|
On March 02 2011 10:49 Craton wrote:
All the statistic sites only seem to have fatal accidents and not accidents in general. I hate arguments like this without actual numbers to look at.
This paper describes risk of both fatal and nonfatal accidents by age/sex/blood alcohol content. The discussion of rates when BAC = 0 would give a fair baseline on male vs female by age group when alcohol is not a factor.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/809-050pdf.pdf
|
On March 02 2011 12:11 Jones993 wrote:Those who get into accidents are already charged more so why would you want to charge every member of a certain gender more simply based on their gender, whether or not they have accidents? Show nested quote +sources: women get paid less
relevant discussion: quit acting like an entitled baby because they pay 10 bucks a month less on car insurance Childish argument. Women who work the same hours, have the same experience and the same education get paid the same. Those have less of the above get paid less. If you think insurance costs should be based on income then why not just base it off income instead off of gender?
I agree with your opinion on insurance contribution rates, but you are wrong about wages. Women with the same experience and education actually get paid less (on average). The reasoning in media coverage about that seemed to be that women get off worse in negotiations with superiors about salaries.
|
I don't agree. Once you have an accident you pay more because you are a greater risk to the company. Someone who has had an accident is more likely to have an accident then someone who has not.
|
Did it take you fifteen minutes or less?
|
On March 02 2011 14:40 BabyGiraldo wrote:
Did it take you fifteen minutes or less?
15% for 15 minutes is pretty damn cost effective in my books.
|
students with a 3.0 or higher , a female gets 50 dollars a month, while a male is 120 all because they say "men are more than likely to get into races" what they are doing is and discriminating due to "statistics" any one can make up statistics to go into their favor, they do not ask all people in the united states they talk to select few that they choose.What they should do is instead of blaming it due to a generalised statement"stereotype"they should create rates due to an individual not their gender
|
On March 02 2011 12:33 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 12:11 Jones993 wrote:Those who get into accidents are already charged more so why would you want to charge every member of a certain gender more simply based on their gender, whether or not they have accidents? sources: women get paid less
relevant discussion: quit acting like an entitled baby because they pay 10 bucks a month less on car insurance Childish argument. Women who work the same hours, have the same experience and the same education get paid the same. Those have less of the above get paid less. If you think insurance costs should be based on income then why not just base it off income instead off of gender? I agree with your opinion on insurance contribution rates, but you are wrong about wages. Women with the same experience and education actually get paid less (on average). The reasoning in media coverage about that seemed to be that women get off worse in negotiations with superiors about salaries.
it's become women are more likely to accept lower pay then a man for alot of positions, also younger women who come up though university actually get payed equal to above what most men would be payed older women though still fall into that category of what 80 cents on the dollar compared to a man. Anyways sexism implies intent of wrongful discrimination, if you dress like a pot dealer and are a pot dealer it is not discrimination if someone points out that you're a pot dealer. Statistics that the companies gathered show why women are age groups get different rates.
On March 02 2011 14:54 Mcbeastly wrote:
students with a 3.0 or higher , a female gets 50 dollars a month, while a male is 120 all because they say "men are more than likely to get into races" what they are doing is and discriminating due to "statistics" any one can make up statistics to go into their favor, they do not ask all people in the united states they talk to select few that they choose.What they should do is instead of blaming it due to a generalised statement"stereotype"they should create rates due to an individual not their gender
yup the government data on fatal car accidents is clearly made up data. A family with 3 children one of those children is 7 times more likely to make less then their parents did then if it was just a family of two children. Individuals are different but that's what auto history is for =p . Just becuase it's not causation ie being male = more car accidents doesn't mean the data isn't valid for risk assessment.
|
Im a 23 year old male that had to shop around for insurance because Allstate initially wanted to charge me 367 dollars a month to insure my car. FOR BASIC LIABILITY>
Geico gave me full coverage for 220. That will be cut in half when I get married in 3 months.
For some reason when I get married I become less of a risk?
I've also taken defensive driving, two professional driving courses, and drive over 60 hours a week because of my job.
I've had one accident. My tire exploded in the rain and caused me to hit the guard rail....FOUR YEARS AGO.
My fiancee? Never had to pay more than 100...ever. Sounds fair.
|
On March 02 2011 16:45 Jayme wrote:
Im a 23 year old male that had to shop around for insurance because Allstate initially wanted to charge me 367 dollars a month to insure my car. FOR BASIC LIABILITY>
Geico gave me full coverage for 220. That will be cut in half when I get married in 3 months.
For some reason when I get married I become less of a risk?
I've also taken defensive driving, two professional driving courses, and drive over 60 hours a week because of my job.
I've had one accident. My tire exploded in the rain and caused me to hit the guard rail....FOUR YEARS AGO.
My fiancee? Never had to pay more than 100...ever. Sounds fair.
Well, the fact that you drive 60 hours a week can't really help your case (though it makes sense that it will help you driving, to someone in an office chair its just more time on the road you are vulnerable to an accident).
