|
On November 23 2010 10:58 Kwidowmaker wrote:
I don't consider this to be a substantial complaint. Insurance companies determine rates based on statistics and males are statistically worse drivers. Should women pay more because men drive worse?
There could be a real discussion about sexism against men. How courts deal with divorce and custody cases would be a good topic, how domestic violence against men isn't taken seriously would be a good topic, male body image would be a good topic, insurance rates are not. Perfectly good young drivers pay huge rates because their demographic is statistically much worse at driving.
But that's like saying "the darker your skin is, the more should you pay in taxes cause tecnically, black people commit more crimes, why should white people pay for black peoples crimes?". What's the diffrence? "herp derp thats racist" it's just as racist as what you're saying is sexist. There is men who does perfectly well driving and who's accidents are unrelated to bad driving, just like there's women who drives bad. Just like there's black people who doesnt do crimes and there's white people who does crimes.
(sry for bad english)
|
On March 02 2011 21:57 xM(Z wrote:
"The investigators discovered that teenage boys start recklessly, with about 20 per cent more crashes per mile driven than teenage girls. Males and females between the ages of 20 and 35 run almost identical risks. Females over the age of 35, however, are significantly more likely to crash than their male counterparts."
you can fake any statistic by not taking into accounts all the facts or by 'leading' the result into the desired direction.
The "discrimination" that car insurance companies make is nothing to do with this.
They know that women have more accidents than men, but men have much more serious accidents than women (on average - yes we're stereotyping, but that's what this is all about)
A quote from the BBC article on this story yesterday:
"The British Insurance Brokers' Association (BIBA) said currently the cost of the average car claim by an 18-year old man was £4,400, while that for an 18-year old woman was £2,700."
Women are more likely to bump into a car in a car park and cause a small dent. Men are more likely to have a massive crash and destroy their car.
The statistics are not lying - it's just that the statistic you're quoting isn't the one that effects insurance companies the most and that's not what the higher premiums for men is based on. We all know that women have more accidents, but that doesn't change the fact that men are more expensive to insure. There's no conspiracy or fake statistics here.
Edit for spelling.
|
I was thinking this was going to be one of those chivalry-when-they-want-it sexism-when-they-don't threads, but this is simply statistics. It's an (apparently not) well known fact that car insurance costs more for males because males, as a demographic, cost more to the insurance company to cover. Good ol' profit and loss.
|
On March 02 2011 20:32 DisneylandSC wrote:
Talking as someone who knows some of the models being used by insurance companies I can tell you the following. The more the insurance companies differentiate between different groups of people the more money they make. Afterall anyone pretty much pays what they do anyway (mayby they give a very small discount), and then they let the bad risks in their portfolio pay substantially more.
My criticism on this is that if you were to apply this indefinately you would simply end up in the situation where everyone is paying for his own damages, thus destroying the entire idea behind insurance. Which is you trow everything on a big heap and whomever is unfortunate enough to need it gets some of the money from that heap.And thats IMHO how it should be. This differentiation / discrimination is ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised if people with glasses would cause more accidents as well, should we charge them more? Should we ask more money for health insurance of people who had the unfortune of being born with a chronic disease?
Plus there already exist models to reward people who drive safely, i.e. based on their actions not for what they are, such as the bonus-malus system.
Can't you see how stupid that would be?
You've just completely removed responsibility and common sense from the system.
You have to be able to discriminate against people more likely to crash.
Starting with people who have crashed before, people with drink-driving convictions, speeding fines and ending with age, gender.
Otherwise you have a ridiculous system where you can crash into a wall and face no consequences.
Responsibility also means collective responsibility. In society everyone loses when they allow others to act stupidly.
Almost every guy at some point has done something reckless and stupid, or egged someone on to do something stupid. We are collectively responsible for why our premiums are high, whether you like it or not.
The higher premiums has created an awareness that young men are reckless. This stereotype is something a lot of young men want to fight against and so already it's made a difference.
The collective responsibility filters down and helps to solve the route of the problem (that young men are more reckless). It certainly made me especially careful when I was younger.
That's why a system based on responsibility is far better than one based on completely no responsbility.
|
On March 02 2011 22:04 HeavOnEarth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 21:57 xM(Z wrote:On March 02 2011 20:05 BluzMan wrote:On March 02 2011 19:22 xM(Z wrote:On March 02 2011 19:17 Jayme wrote:On March 02 2011 19:12 xM(Z wrote:
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.
