Fat Lowers Wages

Puppycow · 28th November 2007, 06:50 PM

A new study shows that more fat is correlated with lower wages

As one might have guessed, but now it's been scientifically proven. And this is not based on BMI, either, but on body composition. (BMI does not consider body composition, only height and weight).

Quote:

Our results indicate that increased body fat is unambiguously associated with decreased wages for both males and females. This result is in contrast to the mixed and sometimes inconsistent results from the previous research using body mass index (BMI). We also find new evidence indicating that a higher level of fat-free body mass is consistently associated with increased hourly wages. We present further evidence that these results are not the artifacts of unobserved heterogeneity.

(In case you are wondering, I struggle with my weight too. I am borderline obese. I run on weekends, but I like to eat and drink. I lost a lot of weight last year, but it has returned. I am not starting this thread to blame fat people for being fat.)

Tsukasa Buddha · 28th November 2007, 07:37 PM

I wonder if this has to do with the overall "beauty" factor that influences employment.

Or it confirms my suspicions that fat people are just lazy bastards.

(jk)

shuize · 28th November 2007, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

... (In case you are wondering, I struggle with my weight too. I am borderline obese. I run on weekends, but I like to eat and drink. I lost a lot of weight last year, but it has returned. I am not starting this thread to blame fat people for being fat.)

When you lost the weight, was it just by running on the weekends? In my experience, a day or two a week is usually not nearly enough to do me any good -- when I exercise, as I am now, I usually aim for 4 or 5 days a week.

quixotecoyote · 28th November 2007, 08:06 PM

Poor people generally buy cheaper food which is (surprise!) not as healthy. Hence they will be fatter than an otherwise identical person who buys higher quality food.

casebro · 28th November 2007, 08:26 PM

Chicken vs egg, anybody?

Tsukasa Buddha · 28th November 2007, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Poor people generally buy cheaper food which is (surprise!) not as healthy. Hence they will be fatter than an otherwise identical person who buys higher quality food.

Ah, I forgot about that. Yup, that works for me

.

four elevener · 28th November 2007, 08:50 PM

Maybe people earning lower wages are generally unhappier, so they eat more. Hmmm? I dunno.

Puppycow · 28th November 2007, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by shuize

When you lost the weight, was it just by running on the weekends? In my experience, a day or two a week is usually not nearly enough to do me any good -- when I exercise, as I am now, I usually aim for 4 or 5 days a week.

Yeah, I've slacked off. But I still exercise more than a couple years ago when I smoked and was almost completely sedentary. I quit smoking and at the same time joined a gym. So I'm still better off than 2 years ago because I don't smoke and I exercise more. Last year I got a promotion after (suprise) slimming down.

Puppycow · 28th November 2007, 10:42 PM

I think there is a viscious cycle. The best thing is to not get fat in the first place. Once you do, it becomes harder to exercise, harder to lose weight and keep it off, etc. And if you do start to gain weight, the sooner you get serious about putting a stop to it, the better. Much better 200 pounds than 300 and diabetic.

Puppycow · 28th November 2007, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

I wonder if this has to do with the overall "beauty" factor that influences employment.

Or it confirms my suspicions that fat people are just lazy bastards.

(jk)

I'd guess that both the "beauty" factor and your "suspicions that fat people are just lazy bastards" have something to do with it.

TragicMonkey · 29th November 2007, 02:48 AM

It costs money to join a gym, have gastric bypass surgery, or liposuction. Therefore the people already making lots of money will be able to afford it where others can't.

Jaggy Bunnet · 29th November 2007, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Poor people generally buy cheaper food which is (surprise!) not as healthy.

Is this true? I was watching a program last night about families who had ended up homeless and how they coped. What struck home was that they were put into a bed and breakfast where the only cooking facility they had was a kettle - result was that the only hot food they could get were takeaways or highly processed "just add water" ready meals like Pot Noodle. Unlikely to be healthy but not cheap either. Another family "cooked" a tin of beans by leaving it on a radiator while they were out so it would be warm when they got in.

