|
On November 23 2010 12:33 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:32 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On November 23 2010 12:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:23 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On November 23 2010 12:19 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:16 domovoi wrote:On November 23 2010 12:09 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:06 domovoi wrote:On November 23 2010 12:04 cz wrote:
You don't get more. You get the same piece of paper which guarantees you the same things: a certain maximal insurance payout and the stipulations for the situations that the company pays for. That's what the consumer buys: that men happen to use the insurance more often than women doesn't change that the product being bought is the same. And it costs more for men than women. You don't "use the insurance more often," it's the insurance company that decides when to pay. And they pay men more than they pay women. That is by definition receiving more. What do you mean by "they pay men more than they pay women." Do you mean that per claim filed men are paid more or that mend tend to make more claims per person per annum? I believe it's both, but regardless, over the lifetime of a policy, men receive more money than women. Hence, the products are not the same and it would in fact be discriminatory to charge women and men the same amount, because women would end up receiving much less. The whole point of insurance is to trade constant small payments in place of unpredictable large payments. Women have less unpredictable large payments. It would be like if because of uncontrollable factors, there was a men's lottery and women's lottery. The men's lottery pays more money with a higher probability of winning, and the women's lottery pays less money with a lower probability of winning. Charging them the same price would in fact be discriminatory, because women are getting something "inferior." The point is how the product is used is not relevant from the consumers point of view. You buy the same piece of paper that gives you the same protections, man or women, but more expensive for a man. Yes, the man is statistically more likely to cost the insurance company more money (via that piece of paper), but from the consumer's point of view that is not part of the product. its a fucking service not a god damn product. people in the service sector always use "product" to describe their service to catch dumb people not understanding what a service is. So please stop using product to describe the thing the insurance company gives you. Fine. It's an agreement between the insurer and the insuree that provides the insuree with certain methods of making claims upon the insurer. Those claims have maximum payouts and certain stipulations for when they can be validly claimed ("the attributes of the agreement" hereafter). Policies with certain attributes cannot be obtained commercially at the same cost for men and women, based on statistical analysis of claim payouts expected. That constitutes sexism in that it is discrimination based on gender with respect to what can be purchased. The agreement itself and its stipulations (attributes) is what is being bought by the insuree ("consumer"): to him/her the statistical payout is not being bought, but rather the ability to make claims for certain amounts in certain situations ("attributes"). Clear? i'm absolutly on a line with you about sexism for maximizing profits and how it sucks, I just hate it thats services are called products when they're not. I don't even know if it's a service. Insurance is more of an agreement whereby the purchaser gains the legal right to make certain claims of the insurance company over a certain period in certain conditions with certain payouts based on various things. Whether an agreement constitutes a service, I don't know.
In economics its the textbook example of a service. as I said, the term products is used to "polish" the service so the dumb peon thinks he has something in his hand when he clearly does not. It's the same reason why the car seller asks you for your autograph rather than your signature. They all play catching the dumb.
|
On a related subject did you know that airlines price in a discriminatory manner as well?
Ever wondered why they say business or pleasure?
Ever wondered why tickets get more expensive as the take off date approaches?
I think that is a much more valid discussion about price discrimination founded upon what is the moral thing to do. Perhaps if the OP were better educated, or better informed, he could have drawn parallels between the two to support his argument, what a pity.
|
On November 23 2010 12:36 Servolisk wrote:
I have seen little justification of the statistics used to determine rates.
Someone posted a link showing men are in more fatal accidents. That is obviously incomplete in scope and missing normalizing factors such as how many men vs. women are drivers, and how many men are in more risky driving jobs (taxi, truck, etc).
Secondly, even if women, overall, were completely less likely to be involved in accidents, it is not a highly useful statistic. Gender is very simple and highly variable; there are much better statistics the companies could use to more accurately fulfill their risk-assessment purposes.
Lastly, this is not justified given that the companies do not follow this with race and age (for the younger side of the scale they do, but iirc they do not compensate for elderly drivers, though I may be wrong). It is not justifiable to only selectively apply such general metrics.
No one is even arguing about statistics justification. The insurance companies aren't charging you more because they hate penises.
