Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Should junk food be taxed?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do.
Yeah, I tend to agree, although I think localities should try different things since I could be wrong.
What excites me are local programs like French Peasant's community gardening and education, and some similar local things here, community education programs focused on cooking, health care, weight loss support, nutrition education, allowing SNAP to be used at farmer's market and to count extra (we have that here), and various community efforts to make nutrient-dense foods more available in places they are hard to get. I don't think that does much for the obesity rate overall, but I think it helps people who want to take advantage of them, and that's something.
For the same reason I'd hope doctors intervene and actually offer help/referrals to nutritionists, etc., vs. just saying "you are overweight/obese").
And for the same reason (even though I think most people ignore them) having good information on product labels and having calories available in chain restaurants (and others if they want to offer it) is great.I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers.
I think the farm subsidies are more complicated than this and probably are not the reason for lots of ultra processed foods or fast food, as you seem to think, but like I said before I am generally against subsidies. But I think it makes 0 difference to the obesity rate (and I similarly think that taxing junk food doesn't make a difference even if that were something we could figure out how to do, the definition being a problem).There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
Apples in season (and even out of season) are not expensive.
Meat being more expensive is not going to encourage healthier eating or reduce obesity, IMO.It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one.
I think you are exaggerating here with the "most"s, but yes I think social/cultural changes like these clearly play a role. The question is why they happened and if there's a way to change them.
Most people I know, especially parents and people in that age group (i.e., not younger 20-somethings) go out/order in occasionally, but not most meals, and do cook. The obesity rate is also much lower than average in the social groups I am talking about, and they do other things intended to focus on staying in shape (they eat vegetables more than what seems to be the US average and care about nutrition, exercise and walk a lot, encourage their children to participate in active play/sports, stuff like that). These people are also relatively well off (at least solidly middle class), pretty well educated, live in an urban or suburban area and consider the kinds of things I listed (as well as the idea that generally people should eat dinner as a family, stuff like that) to be basic cultural norms. I think these basic cultural norms--what I grew up with even though we were somewhat insecurely middle class at times--are not alive and well in other US cultural/social groups.
But you can't change culture from the outside.I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too.
Sure, but the funny thing is that I think the college-bound students (the kinds of people I was talking about above) would be the less likely to take such classes (that was the case at my school), as people need to take academic classes. And I don't get the sense that people not academically inclined remember a thing of what they learned in high school.
I also don't think the issue is a lack of knowledge, but not following through on the knowledge. Vegetables are a good example: everyone knows they are supposed to eat vegetables, however confused they may be on other aspects of nutrition, but according to studies/surveys most do not, or barely do.The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
This isn't going to happen, however.Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
We agree on this. I'd say that for the individual the solution is available (and simple, although it might be a struggle too), but societally there's little we can do.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
The inherent problem with government is lack of transparency and accountability. As long as career politicians are allowed to exist corruption will flourish. Government is ill suited for this role, which is why all socialist systems ultimately fail. People love being charitable - they abhor being forced to support a failing system. Centralized systems only work in small populations. Attempts to centralize large populations require authoritarian structures. Smart agile businesses work around this through decentralized structures, giving local structures the freedom of deciding which policies produce the best results.
Negative reinforcement has never been an effective behavioral modifier.
Education has been completely ineffective because we have centralized conflicting policies. We also have "leaders" who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
This would be far more effective and efficient to promote positive reinforcements - just as the business world has done. Maintain positive health metrics = tax credit/deduction.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
The inherent problem with government is lack of transparency and accountability. As long as career politicians are allowed to exist corruption will flourish. Government is ill suited for this role, which is why all socialist systems ultimately fail. People love being charitable - they abhor being forced to support a failing system. Centralized systems only work in small populations. Attempts to centralize large populations require authoritarian structures. Smart agile businesses work around this through decentralized structures, giving local structures the freedom of deciding which policies produce the best results.
Negative reinforcement has never been an effective behavioral modifier.
Education has been completely ineffective because we have centralized conflicting policies. We also have "leaders" who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
This would be far more effective and efficient to promote positive reinforcements - just as the business world has done. Maintain positive health metrics = tax credit/deduction.
So setting aside the broader debate over gov't philosophy, can you be more specific? Tax credit/deduction offered by whom (feds? state?) for what?
People seemed really down on insurance company/workplace wellness programs in some other thread, but isn't that basically similar to this idea, but not gov't-based?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »zachbonner_ wrote: »Defending your nation with a strong army is not a choice when you are the worlds premiere superpower.
Sure it is. You can choose not to be a superpower.
that's quite ridiculous and shortsighted
No, it's true. No country has to be a superpower.
