On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Marge wrote:
> What if no one were fat?
> Imagine a lean and healthy America: The savings on medical, fuel, food and
> other costs would be enough to give every U.S. household more than $4,000.
If everyone was skinny, the fat people would buy less food, need to buy
less gas to make their car move, save money on medical costs, things of
that sort. The majority of the savings would go to the fat people. The
only savings that an already skinny person gets would be do to the
lowering of demand. Less gas bought means less demand, means lower
prices. Very misleading story already, and that's only in the synopsys.
> In the United States today, 66%% of adults are overweight. Almost 33%% of
> adults are obese, and 4.7%% are morbidly obese, or more than 100 pounds
> overweight. But . . .
33%% skinny
33%% over
33%% obese
Sounds like the normal numbers... Skinny people are outnumbered... We
need to elect a fat president, to protect the rights of fat americans.
> Productivity would rise, potentially creating tens of thousands more
> jobs or higher wages all around.
I call bull shit on that one.
If I was skinny, my productivity wouldn't be affected. I have a desk job,
I sit on my fat ass all day long. If it was skinny, I'd still be sitting
on it at my desk. Would I some how sit on my ass faster?
Do you mean the productivity of fat people who have manual labor jobs?
How many fat people have manual labor jobs? If they have to be on their
feet walking 8 hours a day, that's a lot of exercise. And since they are
already doing it, I doubt that productivity would rise much, if at all.
No new jobs would be created, nor would wages increase.
Arguably, since food would be more abundant, farmers would go out of
business. People buying less food means that less time at the check stand
at the store, which means less cashiers would be needed. In fact, there
would be more unemployment, not the other way around...
> $487 billion in gas, sweat and stretch pants
> Yes, it sounds a little wild, but the implications of a leaner, meaner
> country add up to a weighty $487 billion. That's almost 3.5%% of gross
> domestic product, no small sum.
So the economy would actually slow down, while the dollar is already
dropping on the open market. Great idea...
> Mind you, only 1.8%% of that is new growth.
None of it would be new growth. You don't grow demand when it drops.
> Savings on fuel for cars and airlines due to their lighter loads would top
> $5 billion,
Exxon would make less money, and less demand means less workers are
needed, so Exxon would terminate the employment of workers. Most of that
"savings" would be taken away due to the lost income of workers.
> Plus-sized clothing costs 10%% to 15%% more, so shoppers would save $10
> billion on shirts, pants and dresses.
Needing less cotton for each shirt means the garment workers need to spend
less time making each shirt, which means less workers are needed. Less
cotton per shirt means the cotton growers have less demand for cotton.
Again, most of that "savings" would be taken
> Cynthia Istook, an associate professor in textile apparel at North Carolina
> State University, says the economies of making fewer sizes would be
> tremendous. Clothing makers could then afford to offer more variety in hip
> and bust sizes,
A lot of women's "plus sized" clothing stores offer that already! They
would all go out of business though.
> Because 3,500 calories translates into a pound of fat, somewhere along the
> way, America's 227 million adults have eaten 16 trillion calories too many.
> That's 14 billion Big Mac meals, with fries and a soda. Eliminate those and
> you wipe out $81 billion, or McDonald's past four years of sales.
And then where would teenagers get their first job? More "savings" thrown
out the window.
Mind you, I'm not even talking about the lost income due to the stock
market. What would McDonald's share holders do? That's right, dump the
stock.
> If Americans were slim and maintained their weight by eating 150 fewer
> calories a day (half a slice of pizza), that could snip roughly 6.5%%, or
> $20 billion a year, off U.S. farmers' sales (assuming no extra exports).
Really shafting US farmers, who wouldn't need to hire as much farm help,
thus negating more "savings" again.
> The medical costs of obesity-related problems such as diabetes, stroke and
> heart disease run near $140 billion, or more than 6%% of all health-care
> costs.
Doctors, hospitals, drug companies... More workers out of jobs.
> Productivity in the workplace would jump as people took fewer sick days and
> spent less time at work feeling unwell.
I have taken about 3 or 4 sick says since I started with my current job
back in 2004, and currently have 234.17 hours on the books for vacation.
> What to do with all that money?
Give most of it back in the form of unemployed workers having no money to
spend, except for what they get in unemployment benefits.
> Some even argue that global warming would slow a mite,
> as consumption of gas, energy, fertilizer and methane-producing cattle
> decreased.
And some scientists STILL INSIST that global warming is a 100%% natural
cycle. They just aren't given press coverage.