If they had somewhere to cook (and probably some support/help) then they could have used cheap ingredients to make much healthier meals, so it was not the cost of the food that led to problems.

quixotecoyote · 29th November 2007, 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Is this true? I was watching a program last night about families who had ended up homeless and how they coped. What struck home was that they were put into a bed and breakfast where the only cooking facility they had was a kettle - result was that the only hot food they could get were takeaways or highly processed "just add water" ready meals like Pot Noodle. Unlikely to be healthy but not cheap either. Another family "cooked" a tin of beans by leaving it on a radiator while they were out so it would be warm when they got in.

If they had somewhere to cook (and probably some support/help) then they could have used cheap ingredients to make much healthier meals, so it was not the cost of the food that led to problems.

I draw a distinction between 'poor' and the homeless population frequenting shelters. At some point when you simply cannot afford enough of any kind of food, you will lose weight. Until then, your choices become increasingly limited. You're stuck with high sodium, empty calorie foods like pastas and processed canned meats (50 cent cans of ravioli and the like).

I don't know what 'pot noodle' is but you can get more than 12 meals of Ramen Noodles (basically empty calories) for a buck fifty,

Jaggy Bunnet · 29th November 2007, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

Until then, your choices become increasingly limited. You're stuck with high sodium, empty calorie foods like pastas and processed canned meats (50 cent cans of ravioli and the like).

Not if you buy ingredients and cook yourself rather than rely on buying processed ready meals. This is also much cheaper.

Quote:

I don't know what 'pot noodle' is but you can get more than 12 meals of Ramen Noodles (basically empty calories) for a buck fifty,

Pot Noodle:

http://www.potnoodle.co.uk/NoodleRange.aspx

If you go to the nutrition link, it is kind of lacking, but I suspect that eating a lot of them is not good for you. Interestingly the Lamb hot pot, Chicken Satay and Beef&Tomato flavours are all suitable for vegetarians!

JoeEllison · 29th November 2007, 04:06 AM

I've worked with poor people... the stuff they eat is horrible. 3 for $1 mac and cheese with a side of mashed potatoes. Sandwiches made from cheap white bread, a slice or two of that paper-thin weird Buddig pseudo-meat, and a slice of "processed cheese food", slathered with mayo to hide the chemical taste of the sandwich. Ramen noodle soup. Frozen fried chicken. No fresh fruit or vegetables. Not a lot of lean meat.

What you wind up with is a situation where people are overweight AND malnourished.

quixotecoyote · 29th November 2007, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Not if you buy ingredients and cook yourself rather than rely on buying processed ready meals. This is also much cheaper.

I can be convinced.

Make for me a healthy menu with cheap ingredients.

Jaggy Bunnet · 29th November 2007, 04:41 AM

Originally Posted by quixotecoyote

I can be convinced.

Make for me a healthy menu with cheap ingredients.

OK - do you want to suggest a budget?

to.by · 29th November 2007, 05:08 AM

Look up confounding in any statistics or epidemiology textbook

quixotecoyote · 29th November 2007, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

OK - do you want to suggest a budget?

I tried. I really did, but my lack of sleep has caught up to me. Math is beyond me.

Just keep it reasonable, I won't be picky.

JoeEllison · 29th November 2007, 05:43 AM

$5, feed three people.

HarryKeogh · 29th November 2007, 06:49 AM

As a healthy, fit, incredibly handsome, white male I'm still puzzled at the fact that I'm flat-broke.

Mycroft · 29th November 2007, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

It costs money to join a gym, have gastric bypass surgery, or liposuction. Therefore the people already making lots of money will be able to afford it where others can't.

Although the home do-it-yourself gastric bypass and liposuction kits you can get these days are surprisingly affordable!

BPSCG · 29th November 2007, 12:15 PM

Haven't read the linked article, but does it say whether the graph of the line between weight and wages is straight?

In other words, do morbidly obese people skew the results by being unemployable? I somehow can't believe that being 175 pounds instead of 150 pounds will significantly affect a man's salary, whereas being 475 pounds will, if for no other reason than he'll tend to take a lot more sick days off work. At some point, I would think increased weight would suddenly and dramatically start causing comparative salary discrepancies.

Puppycow · 29th November 2007, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

Haven't read the linked article, but does it say whether the graph of the line between weight and wages is straight?

In other words, do morbidly obese people skew the results by being unemployable? I somehow can't believe that being 175 pounds instead of 150 pounds will significantly affect a man's salary, whereas being 475 pounds will, if for no other reason than he'll tend to take a lot more sick days off work. At some point, I would think increased weight would suddenly and dramatically start causing comparative salary discrepancies.

