I Bet Michael Richards Hates Us Too
Prejudice against fat people affects their wealth, says researchers. Overweight people have an average of half the assets of people with normal BMIs, and that includes everything from increased health care costs to having a harder time getting jobs to an inability to "marry up" the social ladder (which was the most interesting one to me; I really hadn't thought about that before).
"[T]est results showed that bias against blacks and the overweight was about equal, but that while people rarely admit to race bias, they freely admit to weight bias. 'There is no social sanction against saying you don’t like fat people.'"
There is also a test you can take to measure your race bias and your weight bias. I scored as "a moderate automatic preference for Fat People compared to Thin People." and for "European American compared to African American." So I'm a thinnist and a racist. Great!
"[T]est results showed that bias against blacks and the overweight was about equal, but that while people rarely admit to race bias, they freely admit to weight bias. 'There is no social sanction against saying you don’t like fat people.'"
There is also a test you can take to measure your race bias and your weight bias. I scored as "a moderate automatic preference for Fat People compared to Thin People." and for "European American compared to African American." So I'm a thinnist and a racist. Great!
posted by mo pie at 8:07 PM
23 Comments:
I read that article this weekend, and while it brings up some good points, I think it conflated two *different* reasons that overweight people may have more difficulty accumulating wealth. One reason is, as you noted, prejudice against overweight people is still socially acceptable, and this results in fewer promotions, less upward mobility, etc. But the other reason is that overweight people, on average, spend more money on a variety of things, most notably healthcare, both in terms of insurance premiums and in terms of total health services used. And that's money they can't save toward the future.
I read a study once where they looked at men and women in a certain profession (accounting, maybe?) in which physical fitness had nothing to do with competancy, and they did indeed find that more overweight people had smaller salaries than thinner people. However, the people doing this study also found that those overweight people more than made up for that difference in salary by taking advantage of more healthcare services. So they actually weren't getting paid less, after all -- their compensation just came in a different form.
Interesting stuff!
However, the people doing this study also found that those overweight people more than made up for that difference in salary by taking advantage of more healthcare services. So they actually weren't getting paid less, after all -- their compensation just came in a different form.
I disagree with the logic here. You could easily argue that smokers earn more than others because of their liklihood of needing more health care services (and getting paid the same as their thin, non-smoking counterparts). Or that cancer survivors make more money on average because of their use of health care services. Are women who earn maternity leave then earning "more" than their non-parent counterparts?
A company offers a set of benefits in order to be within the law and to attract qualified employees. Whether or not one person takes advantage of those benefits doesn't justify pay discrimination based on weight, gender, prospective parenthood, etc. Also, you can't invest the money spent on health care benefits, so over the long term pay inequity can make a big difference in overall wealth at retirement.
I understand that you're not trying to rationalize the discrimination here, your post just got me to thinking about the issue in that context. Like you say, interesting stuff, and worthy of more attention/research.
Excellently stated, Mizshrew.
I'd be be surprised if fat people really do use healthcare more than all thin people. Most of the fat people I know won't go to the doctor unless they absolutely can't avoid it. Everybody has their problems - some people are fat, some people smoke, some people have hereditary tendencies toward cancer or heart disease, some people are poor (which probably has the single greatest impact on health and longevity - if America is so all-fired concerned about saving expense to the healthcare system, we should tackle poverty before weight).
That test, by the way, was fascinating. I somehow managed to score "no preference" between fat and thin, largely because of my misspent youth in the video arcades I think, but I noticed it took a lot more concentration for me to hold it together during the "fat=good/thin=bad" section of the test.
mizshrew, as a matter of fact, I believe the same people found that smokers DO earn less than non-smokers, and women who are perceived to be potential childbearers (i.e., young and married) DO earn less than their counterparts. I'm definitely not arguing that this is the way that things *ought* to be, but some researchers have found that this is the way that things actually are.
I should've added that the study I referenced was carried out not by sociologists, not by health professionals, but by economists, who tend to believe that many human actions can be explained by how they spend their resources. In that light, their conclusion makes sense: from the point of view of the employer, they DO spend the same amount of money to keep competant employees, both thin and not so thin. They just spend it in different ways.
mary garden, I agree that overweight people probably dread going to the doctor for primary care concerns than non-overweight people. (This is definitely true in my own experience.) However, the most expensive health care is not primary health care, but more complicated stuff (treatment for chronic disease, emergency events, cancer). And I have no trouble believing that people who are overweight have more serious (therefore, more expensive) health issues than non-overweight people. It is certainly the fear of diabetes, heart disease, joint pain, etc that is my main motivator to lose weight.
I'm know that there is plenty of evidence that smokers, and women of child-bearing age have been proven to be paid less too, and that employers may justify this by saying that the use more benefits and so they really get "paid the same." Or that they deny the pay inequity altogether but either overtly (in the case of smokers) or covertly (often in the case of women or overweight people) deny employment, promotion opportunities, etc.