|
On November 23 2010 12:33 Trang wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:04 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:01 domovoi wrote:On November 23 2010 11:55 cz wrote:
1) Yes, your examples fit the definition of sexism. You'll see that those types of basic social situations are discussed as sexism often by third wave feminists, but with reference to women being on the receiving end ("why does my boss always give me cosmetics as a company gift when the men get taken out to a bar?") Your example is different from my example, because in your example, you show disparate treatment. My examples, which fit within the literal confines of the definition you're using, do not require disparate treatment. My point is that sexism is entirely about disparate treatment, rather than treating me as a man without regard to my individual preferences, which happens all the fucking time, because it's simply impossible for most people to know my individual preferences that well. (Is it sexist to have urinals in men's bathrooms in complete disregard to every individual's desire to use a urinal?) 3) Men get the same products, the same amount of coverage. Men pay higher rates for the same amount of coverage guaranteed by the insurer. That is the product that the person receives, and the price for it is disparate based on gender. Yes, the company will statistically pay more for males, but that's not the product that the consumer is receiving. They receive coverage that guarantees payment (of a certain amount) from an insurer in certain situations: it costs more for men than women. It's a different product, because the end result is that you receive something tangibly different as a man: MORE MONEY. Again, would you say a woman buying a happy meal and being satisfied is buying the same product as a man who buys a big mac meal and being satisfied? Even though both of them are labeled as dinner and the end result is caloric satisfaction (e.g. peace of mind from coverage)? No you wouldn't. You don't get more. You get the same piece of paper which guarantees you the same things: a certain maximal insurance payout and the stipulations for the situations that the company pays for. That's what the consumer buys: that men happen to use the insurance more often than women doesn't change that the product being bought is the same. And it costs more for men than women. I understand that A) men are more likely to use their insurance plan and B) thus the insurance company pays more per insurance plan given to men, but that isn't the PRODUCT that is being bought. Take two people: they both by insurance, the same plan, same thing in every way. Same guarantees, same payouts, etc. The plan is for one year. One person crashes his car and claims his insurance, the other doesn't and never "uses" it. They both bought the same product, though. Your argument may make sense if you can view insurance as a product that you buy as a standard package. But really, an insurance policy is a contract between the policy holder and the insurer. The policy holder gives a certain premium in exchange for insurance by the insurer. The insurer determines the premium price based off what the insurer thinks the insurance is worth to the policy holder (ie based off the policy holder's risk of making a claim). Therefore, the 'product' is actually individual to each policy holder. It's not just a standard package, it's just the business demands that make it more streamlined. But never forget insurance is an individual contract between the insurer and policy holder --- and that's the only way it would get legally enforced anyway. In any event, it is better described as the allocation of risk across society (or at least the policy holders). So looking at the bigger picture of allocating risk is probably the better way of examining insurance.
True, but if we were to have two people the same in every way but for being male and female we'd see a difference premium being offered to each. The bottom line, then, is that the sex of the person has an effect on premium while the insurance company's agreement (its payout agreement, etc) is kept constant. That's where the discrimination based on sex (sexism) is.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Hmmm,
Aren't males more likely to total their cars? I think women are more likely to ding them up, but men drive longer distances and crash them. Actuaries probably did the math and that's what they arrived at.
It's similar to how males pay more for life insurance. They're higher risks for dying at a younger age from all the stress.
|
On November 23 2010 12:37 TrainFX wrote:
On a related subject did you know that airlines price in a discriminatory manner as well?
Ever wondered why they say business or pleasure?
Ever wondered why tickets get more expensive as the take off date approaches?
I think that is a much more valid discussion about price discrimination founded upon what is the moral thing to do. Perhaps if the OP were better educated, or better informed, he could have drawn parallels between the two to support his argument, what a pity.
They aren't discriminating on a protected trait. Review American (or Canadian or basically any Western country's) law and you'll see that certain traits are considered protected from discrimination in a wide variety of situations. These traits are usually race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and a few more.
|
On November 23 2010 12:37 TrainFX wrote:
On a related subject did you know that airlines price in a discriminatory manner as well?
Ever wondered why they say business or pleasure?
Ever wondered why tickets get more expensive as the take off date approaches?
I think that is a much more valid discussion about price discrimination founded upon what is the moral thing to do. Perhaps if the OP were better educated, or better informed, he could have drawn parallels between the two to support his argument, what a pity.
That's market segmentation -- which is a little different (and less arguable). business travellers have less time and more money and so they are willing to pay for tighter schedules and larger seats (which is what business class offers -- it's not "businessmen get automatically charged more for the ticket"). It's the same concept as selling name-brand shampoo alongside generic -- people who can afford it buy what they like and the people who can't buy at their price point.
|
On November 23 2010 12:36 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:33 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:24 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:20 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:14 Kashll wrote:
Insurance companies I believe are the only companies allowed to legally discriminate. And they do it based solely on statistics. That's not true at all and I already posted examples. Discrimination simply isn't illegal. Kid's menus are discrimination. Senior Citizen discounts are discrimination. Affirmative actions is discrimination and clearly government sponsored. Curves for women is discrimination. Bars discriminate as well by not serving minors, and this again is government mandated. There's plenty of examples out there, just look for them. But the law has mandated that sexism in certain situations is illegal, such as with respect to hiring, university admissions, housing and a slew of other situations. I / we are making the argument that the reasoning behind that mandate should mean that it should also apply to insurance companies, because insurance is required by law. But insurance isn't required by law. It's only required if you want to drive. Driving isn't a right (Though I agree that in much of the country it is required in practice, if not by law). So I believe that's a false equivalence, though I'm by no means an expert on logic or logical phrases. Is there evidence that the law in regards to the situations you mentioned above works counter to statistical evidence? For example is sexism illegal in regards to university admissions despite the fact that one gender is more likely to succeed in university? Well, access to jobs and universities and housing isn't required by law, but sex (and religion and race, etc) are protected traits.
