|
However this decision must be considered to have been done on a base just as stable (or unstable, if you will) as the employers decision of denying that poor woman a job, they both used what little information they had and made the best of it.
Why would we think that? Insurance companies hire armies of actuaries to process all the data they have into actuarial tables, with proper controls and all that (because accurate actuarial tables are a competitive advantage in the insurance market). I very much doubt employers go through such a rigorous process to determine the probability of success in hiring a man over a woman.
|
On November 24 2010 10:00 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +However this decision must be considered to have been done on a base just as stable (or unstable, if you will) as the employers decision of denying that poor woman a job, they both used what little information they had and made the best of it. Why would we think that? Insurance companies hire armies of actuaries to process all the data they have into actuarial tables, with proper controls and all that (because accurate actuarial tables are a competitive advantage in the insurance market). I very much doubt employers go through such a rigorous process to determine the probability of success in hiring a man over a woman.
Yeah, using "just as" was bad wording, please refer to my later point that while the statistics are a tad better they're a lot closer to each other than to the goal, when you look at the big picture. Drawing an arbitrary line saying one is sufficiently accurate because you chose to call one of them science is just a bad excuse in my book.
I agree the employers will generally just go for whatever feels right, probably deciding in a few seconds, but then again they have a lifetime of collecting data behind them. As long as it's not completely random I'd say my point still stands.
|
Please see the original post for the update.
|
Spoilers -
Guys pay more for car insurance.
Women pay more for health/life insurance.
|
After speaking with a Geico representative, they told me that I am going to be refunded the difference between the quoted policies. Which happened to be about a 15% discount.
I must mention that the reason for the difference in the quoted policies, according to the nice lady on the phone, was not because I changed my gender--rather it was because they have a "new way" of calculating how much to charge a specific person for their policy. Either way, I now pay 15% less for standing up in what I believe in!
Take this bribe and gtfo.
I like that one, I'd say it's pretty old though.
|
On November 24 2010 10:18 Namorb wrote:Show nested quote +
After speaking with a Geico representative, they told me that I am going to be refunded the difference between the quoted policies. Which happened to be about a 15% discount.
I must mention that the reason for the difference in the quoted policies, according to the nice lady on the phone, was not because I changed my gender--rather it was because they have a "new way" of calculating how much to charge a specific person for their policy. Either way, I now pay 15% less for standing up in what I believe in!
Take this bribe and gtfo. I like that one, I'd say it's pretty old though.
I am glad they gave me the money... I really didn't feel like looking for another insurance company. I am happpppy!!! :D
YEEEES!!
|
On November 23 2010 10:49 Vanished131 wrote:
Update:
After speaking with a Geico representative, they told me that I am going to be refunded the difference between the quoted policies. Which happened to be about a 15% discount.
I must mention that the reason for the difference in the quoted policies, according to the nice lady on the phone, was not because I changed my gender--rather it was because they have a "new way" of calculating how much to charge a specific person for their policy. Either way, I now pay 15% less for standing up in what I believe in!
Geico. 15 minutes of whining could save you 15% on car insurance.
|
On November 24 2010 10:21 Reikobi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 10:49 Vanished131 wrote:
Update:
After speaking with a Geico representative, they told me that I am going to be refunded the difference between the quoted policies. Which happened to be about a 15% discount.
I must mention that the reason for the difference in the quoted policies, according to the nice lady on the phone, was not because I changed my gender--rather it was because they have a "new way" of calculating how much to charge a specific person for their policy. Either way, I now pay 15% less for standing up in what I believe in!
Geico. 15 minutes of whining could save you 15% on car insurance.
It was actually only 12.5%, but I rounded up.
And LOL!
|
On November 23 2010 11:05 smashczar wrote:This "sexism against men" thing is popping up more and more, it's really dangerous reactionary garbage considering women are the most oppressed and exploited group of people in world history. MY INSURANCE ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/bUhva.jpg) "World"
There's the problem. We can't do anything about women's rights in other countries unless we invade them all and impose our way of life on them.
|
On November 24 2010 10:30 Yotta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:05 smashczar wrote:This "sexism against men" thing is popping up more and more, it's really dangerous reactionary garbage considering women are the most oppressed and exploited group of people in world history. MY INSURANCE "World" There's the problem. We can't do anything about women's rights in other countries unless we invade them all and impose our way of life on them.
And heaven knows the US would never do that.
Seriously though, I have to agree with Smashczar on this one. Even in the most women friendly countries on earth, men still occupy most of the positions of authority, make more money etc
|
On November 24 2010 10:38 Isengrim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 10:30 Yotta wrote:On November 23 2010 11:05 smashczar wrote:This "sexism against men" thing is popping up more and more, it's really dangerous reactionary garbage considering women are the most oppressed and exploited group of people in world history. MY INSURANCE "World" There's the problem. We can't do anything about women's rights in other countries unless we invade them all and impose our way of life on them. And heaven knows the US would never do that. Seriously though, I have to agree with Smashczar on this one. Even in the most women friendly countries on earth, men still occupy most of the positions of authority, make more money etc.