It's not about feeling used. For me it's being charged because machismo assholes drive like idiots and wreck all the time and not on the merits of my pretty damn clean driving record. I've been annoyed at the insurance industry for awhile though so I should really...ignore it. your argument is based on a statistic. people agreed that statistics are 'manufactured' to serve a purpose and you fell for it. but nvm that, what you said only proves my point. you feel used by the "machismo assholes" that "drive like idiots". You can't manufacture statistics in an (ideal) competetive environment. If it was indeed economical to charge men less for car insurance, someone would do it and reap the benefits of a huge and loyal client base (getting a giant boost because it's a "discrimination" issue, not just a price issue). With all the sexism talks and men being pissed about being charged twice the money, only a fool wouldn't charge the "true price" and get all those clients if it was possible. But alas, insurance makes money from statistics, they don't have anything else. Arguing that at least requires a strong background, not just "I feel it ain't no fair" talks. To be honest, all those discrimination talks from americans are borderline retarded. I can't even imagine how a society built upon a dangerously false implication that all people are somehow equal could function. http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980516133725data_trunc_sys.shtml"The investigators discovered that teenage boys start recklessly, with about 20 per cent more crashes per mile driven than teenage girls. Males and females between the ages of 20 and 35 run almost identical risks. Females over the age of 35, however, are significantly more likely to crash than their male counterparts."you can fake any statistic by not taking into accounts all the facts or by 'leading' the result into the desired direction. bro thats a 1998 article on a sketchy site with no crenditals(aka sources) GOOD TRY THO hi5
i wasnt quoting that for truth BRO.
i dont care if its true or not. what that quote was supposed to do is show that statistics can fail.
read Flew posts for 'facts':
-"They know that women have more accidents than men".
-"Women are more likely to bump into a car in a car park and cause a small dent".
see what i did there?. the only conclusion from that is : women suck as drivers
from the 'right' perspective any statistic can fail
Edit:@ Flew
A quote from the BBC article on this story yesterday:
"The British Insurance Brokers' Association (BIBA) said currently the cost of the average car claim by an 18-year old man was £4,400, while that for an 18-year old woman was £2,700."
see, statistic valid for 18year olds but the insurance company charges 40yr olds the same. isnt it more 'fair' that if any discrimination is required, to be made based on age?
|
It's not the job of insurance companies to take an equal amount of money from everyone and redistribute it according to need. That's the job of government. If insurance companies can't properly conduct actuarial risk analysis, insurance might as well be public.
I'm not being facetious or "OH NO SOCIALIZMS", by the way, many Canadian provinces have a public auto insurance scheme and they work well enough.
|
private insurance companies shouldve never existed. all insurances should be managed by the state and the contributions to insurance percieved as taxes.
|
On March 02 2011 23:17 xM(Z wrote:
private insurance companies shouldve never existed. all insurances should be managed by the state and the contributions to insurance percieved as taxes.
Thanks for backing that up with a reasoned argument
|
On March 02 2011 23:22 Zrana wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2011 23:17 xM(Z wrote:
private insurance companies shouldve never existed. all insurances should be managed by the state and the contributions to insurance percieved as taxes. Thanks for backing that up with a reasoned argument
I don't think it's possible. So why try!
|
I don't care if it goes against the logic of how insurance premiums are determined, BRING THIS LAW TO NJ. fuck my insurance
|
People by nature are very prejudiced and biased. Every person is judged by an outside source based on their country of origin, their ethnicity, their economic status, and physical features. Sex is no different. Men are arguably more 'reckless' than women, and apparently get into more accidents (god women drive slow...). The insurance prices reflect this, at least there is a logical reason for this prejudice, and it's probably not just as simple as "men get into more accidents" or "women cant drive", You dont see reasoning this logical in other areas people are prejudiced.
|
Okay, you wanna hear about sexism against men?
A TF2 Proteam recently managed to get a sponsor - it's a kinda odd one, but they've sponsored a CS team before.... Fleshlight. Yes, the company making the (in)famous Fleshlights.
Now a feminist blog went all apeshit insane because of "Dildos are tools but these things are EWWWWWW" and thus ranted like crazy about it.
That's sexist.
|
On March 02 2011 22:27 Healingproof wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 10:58 Kwidowmaker wrote:
I don't consider this to be a substantial complaint. Insurance companies determine rates based on statistics and males are statistically worse drivers. Should women pay more because men drive worse?
There could be a real discussion about sexism against men. How courts deal with divorce and custody cases would be a good topic, how domestic violence against men isn't taken seriously would be a good topic, male body image would be a good topic, insurance rates are not. Perfectly good young drivers pay huge rates because their demographic is statistically much worse at driving. But that's like saying "the darker your skin is, the more should you pay in taxes cause tecnically, black people commit more crimes, why should white people pay for black peoples crimes?". What's the diffrence? "herp derp thats racist" it's just as racist as what you're saying is sexist. There is men who does perfectly well driving and who's accidents are unrelated to bad driving, just like there's women who drives bad. Just like there's black people who doesnt do crimes and there's white people who does crimes. (sry for bad english)
No, it's not like that. Because taxes are not insurance. It's not like you're "insuring" against crimes. Insurance is entirely based on cost-benefit analysis. Insurance companies are taking a financial risk if they take you as a client. There's no other way to do it.
Insurance companies make rates based on statistics of their cost-benefit analysis. They have always done this and they always will. Would you prefer if their rates were completely arbitrary?
|
How is this sexism, men are more ballsy drivers. I'm sure they've studied accident statistics and set their rates accordingly.
