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...

[Joey Joe Joe Jr. Shabadoo]

There's more to it than just fast food. Canned food is usually thoroughly cooked and heavily salted, making it less healthy, as well. An entire class lacks access to fresh produce.

[Beckoneko]

As for the obesity of low-income households in regards to food choices, yes, they eat in home more often, but you have to look at the quality of food in the supermarkets. My mom is a huge fan of the Veria channel that promotes holistic health and natural lifestyles. They had a program where a doctor was talking about high fructose corn syrup, and how the body cannot process it. It uses up the ATP (natural energy source that our body makes from real food) and uses that to convert the HFCS into fat and releases toxins as a biproduct. We cut it out of our diet, my whole family lost weight. My dad lost the most at 24 lbs by cutting that out along with soda. I only lost 4 lbs, but that isn't bad considering we still eat whatever we want and haven't increased our level of physical activity. Now we check labels on everything, and that stuff is used in most pre-made or processed products you get from the store these days. It is in salad dressing, bread, drinks, you name it. But it is America's third largest export, so the FDA won't touch it. Natural alternatives like fresh fruits and vegetables are much more expensive than the cheap processed foods at the grocery store, which means lower- income people are stuck with these. There is also the issue of sodium levels, msg (mono sodium glutamate which is actually only bad if you are allergic to it), hydrogenated oils, and other chemicals that are bad for you, and may cause cancer (benzene, also in shampoos and hygiene products) or birth defects ( I think its called phenylalanine, they show up in gum and usually have warning signs on the package). Food companies can save money by selling chemicals that resemble foodstuffs rather than real food, so they do. It is not just McDonalds that sacrifices the health of the consumer to make more money. Agribusiness does this as well when they genetically engineer food, or use unhealthy chemicals and hormones on animals to make them fatter, and more meaty. KFC is no longer allowed to call themselves Kentucky Fried Chicken because their chickens are so mutated, they can't legally call it chicken in the name.
We are so bombarded with chemicals and unnatural substances that we are overall less healthy than people were 30 years ago. And that is just what corporate America does to us through food, much less personal care items like soaps, lotions, shampoos, cosmetics, etc. I am actually surprised people haven't been mutating by now. It has been manifesting itself in birth defects, illnesses, and cancers though.

[danman]

phenylalanine is an essential amino acid. that is why people with phenylketonuria are screwed so much - they have to take it in sometimes, but too much will make them really sick.
as far as it interfaces with dead skin only (not internal use) the things in shampoos and other are harmless. i am pretty sure though pure benzene is not used as it evaporates quite easily

this seems to me like an uninformed crusade against processed foodstuffs and products

[Beckoneko]

Thanks for the correction, I couldn't remember the chemical name off the top of my head.

"Safety and health
Main article: benzene in soft drinks

In combination with ascorbic acid (vitamin C, E300), sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate may form benzene,[8] a known carcinogen. Heat, light and shelf life can affect the rate at which benzene is formed.

Professor Piper of the University of Sheffield claims that sodium benzoate by itself can damage and inactivate vital parts of DNA in a cell's mitochondria. Mitochondria consume oxygen to generate ATP, the body's energy currency. If they are damaged due to disease, the cell malfunctions and may enter apoptosis. There are many illnesses now tied to DNA damage, including Parkinson's and other neurodegenerative diseases, but above all, the aging process in general.[9][10][11][12][13]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_benzoate#Safety_and_health

Sorry, I don't have time to write a research paper for you and go find all the sources again.

And while skin is a barrier, it is not impenetrable. Otherwise we could touch things like mercury and not have to worry about poisoning as long as we don't stick it in our mouths or anything. And shampoo contacts the scalp and gets on your skin around the scalp, at least for me since i have long hair. And loofahs take off a lot of the dead skin cells at the top.

[danman]

Ugh, you can touch mercury, in fact you can even eat it with no chemical bad effects. (due to its density while being still a liquid you will shit yourself horribly though. It used to be a nasty (and thankfully rare) prank in technical schools in my country to put it into someone's tea/coffee

What is dangerous are the organic compounds containing Hg2 ion. Luckily those vapors form very slowly and in small quantities compared to the quantity of Hg(l)

As far as benzene goes , apparently every day we breathe in 10x the legal limit in soft drinks so the quantities there are negligible IMHO

[Sarah]

Thank you!
I read the OP in horror. While a little of it is true, what you are doing is taking facts and extrapolating way too much out of it. A lot of the things you said are untrue or exaggerated and frankly, uneducated rants against the food industry don't do much to help, and can in some cases hurt our case. Think the guy with the sign: "keep your guvmint hands outta my medicare"

[danman]

Awsome, finally somebody else who actually has an idea what is talking about!
The food industry has some bad traits, but what gets written in some places is just horrible - some have an opinion but next to 0 knowledge

[Ultimate Schnitzel]

My family owns a small business. Our employees are mostly paid minimum wage. In short, fuck you. Raising the minimum wage does not equal more money for everybody, eternal happiness, sunshine, koala bears, and rainbows for all. The money has to come from somewhere.

[sabelmouse]

you should take it from the big corporations and obcenly rich people.

[Ultimate Schnitzel]

That would be stealing.

[danman]

And? 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.
You consider right that a higher manager can make 100x the salary of a worker yet he works much less?
It is no shame if one robs a thief

[sabelmouse]

i never understand that people put up with this. they are so afraid of cummunism they'd rather be exploited or vote for the NSP