Lol it’s hilarious being even sightly aware of the reality of things and reading “water found to make objects wet” articles. Fat and ugly people are treated worse. Full stop.
Harvard study links GLP-1 weight-loss drugs to a 27-point jump in women's employment — bigger than a college degree gap
Submitted 1 day ago by ooli3@sopuli.xyz to appliedpsychology@mander.xyz
https://finance.yahoo.com/healthcare/articles/harvard-study-links-glp-1-123000637.html
Comments
the_q@piefed.social 1 day ago
krashmo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Fat and ugly people are treated worse. Full stop.
You would know.
I’m sorry, I had to. I’m sure you’re a beautiful soul.
Mac@mander.xyz 1 day ago
Note, dear viewer, that said “beautiful soul”.
Double-tap.the_q@piefed.social 1 day ago
It’s true.
mrmisses@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Can confirm
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 hours ago
This headline and article misrepresent the study’s findings, and overstate the evidence for its conclusions. From the abstract, by the study’s actual author:
Single women’s marriage/cohabitation rates rise by 29 percentage points and employment among baseline non-employed women rises 27 percentage points after six or more quarters. Existing partnerships do not dissolve, and already-employed women show no upward job mobility. The pattern suggests that part of the female obesity penalty operates at new-match formation rather than only through health or incumbent productivity.
As the overwhelming majority of women in the labor force are actually employed, an effect that is seen only on the unemployed may not be appropriate to extrapolate across the entire population.
In another longitudinal study, also published by the NBER, reports a slight trend that already-employed women have a slight drop in employment when going on GLP-1s, and when evaluated over the entire population, the study’s authors conclude that GLP-1s do not have a meaningful effect on employment rates.
Overall, the evidence is much, much weaker than the article’s tone suggests.
BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
Thank you!
I have nothing but a hunch to back this up: I’d be weary of the potential bias introduced by the medicine price vs available cash in the general unemployed population. The households that can afford glp-1s will likely be socio-economically stronger, thus the unemployed women will be better educated and more likely to be re-employed.
faltryka@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I wonder how much of that was confidence changes.
ooli3@sopuli.xyz 22 hours ago
strangely this study (sopuli.xyz/post/49431591) didnt find any mental positive effect after GLP1 use.
Sunshine@piefed.ca 1 day ago Patriarchy Society
Drusas@fedia.io 1 day ago
Did they include data on whether or not and when those women were looking for work and how actively, etc? In other words, might it also be that the women feel better and that this better positions then for increasing a job?
terranoid@lemmy.cafe 1 day ago
Confidence does wonders
Abyssian@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The very simplest of applied psychology.
“…nice.”
jballs@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Damn, that’s kinda fucked up. We all know there are (mostly) subconscious biases against people we find unattractive. But that’s harsh that it shows up as such a big gap.
VitoRobles@lemmy.today 1 day ago
There’s also studies that show height is also a predictor of salary. As well as skin color being a predictor of those who get promoted.
DEI was implemented based on those studies because educated black women were constantly passed over, even if they outcompeted their rivals in work competency.
chuckleslord@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I work at a larger company. I’m a tall guy (0th percentile) and there’s over a dozen people taller than me in the building. For the amount of people who work here, that number should be between 0 and 8 people taller than me.
Looking at you, Apollo project…
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
I’m a guy. Back when I was really healthy and in shape (after not being) it was super obvious how much better and easier “pretty people” have it.
taj@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’m a woman. Over the last 5-10 years I went from ~160-180 to 234 this Jan.The difference in treatment has been staggering. Now down to around 219. Hoping I can continue to lose. Not on a glp-1, though I’ve definitely considered it.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 day ago
there is a 10K/yr+ year premium on your height too. we love tall hot people. they get paid the most.
shorties get salary shafted
Makes me wonder how biased the study was and how much of Harvard’s portfolio is wrapped up in pharmaceutical stocks.
reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
I don’t read this one as a total plant, but I don’t think the methodology great. Using a ucla cohort study that’s been in progress since 2024 (quarterly questionnaires) the author compares two groups.
Clearly not an excellent control group for the kind of claims she wants to make.
She puts effort into statistically ‘matching’ a bunch of parameters to try to make it a better control group. She also discusses this as a possible issue in the text and tries to give some statistical evidence but I don’t find it very convincing. Doubt it will ultimately get published.
ieGod@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Attractive people are also more confident. This is an important factor in many roles.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 1 day ago
they aren’t. they are perceived as more confident.
Solumbran@lemmy.world 1 day ago
“That’s fucked up. Like, we all know that obviously fatsos are universally fucking ugly but I didn’t think it would have such an impact”.
How a thing talking about weight immediately switched to being about attractiveness. That is fucked up indeed.