Media brands values are in such decline

From Jobless contend with weight gain as they search for work by Michael S. Rosenwald,

An interestingly constructed and quite confused article. It is not really reporting news. It seems to want to make a case that 1) Unemployment causes obesity, 2) Obesity reduces employment opportunities, and 3)Something ought to be done about it by the government.

Federal law does not protect overweight people from discrimination in the workplace, and studies involving workers in human resources show that it’s a daily reality. A 2012 study in the journal BMC Public Health “found a pronounced stigmatization of obese individuals, especially of women, by HR professionals.”

The two predicate statements undoubtedly have some validity. But like many social issues, it appears immensely complex and ambiguous. From the evidence in the article, one could as easily make the case that obesity causes unemployment as the other way around.

While the article sporadically has references to studies to bolster particular points, it relys overall primarily on anecdotes and human interest stories.

Like a lot of conversations and reporting these days, there is feel good talk, there is logical but not empirically documented suppositions, there are claims of this being a problem without support, there are calls for people to be educated and government policies to be improved. And at the end you are left with the feeling: Is that all there is?

Is this really a problem? Probably but its hard to tell. They are using a particular county in Maryland to illustrate their case.

The report found that 72 percent of county residents were overweight or obese, compared with a national average of 63 percent. Its top recommendation: fight obesity.

But if the baseline is 63% of the population is already obese, it is unlikely that an obesity rate of 72% is going to make all that much more of a difference. Perhaps, but it isn't immediately obvious.

They want people to be better informed about food and eating choices but it seems from the quoted individuals that they are already aware that they ought to be eating better. It doesn't seem to be an issue of access or knowledge or awareness. Personal decision-making seems at the core of the issue.

“When you’re defeated, you get depressed,” he said. “When you get depressed, most people have a vice. They either smoke or they eat, whatever.” He ate.

“Anything,” he said. “Junk food. It didn’t matter.”

There was a gym in the community where he lives, but Farrell didn’t use it.

“You can go to the gym, but you just don’t feel like it,” he said. “You don’t feel like doing anything.”

[snip]

She said that she had gained way too much weight after losing her warehouse job.

She copes this way: “I just want to eat and eat all day. It makes you feel better.”

The reporter raises but does not address a couple of challenging trade-offs that are on the face of it reasonable but also consequential in a negative fashion.

Job training groups push trucking, a booming industry always hiring drivers, as a career option for blue-collar workers displaced by automation or jobs moving overseas.

But there are federal health requirements that the obese can’t meet.

It is not unreasonable for the government to have these regulations (as long there is some reasonable empirical relationship between the health requirements and desired policy outcomes such as reduced accident rates or something like that.)

Likewise businesses have to take in to account anticipated impacts on their customer and financial goals (just as the federal government does with public safety) and those decisions can also be negatively consequential.

By the end we can, from the article, only conclude that obesity might be an issue with regard to employment opportunities and that it would be nice if it weren't.

Stepping away from the article and providing context (of which the reporter ought to have been aware: 1) We do not understand the root causes of the obesity epidemic, 2) we don't know for certain that it is a material health issue, 3) we don't understand the linkages between nutrition and weight gain, 4) we don't understand the linkages between individual decision-making and obesity, 5) we have no existing programs that are demonstrably successful helping people to lose and sustain weight loss, 6) we don't understand whether there is a connection between obesity and worker productivity, 7) we don't understand the magnitude of the impact, if any, between business goals of employing low cost high productivity workers and an obese workforce, 8) we don't understand the magnitude of the trade-off decisions between health, safety, and productivity particularly when it comes to an obese workforce, 9) despite initial claims to the contrary, recent research has indicated that food access and exercise acces are not inhibiting factors affecting obesity and 10) there is a well documented inverse relationship between working/income and obesity, i.e. those that work the most hours and earn the most are also the least likely to be obese contra the implication of the reporters argument.

With all these reasonably well established caveats, what is Rosenwald reporting? Doesn't appear that there is a news event. It is clear that there is a lot of terra incognita surrounding obesity. What this reads like is a dressed up PR on the part of some advocacy group to which, consequently, the Washington Post is lending its name and brand. Given that that happens so much these days, it is understandable why Media brands values are in such decline.