This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Gallup's Stunning Explanation For America's Unemployment Epidemic: Obesity
Two things became abundantly clear during today's Yellen press conference: i) the Fed no longer has any idea what it is doing, or where it is steering the economy, exemplified by the Chairwoman's response that she has little "confidence" in the Fed's current set of forecasts (because one can be wrong only for so long about the economy before one indeed loses all confidence in one's abilities), however since everyone is benefiting for now as the asset bubble is still growing and asset prices are still rising, there is nothing the Fed will change about its current line of action and ii) the Fed has no idea how or why unemployment - as massaged as it may be courtesy of tens of millions of Americans dropping out of the labor force - is as high and as structural as it is.
Of course, all of this should have been quite obvious to everyone else years ago when trillion after trillion in excess liquidity did nothing to stimulate the economy (as can be seen in the -2.0% GDP Q1 GDP is set to print in its final revision), and certainly nothing to boost employment, particularly long-term unemployment - those who are out of work for 12 months or more - to above-consensus levels.
So it appears there is something far more structural with America's long-term unemployment problem, something not even the "smartest academics in the (Marriner Eccles) room" can diagnose. Surprisingly, earlier today Gallup reported one factor that may be contributing to America's unemployment malaise - the same problem that is the reason for the insolvent US welfare state coffers: obesity.
According to Gallup, Americans who have been out of work for a year or more are much more likely to be obese than those unemployed for a shorter time. The obesity rate rises from 22.8% among those unemployed for two weeks or less to 32.7% among those unemployed for 52 weeks or more.
How does Gallup keep track of the Body Mass Index of America's millions of unemployed?
Gallup tracks U.S. obesity levels daily using Americans' self-reported height and weight to calculate body mass index (BMI) scores as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index. Individuals with BMI scores of 30 or higher are considered obese. The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index also tracks the percentages of Americans who report that they have ever been diagnosed with various health conditions related to obesity, including high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and diabetes.
These results are based on nearly 5,000 interviews throughout 2013 with the long-term unemployed (defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as being unemployed for 27 weeks or more) and more than 13,000 interviews with the short-term unemployed (those out of work for less than 27 weeks).
Gallup and Healthways also track the percentages of Americans who say they currently have or are being treated for health conditions such as high blood pressure and high cholesterol. In both cases, the differences between the short-term unemployed and the long-term unemployed are striking: Those who have been jobless for 27 weeks or more are nearly twice as likely to say they currently have high blood pressure, and to say they have high cholesterol.
Gallup's shocking finding: Americans who have been unemployed for less than 27 weeks are somewhat less likely than those with jobs to have each of these conditions.
But is unemployment the cause of obesity, or vice versa, are the obese Americans simply more unwilling to look for work, or are just considered less "attractive", less hireable, and more of a "health insurance cost" threat to potential employers?
While these results offer evidence of a strong relationship between unemployment and obesity-related health concerns, the causal direction is not clear. Unemployment may cause some people to engage in behaviors that lead to health problems, while pre-existing health conditions may make it harder for others to find and keep work. For many individuals, both dynamics may be at work, perpetuating a negative cycle of declining job prospects and worsening health.
Gallup observes that jobless Americans may be more likely to fall into such a cycle if a higher incidence of health problems hinders their efforts to find a good job. Those out of work for 27 weeks or more report experiencing an average of 4.7 days out of the past 30 when poor health kept them from doing their usual activities. That compares with an average of 2.8 lower-productivity days for those unemployed for a shorter period, and just 1.4 days for full-time workers.
Over the longer term, one of the most worrisome implications of these relationships is that many of those who have been unemployed for a prolonged period may suffer chronic health problems even if they successfully re-enter the workforce. A 2009 study of Pennsylvania workers laid off in the 1970s and 1980s found that even 20 years later, these workers were 10% to 15% more likely to die in a given year than those who had not suffered a job loss.
Gallup's conclusion:
With record-setting rates of long-term unemployment in most U.S. states, the health consequences of extended periods of joblessness have become a rising concern for policymakers. The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index makes it possible to examine health and well-being conditions associated with long-term unemployment more closely than is possible using smaller-scale studies. Importantly, the tracking data can be aggregated to produce the large sample sizes necessary for studying well-being among specific employment groups.
One key concern raised by the current analysis is that employers in industries that require manual labor, such as manufacturing and construction, may be less likely to hire candidates who are clearly out of shape. If so, workers in these industries -- who already earn lower wages, on average, than those in knowledge-based sectors -- may be even more likely to be caught in a negative cycle of joblessness and poor health.