Well, the government doesn't provide car insurance, but it does provide housing, jobs and universities. Maybe that's related to the sexism issue. I'm not convinced it is illegal to discriminate based on sex for education. I mean there are single gender universities.
|
I juste want to point out, this type of discrimination dont maximize their profit. They can have the same cash flow by asking the same premium at everyone. They dont make more money by using this tarification method. So stop saying they do it to maximize their profit, it's stupid...
|
On November 23 2010 12:27 micronesia wrote:
If someone gave me and my sister a golf videogame for the Holidays, we both got the same product. My sister would play single player for 15 minutes and then never pick the game up again (even that's an exaggeration lol). I would play for 100 hours and use their free online servers a lot and whatnot. I am costing the company more money, I got a lot more out of it, etc. But, my sister and I were both offered the same product. Charging me more for the game because men are more likely to play golf online, and charging my sister less because women typically play for 15 minutes and then put the game down permanently is analogous to this insurance debate.
the game is a product the usage of the online service is a "service" the insurance is also a service can't mix all that up.
|
On November 23 2010 12:40 Cauld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:36 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:33 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:24 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 12:20 Cauld wrote:On November 23 2010 12:14 Kashll wrote:
Insurance companies I believe are the only companies allowed to legally discriminate. And they do it based solely on statistics. That's not true at all and I already posted examples. Discrimination simply isn't illegal. Kid's menus are discrimination. Senior Citizen discounts are discrimination. Affirmative actions is discrimination and clearly government sponsored. Curves for women is discrimination. Bars discriminate as well by not serving minors, and this again is government mandated. There's plenty of examples out there, just look for them. But the law has mandated that sexism in certain situations is illegal, such as with respect to hiring, university admissions, housing and a slew of other situations. I / we are making the argument that the reasoning behind that mandate should mean that it should also apply to insurance companies, because insurance is required by law. But insurance isn't required by law. It's only required if you want to drive. Driving isn't a right (Though I agree that in much of the country it is required in practice, if not by law). So I believe that's a false equivalence, though I'm by no means an expert on logic or logical phrases. Is there evidence that the law in regards to the situations you mentioned above works counter to statistical evidence? For example is sexism illegal in regards to university admissions despite the fact that one gender is more likely to succeed in university? Well, access to jobs and universities and housing isn't required by law, but sex (and religion and race, etc) are protected traits. Well, the government doesn't provide car insurance, but it does provide housing, jobs and universities. Maybe that's related to the sexism issue. I'm not convinced it is illegal to discriminate based on sex for education. I mean there are single gender universities.
I think single-gender universities are a separate issue. Also I'm talking about jobs and housing in general, not just govt. provided, same for private universities taking no govt funding.
Women entering the professional workforce (doctors, lawyers, etc) and entering universities was a HUGE issue in the 1960s and 1970s, and it was ended with new laws that made gender a protected trait whereby discrimination in a wide variety of areas was illegal.
|
On November 23 2010 12:40 html wrote:
I juste want to point out, this type of discrimination dont maximize their profit. They can have the same cash flow by asking the same premium at everyone. They dont make more money by using this tarification method. So stop saying they do it to maximize their profit, it's stupid...
no, it's obviously unprofitable.
Company A charges $400 for everyone
Company B charges $350 for women, and $400 for men.
Assuming that women actually do cost less and Company B is making a profit at $350, then B takes all the good customers and company A has all the high-risk customers.
the segmented pricing will always beat a flat pricing, as long as someone is calculating the odds correctly. And the insurance companies have all the numbers, so they can calculate the odds better than anyone else can.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Well, the governments "claim" they are protecting people from discriminating against race, religion, gender, handicapped, etc. More often than not it's the governments actively discriminating based on those characteristics to correct some perceived imbalance in society.
Discrimination happens.
|
On November 23 2010 12:40 html wrote:
I juste want to point out, this type of discrimination dont maximize their profit. They can have the same cash flow by asking the same premium at everyone. They dont make more money by using this tarification method. So stop saying they do it to maximize their profit, it's stupid...