I just linked to a blog post about the article. The blog in turn links to the actual study, which is a big pdf, and I only skimmed that. My guess would be that it's not straight (nothing like this ever is totally linear). And it's NOT weight, but body composition. According to the study, it matters whether that extra 25 pounds is fat or muscle. I think they are contending that if the extra 25 pounds is muscle, wages go up, and if it's fat, wages go down. This is not a BMI study, but a body composition study.

Smackety · 29th November 2007, 11:10 PM

This appears to be the main finding, after all individual effects were factored out:

Quote:

Looking at the coefficients in Panel B of Table 3A, a one kilogram increase in the BF reduces wages by about 1 percent for Hispanic males and Hispanic females, and about 0.9-1.0 percent for white males and white females. The effects of BF on the wages of black males and females are smaller and only significant for females. The wages of black females go
down by about 0.6 percent in response to a one kilogram increase in body fat.

When the FFM is raised by one kilogram, the wages increase by about 0.7 percent for white males and Hispanic males and about 1.3 percent for white and Hispanic females. Again, the effects on black males and females are smaller and both coefficients are insignificant. These results indicate that, while an increase in body size that is due to an increase in BF will hurt wages, FFM is actually beneficial. Interestingly, the sizes of the effects are very similar between whites and Hispanics for both males and females.

My Baseless Causal Theory:
Getting paid a high wage involves a lot of time pressure and constant stress. As a result, rich people cannot sleep, barely eat, and are miserable, unhealthy people, albiet thin.
It is much better to be relatively poor, so you can be fat and happy from living the good life!

Puppycow · 30th November 2007, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by Smackety

This appears to be the main finding, after all individual effects were factored out:

My Baseless Causal Theory:
Getting paid a high wage involves a lot of time pressure and constant stress. As a result, rich people cannot sleep, barely eat, and are miserable, unhealthy people, albiet thin.
It is much better to be relatively poor, so you can be fat and happy from living the good life!

Thank you! And welcome to the forum.

IOW, more FFM (fat-free mass = muscle) increases wages, while more fat decreases wages. This is why a simple BMI study would not pick it up. BMI does not distinguish between fat and muscle (except that at really high weights, it's almost surely fat).

Travis · 30th November 2007, 02:37 AM

As if we ugly people needed more evidence that beautiful people get all the breaks.

BPSCG · 30th November 2007, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

As if we ugly people needed more evidence that beautiful people get all the breaks.

You're a liar. Everyone knows there are no ugly people in California.

BPSCG · 30th November 2007, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

My guess would be that it's not straight (nothing like this ever is totally linear).

Ah, thank you - that's what I was struggling (very badly) to say.

Puppycow · 30th November 2007, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

As if we ugly people needed more evidence that beautiful people get all the breaks.

I also hear tell that the beautiful people's poop doesn't smell as bad.

BPSCG · 30th November 2007, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

I also hear tell that the beautiful people's poop doesn't smell as bad.

Proof: Mine smells great!

It's true!

Travis · 1st December 2007, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by BPSCG

You're a liar. Everyone knows there are no ugly people in California.

A new state motto perhaps?

Beerina · 3rd December 2007, 09:28 AM

Statistically, "fat" people are discriminated against as much as African-Americans, as far as average wages, etc. go. I also wondered if it wasn't related to "ugly people" earn less, perhaps a more general "physically unattractive people earn less", whether ugly or fat or both.

It's also been pointed out "fat" is still acceptible for discrimination, as far as mocking goes. Witness Jurassic Park, where the bad guy is a fatso. This is not coincidental -- Spielberg goes out of his way to emphasize he eats a lot, with wrappers everywhere, and the unconscionable line, "I'm gonna go get something salty from the machine, I'm in the mood for something salty" (to presumably counter the sweets he just guzzled.)

