Sugar is the new "Devil"

MityMax96

interesting read:
http://jamesdelingpole.com/2014/08/britain-is-the-fattest-country-in-europe-heres-the-real-reason-why/

Britain’s “obesity epidemic” is mainly caused by the fact that its population are lazy slobs and not because they eat too much, a shock new study called The Fat Lie has found.

The only reason the study - produced by Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) – is shocking is because it contradicts one of the great received ideas of our politically correct times: that fatties are the hapless victims of the rapacious and bullying food and drink industry which pressures them into eating and drinking far too much fat and sugar.

What Snowdon’s research clearly shows that this claim is nonsense. Yes, it is indeed true that British people are getting porkier. Since 2002 the average body weight of English adults has increased by two kilograms, contributing to Britain’s unenviable status as the fattest country in Europe.

But what is rarely mentioned by health campaigners is that this rise in obesity over three decades has coincided with a steady fall in average sugar and fat consumption.

The study referenced:
https://gallery.mailchimp.com/708e119fa74cd33e6a28f949a/files/Briefing_The_Fat_Lie.pdf

Meerataila

People want to work and have nice things

Are you sure about that?

Can you say it with 100% certainty that people want to work and have nice things because I have known plenty of people who lost jobs and sat back collecting unemployment -- and kept getting it extended when it ran out -- because they made more collecting than they did if they got another job. There are plenty of people who are capable of getting a job but they choose to sit back and stay on welfare because it's easier to hold your hand out and get money than it is to get off your butt and get a job.

I suppose I should have said 'most people'. I defy you to make the argument that we'll have less people working hard for long hours at dirty and dangerous jobs if they're actually paid well for those jobs.

The reason many choose welfare (aside from the fact that outsourcing has made it so we don't have enough jobs) is because working doesn't lift many out of poverty at all, so why work if you aren't getting anywhere for it?

Let me ask you a question. I work in 911 here in NYC. I've had days, where in one day I responded to a guy stabbed 16 times who we didn't let die, a guy shot in the leg, a drunk who's friend hit him in the head with a beer bottle and cut hit artery and a young boy playing football who broke his tibula in half, how much doe you think my job is worth doing? I wake up at 430am to go to work. Snowing a foot, my office doesn't close, because my office is the street, people will still need us.

How much should I demand before I accept going to work?

One thing I can guarantee to is i don't make anywhere near what I'm worth. What I deserve, for the role I play. Have you ever know what it's like to actually have someone's life in your hands? Like really, live or die if you get flustered?

Meerata,

Bumping my question because I'd like to hear what you think.

You would be one of the richest people in America under Participatory Economics.

Your job is dangerous, dirty, and unpleasant. What stumps me (because I'm just learning about parecon and it's an evolving idea anyway) is how your work would be divided or whether it would be.

In Parecon, %80 of work is skilled work, %20 is grunt work, and everyone must do that mix of both. So if I were a professor %80 of the time (a low paying job under Parecon) %20 of the time I might be responsible for cleaning the university toilets (higher paying but not as high as your job, because it's not dangerous, just gross).

But you are already working a mix of dirty grunt work and skilled work, so why have you switch your roles? Although you could do %20 training of other people and/or %20 of time in classes getting even more skilled, I guess. That would make sense even though it's a reversal of the 80/20.

Edit: I realize I misread this. I claim sun blindness (I just came in from the pool). I thought you were an EMT/first responder. A dispatcher wouldn't be quite as well paid, but still, the hours sound like they suck and the job sounds more onerous than professor (I personally think stress is a killer and stressful jobs should pay quite well). Now the people you send out, they'd be making big bucks, due to the danger.

I'm sorry EXCUSE ME.....where did you get that I was a dispatcher? I am a first responder. In NYC don't run into fires because that's why we have the Fire Department. I'm not even sure where you even got the inclination that I was a dispatcher.

You have a heart attack, you cut your hand off, your mother is dying, you dial 911, I show up. You rely on me.

Now answer the question without all the mumbo jumbo. You said if people got paid what they felt they deserved they would be willing to work, so how much is my job worth in your opinion. What is the minimum I should hold out for before I go to work now. Not in a fantasy world. Today 2014.

First responder? Yep, you'd be one of the richest in society. I know how dangerous and unpleasant that work is, as does everyone with a lick of common sense.

Your opinion on the onerousness of your own work can't be the sole deciding factor, or every bean counter in every air conditioned office in the country would wail about how difficult and dirty her work is, of course. But as far as my understanding of Participatory Economics goes (and I'm still learning about it and it's evolving anyway) a hard working First Responder would be extremely well compensated, and should be.