily, at Tulane). It means you stand a higher chance of violent crime/homophobic attacks/rape/noise-driven sleep deprivation, leading to lower grades, more illness... even more weight gain, since sleep-deprivation sends cortisol levels soaring... All because a prejudiced landlord has mentally filed you under "Random", rather than under "Crème de la Crème". And that's how it also works, in Cambridge, Boston, Princeton, New Haven.... ...and Fayetteville, Austin, Malibu, Berkeley...
And what is the long-term cost, to a family, of NOT getting that fought-over spot as an intern/resident? In my early gymbunny days, this was the sort of guy who got the Plastic Surgery residencies: https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul...h=487&dpr=1.71(since he's a celebrity, and lists himself as a model, I assume that link is OK) The less-ripped among the bodybuilders I ogled, got the emergency room residencies. Plenty of the more studious guys - the ones without hot bodies at all - didn't get into medical school, period. ...happens today... ...happened to my youngest uncle, back in the '60s. He'd turned pudgy, during his Pre-med years, and was no longer impressing university personages as being "a fine young man". (He ended up with a law degree from a football jokeschool in a desolate region, became a Big Oil VP, then a prominent jurist, and died early, from a constellation of carbohydrate-driven maladies).
For "bigger" women, it's less tough to get a place in a highly competitive program - or is it?
Interesting topic, and not just about the extra expense on food, snacks, sodas, ice cream, etc.
The "fat" families I know always have the giant vehicles. It's very rare to see a big person in an economy car. So if they have 2-3 cars in the family they have huge car payments, higher gasoline costs and higher insurance.
That was another thing I forgot to mention. I slimmer family perhaps can easily get by with a Civic or Accord whereas the larger family feels they need an Expedition or Tahoe to be comfortable…bigger tires, more gas, higher purchase price, etc.
What makes you think thinner people eat less or are healthier? Weight is also determined by metabolism. There are many thinner people who eat more than heavier people. There are also many unhealthy thinner people.
Your post is stereotyping at is best...
I don’t think you’re right. On average, I would say bigger people consume more calories. The idea of all these skinny people with fast metabolisms and fat people with slow metabolisms seems like a myth to me. And I do think the amount of body fat is a good indicator of health regardless of what one eats. For example 10% body fat on a junk food diet is likely healthier than 25% body fat on a fruits and veggies diet.
As others have pointed-out, food expenditures may be the same or less, for the "bigger" families, since low-price/low-quality food tends to make one "big".
However, a car loaded-down with human flesh, is going to get lower mileage, than one transporting less flesh. A car's upholstery will retain its shape (and the integrity of its seams), under the weight of a small person, while upholstery impacted by big people, will more quickly deform and rip. Sooner or later, all of this translates into money.
A car's air conditioner will need to run more, if big people are inside. Greater degrees of stress and wear will apply to tires, suspension systems, and the systems which propel a car (engines, gears, belts, transmissions... ). In near-invisible increments, mile-after mile, year-after-year, it all adds up.
Then there's the stress placed upon footwear - and upon KNEES. Replacing the former, costs a bit. Replacing the latter, costs a LOT. In fact, the expensive replacing and repairing and managing of all sorts of body parts and body systems, becomes necessary more often, and costs significantly more, for "bigger" people and within "bigger" families.
What does insulin cost, for treating Type 2 Diabetes? What do those assorted medications cost, which seem inevitable within "bigger" families, but with which thin families are unfamiliar?
Imagine yourself as an employer, managing risk exposure, and contemplating sick leave. Which employee is going to be more profitable? If one helms a law firm, or an accounting firm (or any enterprise where one hopes one's new hires will grow in competence, over long professional lives), who do you think is going to be one's best bet? Which family do you want to insure? Which family is going to require its bread-winner(s) to take time-off? Which attorney is more likely to drop-dead of a massive heart attack, at 40 - wasting all the years and effort developing him/her toward "partner worthiness"? Which accountant is going to go, earlier, into his dotage?
And which new hire/new intern/new associate, is likely to bring in business? ...is likely to make an employer or institution look richer/more important/more competent/more relevant/more viable?