Simply put, these people just play by the statistics. It isn't really sexism, per se, it's just looking at things objectively. If you think these statistics are wrong, they wouldn't be doing these sort of price discrimination - after all, they are looking to maximize profits, not "stick it to the x-group"
Edit: I'm using "you" as a general term, not as you specifically Jayme 
|
On March 02 2011 16:48 Comeh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 16:45 Jayme wrote:
Im a 23 year old male that had to shop around for insurance because Allstate initially wanted to charge me 367 dollars a month to insure my car. FOR BASIC LIABILITY>
Geico gave me full coverage for 220. That will be cut in half when I get married in 3 months.
For some reason when I get married I become less of a risk?
I've also taken defensive driving, two professional driving courses, and drive over 60 hours a week because of my job.
I've had one accident. My tire exploded in the rain and caused me to hit the guard rail....FOUR YEARS AGO.
My fiancee? Never had to pay more than 100...ever. Sounds fair. Well, the fact that you drive 60 hours a week can't really help your case (though it makes sense that it will help you driving, to someone in an office chair its just more time on the road you are vulnerable to an accident). Simply put, these people just play by the statistics. It isn't really sexism, per se, it's just looking at things objectively. If you think these statistics are wrong, they wouldn't be doing these sort of price discrimination - after all, they are looking to maximize profits, not "stick it to the x-group" Edit: I'm using "you" as a general term, not as you specifically Jayme
Okay I should have explained that better.
Of those 60 hours 50 of that is driving in a police car. That obviously doesn't count toward my insurance premium(at least it better not). So really 50 hours can be seen as me just practicing if you want.
I understand they play the statistics but I believe that gender has a bigger impact on premiums than it should.
I have 1 accident on my record and no tickets. I am 23. My car was worth about 29k new.
My fiancee has 1 accident on her record and 1 ticket. She is 22. Her car was worth about 26k new.
I pay 220 a month for insurance.
She pays 90.
She has never taken a driving course in her life.
I have taken 1 defensive driving and 2 professional courses as stated earlier.
Can you explain to me that 130 dollar difference? The argument that it's because my car is worth 3k more doesn't fly because her coverage goes up by like 5 dollars under my car so that obviously isn't it.
She has 1 driving ticket over me, and three classes less...and yet I pay 130 dollars more a month.
Why?
Because I'm a male under 25 years old. I don't find it fair. There are times when statistics are wonderful and all but I don't think this is worth it. To make it even worse my insurance literally gets cut in half ( i've been told my coverage goes down to 110) the moment I get married. What? WHY?
|
extend this argument to the employment world:
i am a hiring manager. i have two candidates, each equally skilled, same credentials, etc. one is white, one is nonwhite.
i hire the white guy and i tell the nonwhite guy that he was not hired because "statistically, more nonwhites steal from their employers than whites, so even though you may not, you bear the burden."
i just committed several crimes and violated several labor regulations.
why can insurance companies do this?
|
lol awesome example annul
|
On March 02 2011 12:11 Jones993 wrote:Those who get into accidents are already charged more so why would you want to charge every member of a certain gender more simply based on their gender, whether or not they have accidents? Show nested quote +sources: women get paid less
relevant discussion: quit acting like an entitled baby because they pay 10 bucks a month less on car insurance Childish argument. Women who work the same hours, have the same experience and the same education get paid the same. Those have less of the above get paid less. If you think insurance costs should be based on income then why not just base it off income instead off of gender?
And you're making a childish assumption that the law actually does what it's supposed to do. The pay gap is very much real even with equal or greater qualifications if you do any research through the internet. You can even wiki it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_pay_for_women#Different_Studies_and_Economic_Theories
And with respect to how quickly the civil law reform moves, here's also a pretty recent article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/23/mccain-opposes-equal-pay-_n_98342.html
As for your criteria, it sounds good on paper,but it still comes down to statistical analysis and economic maximization calculations. It's likely that they do discriminate with regards to gender because even if they discriminated only using income, paying car insurance would still compose a larger fraction of a woman's income than that of a male's.
But that sound's crazy, you might say, because it's based off of income alone. Well can you think of the number of things women have to buy that aren't normalized with respect to income? Many, many things. One important idea that people are missing, by focusing on the idea that the insurance companies have a vendetta against men, is the fact that insurance companies are out to maximize their profit, and if statistics didn't hold up in practice, they wouldn't use them.
|
On March 02 2011 17:45 annul wrote:
extend this argument to the employment world:
i am a hiring manager. i have two candidates, each equally skilled, same credentials, etc. one is white, one is nonwhite.
i hire the white guy and i tell the nonwhite guy that he was not hired because "statistically, more nonwhites steal from their employers than whites, so even though you may not, you bear the burden."
i just committed several crimes and violated several labor regulations.
why can insurance companies do this?
