|
On March 04 2011 06:50 Passion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 03:53 SharkSpider wrote:
Consider a country in which insurance companies were not allowed to discriminate based on sex. This would cause premiums for males on car insurance to decrease, and premiums for females to increase. This means that absent other factors, insurance companies with more female clients would be more profitable, and it would be beneficial to run a smaller company that markets to females and attempts to dissuade males from purchasing insurance. I might do this by offering benefits with car insurance that only really apply to females or that seem insulting to males. That way, we could afford to charge a lower "effective" price and make more money per car insured, on a macroscopic level. So if you want them to stop discriminating by sex, that means higher profit margins on females, meaning you would also probably have to legislate them to have quotas on male customers because no one would want them, and chances are that business-to-business ventures would have separate prices for male and female, even if publicly they can't charge the customers anything different.
Essentially, no amount of "rights" talk can make a true statement false, pretending that it is doesn't serve anyone.
Anyways, this doesn't just apply to insurance. What about other questions? Should clubs be allowed to charge women a lower cover or refuse admittance to people in order to get a better ratio? Should an all-you-can-eat burger joint charge more for men than for women, given that doing otherwise is costing them business? Should gyms have women-only areas but not men-only ones? Now lets imagine this country... Something like this?And can someone supply accident rates for different (ethnic) races? Should spice up this discussion a bit.
i can supply them for alcohol related driving deaths in the US but i couldn't find one for just total deaths, anyways the numbers just pointed that all races were pretty even in that regard, except native americans were a bit high and asians where a bit lower then the rest. Not exactly as evident as the number of male drivers in fatal accidents a year is double that of the number of female drivers, while considering that the split for male and female in the US in number of drivers is about even.
I'll go find the paper again...
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Archive/ethnicity/ethnicity.html#Fig2
|
Thats just how it works when it comes to evaluating risk, you can always move to Brazil, where your manhood is properly respected.
![[image loading]](http://static.black-frames.net/images/brazil.jpg)
|
and so is drug gangs shooting down a helicopter :D
|
hahahaha that's awesome dude, i'm glad you got the refund! I'm gunna do it too now 
|
On March 03 2011 21:29 Jones993 wrote:Show nested quote +The practice is controversial and widely considered inappropriate and illegal. Let me see if I understand. When you read the above sentence you interpret the following meaning from it: Racial profiling is legal. I also believe you are incorrectly interpreting the statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causationJust because there appears to be a link between gender and accidents does not mean there actually is one
First off, you didn't address any of the support I added to my argument which clearly shows that racial profiling is legal and that correlation can be used as justification for racial profiling. Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Look at the case that I presented, and see for yourself that the supreme court is okay with the simple correlation that blacks are more likely to commit crimes in these neighborhoods and can detained on the basis of race. Racial profiling was deemed okay for the intents and purposes of the LAPD.
I'm not interpreting anything. If you really wanted to have an honest debate you would have read what I had to say. The Supreme Court is interpreting it that way however, so you can argue against them about the legal merits of using statistics in civil rights cases.
Second I believe that you're misinterpreting the sentence by reading it as:
"The practice is controversial, inappropriate, and illegal" when a number of facts actually point out in the article that the case is not so. The sentence is missing some clarifying words and has this meaning with further inspection of all the facts: The practice is controversial and considered by many BUT NOT ALL to be illegal.
I see that arguing with you is a complete waste of time because of your self righteous attitude towards the validity of other viewpoints without honestly considering them. If you want to remain isolated with your own beliefs then please go ahead with bold claims with no actual backing.
And xmz, if it helps you sleep at night knowing that I was "owned," please continue to think so. If you really want to get an understanding of this issue however, educate yourself before you post.
|
Did any of you ever hear of the law of large numbers. You should look into it.
|
On March 04 2011 12:45 IronFenix wrote:
Did any of you ever hear of the law of large numbers. You should look into it.
I think you mean the law of averages, but indeed. Statistics is a bitch when it actually identifies things about you.. >.<
|
No, the theorem is actually named the law of larger numbers. But yeah, I agree with you that it is a bitch that when statistics identify something about you.
Anyway, to spin the question another way. We are bitching that it's not fair that women pay less premiums then men. but on the flip side, would it be fair that women pay more premiums because of men?