Who do you think is going to get the better jobs? DH and I, who met in 'Bodybuilding 101', and who adopted a fitness lifestyle as 17-year-olds, did not have to job-hunt or submit resumes. We'd already been recruited, before we left school and moved to our state's capital (a glimpse of me, in that place and time: https://www.city-data.com/forum/miss...le-parrot.html ). Our level of fitness had everything to do with it. The fabulous clothing I managed to scrounge-up, at pennies-on-the-Dollar, would not have fit us, nor would it have looked like much, even if it had fit us (Nor would it have LASTED. Our fur vaults are still crammed with Grade A cashmere sweaters I bought, as a penniless teen, in the early '80s) As a young associate, would I have been the one invited by the bosses, to float between cities in fabulous cars, if I'd required much space within those cars?
What is the cost of NOT getting the job? What is the cost of lengthy periods of job-hunting?
And then, there's housing. Upholstery wears out faster, beneath bigger bodies. Beds deform. For a while, I shared a Personal Trainer with an arbiter of architecture and interiors - someone whose books are used as references, by the same sorts who refer to Renzo Mongiardino, Anouska Hempel, Jacques Garcia, and Diane von Furstenberg. Per the Trainer/Muscle Icon: "We were moving his bed. He bought his mattresses in NINETEEN SEVENTY NINE! They don't sag or creak or anything! And he's got these big black satin pillows, that he made for his college apartment.... in Nineteen Seventy FIVE! ...nothin' wrong with 'em! You know those Italian crystal plates he uses for the first course? Milan, NINETEEN EIGHTY! An' he's just inherited black wicker that some dictator's wife gave his grammomma in NINETEEN TWENTY FIVE. Those little tiny people have been sittin' on that furniture made out of VINES, for a HUNDRED YEARS!"The astonished Trainer, is from a family of "bigger" people, whose stuff does not last. The Designer/Arbiter/Author, even after five personal trainers, and four decades of heavy weightlifting, weighs 150.
When I got into Tulane, for my doctoral travails in Economics, I bought an apartment building, Uptown, as had been our habit. So, I was kibbitzing with a doc who also owned some Uptown rentals. I shared the Landlord's Mantra of our own pod of friends, describing our ideal tenants: "No kids. No pets. No frying food. No cigarettes." That other landlord quickly and forcefully added (be prepared: offensive language ahead), "And no fat girls!"
I was shocked - first, because this sounded cruel and insensitive - second, because he was being honest, and I was from Mississippi, where being plain-spoken is basically forbidden. Anyway, when I pressed him on exactly WHY this was regarded as a useful prejudice, he explained: "They bang-around and disturb your other tenants. They tear things up. They leave a mess." True? False? The impact upon the "bigger" person/"bigger" family, is the same: discrimination - at least for housing in luxury markets.
This is some of what I’m talking about. The nickel and dime stuff that adds up over the course of a lifetime of being say 250lbs vs 150lbs.
There are too many variables to generalize about a relationship between weight and the cost of things like food and cars. I definitely agree that junk food is cheaper--much cheaper--than really healthy food, which is a huge flaw in the argument that it's cheaper to feed thin people.
I see big people in small cars and tiny people in giant vehicles all the time. Whether a person buys a big, brand spankin' new pickup truck or an old economy sized two-door coupe has a lot more to do with their finances and other factors than their weight. I weigh 118 and my husband is 220; all of our cars are small and old and over the past 25 years the ones he drives have not worn out any faster than the ones I drive, as both amounts of weight are negligible as far as a vehicle is concerned.
Over a long period of time and as a generality, overweight people tend to have more health problems than skinny ones, but this isn't universally true either. My father-in-law weighed about 160 in his prime (very light for a man), had a quadruple heart bypass in his 60s, throat cancer after that, and died of pancreatic cancer in his 70s. His wife at 190 (very heavy for a woman) is still going strong in her 80s and has never had anything seriously wrong with her. Though, as I said, I do agree that fatter people tend to be sicker and die younger.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