Because the business model for insurance companies is specifically built around charging people based on risk factors. The sex of the aplicant is a risk factor. All other things being equal, a female driver is less likely to make a claim than a male driver, so it is entirely appropriate for insurance companies to charge a different price for women.
|
On March 02 2011 17:45 annul wrote:
extend this argument to the employment world:
i am a hiring manager. i have two candidates, each equally skilled, same credentials, etc. one is white, one is nonwhite.
i hire the white guy and i tell the nonwhite guy that he was not hired because "statistically, more nonwhites steal from their employers than whites, so even though you may not, you bear the burden."
i just committed several crimes and violated several labor regulations.
why can insurance companies do this?
But you can just not employ the nonwhite guy and give some other reason. The law doesn't stop that.
I personaly don't agree with any of this legislation, including the employers legislation.
And this insurance change is just the EU doing something pointless yet again.
Where do you stop? Next you wont be able to discriminate on age. So 7 years olds will be allowed to take their driving tests etc.. etc...
|
On November 23 2010 10:54 MutatedMiracle wrote:
I'm pretty sure this is based on scientific research though (ie. males are proven more likely to get into car crashes than females.) Is that really sexism? Otherwise, the different female and male leagues in sports would be sexist too.
...But don't mind me, I'm the lurker with the low post count lol
So why not add in ethnicity would you like that?
If your asian your rates are higher as your more likley to be a bad driver?
Not to be racist. but every accident i have ever seen that was more then a fender bender included a asian ethnicity.
|
On March 02 2011 17:45 annul wrote:
extend this argument to the employment world:
i am a hiring manager. i have two candidates, each equally skilled, same credentials, etc. one is white, one is nonwhite.
i hire the white guy and i tell the nonwhite guy that he was not hired because "statistically, more nonwhites steal from their employers than whites, so even though you may not, you bear the burden."
i just committed several crimes and violated several labor regulations.
why can insurance companies do this?
Racism of that type isn't allowed because of the acknowledgment by many people including the Supreme Court of the existence of structural racism that inherently predisposes certain racial groups to be less successful, to tend towards criminality, and to be suspicious of authority. It also places an undue burden on members of those races that are trying to curtail this unfortunate trend. This isn't even mentioning the very weak ties that race has in terms of job efficiency, most of it coming from word of mouth or popular belief (both of which are for the most part wrong.)
It's because of these societal imbalances that probably has prevented any serious lawsuit to affect insurance premiums for women in the same way. They're absolutely paid less, so prices can be discriminated in such a fashion without much fear of legal consequences. Supreme Court has stated that proven existing discrimination can be used to justify unequal treatment (especially with the intent of remedying past and current discrimination [although that's very much debatable as the reasoning of an insurance company.])
|
Well I have to disagree with people saying men are more dangerous drivers without any back up cus if we just gonna make statements without back up we mine as well get sexist and say women are bad drivers. Any who statistcally 90 percent of statistics are made up, including that one.
I say way to go on calling Geico on thier bs. All sorts of profiling are bad. is bad? w/e
|
On March 02 2011 18:30 shane_danger16 wrote:
Well I have to disagree with people saying men are more dangerous drivers without any back up cus if we just gonna make statements without back up we mine as well get sexist and say women are bad drivers. Any who statistcally 90 percent of statistics are made up, including that one.
I say way to go on calling Geico on thier bs. All sorts of profiling are bad. is bad? w/e
Are you a white male? Then I would believe your belief that profiling is bad, just not as bad as you think.
One way to think about it is whether or not you're negatively affected by handicapped people having the nearest parking spots reserved for them. It's an illusion that you're harmed because they're open half the time, but if they weren't handicapped spots to begin with, the spot wouldn't be open because people got there before you did. You would still make basically the same walk to wherever you were driving to. You can't deny the fact that handicapped people are very much benefited by having parking spots so close to where they need to go more so than you are.
This is only an allegory to the whole notion that affirmative action or profiling benefiting any particular group has to inherently cause equivalent harm to others not benefited. Can we really argue that? Are you really benefited by those extra parking spaces being available to everyone?
If you know what Bakke vs UC Davis Medical School is, the Supreme Court decided that quotas were illegal. Bakke was admitted because the Supreme Court demanded it but an important note was left out in this: With affirmative action in place, Bakke had a 95-97% chance of being rejected from UC Davis. With it taken out of place, his true chances of getting in were 91-93%. Why is this possible? Because the vast applicant pool is not composed of those individuals that are benefiting from affirmative action/profiling/discrimination/what have you. The idea of extensive harm from the sort of profiling we're talking about is vastly overrated.
As for racial profiling in terms of police officers stopping certain minorities incessantly, that's another issue altogether.
Edit: Those statistics were taken from my class on African American Legal History that I'm currently taking. No, I did not make them up, and if you want a source I can dig it up with some book reference if you're that determined.
EditEdit: Here's one I found on the web from another university about the general idea. I go to UCSD though:
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm18.htm
|
i think the real problem here is not that youre discriminated against, but that youre discriminated against ... for profit.
men dont like to 'feel' used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