Pun not intended, I guess.
|
On March 02 2011 20:05 BluzMan wrote:
The reasons behind women getting paid less at least in Russia are very trivial. It's not that a woman could not do a job as well as a man. No, just as an employer, you would never give a job that requires responsibility (and therefore, has good salaries) to a person who might go MIA for a year without warning and is government-protected in that situation. Women are completely disabled during and after pregnancy and culture prohibits any enforcements on birth control, so they are just not reliable enough for key positions. Better hire her as a secretary that you can easily replace when needed. There are women with careers in Russia as well as in the other countries, but they have to build abit more reputation before being accepted at the top level, for the very same reasons. Unfair? Well, maybe, unfair for those seeking great job options. But had it been regulated at the stage of application (like if you could actually go to court after not being accepted for the job you formally qualified for), it would be unfair to employers, because they would be forced to hire inferior (pure statistic, nothing personal) employees. With business already being hard to establish here, I can see perfectly why such "discrimination" is a good thing.
Wow, I've never thought of that. I agree!
|
On March 02 2011 23:42 twiitar wrote:
Okay, you wanna hear about sexism against men?
A TF2 Proteam recently managed to get a sponsor - it's a kinda odd one, but they've sponsored a CS team before.... Fleshlight. Yes, the company making the (in)famous Fleshlights.
Now a feminist blog went all apeshit insane because of "Dildos are tools but these things are EWWWWWW" and thus ranted like crazy about it.
That's sexist.
I thought you were bsing hahhahahahahaha
http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=4087
|
so it seems like the EU decided that any of this statistical sexism is no longer ok. Byebye cheaper healthcare for men. And if you're girl going yeehaw, I think it's unlikely that this money is somehow going to end up in your pockets :>
And you're gonna have to pay higher life insurance as well. All seems kinda meeh to me.
|
You guys wanna hear a funny story...
My mom has been with Allstate for 10 years. Up to those 10 years, she has had a clean record. No accidents, tickets, etc...
except one day...
She was trying to go groccery shopping, or something, and while she was traveling down this non-busy road, she was coming to an stoplight intersection. The intersection comprises the road running north and south, that leads to a busy road/intersection, and it intersects a road that connects directly from the apartment and goes down to another neighborhood. Obviously since it is considered a residential area the speed limit is about 25mph, like a school zone.
Anyway, as she was traveling down the road she slowed down since the light was red, but soon the light changed and started going, she was the second car in the lane, but this woman thought she could make it past her red light thus she accelerated.
Well what do you know, she hit about 40-50mph, slammed into my mom's passenger side door and pretty much made her do a 360 almost across the intersection into the incoming lane...The lady, who crashed my mom, was a tard and also didn't have her seat belt thus she apparently hit her head pretty hard on the steering wheel cutting her head, luckily for my mom she had her belt on because she described how the belt kept her body in place while her limbs flayed like a ragdoll.
Long story short, the damage came about 12G, btw wear your seat belts cause in accidents like these your company may pay you for defensive driving like my mom, but after calculating medical examinations and what not, her neck was fucked up a little, it came out into 5 figure bill for the company. My mom, who had full coverage, essentially got all her money back and then some.
The company, obviously, was NOT happy since they couldn't sue the lady cause she was dirt poor and threatened to drop my mother...who again had a clean substantial record with them.She threatened back saying she will sue them and ended up dropping their policy for liberty mutual, who are nice cheaper people. They wanted to drop her, despite her good record, because they lost money.
And that is how insurance companies work. They try to get all the "good drivers" and hope that they don't get into accidents while they still dish out the rates. Get enough safe clients, and try to weed out the "bad" clients, cause you are trying to reduce liabilities that will make you lose money, and that means more money.Thus they are getting "free" money.
In the end she essentially circumvented the system and is considered the "outlier." Although technically they gave her the money since they fucked up on the car review and gave her a brand new engine when it wasn't needed but HEY we are not complaining :D
|
Yeah yesterday BBC news was talking about car insurance and how it will be equalised between the sexes because of the EU judgement. I find it hilarious personally. Not because I think it's a good idea to equalise like this (all it's going to do is give companies an excuse to charge more when it's all averaged out), but because it might make people finally realise that equality at all costs isn't necessarily a good thing. There are actually legitimate reasons for some forms of discrimination (ie young males get into more driving accidents than females, different genders/races are at different genetic levels of risk for certain diseases, maternity leave being a good thing but not for the company that now has to find a replacement, etc).
People complain about things when they feel hard-done by. You won't find feminists actively campaigning for father's rights to see their children, and you won't get fathers4justice speaking out about lower pay for women being unjust. This is not to say people from either of those groups might not feel that way about those issues, but they will concentrate on improving things for one group above all others - themselves. It's how human nature works. People need to stop, sit down, and think about whether things are actually 'injust' or if some things are imbalanced for a reason.
|
On March 03 2011 00:18 Hexaflex wrote:
People need to stop, sit down, and think about whether things are actually 'injust' or if some things are imbalanced for a reason.
I get all my need for this from Artosis and Idra. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
