6 ms·

Was it the alcohol that killed the study subjects, or the carbs, or the fats, or the sugar, or the skewered red meats, or the caffeine, or the insanely aggressi

by eecc 9y ago

Was it the alcohol that killed the study subjects, or the carbs, or the fats, or the sugar, or the skewered red meats, or the caffeine, or the insanely aggressive competition at work and in life. To me it all seems a Calvinistic effort to lay the blame of anything at peoples’ feet, “poor life choices” and taking treatments off insurance coverage. Hey, on the tune of the conspiracists blaming “big alcohol”, I wonder if all these “x kills you” are also sponsored by “big insurance”.

willbw 9y ago
You realise that insurance is all about calculating the statistical incidence of events right? They don't make life insurance more expensive for alcoholics and smokers because they are evil but because they are more likely to pay out a claim earlier.
- skookumchuck 9y ago
  I am bemused by companies that allegedly pay men more because they are men. Companies pay as little as they can to everyone.
  - willbw 9y ago
    I'm guessing this is supposed to be a sarcastic rebuttal to my point but I'm not entirely sure.
  - klmr 9y ago
    Assuming you’re actually serious: Companies don’t pay men more, they pay women less — because they pay everyone as little as they can: it’s well established that women systematically under-estimate their own value, compared to equally-qualified men (and they’re also underestimated by their peers). This has a huge impact on salary negotiations: Women tend to negotiate less, and if they negotiate at all, they tend to ask for less than their male peers. And to get this out of the way: Most companies nowadays don’t do this intentionally. It just happens. The outcome is the same though.
    - skookumchuck 9y ago
      If women are being paid less for the same contribution, then there is an enormous market opportunity for women to start companies, hire away those women by offering better pay, and undercut the male run companies. I.e. if women are paid 80% of men for equal work, the women run company can offer 90%, and have labor costs 10% below the other company. This should translate to offering their product/service at 5% less, which is a huge deal.
      - klmr 9y ago
        If you’re refusing to hire men this would be illegal. If you hire men but pay them only 90% of their market value, then your company will be known as not paying competitive salaries and won’t attract candidates (not just men — any job applicants). But the situation is mostly hypothetical anyway because the real pay gap between men and women in the same position with same qualification is much smaller in junior positions (they only become bigger in senior positions, and, yes, companies actively try to fill these with women; which is hard because there are fewer applicants). In junior positions, the gap is too small to build a company on this business model. That said, of course some companies predominantly hire women to cut personnel cost and consequently lower product prices. Most sweatshops are based on this premise.
        carlmr 9y ago
        >If you’re refusing to hire men this would be illegal. If you hire men but pay them only 90% of their market value, then your company will be known as not paying competitive salaries and won’t attract candidates (not just men — any job applicants). You can just make your company seem unattractive to men. I once talked to a recruiting company that boasted that they were a company founded and run by women. This already seemed like a huge red flag to me as a man that I might not want to work with them.
        krageon 9y ago
        Why was that a huge red flag to you?
- eecc 9y ago
  Well I'm paying extra life insurance on my mortgage because I used to smoke. Ok fine, I quit, good riddance. But a paranoid conspirationist would argue that these studies help these mandatory policies as well as providing wriggle-room for health insurances to get off the hook or impose higher premiums for anything that's remotely "risky behavior" - which at this stage might be anything...
raverbashing 9y ago
"Hey, why don't you have a big glass of (overly processed and HFCS added) Orange Juice, that's better than a glass of wine, right? RIGHT?"
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
  Wine is "processed" and many styles of wine have sugar (and other additives) added...
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    I don't think most wine has oxygen removed and "natural" flavours added back. And yes, you don't want to be drinking wine that has added sugars. Preservatives might be harder to avoid though.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    If your red or white wine has sugar added, you need to find a better place to shop. In fact the only wines I know of with added sugar are some types of sparkling wine, that's all. Which ones were you referring to?
- klmr 9y ago
  As an aside: > (overly processed and HFCS added) Orange Juice In Europe and the US this can’t be sold as “fruit juice”. The regulations are as strict as they are clear: “juice” can’t have sugar or HFCS additives, it must be 100% fruit, and its processing doesn’t affect its health benefit. That said, fruit juice still contains boatloads of sugar and no fibres (and thus creates no feeling of being sated) and is therefore pretty unhealthy.
  - raverbashing 9y ago
    Thanks for clarifying.

