> When companies like Google see their healthcare costs drop by $12,000 per employee annually and productivity increase by 25%, we observe a restructuring of corporate America that makes remote work a minor adjustment.
In my entire office, there's one overweight person that I know. Out of thousands of employees. There could be more, and other cities might be different, but you get the idea.
The author intentionally or mistakenly applies some numbers to whole populations.
Keep chaining impacts while eliminating small coefficients, your end result will be off by more than a few orders of magnitude.
EDIT: I need to be more clear about my point: My BigTech office does not represent my country stats: Canada has a 26% obesity and 36% overweight adult population. Just taking those numbers, applying them to all populations is wrong.
The analysis is wrong in other subtle but important ways as well. A 25% increase in performance of an allegedly low performing group of a company would not increase the overall company's efficency as much.
40% of Americans are obese and way more are merely overweight. Either your office is small, a huge fluke, weirdly selected or you're not observant enough.
6th option: They are overweight, but do not know, so they don't recognize what overweight looks like. But also, it's pretty easy to not look overweight if you're not obese. 30 pounds can be as little as a few waist sizes. I can gain and lose 15 pounds without looking like I changed at all.
Well, here in boulder, there are a lot of tech workers, and it is one of the thinnest cities in one of the thinnest states. Having said that, Colorado in 2025 despite being one of the thinnest states is still fatter than the fattest state in 1990.
Homer Simpson was meant to be a fat idiot barely hanging on.
In the 40 years since the first episode he's gone to being average weight and fitness.
Economically he's now wildly successful for being able to own a house on a single income with three kids. There are people making over $800,000 today who can't afford that.
> I suggest you look up how much raising children costs today vs the 1980s in both money and time.
I’m married, living in suburban California raising two of them on a single income much lower than $800,000 (much lower than 2/3 of that, too, since the hypotherical was 3 kids and I don't want that go be a distraction), I don't need to look up anything about a 1980s comparison to know that that $800k claim is sheer insanity.
> Two kids today are a much bigger status symbol than a 5 million dollar house.
No, they aren't. I mean, don't get me wrong I’d rather have my kids than the $5M house, but they definitely are not more of a status symbol than the $5M house would be.
Most of these studies use BMI which doesn't differentiate between muscle mass and fat. The number is likely much lower. Additionally, your numbers are off. I think you are looking at the number of people considered overweight, not obese. There were only three states in 2023 with an obesity rate over 40% [0]. The number usually hovers between 30 and 35%.
The population of a specific Google office could be two std deviations from the mean. My office area, SoHo NYC, has a dramatically lower obesity rate than the USA average. Maybe 10-20% of the population is overweight, let alone obese, and it’s mostly the service workers.
In my entire office, there's one overweight person that I know. Out of thousands of employees. There could be more, and other cities might be different, but you get the idea.
The author intentionally or mistakenly applies some numbers to whole populations.
Keep chaining impacts while eliminating small coefficients, your end result will be off by more than a few orders of magnitude.
EDIT: I need to be more clear about my point: My BigTech office does not represent my country stats: Canada has a 26% obesity and 36% overweight adult population. Just taking those numbers, applying them to all populations is wrong.
The analysis is wrong in other subtle but important ways as well. A 25% increase in performance of an allegedly low performing group of a company would not increase the overall company's efficency as much.