You do realize the two sides of sexism are not mutually exclusive? If you are really for gender equality, sexism against men is just as unacceptable as sexism against women.
|
![[image loading]](http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3342/10155986.jpg)
Pretty pictures for you guys, signifying that Geico is sending me a check for the negative balance.
"Take this cash and don't tell another soul!"
|
Insurance itself is the problem. Its purpose is claimed to be for your own safety, yet it's forced upon you and prices vary. All insurance should be equally priced or voluntary. Also, the statistics argument doesn't work, you could come up with thousands of statistics to hike up insurance because something like "people with worse grades in school" get in more accidents can be proven "true" by some research when it doesn't really mean anything or is so arbitrary in terms of insurance that it is pointless.
Insurance is just a business, they'll use anything they can to take more money from you - that's good business, not discrimination.
|
Insurance itself is the problem. Its purpose is claimed to be for your own safety, yet it's forced upon you and prices vary. All insurance should be equally priced or voluntary.
That's not the purpose of insurance. The purpose of insurance is to insure you against risky, costly events. People buy it because they'd rather pay small regular payments than lose a big sum of money unexpectedly, even if it ends up being the same amount in both cases. In fact, insurance sometimes causes people to be less safe; this is called moral hazard.
If all insurance were equally priced, you would get adverse selection (as well as moral hazard). Please read wikipedia before further commenting.
|
In my opinion "sexism" tends to be used in a larger context than this situation (discrimination based on multiple skills), but this is just an argument over definitions. If you want to argue that men are worst drivers, it should be based direct comparisons between man and woman; avoiding secondary factors such as men drive more or men make more money (see early pages of this thread). There will be men who do not drive as much nor make as much money.
There have been studies on hormone differences between men and women that could cause women to have more mental flexibility.
Also we shouldn't ignore an important distraction that arises in the summertime for male drivers.
In all seriousness, I am not sure that insurance companies would change if there were more ethical ways to group drivers given that the current method is good for their business. It is good to question this because splitting people into groups based on gender while ignoring any confounding variables is discriminatory (although in this case somewhat acceptable).
|
On November 24 2010 14:37 quiet_storm wrote:In my opinion "sexism" tends to be used in a larger context than this situation (discrimination based on multiple skills), but this is just an argument over definitions. If you want to argue that men are worst drivers, it should be based direct comparisons between man and woman; avoiding secondary factors such as men drive more or men make more money (see early pages of this thread). There will be men who do not drive as much nor make as much money. There have been studies on hormone differences between men and women that could cause women to have more mental flexibility. Also we shouldn't ignore an important distraction that arises in the summertime for male drivers. In all seriousness, I am not sure that insurance companies would change if there were more ethical ways to group drivers given that the current method is good for their business. It is good to question this because splitting people into groups based on gender while ignoring any confounding variables is discriminatory (although in this case somewhat acceptable).
Though it may sometimes seem like it, actuaries aren't magic genies who can take one look at your name and know all your statistics in and out. All they can do is guess based on the information given. And if their model says that men are more risky than women, the only thing they can do is to bend over sideways and give you your money back. Damn sexist pigs.
|
This is how you save a ton of money on car insurance with Geico.
|
On November 24 2010 10:48 kidd wrote:
Insurance itself is the problem. Its purpose is claimed to be for your own safety, yet it's forced upon you and prices vary. All insurance should be equally priced or voluntary.
Should you have to pay more for insuring a car that will be used in risky activities, such as motor races, versus a car that will be used for commuting to work daily? From the standpoint of the insurance company, the answer is clearly a yes. The insurance company is running a business and not a charity, they would rationally charge someone engaging in risky activities more premium.
Back on topic, I do believe that insurance is exempted from discrimination acts on the basis that they substantiate their discrimination with actual factual data. Thus even if the company was discriminating against the men, you have to accept that they probably have data to support their discrimination.
You should also note that while you are discriminated for motor insurance, women are discriminated for other insurance policies. I'm not saying it is a fair thing to do, but it is the more viable way of running a business that sells protection against risks.
|
On November 24 2010 02:57 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 22:05 kojinshugi wrote:
If insurance is to be fair to every policy holder, it needs to operate by statistics and not political correctness.
You may be the safest driver in the world but if you're in a demographically more risky group it's only fair that you pay a higher premium. KK, let's start racially profiling, then. As long as it's statistically backed up, it's cool, right?
Statistically it makes perfect sense, and logically we should do it. The reason racial profiling is undesirable is because it singles out an already victimized group. I'm sorry, but "male" is not a minority.
That's all well and good except it's illegal to drive without insurance, sooo...
Then don't drive. Using a vehicle on collectively owned property is a privilege, not a right. Make more money and hire a chauffeur, or live on your own private island and drive as much as you want.
|
Statistically it makes perfect sense, and logically we should do it. The reason racial profiling is undesirable is because it singles out an already victimized group. I'm sorry, but "male" is not a minority. Show nested quote +That's all well and good except it's illegal to drive without insurance, sooo... Then don't drive. Using a vehicle on collectively owned property is a privilege, not a right. Make more money and hire a chauffeur, or live on your own private island and drive as much as you want.
Racial profiling no longer singles out a "minority." Better think of another excuse now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