by eecc 9y ago

willbw 9y ago

You realise that insurance is all about calculating the statistical incidence of events right? They don't make life insurance more expensive for alcoholics and smokers because they are evil but because they are more likely to pay out a claim earlier.

skookumchuck 9y ago
I am bemused by companies that allegedly pay men more because they are men. Companies pay as little as they can to everyone.
- willbw 9y ago
  I'm guessing this is supposed to be a sarcastic rebuttal to my point but I'm not entirely sure.
- klmr 9y ago
  Assuming you’re actually serious: Companies don’t pay men more, they pay women less — because they pay everyone as little as they can: it’s well established that women systematically under-estimate their own value, compared to equally-qualified men (and they’re also underestimated by their peers). This has a huge impact on salary negotiations: Women tend to negotiate less, and if they negotiate at all, they tend to ask for less than their male peers. And to get this out of the way: Most companies nowadays don’t do this intentionally. It just happens. The outcome is the same though.
  - skookumchuck 9y ago
    If women are being paid less for the same contribution, then there is an enormous market opportunity for women to start companies, hire away those women by offering better pay, and undercut the male run companies. I.e. if women are paid 80% of men for equal work, the women run company can offer 90%, and have labor costs 10% below the other company. This should translate to offering their product/service at 5% less, which is a huge deal.
    - klmr 9y ago
      If you’re refusing to hire men this would be illegal. If you hire men but pay them only 90% of their market value, then your company will be known as not paying competitive salaries and won’t attract candidates (not just men — any job applicants). But the situation is mostly hypothetical anyway because the real pay gap between men and women in the same position with same qualification is much smaller in junior positions (they only become bigger in senior positions, and, yes, companies actively try to fill these with women; which is hard because there are fewer applicants). In junior positions, the gap is too small to build a company on this business model. That said, of course some companies predominantly hire women to cut personnel cost and consequently lower product prices. Most sweatshops are based on this premise.
      - carlmr 9y ago
        >If you’re refusing to hire men this would be illegal. If you hire men but pay them only 90% of their market value, then your company will be known as not paying competitive salaries and won’t attract candidates (not just men — any job applicants). You can just make your company seem unattractive to men. I once talked to a recruiting company that boasted that they were a company founded and run by women. This already seemed like a huge red flag to me as a man that I might not want to work with them.
        krageon 9y ago
        Why was that a huge red flag to you?
eecc 9y ago
Well I'm paying extra life insurance on my mortgage because I used to smoke. Ok fine, I quit, good riddance. But a paranoid conspirationist would argue that these studies help these mandatory policies as well as providing wriggle-room for health insurances to get off the hook or impose higher premiums for anything that's remotely "risky behavior" - which at this stage might be anything...

raverbashing 9y ago

"Hey, why don't you have a big glass of (overly processed and HFCS added) Orange Juice, that's better than a glass of wine, right? RIGHT?"

SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
Wine is "processed" and many styles of wine have sugar (and other additives) added...
- raverbashing 9y ago
  I don't think most wine has oxygen removed and "natural" flavours added back. And yes, you don't want to be drinking wine that has added sugars. Preservatives might be harder to avoid though.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  If your red or white wine has sugar added, you need to find a better place to shop. In fact the only wines I know of with added sugar are some types of sparkling wine, that's all. Which ones were you referring to?
klmr 9y ago
As an aside: > (overly processed and HFCS added) Orange Juice In Europe and the US this can’t be sold as “fruit juice”. The regulations are as strict as they are clear: “juice” can’t have sugar or HFCS additives, it must be 100% fruit, and its processing doesn’t affect its health benefit. That said, fruit juice still contains boatloads of sugar and no fibres (and thus creates no feeling of being sated) and is therefore pretty unhealthy.
- raverbashing 9y ago
  Thanks for clarifying.