Depends on how you define "rich," and how you define fat.
But probably not. I'm afraid I'm going to have to burst your bubble.
If the definition is at least $100K-$150K USD / yr., it's not that hard to find such individuals who are plus size.
In 2019, the 10th percentile for individual income, where 10% get more and 90% get less, is $116,250 / yr., but that's a nationwide figure. In San Francisco for example, that's pitiful.
dqydj.com/average-median-top-individual-income-percentiles/
Either way, it's a good ballpark figure to define "rich," in absence of a definition from you.
You have also failed to define "fat." Since you have also failed to provide such a definition, I will make one up. The CDC defines "severe obesity" to be a BMI of 40+, and in 2018 the rate was 9.2%.
dqydj.com/average-median-top-individual-income-percentiles/
Assuming a perfectly even distribution, which is hardly the case... 9.2% * 10% = 0.92%. This suggests under 1% of the American population both has an income above $116,250 / yr. and a BMI that exceeds 40.
In 2018, there were about 240,350,000 Americans in all age groups over the age of 21.
dqydj.com/average-median-top-individual-income-percentiles/
That leaves, nationwide, only about 2.2 million such Americans, nationwide. However, the number is likely even lower. Know how I said that assumes an even distribution? Because that's not how it works.
In fact, the numbers are likely not even half that. I have the impression that an estimate of 1 million, nationwide, would be an optimistically high estimate.
It's a harsh truth that there's some degree of an inverse relationship between severe obesity, and educational attainment (which is typically directly correlated with income and wealth), income, and wealth.
Clothing brands that are more expensive, are likely to top out at size 18-20 for women, and 44" waist / XL shirt / 18.5" neck. This is not by mistake. They must have determined market demand is minimal, and the farther away from the median, the steeper the drop in even potential market size. Though with that degree of wealth, such individuals could likely easily bear the cost of custom clothing.
When I was attending business school for an MBA, I think I only had one classmate, in one class, who was clearly well above 350 lbs. Those who were over 200 lbs were somewhat common, but in a minority. The students were definitely thinner than the average population as a while.
A few professors were over 200, but none were over 350.
This was all in the Midwest were obesity rates are slightly or somewhat above the national average.
Now, not everyone who has a large income has a Master's or Ph.D., so what about those with lower educational attainment but have the income and wealth anyway?
But, after a certain point, regardless of educational attainment, image is important. Having a plus size wife who weighs over 200 lbs is sufficiently mainstream in that world, as is being plus size yourself (200-250).
But super size (350+) doesn't fit that image, at least not yet, and could make business or work relationships hard.
In the world of higher income, the pressure to remain thin or fit continues to persist. Partly it's due to the slow pace that high fashion changes to adapt to society. It's likely also part to there being fewer excuses available. The money means easier access to exercising, yoga studios, different types of food, plastic surgery, and scheduling flexibility to let this all happen.
Awhile back, I read about a 450 lb man who simply wasn't being promoted, despite being qualified for it. But when he dropped to about 225-250, he was finally promoted and got the larger salary.
In short, image is likely everything for those of us with more money, and the standards have been slower to change.
At least, these are the observations I've made when looking at, observing the very wealthy suburbs nearby, or when I might go shopping in one of them.
Even just trying to get a new job, image seems like it's everything. But I don't anticipate weighing over 300 lbs, where I expect image problems to occur.
But probably not. I'm afraid I'm going to have to burst your bubble.
If the definition is at least $100K-$150K USD / yr., it's not that hard to find such individuals who are plus size.
In 2019, the 10th percentile for individual income, where 10% get more and 90% get less, is $116,250 / yr., but that's a nationwide figure. In San Francisco for example, that's pitiful.
dqydj.com/average-median-top-individual-income-percentiles/
Either way, it's a good ballpark figure to define "rich," in absence of a definition from you.
You have also failed to define "fat." Since you have also failed to provide such a definition, I will make one up. The CDC defines "severe obesity" to be a BMI of 40+, and in 2018 the rate was 9.2%.
dqydj.com/average-median-top-individual-income-percentiles/
Assuming a perfectly even distribution, which is hardly the case... 9.2% * 10% = 0.92%. This suggests under 1% of the American population both has an income above $116,250 / yr. and a BMI that exceeds 40.
In 2018, there were about 240,350,000 Americans in all age groups over the age of 21.
dqydj.com/average-median-top-individual-income-percentiles/
That leaves, nationwide, only about 2.2 million such Americans, nationwide. However, the number is likely even lower. Know how I said that assumes an even distribution? Because that's not how it works.
In fact, the numbers are likely not even half that. I have the impression that an estimate of 1 million, nationwide, would be an optimistically high estimate.
It's a harsh truth that there's some degree of an inverse relationship between severe obesity, and educational attainment (which is typically directly correlated with income and wealth), income, and wealth.
Clothing brands that are more expensive, are likely to top out at size 18-20 for women, and 44" waist / XL shirt / 18.5" neck. This is not by mistake. They must have determined market demand is minimal, and the farther away from the median, the steeper the drop in even potential market size. Though with that degree of wealth, such individuals could likely easily bear the cost of custom clothing.
When I was attending business school for an MBA, I think I only had one classmate, in one class, who was clearly well above 350 lbs. Those who were over 200 lbs were somewhat common, but in a minority. The students were definitely thinner than the average population as a while.
A few professors were over 200, but none were over 350.
This was all in the Midwest were obesity rates are slightly or somewhat above the national average.
Now, not everyone who has a large income has a Master's or Ph.D., so what about those with lower educational attainment but have the income and wealth anyway?
But, after a certain point, regardless of educational attainment, image is important. Having a plus size wife who weighs over 200 lbs is sufficiently mainstream in that world, as is being plus size yourself (200-250).
But super size (350+) doesn't fit that image, at least not yet, and could make business or work relationships hard.
In the world of higher income, the pressure to remain thin or fit continues to persist. Partly it's due to the slow pace that high fashion changes to adapt to society. It's likely also part to there being fewer excuses available. The money means easier access to exercising, yoga studios, different types of food, plastic surgery, and scheduling flexibility to let this all happen.
Awhile back, I read about a 450 lb man who simply wasn't being promoted, despite being qualified for it. But when he dropped to about 225-250, he was finally promoted and got the larger salary.
In short, image is likely everything for those of us with more money, and the standards have been slower to change.
At least, these are the observations I've made when looking at, observing the very wealthy suburbs nearby, or when I might go shopping in one of them.
Even just trying to get a new job, image seems like it's everything. But I don't anticipate weighing over 300 lbs, where I expect image problems to occur.
4 years
even after weight loss of 100pounds she's still north of 200 and he looks less happy.