They do if more males drive (which they do).
|
United States24770 Posts
On November 23 2010 12:42 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:27 micronesia wrote:
If someone gave me and my sister a golf videogame for the Holidays, we both got the same product. My sister would play single player for 15 minutes and then never pick the game up again (even that's an exaggeration lol). I would play for 100 hours and use their free online servers a lot and whatnot. I am costing the company more money, I got a lot more out of it, etc. But, my sister and I were both offered the same product. Charging me more for the game because men are more likely to play golf online, and charging my sister less because women typically play for 15 minutes and then put the game down permanently is analogous to this insurance debate. the game is a product the usage of the online service is a "service" the insurance is also a service can't mix all that up.
I'm fine with calling it a service. I don't think that affects my point though.
|
On November 23 2010 12:43 TanGeng wrote:
Well, the governments "claim" they are protecting people from discriminating against race, religion, gender, handicapped, etc. More often than not it's the governments actively discriminating based on those characteristics to correct some perceived imbalance in society.
Discrimination happens.
Just because affirmative action happens doesn't mean sexism/racism/etc are okay in other areas. Affirmative action is itself a separate issue.
|
On November 23 2010 12:43 Typhon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:40 html wrote:
I juste want to point out, this type of discrimination dont maximize their profit. They can have the same cash flow by asking the same premium at everyone. They dont make more money by using this tarification method. So stop saying they do it to maximize their profit, it's stupid... no, it's obviously unprofitable. Company A charges $400 for everyone Company B charges $350 for women, and $400 for men. Assuming that women actually do cost less and Company B is making a profit at $350, then B takes all the good customers and company A has all the high-risk customers. the segmented pricing will always beat a flat pricing, as long as someone is calculating the odds correctly. And the insurance companies have all the numbers, so they can calculate the odds better than anyone else can.
Ur not fair, the point of my example was:
imagine all companies dont use discrimination
They wount have less money^^
|
On November 23 2010 12:44 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:42 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On November 23 2010 12:27 micronesia wrote:
If someone gave me and my sister a golf videogame for the Holidays, we both got the same product. My sister would play single player for 15 minutes and then never pick the game up again (even that's an exaggeration lol). I would play for 100 hours and use their free online servers a lot and whatnot. I am costing the company more money, I got a lot more out of it, etc. But, my sister and I were both offered the same product. Charging me more for the game because men are more likely to play golf online, and charging my sister less because women typically play for 15 minutes and then put the game down permanently is analogous to this insurance debate. the game is a product the usage of the online service is a "service" the insurance is also a service can't mix all that up. I'm fine with calling it a service. I don't think that affects my point though.
it does a lot, because you own the product but you use the service. so it does not matter at all how many hours you play a golf game offline. all you can compare is the online service you use you didnt buy as a product but as a service.
|
United States24770 Posts
On November 23 2010 12:46 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:44 micronesia wrote:On November 23 2010 12:42 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On November 23 2010 12:27 micronesia wrote:
If someone gave me and my sister a golf videogame for the Holidays, we both got the same product. My sister would play single player for 15 minutes and then never pick the game up again (even that's an exaggeration lol). I would play for 100 hours and use their free online servers a lot and whatnot. I am costing the company more money, I got a lot more out of it, etc. But, my sister and I were both offered the same product. Charging me more for the game because men are more likely to play golf online, and charging my sister less because women typically play for 15 minutes and then put the game down permanently is analogous to this insurance debate. the game is a product the usage of the online service is a "service" the insurance is also a service can't mix all that up. I'm fine with calling it a service. I don't think that affects my point though. it does a lot, because you own the product but you use the service. so it does not matter at all how many hours you play a golf game offline. all you can compare is the online service you use you didnt buy as a product but as a service.
And how does this affect the point I was making?
I am going to use the service more than my sister... that doesn't mean I was offered a different service than her.
|
On November 23 2010 12:46 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 12:44 micronesia wrote:On November 23 2010 12:42 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:On November 23 2010 12:27 micronesia wrote:
If someone gave me and my sister a golf videogame for the Holidays, we both got the same product. My sister would play single player for 15 minutes and then never pick the game up again (even that's an exaggeration lol). I would play for 100 hours and use their free online servers a lot and whatnot. I am costing the company more money, I got a lot more out of it, etc. But, my sister and I were both offered the same product. Charging me more for the game because men are more likely to play golf online, and charging my sister less because women typically play for 15 minutes and then put the game down permanently is analogous to this insurance debate. the game is a product the usage of the online service is a "service" the insurance is also a service can't mix all that up. I'm fine with calling it a service. I don't think that affects my point though. it does a lot, because you own the product but you use the service. so it does not matter at all how many hours you play a golf game offline. all you can compare is the online service you use you didnt buy as a product but as a service.
I think he meant his game was offline-only, which as you said "doesn't matter at all," which was his point: you are buying the same product (or whatever).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