I'm just saying that this logic is faulty (in terms of what employees actually get paid) and ethically suspect (in terms of employers justification of the practice). The idea that they're getting paid the same falls apart when you look at things like 401k plans, where people tend to contribute a percentage of their income. People with higher incomes accumulate higher investment accounts, which in turn reap higher rewards in terms of percentage gains over time (assuming, of course, that the investments gain rather than lose money.) Pay inequity based on ANY criteria other than job qualifications can have an enormous effect on their future.
There is also the factor of salary history, something which many potential employers require as part of the job application process. If I'm earning less than my thinner counterparts, my salary history reflects that, and my future employers benchmark my worth accordingly. So the cycle continues.
quirkybrook, I see your point from the employer's point of view; they spend $XX dollars to keep this or that employee, the resources are just allocated differently. And I also don't argue that the health/cost implications of being overweight are considerable. But I'm not sure it follows that human actions are explained by how they spend their resources, if a smoker/woman/overweight person gets less compensation to begin with. Meaning that the behavior came before the resources. Or did I just totally misunderstand what you meant? I'm no economist.
Thanks for starting a great discussion!
Mary Garden said:
"if America is so all-fired concerned about saving expense to the healthcare system, we should tackle poverty before weight"
DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.
Sorry, mizshrew, I think I wasn't very clear. What I meant to say is that, of the two theories given in the NYTimes article as to why overweight people are less wealthy (i.e., either they are prejudiced against or they end up spending more on stuff like healthcare and food), most economists are probably likely to give more credence to the theory that revolves around money. And that is why studies written by economists may seem a bit distasteful to many political progressives, who don't often believe that financial incentives are the sole reason that humans do anything in life. (Disclaimer: I am not an economist, just someone who has taken a couple of econ classes recently.)
ooops! Runa = quirkybook. I guess the secret of my internet identity is out!
This is an interesting discussion.
I've always held the opinion that poverty often causes obesity. Not in all cases, of course, but in enough for it to be something to note.
Go to your local grocery store and compare the prices of a healthy, good food to that of foods that are not-so-good for you.
If your family only has 50 dollars to spend on food a week, will you choose the boneless, skinless chicken breast for $7.99 a pound or will you choose the package of hot dogs for 99 cents?
There are, of course, programs in place for low-income people to get access to better food choices at a lower cost (often free, as in the case of WIC and their farmer's market programs, which provide vouchers for pregnant women, or families with small children, to go to farm stands and get fresh, locally-grown produce - an excellent program).
But there are many, many people that do not qualify for programs like that - you make too much to get that manner of help, but not enough to do it for yourself.
Just thought I'd toss that out there.
This week there was an article in the Times stating that "economy" branded foods sold in supermarkets are higher in fat, sugar and salt.
This may not be all that surprising.
On the other hand, I think it may be easier in Britain to buy reasonably priced healthy food, even in a fairly poor area, than it is in the US.
K said:
"On the other hand, I think it may be easier in Britain to buy reasonably priced healthy food, even in a fairly poor area, than it is in the US."
K, you don't have to guess. If you compare the FDA regulations and the UK regulations on preservatives and additives, you will find permissible on the US list a whole bunch of chemical things that our bodies don't know what to do with -- to the extent that the EUC has banned several of them (BHT and nitrites come to mind) -- and so they just sit there, hanging out somewhere in our 22 feet of colon.
Very frequently you find those additives in less expensive, not-organic foods, and almost as frequently, that's dismissed as a contributing cause of overweight, but there you have it.
Kind of makes you want to get down those 8 glasses of water a day to flush that stuff out, doesn't it?
Richard, I would posit that that's because you're looking for direct, proximate cause as opposed to antecedent, contributing cause.
There is a theory that the overweight and racial minorities tend to suffer from a greater incidence of health problems (and thus, somewhat proximately, incur greater health care costs) because the stress of the daily indignities and significant inconveniences of prejudice and harassment contributes to a higher and more constant incidence of stress hormones coursing through the body. This in turn, according to those studies, contributes to earlier degradation of functional systems, which, in turn, can lead to manifestation of grave systemic dysfunction - diabetes, high blood pressure, heart attacks.
The studies have been augmented by contributory data based on observations that when overweight people (in, say, Italy) were not harrassed, and when people of color were not minorities (living in populations that consisted in the majority of people of color) and were therefore not harrassed, that the incidences of those health problems decreased significantly.
But it's not a proximate cause theory that sits neatly in your literal (frequently mislabeled as "logical") box, so don't let your pretty little head implode over it.
A random sidenote on Zombie's comment:
"If your family only has 50 dollars to spend on food a week, will you choose the boneless, skinless chicken breast for $7.99 a pound or will you choose the package of hot dogs for 99 cents?"
Check out the Hillbilly Housewife How to feed your family of 4 for $45/week article. Yep, I see hotdogs, along with margarine, macaroni & cheese, ramen.
