Dutch McDo's 'wrong' to fire worker over cheese slice...
in [Europe]
|
From: Earl Evleth on 31 Jan 2010 03:20 On 30/01/10 15:56, in article 4B6448B9.1EF8426F(a)yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> I had a friend whose knees gave out. >> > While this is certainly possible, there are new views that this is > in fact indicative of problems that modern man has with running, > not problems with humans running in general. As one gets older various problems show up. Joint areas start going, most people have a back problem, arthritic conditions develop. Orthopedics is big with geriatrics. My brother had both hips sockets replaced, one nephew in his 60s just had a knee replaced. Overweight elderly have joints problems. >> As somebody said once, "when I get the urge to exercise, I lie >> down until it goes away" >> > It's the sort of thing that Grocho Marx would say, isn't it? > No, I heard it from a British actor (Robert Morley who had a soft and pudgy look to him anyway but died in his 80s). One internet citation is attributed to Robert M. Hutchins, former President of the University of Chicago. He died at 78 (born in 1899) which is a bit above the average of his era. I identify you with Morley since he was "particularly effective when cast as a pompous windbag " >> > Filthy buses, smog filled air, few trees, concrete as far as the > eye can see, that's the city. People who live in the suburbs might > have plenty of clean air, birds, trees, grass, wild animals > wandering about, that sort of thing. And don't exercise. City people are less fat that the suburban population. But that is class dependent. The negative part of urban existence is the concentration of the poor, who generally have poorer health, even in a system which has socialized medicine. In the US the difference is severe and shown especially in the infant mortality rates.
From: Earl Evleth on 31 Jan 2010 03:54 On 30/01/10 15:57, in article 4B6448F6.D5E60329(a)yahoo.co.uk, "Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously)" <tribuyltinafpant(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Food tends to be the cheapest thing going. In industrial societies. In 3rd world countries in which the per capital income of the lowest elements of the society are less than $2/day, food is the major "budget" item.
From: Mxsmanic on 31 Jan 2010 03:55 Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes: > You've said that. I still don't see the inequality. One party eats out at a restaurant ten times a month instead of eleven, and the other party ends up living on a sidewalk. Does that seem like equality to you? > If the worker goes to another job, is that relevant? No, unless the next job is guaranteed by the previous employer. > The worker has the set of total jobs available. No, the worker has only an extremely small number of jobs available, or none. > If you allow him access to those but refuse > to allow an employer to fire (or lay off or let go) someone, then > it would seem the inequality is the other way. Employers are free to fire. Employees are free to strike. > It's "collective" bargaining. This means that the quality and > effort one person puts in is paid not on his merit but on the > average merit of the group. For unskilled occupations, this is a net win for the employee. > I think I called that "extortion". No more so than threatening to fire an employee if he doesn't behave in a certain way. > I don't see how that's equal. It forces employers to reflect at least as much upon firing someone as employees reflect upon any decision to resign.
From: Mxsmanic on 31 Jan 2010 03:58 Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7554293.stm > #begin quote > The work tracked 500 older runners for more than 20 years, > comparing them to a similar group of non-runners. All were in their > 50s at the start of the study. > > Nineteen years into the study, 34% of the non-runners had died > compared to only 15% of the runners. > > Both groups became more disabled with age, but for the runners the > onset of disability started later - an average of 16 years later. > > The health gap between the runners and non-runners continued to > widen even as the subjects entered their ninth decade of life. > > If you had to pick one thing to make people healthier as they age, > it would be aerobic exercise > Lead author Professor James Fries > > Running not only appeared to slow the rate of heart and artery > related deaths, but was also associated with fewer early deaths > from cancer, neurological disease, infections and other causes. > > And there was no evidence that runners were more likely to suffer > osteoarthritis or need total knee replacements than non-runners - > something scientists have feared. > #end quote And they didn't bother to control for hundreds of other variables. Correlation is not causation. > But: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8483456.stm > #begin quote > Moderately overweight elderly people may live longer than those of > normal weight, an Australian study suggests. > > But being very overweight or being underweight shortened lives. > ... > The team tracked the number of deaths over 10 years among > volunteers who were aged 70 - 75 at the start of the study. > > It found that those with a BMI which classed them as overweight not > only had the lowest overall risk of dying, they also had the lowest > risk of dying from specific diseases: cardiovascular disease, > cancer and chronic respiratory disease. > #end quote That's what happens when you don't control for other variables, which is pretty much impossible for studies on human beings because of ethical concerns. It's hard to exercise and stay fat at the same time, and it's even harder to understand how they could both be simultaneously beneficial.
From: Mxsmanic on 31 Jan 2010 04:03
Bill Bonde {Colourless green ideas don't sleep furiously) writes: > But you don't need to eat a lot of steak. If you're poor, you don't eat any. Protein in general is expensive. Carbohydrates are cheap. > No one is forcing them to eat a lot of that. They have to eat something, and it has to be cheap and quick to eat. > Cooking a balanced meal is probably going to take twenty minutes > out of your TV time. It takes far more than twenty minutes to cook a proper balanced meal. And having time to cook doesn't mean that one has the money for the proper ingredients. There are other factors at work, too. Poor people have more pressing things to worry about than proper nutrition. |