How the 40 year drop in the minimum wage helped cause obesity

[sabelmouse]

I have written about the link between wages and obesity before—with wages dropping since the 60s and healthy food prices always going up, people eat more unhealthy food. But now two economists have drilled down into these issues and claim to have found a specific link between a drop in the minimum wage and obesity:

Growing consumption of increasingly less expensive food, and especially “fast food”, has been cited as a potential cause of increasing rate of obesity in the United States over the past several decades. Because the real minimum wage in the United States has declined by as much as half over 1968-2007 and because minimum wage labor is a major contributor to the cost of food away from home we hypothesized that changes in the minimum wage would be associated with changes in bodyweight over this period. To examine this, we use data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System from 1984-2006 to test whether variation in the real minimum wage was associated with changes in body mass index (BMI). We also examine whether this association varied by gender, education, and income, and used quantile regression to test whether the association varied over the BMI distribution. We also estimate the fraction of the increase in BMI since 1970 attributable to minimum wage declines. We find that a $1 decrease in the real minimum wage was associated with a 0.06 increase in BMI. This relationship was significant across gender and income groups and largest among the highest percentiles of the BMI distribution. Real minimum wage decreases can explain 10 percent of the change in BMI since 1970.

Hamburger.Photo courtesy Vanessa Pike-Russell via Flickr Fast food companies have a long history of fighting things like unionization drives and minimum wage increases—indeed, they are often leading the charge. It’s clearly been good for their bottom lines and now this study shows how it’s been bad for our waistlines. The study authors focused on food eaten outside the home since labor costs are a significant component of total costs for fast food (unlike for processed foods) and such food has been a significant source of additional calories in our diets.

Anyway, one interesting component of the study was that the BMI effect regarding the minimum wage were more pronounced among high income earners rather than among low income earners. The study’s authors speculate that this is because low income earners don’t eat nearly as much food outside the home. The authors also found something interesting in that regard:

[E]ven though lower income persons are more likely than higher income persons to be obese, obesity has increased most among higher income persons in recent years, as might be expected if changes in the price of food away from home were driving increases in obesity.

In other words, the more you make, the more calories you’re getting from fast food, which has in turn gotten cheaper thanks to a falling real minimum wage which has thus caused you to eat even more fast food. Your vicious circle is McDonald’s virtuous one.

Keep in mind, the minimum wage effect is relatively small, only 10 percent of the overall increase in obesity since 1970. Unfortunately, the authors also point out that simply raising the minimum wage can’t necessarily be considered an obesity “cure” since other productivity improvements among fast food companies, especially in recent years, may dilute the minimum wage’s impact going forward.

Still, it’s worth marveling at the fact that the minimum wage was—measured in 2007 dollars—$9.15 in 1968 and dropped to around $5.80 in 2007, so perhaps a few more raises are in order. If you’re wondering why a living wage went the way of the Princess Phone, just ask McDonald’s.

http://www.grist.org/article/how-the-40-year-drop-in-the-minimum-wa...

[danman]

Well, i vote for them since in my country, since the breakdown of eastern block life is not that nice. Sure, i was able to get to university to England, but i was lucky and one cannot get a good education in my country anymore, Anyway the good people could get to the USSR's universities.
Also it is no use that shops are full and there are no queues as people cannot afford most of the stuff. The quality of just about everything is worse as well.
Before it was real easy for young people to get housing - some of the state companies, you just signed a contract for x years and they gave you a flat. The state also did everything to support young families, like no interest loans, and the fact that you had a sure job meant that you could take it with no risk.
Constitution guaranteed a right to work, so you had a job. The govt. welfare was really generous but was not abused since there was a law against parasitism (not possible in capitalism since you have an army of unemployed)
Criminal system was much better with crime actually being prosecuted , not like now.
There was not so much youth deliquents as the state actually cared what the young are doing, with the Socialist youth union and army organising clubs (one well known software company in the 90s Software602 arisen from the 602th group of Svazarm that were computer interestees used the computers there to learn)
And countless other things.
Most of my family is doing worse than before. As my grandfather put it , then it was bad, now it is worse,

[Kenny]

Stealing is what the corporations do every day, taking value that workers produce and paying them only a "market price" for their labor which is substantially smaller than what they produce.