|
On March 04 2011 11:29 CuriousMoose wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 21:29 Jones993 wrote:The practice is controversial and widely considered inappropriate and illegal. Let me see if I understand. When you read the above sentence you interpret the following meaning from it: Racial profiling is legal. I also believe you are incorrectly interpreting the statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causationJust because there appears to be a link between gender and accidents does not mean there actually is one First off, you didn't address any of the support I added to my argument which clearly shows that racial profiling is legal and that correlation can be used as justification for racial profiling. Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Look at the case that I presented, and see for yourself that the supreme court is okay with the simple correlation that blacks are more likely to commit crimes in these neighborhoods and can detained on the basis of race. Racial profiling was deemed okay for the intents and purposes of the LAPD. I'm not interpreting anything. If you really wanted to have an honest debate you would have read what I had to say. The Supreme Court is interpreting it that way however, so you can argue against them about the legal merits of using statistics in civil rights cases. Second I believe that you're misinterpreting the sentence by reading it as: "The practice is controversial, inappropriate, and illegal" when a number of facts actually point out in the article that the case is not so. The sentence is missing some clarifying words and has this meaning with further inspection of all the facts: The practice is controversial and considered by many BUT NOT ALL to be illegal. I see that arguing with you is a complete waste of time because of your self righteous attitude towards the validity of other viewpoints without honestly considering them. If you want to remain isolated with your own beliefs then please go ahead with bold claims with no actual backing. And xmz, if it helps you sleep at night knowing that I was "owned," please continue to think so. If you really want to get an understanding of this issue however, educate yourself before you post.
you dont have to be educated to figure out that your logic backfired and now youre just nitpicking.
also, note that i didnt said you were wrong.
there are 2 sides here. if youre a 'people person' this is wrong and if youre a 'money person' this is right.
-being a money person makes you a capitalist, a wannabe rich (or already rich), thus people hate you by default. (by the latest trends not because you are rich but because you became rich on the expense of others).
-by being a people person you reject from the start any form of discrimination against another human being.
each side has its own arguments and logic but what it all comes down to is: people vs money. (women just got caught in crossfire here)
|
So you've shown that you do not understand correlation/causation, that doesn't prove your point.
The fact is that porportionally, males cause more accidents than females, as determined by whichever roadway laws and policies are used to determine fault in a car accident. Nothing you can do or say will make this untrue, so the question is of interpretation. We have two properties, gender and accidents, that are correlated mathematically. That means one of three things:
1. More car accidents cause you to have a higher chance of being male.
2. Being male causes you to have a higher chance of getting in to accidents.
3. A third factor, when present, causes a higher likelihood of both being male and getting in to accidents.
I think what you really meant to say was that there is margin of error in statistics, but the data pool is too large for that to be a valid complaint.
|
nature is discriminating against women and men. fewer girls are born, and more boys die in their adolesence. Why should we try to act better than mother nature. (I'm not claiming we should be animals :D). Men paying more for insurances at certain ages is only logical. Calling it sexism is like calling out chocolate icecream for being racist.
If insurances should not distinguish between any age or gender, there would be no statistics involved and so there can be no insurance. The only option is to increase the female and old ppl fee to match the fee of any 23 yr old male. Maybe this idiotic solution will let you sleep better at night
|
On March 04 2011 20:49 IronFenix wrote:
Anyway, to spin the question another way. We are bitching that it's not fair that women pay less premiums then men. but on the flip side, would it be fair that women pay more premiums because of men?
The number of people actually in car accidents is a small percentage of the population. This means that there are far more "good" drivers than "bad" drivers. Using statistics vs one another but not vs the actual number of people driving, in order to discriminate an entire gender is pure profiteering. Can nobody else see that?
To put this in perspective, say 3% of drivers get involved in accidents (yes, im making this up, but hear me out). 1% are female, 2% are male. Say the population split in driving is 50/50. The insurance companies can use these stats as an excuse to say, well, male drivers are DOUBLE the risk of female drivers therefore we shall charge them double (as is in the UK).
This means that the 48% remaining male population is paying far more (increasingly so the younger they get) even though they are "good" drivers who dont get into accidents. Given that this is hypothetical, as far as im aware the number of male drivers in accidents compared to women is around that much more. Even if the numbers were a wider gap, you wont see more male drivers getting into accidents than male drivers who dont, but you'll still see the majority of decent drivers getting whacked with double the cost. And that isn't fair.
The insurance companies are MINTING it. They're the enemy, they need to be properly regulated, they need to properly penalise bad drivers (while most importantly- properly rewarding good drivers) and not tar half of our species with the same brush.