28th November 2007, 06:50 PM	#1
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,722	Fat Lowers Wages A new study shows that more fat is correlated with lower wages As one might have guessed, but now it's been scientifically proven. And this is not based on BMI, either, but on body composition. (BMI does not consider body composition, only height and weight). Quote: Our results indicate that increased body fat is unambiguously associated with decreased wages for both males and females. This result is in contrast to the mixed and sometimes inconsistent results from the previous research using body mass index (BMI). We also find new evidence indicating that a higher level of fat-free body mass is consistently associated with increased hourly wages. We present further evidence that these results are not the artifacts of unobserved heterogeneity. (In case you are wondering, I struggle with my weight too. I am borderline obese. I run on weekends, but I like to eat and drink. I lost a lot of weight last year, but it has returned. I am not starting this thread to blame fat people for being fat.)
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

28th November 2007, 07:37 PM	#2
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,892	I wonder if this has to do with the overall "beauty" factor that influences employment. Or it confirms my suspicions that fat people are just lazy bastards. (jk)
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

28th November 2007, 08:06 PM	#4
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Poor people generally buy cheaper food which is (surprise!) not as healthy. Hence they will be fatter than an otherwise identical person who buys higher quality food.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

28th November 2007, 08:26 PM	#5
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,787	Chicken vs egg, anybody?
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,787	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

28th November 2007, 08:27 PM	#6
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,892	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote Poor people generally buy cheaper food which is (surprise!) not as healthy. Hence they will be fatter than an otherwise identical person who buys higher quality food. Ah, I forgot about that. Yup, that works for me .
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

28th November 2007, 08:02 PM	#3
shuize Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Location: Japan Posts: 2,305	Originally Posted by Puppycow ... (In case you are wondering, I struggle with my weight too. I am borderline obese. I run on weekends, but I like to eat and drink. I lost a lot of weight last year, but it has returned. I am not starting this thread to blame fat people for being fat.) When you lost the weight, was it just by running on the weekends? In my experience, a day or two a week is usually not nearly enough to do me any good -- when I exercise, as I am now, I usually aim for 4 or 5 days a week.

28th November 2007, 08:50 PM	#7
four elevener Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 2,800	Maybe people earning lower wages are generally unhappier, so they eat more. Hmmm? I dunno.

28th November 2007, 10:23 PM	#8
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,722	Originally Posted by shuize When you lost the weight, was it just by running on the weekends? In my experience, a day or two a week is usually not nearly enough to do me any good -- when I exercise, as I am now, I usually aim for 4 or 5 days a week. Yeah, I've slacked off. But I still exercise more than a couple years ago when I smoked and was almost completely sedentary. I quit smoking and at the same time joined a gym. So I'm still better off than 2 years ago because I don't smoke and I exercise more. Last year I got a promotion after (suprise) slimming down.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

28th November 2007, 10:42 PM	#9
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,722	I think there is a viscious cycle. The best thing is to not get fat in the first place. Once you do, it becomes harder to exercise, harder to lose weight and keep it off, etc. And if you do start to gain weight, the sooner you get serious about putting a stop to it, the better. Much better 200 pounds than 300 and diabetic.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

28th November 2007, 10:55 PM	#10
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,722	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha I wonder if this has to do with the overall "beauty" factor that influences employment. Or it confirms my suspicions that fat people are just lazy bastards. (jk) I'd guess that both the "beauty" factor and your "suspicions that fat people are just lazy bastards" have something to do with it.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

29th November 2007, 02:48 AM	#11
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,067	It costs money to join a gym, have gastric bypass surgery, or liposuction. Therefore the people already making lots of money will be able to afford it where others can't.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

29th November 2007, 03:11 AM	#12
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,147	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote Poor people generally buy cheaper food which is (surprise!) not as healthy. Is this true? I was watching a program last night about families who had ended up homeless and how they coped. What struck home was that they were put into a bed and breakfast where the only cooking facility they had was a kettle - result was that the only hot food they could get were takeaways or highly processed "just add water" ready meals like Pot Noodle. Unlikely to be healthy but not cheap either. Another family "cooked" a tin of beans by leaving it on a radiator while they were out so it would be warm when they got in. If they had somewhere to cook (and probably some support/help) then they could have used cheap ingredients to make much healthier meals, so it was not the cost of the food that led to problems.