I'm not saying we shouldn't (I also think our defense budget could be lower without us ceasing to be a superpower, and certainly that it does not need to be increased), but to claim it's necessary and so all defense spending is not a choice is inaccurate.
Countries still have to spend on defense if they aren't superpowers - at least if they want to remain a country and if they have anything at all that another country wants. Otherwise, they get annexed at best, overrun at worst.
When did I say we shouldn't spend anything on defense?
My point was that you cannot claim that the current level of defense spending is not a choice because we are a superpower. It is a choice -- it's not required even for us to be a superpower, and of course we don't need to be a superpower.
I'm not actually against us being a superpower, but it's a choice. (I do think we could cut defense spending some and should not increase it. But that's not the point, the point was more this idea that the current level of defense spending is unquestionable and untouchable and ever dollar is more important that pretty much every other possible expenditure.)
You didn't.
This particular side discussion started with the premise that defense taxes aren't a choice. Then there was a poor argument made that defense taxes aren't a choice because superpower. Then it got side-tracked to discussing that the amount of defense taxation is a choice (at least up to a point), but that is really neither here nor there since the thread is asking a 'yes/no and why' question on taxing junk food and not a 'how much and why' question.
I'm speaking to the original point that was never quite made but I think is at least kind of relevant to the thread.
Defense taxes aren't an option for an independent country that wants to remain so. Non-optional taxes do exist.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Most of those people are more than likely salaried so they get paid X amount if they work 20 hours or 60 hours,and that does not factor in 1099 people or sales people, etc, etc.
Yes, the government gets involved in private business and succeeds in over regulating and over taxing business. I own my own business and the amount of red tape that we have to go through to comply with department of labor and obamacare is ridiculous.
The only good idea to come out of France is pastries and cheese.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.
If my husband is checking work emails at home then he charges his time. He was just at out of state work training last week and the minute he stepped foot into the airport he was on the clock. With travel/class time he ended up with around 60 hours last week that will be on our next check.
eta: it looks like we're talking the difference between hourly wages vs salaried workers? Here salary positions are mostly management (or teachers etc).0 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.
If my husband is checking work emails at home then he's charging his time
He was just at out of state work training last week and the minute he stepped foot into the airport he was on the clock. With travel/class time he ended up with around 60 hours last week that will be on our next check.
It's awesome that he has that option. It's not something that is available at my company.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.
If my husband is checking work emails at home then he's charging his time He was just at out of state work training last week and the minute he stepped foot into the airport he was on the clock. With travel/class time he ended up with around 60 hours last week that will be on our next check.
It's awesome that he has that option. It's not something that is available at my company.
I am guessing he is not salaried/exempt employee...0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.
If my husband is checking work emails at home then he's charging his time He was just at out of state work training last week and the minute he stepped foot into the airport he was on the clock. With travel/class time he ended up with around 60 hours last week that will be on our next check.
It's awesome that he has that option. It's not something that is available at my company.
I am guessing he is not salaried/exempt employee...
Yeah, I should have been clearer -- the *non-exempt* employees at my company would have that option. Just the exempt ones wouldn't. Most people at my company with expectations around being available for on-call, checking emails on the weekends/evenings, etc are exempt, although there are some exceptions.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.
If my husband is checking work emails at home then he's charging his time He was just at out of state work training last week and the minute he stepped foot into the airport he was on the clock. With travel/class time he ended up with around 60 hours last week that will be on our next check.
It's awesome that he has that option. It's not something that is available at my company.
I am guessing he is not salaried/exempt employee...
Correct, he's hourly and not salaried. He's been offered management positions that are salaried, and on first glance they look better because they have a high-looking wage, but when you actually break down the hours involved, it's much better to be hourly + OT.0 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
There's not much the Gov can do. I've said all along we should stop spending taxes on farm subsidies which encourage the over production of things like corn, dairy and beef...because that's created the glut of HFCS, cheese and burgers. There's something wrong with our priorities for subsidies when a Snickers bar or a double cheeseburger is the same price as a couple apples.
It's interesting to me whether or not social shifts have contributed to obesity. The eating pattern has consistently been a trend away from homemade meals. Nowadays, most meals are either eaten out or ordered in or are things like TV dinners/frozen pizza. The homemade meal is rarer and rarer. Studies show homemade meals tend to be lower in calories. In addition, more and more people are eating in front of the TV, laptop, or phone....studies show that distracted eaters eat way more...like sharks at a feeding frenzy...they just mechanically eat until it's all gone. Many people don't even know how to cook or the first thing about nutrition with the reduction in practical home economics classes in schools and having been raised by parents who do not cook. Some people can cook, but don't know how to do it healthily...my MIL is one. I think a lot can be done in these areas...bring back cooking classes and nutrition in school....really bring it back..not a 3mo crash course, but offer it as a regular class you can take every year in HS. We have that in the UK..catering class...to the GCSE or BTEC level....the US could do it too. The Gov could better support working people so they have time to cook...the working week length keeps going up...who here works more than the 9-5, 40hr week? I bet it's 80% of you. I like how France has banned all out of hours and holiday emails..so that when you are off the clock or on vacation...you are not expected to monitor and respond to work emails or risk losing your job.