No one is forcing the workers to work for that particular company. And nothing is stopping the workers from unionizing and getting better wages.

[Decepticon]

Other than any attempts at unionization meaning being fired, and most companies offering very similar wages, anyway.

[Ultimate Schnitzel]

That's a paradox. It's precisely because we don't steal that we can call the obscenely rich "thieves," and that difference is what makes you feel justified in hypothetically stealing from them. But, if we do copy them and become thieves with the standpoint that we are right and they are wrong, we would be hypocrites and actually have no right to take anything of theirs either.

[sabelmouse]

it's capitalism, isn't it, that allowes one person to amass millions while the slaves barely get by and a few in between do ok.

of course a lot of western wealth is achieved by exploiting other countries as well. be it colonialism, slavery or globalisation.

[Ultimate Schnitzel]

I don't see what that has to do with my post =_=

[danman]

No, because if you stole from them, it would be just making a wrong state right.

Hypocrisy would be if you behaved [b] like [/b] them

With your logic it would be wrong to fine a thief

[Ultimate Schnitzel]

No, because if you stole from them, it would be just making a wrong state right.

Before you steal from them, it could be viewed as making a wrong state right. Afterwards, it's only mutual thieving (because I really don't think "they started it" is an appropriate excuse).


Hypocrisy would be if you behaved [b] like [/b] them

Isn't that what you're saying we should do?? To steal, like they are?


With your logic it would be wrong to fine a thief

No, because a fine is sentenced with due process of the law, not on vengeful whims. Ever heard of 'two wrongs don't make a right?'

[danman]

because I really don't think "they started it" is an appropriate excuse

I do - if you steal their illegitimate property and redistribute it to the rightful owners (workers) it is just the same as if you stole something from me and took it back

Isn't that what you're saying we should do?? To steal, like they are?
Noi, i am saying to 'steal' FROM them, while they are taking property of working people who produce value.


No, because a fine is sentenced with due process of the law, not on vengeful whims. Ever heard of 'two wrongs don't make a right?'


Well i could imagine a revolutionary tribunal doing some work on them, and taking their property to public use

[Ultimate Schnitzel]

I do - if you steal their illegitimate property and redistribute it to the rightful owners (workers) it is just the same as if you stole something from me and took it back

By what criteria do you label something "illegitimate" property? From what you've said so far, by stealing you would mean taking advantage of the capitalist system to (legally) obtain wealth at others' expense. Isn't that how most people go about making money? Every dollar you have is one that someone else doesn't.


Noi, i am saying to 'steal' FROM them, while they are taking property of working people who produce value.

Taking property of working people = stealing FROM them. They are stealing from us, and therefore, to steal from them would be to steal like them.


Well i could imagine a revolutionary tribunal doing some work on them, and taking their property to public use

So... if you have too much money (ignoring any illegitimacy claims, see above), it's taken from you and distributed to the public. Lenin would be proud.

[danman]

I do - if you steal their illegitimate property and redistribute it to the rightful owners (workers) it is just the same as if you stole something from me and took it back


Well , under the fascist system, arization of jewish property was legal too.
And the difference is that the capitalist exploits the fact he has production means and others do not. Therefore he can pay them less than they deserve.


Taking property of working people = stealing FROM them. They are stealing from us, and therefore, to steal from them would be to steal like them.

Not only Lenin, but most class-conscious people who see how they are exploited by those who are rich.
Lenin is an excellent example as in imperial russia 95% of people were poor as dirt and exploited while the factory owners and junkers were among the richest and more powerful in the world

No, to steal like them would be to exploit those they exploit.
To steal from them ie from thieves is nothing wrong.


So... if you have too much money (ignoring any illegitimacy claims, see above), it's taken from you and distributed to the public. Lenin would be proud.

[Ultimate Schnitzel]

I... have no idea what you're trying to say.