29th November 2007, 03:17 AM	#13
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet Is this true? I was watching a program last night about families who had ended up homeless and how they coped. What struck home was that they were put into a bed and breakfast where the only cooking facility they had was a kettle - result was that the only hot food they could get were takeaways or highly processed "just add water" ready meals like Pot Noodle. Unlikely to be healthy but not cheap either. Another family "cooked" a tin of beans by leaving it on a radiator while they were out so it would be warm when they got in. If they had somewhere to cook (and probably some support/help) then they could have used cheap ingredients to make much healthier meals, so it was not the cost of the food that led to problems. I draw a distinction between 'poor' and the homeless population frequenting shelters. At some point when you simply cannot afford enough of any kind of food, you will lose weight. Until then, your choices become increasingly limited. You're stuck with high sodium, empty calorie foods like pastas and processed canned meats (50 cent cans of ravioli and the like). I don't know what 'pot noodle' is but you can get more than 12 meals of Ramen Noodles (basically empty calories) for a buck fifty,
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea. Last edited by quixotecoyote; 29th November 2007 at 03:17 AM.

29th November 2007, 04:04 AM	#14
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,147	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote Until then, your choices become increasingly limited. You're stuck with high sodium, empty calorie foods like pastas and processed canned meats (50 cent cans of ravioli and the like). Not if you buy ingredients and cook yourself rather than rely on buying processed ready meals. This is also much cheaper. Quote: I don't know what 'pot noodle' is but you can get more than 12 meals of Ramen Noodles (basically empty calories) for a buck fifty, Pot Noodle: http://www.potnoodle.co.uk/NoodleRange.aspx If you go to the nutrition link, it is kind of lacking, but I suspect that eating a lot of them is not good for you. Interestingly the Lamb hot pot, Chicken Satay and Beef&Tomato flavours are all suitable for vegetarians!

29th November 2007, 04:06 AM	#15
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	I've worked with poor people... the stuff they eat is horrible. 3 for $1 mac and cheese with a side of mashed potatoes. Sandwiches made from cheap white bread, a slice or two of that paper-thin weird Buddig pseudo-meat, and a slice of "processed cheese food", slathered with mayo to hide the chemical taste of the sandwich. Ramen noodle soup. Frozen fried chicken. No fresh fruit or vegetables. Not a lot of lean meat. What you wind up with is a situation where people are overweight AND malnourished.

29th November 2007, 04:25 AM	#16
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet Not if you buy ingredients and cook yourself rather than rely on buying processed ready meals. This is also much cheaper. I can be convinced. Make for me a healthy menu with cheap ingredients.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

29th November 2007, 04:41 AM	#17
Jaggy Bunnet Philosopher Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sunny Leith Posts: 6,147	Originally Posted by quixotecoyote I can be convinced. Make for me a healthy menu with cheap ingredients. OK - do you want to suggest a budget?

29th November 2007, 05:08 AM	#18
to.by Scholar Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 101	Look up confounding in any statistics or epidemiology textbook
to.by Scholar Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 101

29th November 2007, 05:21 AM	#19
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet OK - do you want to suggest a budget? I tried. I really did, but my lack of sleep has caught up to me. Math is beyond me. Just keep it reasonable, I won't be picky.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea.

29th November 2007, 05:43 AM	#20
JoeEllison Cuddly Like a Koala Bear Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Florida Posts: 7,276	$5, feed three people.

29th November 2007, 06:49 AM	#21
HarryKeogh Catholic School Survivor Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 11,342	As a healthy, fit, incredibly handsome, white male I'm still puzzled at the fact that I'm flat-broke.

29th November 2007, 11:56 AM	#22
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,105	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey It costs money to join a gym, have gastric bypass surgery, or liposuction. Therefore the people already making lots of money will be able to afford it where others can't. Although the home do-it-yourself gastric bypass and liposuction kits you can get these days are surprisingly affordable!
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

29th November 2007, 12:15 PM	#23
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Haven't read the linked article, but does it say whether the graph of the line between weight and wages is straight? In other words, do morbidly obese people skew the results by being unemployable? I somehow can't believe that being 175 pounds instead of 150 pounds will significantly affect a man's salary, whereas being 475 pounds will, if for no other reason than he'll tend to take a lot more sick days off work. At some point, I would think increased weight would suddenly and dramatically start causing comparative salary discrepancies.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