Definitely an emergency menu, not food you should eat every week.
littlem - thanks for all the info!
It's also fairly easy to buy fruit and veg in Britain, even at the distinctly less classy supermarkets. My husband and I spent about £15 on groceries, total, this week (including a lot of fresh produce. No junk apart from a bag of chips). Granted, we don't have kids to feed too, but that doesn't seem extortionate.
Whether you feel you want to spend your limited food budget on fruit and veg - especially if you think your children are going to turn up their noses at it, and you know they'll eat the less healthy stuff without complaint - that's a more difficult question.
Re the Hillbilly Housewife article - it's odd that the author expects readers to make everything from scratch, except the mac & cheese. Surely it's cheaper and more nutritious - not to mention tastier - to make your own? After all, it's a very simple dish.
Susan, I usually cook most things from scratch, but have found mac&cheese far cheaper to make tasty from a box. I get Trader Joes "good" version though, no preservatives, real ingredients blah blah...it's about $1 a box, the cheese I'd need to put into home-made to make it as flavourful would be way more than $1!
FWIW, as an economy-minded impoverished young wife, I bought Kraft macaroni and cheese in the box to try. My husband and I both liked and ate cheese, we both liked and ate pasta, and we were broke, so it seemed like a good idea; I was used to making VERY economical meals.
So I made up the mac and cheese, and we each took a forkful and started eating. We looked at each other after the first mouthful, and, poor as we were, put the entire potful AND our plates outside for the raccoons.
I don't remember what we ate instead, but I do remember we NEVER bought it again.
"Everything that you said still doesn't mean that predjudice is having an affect on my health"
Um, Richard, based on your picture, that couldn't have anything to do with the fact that you're a Caucasian, middle-class, average weight, average height, Anglo-American male, could it?
I will certainly grant you that without a well-developed sense of empathy, it's certainly difficult to grant a presence to something you've never personally experienced.
But just because YOU PERSONALLY don't see or haven't experienced something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Oh, and Richard, BTW, it's not having an AFfect on your health in any event.
It's either AFfecting your health, OR having an EFfect on your health.
If you're going to preen based on your debating skills (especially if you believe, as you seem to, that emotions have no EFfect on human physiognomy and all human problems can be resolved by the application of "pure logic" - whatevs); then please do us humble recipients of your wisdom the favor of attending to your grammar -- a stated necessary component of debating proficiency -- so the odds of us lesser intellects misconstruing your sonorous genius are minimized.
Have a nice day.
And 2 more things:
1) It wasn't an attack; it was a response. Just because someone disagrees with your posit and doesn't bow down and worship your opinion, doesn't mean s/he is attacking you. Most unimaginative.
2) This, your first comment to which I responded in this post --
"I'm still waiting to figure out how any prejudice can cause higher - or lower - health care costs..."
has nothing whatsoever to do with this, your last "response" --
"People with a high sense of self-worth are probably healthier than people with a low sense of self-worth. This is true regardless of the way that they are perceived by other people, and probably always will be."
If you're going to snark and bombast, don't let your mind meander willy-nilly. At least make an effort to stay on topic.
Suzette Haden Elgin (Ozarque over on LJ) has an interesting theory that at least in her (very rural)area poverty and obesity may have a common cause. She cites many sightings of mothers feeding their infants and toddlers soda and junk food instead of milk or fuit, and postulates that poor nutrition at such an early age may damage the child's ability to learn and later their earning potential.
I don't believe that poor=ignorant automatically. I'm sure that in many or maybe most cases bad nutrition among poor people is due to lower costs and higher availability of junk food - hot dogs are cheaper than lean chicken breasts, and if you're working three jobs it's easier to buy Twinkies at a convenience store than fruit - but if a substantial minority really just don't know better, than maybe education is a cheap way to help both problems.
*sigh*
Richard, you're babbling now.
How in the world does this
"the way that people feel about themselves"
have ANYTHING to do with this
"I'm still waiting to figure out how any prejudice can cause higher - or lower - health care costs.."
????
And BTW, I never said this
"If you feel that nobody except you can understand predjudice"
(even though it's actually P-R-E-J-U-D-I-C-E).
What I did was infer that you don't appear to understand the correlation between prejudice and stress, the attendant correlation between stress and health care costs, and the fact that lack of proximate cause does not obviate the existence of antecedent cause.
If you're going to attempt to quote me, please attempt to do it correctly.
I'm done with this now, though. I get the feeling that you, like my grandmother, just MUST always have the last word (and you don't even have to be right or articulate your point).
I have a double dose of this because I am both Black and fat lol Well I already caught on to this theory many moons ago that this would affect my wealth and just plain luck in life. It is just based on the basic idea that fat people are viewed as ugly by society and less worthy of respect. I think this is more so for women than men, however. Discrimination is pretty much acceptable when it is against fat people..is this fair? No, not really, but honestly I don't think people can even help themselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home