Obesity is a multicausal problem and there's all kinds factors contributing towards it.
why on earth would you want the government dictating to private business how they should run their companies and how many hours per week employees can work? The French is example is pretty hilarious given that their system makes it almost impossible for young people to find employment, because the ones that have employment do not want to retire/give them up. I will take the American economy over the French one any day of the week.
Just because another country isn't as good overall doesn't mean they never have good ideas now and then. Why would I want the Gov dictating to private business how they should run their companies? Fair Labour Standards Act....that's why. Go check it out...the Giv has a looong history of dictating to business on labour. And I'm not about limiting how many hours employees can work, not at all, I am about restricting unpaid hours of work that are expected of employees by companies...to me the out of hours emails is unpaid work. You're on an employment contract that says you do x hrs work for y pay. Any work beyond the x hrs should be compensated for and not snuck in via teleworking expectations.
Except for many people who are answering emails at home or working extra hours *aren't* on an employment contract that specifies "x hours for x pay." We're exempt employees, specifically exempt from OT regulations.
Not to say that there isn't room for improvement, but a contract that specifies hours is going to be rare for lots of white collar workers.
If my husband is checking work emails at home then he's charging his time He was just at out of state work training last week and the minute he stepped foot into the airport he was on the clock. With travel/class time he ended up with around 60 hours last week that will be on our next check.
It's awesome that he has that option. It's not something that is available at my company.
I am guessing he is not salaried/exempt employee...
Correct, he's hourly and not salaried. He's been offered management positions that are salaried, and on first glance they look better because they have a high-looking wage, but when you actually break down the hours involved, it's much better to be hourly + OT.
This is the reason I have turned down salary offers. Yeeeeah, I get an extra 10k per year, but you want me to work how many more hours for it? Thanks, I'll pass. Pay me for when I'm here, and don't expect me to come in an listen to silly *kitten* meetings on slow days just because I'm "getting paid to be here".1 -
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
So...why exactly does society bear this cost to begin with? This is anti-libertarian.
I agree it is anti libertarian. However, society bears the cost of cheap sugar through medicare, medicaid, and reduced earnings of people that get disease associated with over consumption of sugar. I would prefer a solution where the abusers pay for their own medical care, but we are never as a country going to be eliminating these programs.0 -
Tobacco is taxed. Alcohol is taxed. At least,they are in the uk. I guess the problem with "junk food "is,who would decide on the definition of what constitutes junk.0
-
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
So...why exactly does society bear this cost to begin with? This is anti-libertarian.
I agree it is anti libertarian. However, society bears the cost of cheap sugar through medicare, medicaid, and reduced earnings of people that get disease associated with over consumption of sugar. I would prefer a solution where the abusers pay for their own medical care, but we are never as a country going to be eliminating these programs.
except sugar is not causing disease...1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
The inherent problem with government is lack of transparency and accountability. As long as career politicians are allowed to exist corruption will flourish. Government is ill suited for this role, which is why all socialist systems ultimately fail. People love being charitable - they abhor being forced to support a failing system. Centralized systems only work in small populations. Attempts to centralize large populations require authoritarian structures. Smart agile businesses work around this through decentralized structures, giving local structures the freedom of deciding which policies produce the best results.
Negative reinforcement has never been an effective behavioral modifier.
Education has been completely ineffective because we have centralized conflicting policies. We also have "leaders" who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
This would be far more effective and efficient to promote positive reinforcements - just as the business world has done. Maintain positive health metrics = tax credit/deduction.
So setting aside the broader debate over gov't philosophy, can you be more specific? Tax credit/deduction offered by whom (feds? state?) for what?
People seemed really down on insurance company/workplace wellness programs in some other thread, but isn't that basically similar to this idea, but not gov't-based?
You get success in achievement based systems. It is an amazingly effective tool that motivates users into desired activities.
For healthcare this could be tracked via an app - form a simple risk management structure (many business models already exist with these platforms in the business realm). Each participant actively engages in proactive measures and rewarded through specific credits/deductions. Specifically - maintaining a healthy BMI would equate to a $2000 deduction. This would be managed (ideally) privately; however as government has inserted itself by force this would be managed by state to minimize corruption and maximize competition. Unhappy with your state's policy - you can vote with your feet and relocate.