And there is another aspect, one where Obamacare also comes into play: private employers' high healthcare costs might lead them to avoid taking chances on those who pose greater health risks, particularly in a tenuous economic climate. As a result, candidates who are obese and who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more may have two strikes against them even before they sit down for an interview.
So perhaps instead of dumping trillions into the stock market in hopes this record "wealth", already accruing to the wealthiest 1%, will trickle down to the average American, a far better use of the Fed's cash would be to launch weight-loss initiatives for America's record obese population: perhaps offering a monthly prize of $1,000 for every 10 pounds that Joe Sixpack manages to lose, and keep off every month. While it is arguable if this will help solve America's unemployment (and obesity) problems, it certainly will lower US healthcare costs in the long-run, and will also make for a far more fit population... At least until those who are not obese and also can't find a job accuse the Fed of discriminating against them.
Of course, considering the efficacy of the Fed's behavioral experiment this could simply backfire and force ever more Americans to become obese in hopes they too will be "subsidized" by free taxpayer money to lose said weight.
Perhaps, in retrospect, there is no fixing these two intertwined problems. Which leads to a sad conclusion: America's population may be increasingly unemployed, but at least it's fat...
»
- 25578 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
You can thank economies of scale, which benefits the person receiving them. That and it shows a willingness to look at someone as an investment, not as a problem.
While you end up with less services that are lower quality.
Geez, what's up w/ the teaser thumbnail? I thought I'd be able to really check it out.
a lot of obese ppl r in denial
i work with this girl and she told me that she is around 300 lbs but tells me
"Oh it is just muscles"
she feels good about herself and does not think she has a weight problem and justifies the 300 lbs or so as muscle ...
I don't want to be rude and tell her that is not the way it looks....
Democide is talked about on the Internet.
Quite a large Topic, Death By Government.
I think Mao is usually said to be the Worst with 50 Million or more Chinese Subjects killed due to either bad policy that resulting in starvation or out and out killing them as a solution to revolution or lack of resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
---------------
A) I don't think you could stop your government from the Afghanistan or Iraqi war
B) We don't live in a DEMOCRACY, we don't vote on war, the funding on war, the use of torture, rendition, making people disappearance without a trace, use of land mines in third countries, use of defoliant or uranium in munitions
C) We don't get to vote on the War Data the US Government captures, loss to culture, loss of businesses/Economy, killed civilians/injury of civilians, number of refugees, rapes & disease that result
D) We have a Republic form of Government in a mixed economy with social programs such as unemployment, SNAP, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security for Retirement
We have to REVISION government when money clearly has taken over all three branches of government AND we spend $900 Billion dollars on MIC, Security, Influence around the world, AND have this marriage between Corporation & Government that seems to be a twist of Fascism.
USA:
- Fascism
- Socialism
- Democracy
- Right & Left Extremist Ideology
- Corporatocracy
- Oligarchy
- Patriarchy, hubris, Ego, Spin, No Responsibility Or Accounting for actions of organizations
- Diversion from 1970 Economics, budgeting, currency, Morality, Government Stewardship, and Even Accounting & Banking
- Politics is on Steroids, everything is steeped in Politics
plus
Democide seems to be the set that includes Atheists V.S. Religious Extremist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
Mao is supposed to have killed like 50 Million people for the revolution or because they ran out of resources due to policy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-le...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of deaths.[3] Estimates of the death toll range from 18 million[4] to 45 million,[5] with estimates by demographic specialists ranging from 18 million to 32.5 million.[4]
Funny, I know lots of college graduates who are in great health. Prime working age, educated, willing to work.
They all either work at Ralphs/ Wal-Mart/ Target, or live off of food stamps/ Obamacare/ Student Loan Forgiveness.
Yet another distraction from the real problem: A DEAD ECONOMY, courtesy of the FED.
This is a stupid survey, because it does not distinguish between men and women. There is a huge amount of prejudice against fat women in the workplace; there is very little prejudice against fat men, per hiring data (the same is true in the dating world, life not being fair). It also does not distinguish between geographical areas; in regions where the population is generally fat, prejudice against fat people pretty much goes away (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140529092806.htm). So (for instance) if you studied unemployed women in an area where more people are slim, you'd find that they were FAR fatter than the employed women. The trivial difference (22 percent versus 32 percent) the study shows, is not relevant; what is relevant is how subgroups fare.
Being fat sucks. I feel very sorry for fat women who live in "nonfat" parts of the country; they are treated horribly; people can be real assholes. Most of the people that I know who are obese are on a medication (such as an antidepressant or a beta blocker) that is clearly the cause.
Fat is gross and ugly and usually accompanied by unpleasant odors. And often the outside isn't too bad an approximation for what's on the inside, no matter what the platitudes tell you.
Imagine how these rather large folks will react when the Great Civil "War" of the 21st Century breaks out in America and food becomes scarce. I'm rather fit (so I can RUN) cause I don't want someone, addicted to junk food, eyeballing my body as an hor dourve.
Leave them to it, they can still fill their faces 16 hours a day.
let them get fat, let them turn into freaks, who actually cares.
They die quicker and sooner, they will become extinct like dinosaurs,
They can barely walk let alone fuck some of them.
Just never ask me to pay towards their health costs. If they cant afford it but can afford 40 lbs of junk to stuff in their faces every day they can die for me
Bullish 4 donut makers everywhere.
I see the laptop. But where's the lap?
When I was a kid in Melbourne Australia in the 1970's....to see a Kentucky Fried Chicken store was like...WOW...! Check it out...!!!!
They were NOT everwhere.....PLUS people were actually able to read the words.....KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN......
We did not live in a world where everything had to be dumbed down to KFC.
Fast food joints are everywhere....and so people eat too much.
Processed Food
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/big-book/processed-foods-make-70-...
Half the Ingredients in a McDonalds Hamburger bun are actually chemicals used to induce diabetes in lab rats for the purpose of studying the effectiveness of diabetes medication.
Ingrdients like Alloxan :a toxic glucose analogue, which selectively destroys insulin-producing cells in the pancreas (that is beta cells) when administered to rodents and many other animal species. This causes an insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (called "alloxan diabetes") in these animals, with characteristics similar to type 1 diabetes in humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloxan
Alloxan is produced in the bread via the bleaching process for the flour.
There is no reason to put these chemicals in food, but McDonalds and other fast food chains do.
America is fat, because the corporations want you fat, diabetic and autistic , so that they can shove "medicine" down your throat and get you to pay insurance premiums.
The plan for America is to have as many sick people as possible and on govt programs to pay for their shit, while you have the other half of the population being paid $$$$ to wipe their ass and clean their drool.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jT9WwGFXY_M/UuR0WH65VKI/AAAAAAAAAgg/UyanYJr1KA...
a good guess , but i think the blame is square on the giant shoulders of christie. he is to blame for my flat tire and he once kicked me in da nuts. so glad we have someone beside bush now, right d nc
And then there is the main caloric component of all bread, bleached or "whole", chemical treated or "organic": The starch amylopectin A. It breaks down rapidly into glucose in the small intestine. Very rapidly. It is a blood sugar hammer.
The caption for the guy sitting at the PC should be, "Like a boss."
Good comments you guys. I'm glad a few picked up on the GMO connection. The 10 year Norway GMO-Obesity study established a connection but was ignored by the MSM as was the French GMO Rat Cancer Tumor Study.
Yes folks there's a connection between our inability to compete and keep our jobs and the deliberate poisoning campaign by our EU banker/Jesuit rulers. You'll never convince the sheeple they have been poisoned. Hell they believe this state of obesity and disease is all normal and Yellen is going to return us to the good old days. Most also believe the Fed is a government agency benefitting us. They have no idea that they have been captured by toxic injury and when this cluster cooks off they aren't going to know what hit them. If you're interested in the poisoning agenda see this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB3xcN_eoPo
Does this mean we don't have to listen to a rehash of last quarter's weather every time "the recovery" pops up on financial channels as this is clearly going to be the new culprit for everything economy related? Pink slime burgers for everyone!
Always fattin' up a pig before slaughter ........
You have to eat to work. They only eat. Work on!
Another place fat accumulates is between the ears of these pointy-headed "academics." They need to get out of the Eccles Bldg., out of the DC clusterfuck and into the REAL WORLD.
Maybe they could start in the Rust Belt (see ZH article.)
Employers don't want to hire people who are unattractive and smell like old meat? Shocker.
Was that Jabba the Hut in the picture?
There are a lot of fat people in the US and, in fact, in my particular corner of it. That said, the BMI is an absolutely AWFUL way to measure who is "fat". Most bodybuilders would be obese by that measure. I myself am borderline obese...though my pants are 34-inch waist. Granted, I'm not going to blow away any Olympic track records, but I think "obese" would be a stretch. Especially when I can run 5 miles, and do on occasion (usually more like 3-4).
First of all, everyone did NOT benefit--only rich stockholders benefitted. Secondly, people who have been out of work for a long time end up with less to spend on good food. There's been research done as to why the poor are fat and a lot has to do with supermarket availability and supermarket sales. Stores will have great sales (often buy one, get one) on soda, hot dogs, American cheese, white bread--all the stuff that's bad for you. And fresh produce is expensive. When the choice is a head of califlower for $4 or a package of hot dogs that you can eat for four meals, you go for the hot dogs.