29th November 2007, 08:22 PM	#24
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,722	Originally Posted by BPSCG Haven't read the linked article, but does it say whether the graph of the line between weight and wages is straight? In other words, do morbidly obese people skew the results by being unemployable? I somehow can't believe that being 175 pounds instead of 150 pounds will significantly affect a man's salary, whereas being 475 pounds will, if for no other reason than he'll tend to take a lot more sick days off work. At some point, I would think increased weight would suddenly and dramatically start causing comparative salary discrepancies. I just linked to a blog post about the article. The blog in turn links to the actual study, which is a big pdf, and I only skimmed that. My guess would be that it's not straight (nothing like this ever is totally linear). And it's NOT weight, but body composition. According to the study, it matters whether that extra 25 pounds is fat or muscle. I think they are contending that if the extra 25 pounds is muscle, wages go up, and if it's fat, wages go down. This is not a BMI study, but a body composition study.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

29th November 2007, 11:10 PM	#25
Smackety Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,145	Correlational study, anyone? This appears to be the main finding, after all individual effects were factored out: Quote: Looking at the coefficients in Panel B of Table 3A, a one kilogram increase in the BF reduces wages by about 1 percent for Hispanic males and Hispanic females, and about 0.9-1.0 percent for white males and white females. The effects of BF on the wages of black males and females are smaller and only significant for females. The wages of black females go down by about 0.6 percent in response to a one kilogram increase in body fat. When the FFM is raised by one kilogram, the wages increase by about 0.7 percent for white males and Hispanic males and about 1.3 percent for white and Hispanic females. Again, the effects on black males and females are smaller and both coefficients are insignificant. These results indicate that, while an increase in body size that is due to an increase in BF will hurt wages, FFM is actually beneficial. Interestingly, the sizes of the effects are very similar between whites and Hispanics for both males and females. My Baseless Causal Theory: Getting paid a high wage involves a lot of time pressure and constant stress. As a result, rich people cannot sleep, barely eat, and are miserable, unhealthy people, albiet thin. It is much better to be relatively poor, so you can be fat and happy from living the good life!

30th November 2007, 01:27 AM	#26
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,722	Originally Posted by Smackety This appears to be the main finding, after all individual effects were factored out: My Baseless Causal Theory: Getting paid a high wage involves a lot of time pressure and constant stress. As a result, rich people cannot sleep, barely eat, and are miserable, unhealthy people, albiet thin. It is much better to be relatively poor, so you can be fat and happy from living the good life! Thank you! And welcome to the forum. IOW, more FFM (fat-free mass = muscle) increases wages, while more fat decreases wages. This is why a simple BMI study would not pick it up. BMI does not distinguish between fat and muscle (except that at really high weights, it's almost surely fat).
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

30th November 2007, 02:37 AM	#27
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,938	As if we ugly people needed more evidence that beautiful people get all the breaks.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

30th November 2007, 06:06 AM	#28
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Travis As if we ugly people needed more evidence that beautiful people get all the breaks. You're a liar. Everyone knows there are no ugly people in California.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

30th November 2007, 06:08 AM	#29
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Puppycow My guess would be that it's not straight (nothing like this ever is totally linear). Ah, thank you - that's what I was struggling (very badly) to say.
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

30th November 2007, 06:37 AM	#30
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,722	Originally Posted by Travis As if we ugly people needed more evidence that beautiful people get all the breaks. I also hear tell that the beautiful people's poop doesn't smell as bad.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

30th November 2007, 07:29 AM	#31
BPSCG Cannibal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Looting Fafner's Cave Posts: 17,556	Originally Posted by Puppycow I also hear tell that the beautiful people's poop doesn't smell as bad. Proof: Mine smells *great!* It's true!
	__________________ Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

1st December 2007, 01:44 AM	#32
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,938	Originally Posted by BPSCG You're a liar. Everyone knows there are no ugly people in California. A new state motto perhaps?
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

3rd December 2007, 09:28 AM	#33
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Statistically, "fat" people are discriminated against as much as African-Americans, as far as average wages, etc. go. I also wondered if it wasn't related to "ugly people" earn less, perhaps a more general "physically unattractive people earn less", whether ugly or fat or both. It's also been pointed out "fat" is still acceptible for discrimination, as far as mocking goes. Witness Jurassic Park, where the bad guy is a fatso. This is not coincidental -- Spielberg goes out of his way to emphasize he eats a lot, with wrappers everywhere, and the unconscionable line, "I'm gonna go get something salty from the machine, I'm in the mood for something salty" (to presumably counter the sweets he just guzzled.)
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?