I have long been a proponent of a two tiered system. One for those who embrace the benefits and risks of liberty and another for those who do not. Those who want the safety net of government can certainly enjoy this, but they pay into this just as one would in an insurance pool. Those who do not can opt out.0 -
I am normally a libertarian, but sugar is not any sort of essential nutrient and it is definitely addictive and abused which causes societal costs that we all bear. Alcohol and cigarettes are similar in that vane. I wouldn't be opposed to taxing sugar or HFCS.
So...why exactly does society bear this cost to begin with? This is anti-libertarian.
I agree it is anti libertarian. However, society bears the cost of cheap sugar through medicare, medicaid, and reduced earnings of people that get disease associated with over consumption of sugar. I would prefer a solution where the abusers pay for their own medical care, but we are never as a country going to be eliminating these programs.
There are no diseases associated with over-consumption of sugar... there are diseases that are associated with over-consumption of CALORIES in general, but not with sugar specifically.comptonelizabeth wrote: »Tobacco is taxed. Alcohol is taxed. At least,they are in the uk. I guess the problem with "junk food "is,who would decide on the definition of what constitutes junk.
This - bottom line - is the single biggest issue with trying to implement a tax of this nature.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »We went way off topic yesterday, which was as much my fault as anyone's, since I find the topic interesting (and understand that lots of people will have different opinions -- I used to post on usenet in the '90s, after all, and am not negative at all about internet libertarianism, even if I disagree).
Here, though, is I think Packerjohn's argument: whatever one thinks about what the gov't should do, it's likely that we will not get rid of Medicare, at least. Beyond that, it's probably generally a bad thing that the population is so obese, on average.
He submits that sugar/soda taxes could help and would at least raise money to help deal with the problem (similar to the argument for alcohol taxes, which exist).
I suspect that they will not, but think it makes sense for individual localities to experiment with them to see what the results are.
Others find all such taxes at any level bad, and are against "sin" taxes in general.
My question is if you think these taxes are not likely to work (like me), do you think there are other public policy things that should be tried (including non governmental community efforts?) or do you think obesity is not actually a problem or that it's not a public policy problem, but a purely individual one?
My feeling is that it is a public policy problem but one hard to solve. I think education is good (but doesn't seem to have worked so far), making available healthy food options (i.e., addressing food deserts, promoting gardening and community gardens) is great, but again likely has a small effect, promoting community cooking classes, same, medical intervention I think is important and could be done more/better than it is, calorie posting/labels seem already to be done. Anyway, I think it's an interesting topic.
The inherent problem with government is lack of transparency and accountability. As long as career politicians are allowed to exist corruption will flourish. Government is ill suited for this role, which is why all socialist systems ultimately fail. People love being charitable - they abhor being forced to support a failing system. Centralized systems only work in small populations. Attempts to centralize large populations require authoritarian structures. Smart agile businesses work around this through decentralized structures, giving local structures the freedom of deciding which policies produce the best results.
Negative reinforcement has never been an effective behavioral modifier.
Education has been completely ineffective because we have centralized conflicting policies. We also have "leaders" who talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
This would be far more effective and efficient to promote positive reinforcements - just as the business world has done. Maintain positive health metrics = tax credit/deduction.
So setting aside the broader debate over gov't philosophy, can you be more specific? Tax credit/deduction offered by whom (feds? state?) for what?
People seemed really down on insurance company/workplace wellness programs in some other thread, but isn't that basically similar to this idea, but not gov't-based?
You get success in achievement based systems. It is an amazingly effective tool that motivates users into desired activities.
For healthcare this could be tracked via an app - form a simple risk management structure (many business models already exist with these platforms in the business realm). Each participant actively engages in proactive measures and rewarded through specific credits/deductions. Specifically - maintaining a healthy BMI would equate to a $2000 deduction. This would be managed (ideally) privately; however as government has inserted itself by force this would be managed by state to minimize corruption and maximize competition. Unhappy with your state's policy - you can vote with your feet and relocate.
I have long been a proponent of a two tiered system. One for those who embrace the benefits and risks of liberty and another for those who do not. Those who want the safety net of government can certainly enjoy this, but they pay into this just as one would in an insurance pool. Those who do not can opt out.
How would you keep people from switching when they ran into issues later in life, like a child with a disability or a chronic disease developing? Would people decide which group they want to be in early in life and be prohibited from switching from the non-safety net group to the safety net group?
Without some mechanism to keep people from switching, wouldn't you have relatively few people in the safety net group unless they actually planned to draw benefits?1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions