Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2014, 09:25 AM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,705 posts, read 18,781,503 times
Reputation: 22553

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
If employers are dumb enough to think smokers and overweight folks cost them more money than you probably don't wan't to work for a company that's so fundamentally wrong on such an issue anyway.

For the billionth time...smokers and overweight people on average die younger than their thinner/non-smoking peers. Time and time again it has been noted that end of life care/Alzheimer's is substantially more costly than an early death by pre-existing condition.

Sure, with medical advancement overweight folks /smokers will live longer but so will their healthy counterparts.

Bottom line: when an unemployed toned, healthy, non-smoker goes on a job interview odds are this potential employee will cost much more to the employer after they retire.

Having said all that...damn we live in an archaic, immoral country where this rubbish takes place.
Please stop injecting logic into the thread. You're going to hurt someone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2014, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,853 posts, read 17,354,720 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
They're anything but starving. Those who earn the least have the highest obesity rate.

Obesity Linked to Lower Paychecks - US News

Jobless contend with weight gain as they search for work - The Washington Post
You're aware that healthier food costs more...right?

(Crossing fingers in hope)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,853 posts, read 17,354,720 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Please stop injecting logic into the threat. You're going to hurt someone.
Good point.

I'll leave him to Google and the numerous articles (NY Times, NE Journal of Medicine come to mind off the top of my head) on such matters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 09:33 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,983 posts, read 44,793,389 times
Reputation: 13687
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
You're aware that healthier food costs more...right?
Calorie-wise, yes. Health-wise, no. Therein lies the rub. Obese people need to eat fewer calories, therefore they can spend the same amount of money to buy healthier lower calorie foods that won't make them obese.

See this USDA report:
Quote:
"For all metrics except the price of food energy [calories], the authors find that healthy foods cost less than less healthy foods"
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...ViP_Km75jI_scg

Now there's no excuse to be obese.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,156,521 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
So much for merit and skills and performance being the keys to getting hired.
The point of hiring people is not to lose money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
The real reason is simple: People out of work will probably still buy and consume the same amount of food,....
....because they are feeding at the tax-payer trough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rambler123 View Post
The jobs ARE NOT THERE, and until THAT issue is addressed,...
That issue has been addressed.

Until you understand 6th Grade Math you will forever be in the dark.

Here's a chance to prove yourself.....

$5 Profit * 317 Million Americans = $X(1)
$5 Profit * 6 Billion People (the rest of the world minus the US, O Canada! and Western Europe) = $X(2)

Which number is larger....$X(1) or $X(2)?

It's not rocket science...


Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 10:29 AM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,705 posts, read 18,781,503 times
Reputation: 22553
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
This is cool. Let's see... I weigh 145 pounds right now. If I take that down to 135, I've developed a new skill set? Awesome. No avocados today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Depends on if you are obese at 145 pounds. What's your BMI?
So let's see... I'm taking notes... let's see if I'm getting this down properly...

The correlation... ummm... the correlation... okay, there is a correlation between BMI and job skills... Let's see... so if I lose 10 pounds while having a high body mass index (BMI), that embryonic job skill set just waiting to spontaneously pop out will be less likely to do so than if I shed those 10 pounds while having a low body mass index... the correlation then... uh... the correlation... so I... well, I... add the 5 and divide by... 9 is it? ... and then carry the 19... so x times... okay... and... uh, take the cosine of... yeah... right... uh-huh...

Yes, I think I have it now.




But wait a minute... what if I lose those 10 pounds and the skill set that develops is an outdated skill... say a watch repair person, or something? Is there any way to tell which skill will develop before losing the weight? I mean, really! You don't expect me to lose 10 pounds, only to be cheated by birthing a useless skill do you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 10:36 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,201,832 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
If employers are dumb enough to think smokers and overweight folks cost them more money than you probably don't wan't to work for a company that's so fundamentally wrong on such an issue anyway.

For the billionth time...smokers and overweight people on average die younger than their thinner/non-smoking peers. Time and time again it has been noted that end of life care/Alzheimer's is substantially more costly than an early death by pre-existing condition.

Sure, with medical advancement overweight folks /smokers will live longer but so will their healthy counterparts.

Bottom line: when an unemployed toned, healthy, non-smoker goes on a job interview odds are this potential employee will cost much more to the employer after they retire.

Having said all that...damn we live in an archaic, immoral country where this rubbish takes place.
...you do realize this is completely wrong, don't you? Employers don't contribute to health care costs of retirees (when costly end of life care is provided). We are talking about direct cost to employers, not macro level health care costs to a nation.

In terms of affecting monthly cash flow, smokers and obese people by far cost more to an employer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
You're aware that healthier food costs more...right?

(Crossing fingers in hope)
...no it doesn't...cooking healthy from scratch is cheaper than eating pre-packaged or take out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 10:39 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,983 posts, read 44,793,389 times
Reputation: 13687
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
So let's see... I'm taking notes... let's see if I'm getting this down properly...

The correlation... ummm... the correlation... okay, there is a correlation between BMI and job skills... Let's see... so if I lose 10 pounds while having a high body mass index (BMI), that embryonic job skill set just waiting to spontaneously pop out will be less likely to do so than if I shed those 10 pounds while having a low body mass index... the correlation then... uh... the correlation... so I... well, I... add the 5 and divide by... 9 is it? ... and then carry the 19... so x times... okay... and... uh, take the cosine of... yeah... right... uh-huh...

Yes, I think I have it now.
No, you don't. Not being obese implies one already has keen discernment and sound decision-making skills which have prevented one from becoming obese.

Gallup just reports the facts: Obesity Linked to Long-Term Unemployment in U.S.

You can dislike reality but you can't change it.

Why are you getting so upset about people who have little to no self-control not being able to get jobs? And why does the fact that they can't surprise anyone? Who's going to hire someone who makes bad decisions regarding even their very existence?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 10:46 AM
 
Location: A Nation Possessed
25,705 posts, read 18,781,503 times
Reputation: 22553
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, you don't. Not being obese implies one already has keen discernment and sound decision-making skills which have prevented one from becoming obese.

Gallup just reports the facts: Obesity Linked to Long-Term Unemployment in U.S.

You can dislike reality but you can't change it.

Why are you getting so upset about people who have little to no self-control not being able to get jobs? And why does the fact that they can't surprise anyone? Who's going to hire someone who makes bad decisions regarding even their very existence?
I'm not at all upset. You seem a bit edgy, though. Honestly, how big or small a person is makes no difference to me at all, with one exception: myself. And since I do have that all important "low BMI," I suppose I have nothing to be upset about.

But... I will stand by my (implied) contradiction of your statement that losing weight with a low BMI is more likely to spawn a job skill than losing the weight with a high BMI. I'd like to see some verifiable research on this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 11:04 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,983 posts, read 44,793,389 times
Reputation: 13687
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
I'm not at all upset.
Then why did you post your irrelevant rant? The one that showed you have no idea what being obese implies about those who have let themselves become so?

You may have a different opinion, but you're in the minority on that. Gallup's findings contradict your beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top