|
On March 04 2011 21:19 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 11:29 CuriousMoose wrote:On March 03 2011 21:29 Jones993 wrote:The practice is controversial and widely considered inappropriate and illegal. Let me see if I understand. When you read the above sentence you interpret the following meaning from it: Racial profiling is legal. I also believe you are incorrectly interpreting the statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causationJust because there appears to be a link between gender and accidents does not mean there actually is one First off, you didn't address any of the support I added to my argument which clearly shows that racial profiling is legal and that correlation can be used as justification for racial profiling. Disclaimer: THIS IS NOT MY INTERPRETATION. Look at the case that I presented, and see for yourself that the supreme court is okay with the simple correlation that blacks are more likely to commit crimes in these neighborhoods and can detained on the basis of race. Racial profiling was deemed okay for the intents and purposes of the LAPD. I'm not interpreting anything. If you really wanted to have an honest debate you would have read what I had to say. The Supreme Court is interpreting it that way however, so you can argue against them about the legal merits of using statistics in civil rights cases. Second I believe that you're misinterpreting the sentence by reading it as: "The practice is controversial, inappropriate, and illegal" when a number of facts actually point out in the article that the case is not so. The sentence is missing some clarifying words and has this meaning with further inspection of all the facts: The practice is controversial and considered by many BUT NOT ALL to be illegal. I see that arguing with you is a complete waste of time because of your self righteous attitude towards the validity of other viewpoints without honestly considering them. If you want to remain isolated with your own beliefs then please go ahead with bold claims with no actual backing. And xmz, if it helps you sleep at night knowing that I was "owned," please continue to think so. If you really want to get an understanding of this issue however, educate yourself before you post. you dont have to be educated to figure out that your logic backfired and now youre just nitpicking. also, note that i didnt said you were wrong. there are 2 sides here. if youre a 'people person' this is wrong and if youre a 'money person' this is right. -being a money person makes you a capitalist, a wannabe rich (or already rich), thus people hate you by default. (by the latest trends not because you are rich but because you became rich on the expense of others). -by being a people person you reject from the start any form of discrimination against another human being. each side has its own arguments and logic but what it all comes down to is: people vs money. (women just got caught in crossfire here)
You didn't read my argument which showed that he wasn't nearly "nitpicky" enough with his argument, so obviously you didn't understand my logic. Actually reading the article that is cited, reading the proof that I laid out, and learning about racial profiling would go a long way towards that.
That is a highly simplistic interpretation of the arguments presented. If we're talking about the lives of people, do you want to address why women on average make less money than male counterparts with similar training, experience, and history with the same employer? Can you explain why statistically blacks are given the death sentence more 10 times more frequently for murdering a white individual who committed murder against a black?
These inequalities aren't defended because of notions about money. These inequalities exist because we don't live in an ideal society where everything is actually equal. When women are treated equally in terms of income, then it would be fair to charge them more. Forcing them to pay more is causing them immensely more harm by sapping a much larger portion of their income than a male counterpart. This hurts them by preventing them from enjoying the same quality of life as men. Does that sound like a "I LOVE MONEY AS A CAPITALIST AND WANT TO BE RICH" answer? Sometimes capitalism or the "money person" interpretation aligns with the "people person" interpretation of life that you support.
How is this possible? Because like any company with competition, they'll sell car insurance at a price that people will be willing to reasonably pay with the money that they have. Women have less money to spend with altogether because of structural sexism end up paying less for car insurance for this reason as well. Does that make sense? If you take into account everything else that they have to pay for at equal pricing to males (basically everything else) with a smaller income, this seems like a fair break for women in a society that is realistically unequal to the detriment of women.
Look at how the law has treated unequal parties by demanding equality in the past of the United States. The Civil Rights Cases of 1876, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc. You can legislate equality all you want, but if you ignore real inequalities, you're screwing people over to a significant degree because you end up promoting inequality in doing so. Is this the solution that a "people person" would support?
Supporting equal insurance prices for men is also based on money if you think about it. The only reason men are complaining is not because of some notion of what should be just but realistically their wallets or some notion that the system is keeping them back from being rich.
So here's how it actually is: If you're a people person, this is right. If you're a money person this is right. If you're pulling a NEXLiveForever and following your heart, you're probably wrong. Social issues can hardly be summed up in the way that you put it.
|
On March 05 2011 00:57 Vore210 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2011 20:49 IronFenix wrote:
Anyway, to spin the question another way. We are bitching that it's not fair that women pay less premiums then men. but on the flip side, would it be fair that women pay more premiums because of men?
The number of people actually in car accidents is a small percentage of the population. This means that there are far more "good" drivers than "bad" drivers. Using statistics vs one another but not vs the actual number of people driving, in order to discriminate an entire gender is pure profiteering. Can nobody else see that? To put this in perspective, say 3% of drivers get involved in accidents (yes, im making this up, but hear me out). 1% are female, 2% are male. Say the population split in driving is 50/50. The insurance companies can use these stats as an excuse to say, well, male drivers are DOUBLE the risk of female drivers therefore we shall charge them double (as is in the UK). This means that the 48% remaining male population is paying far more (increasingly so the younger they get) even though they are "good" drivers who dont get into accidents. Given that this is hypothetical, as far as im aware the number of male drivers in accidents compared to women is around that much more. Even if the numbers were a wider gap, you wont see more male drivers getting into accidents than male drivers who dont, but you'll still see the majority of decent drivers getting whacked with double the cost. And that isn't fair. The insurance companies are MINTING it. They're the enemy, they need to be properly regulated, they need to properly penalise bad drivers (while most importantly- properly rewarding good drivers) and not tar half of our species with the same brush.
Sorry for double post, but my last post is already an essay.
You're correct in your assumption that good drivers predominate. There's no argument over that. My problem is with your assumption that insurance companies are colluding to an immense degree. You extend that assumption that line of thought by saying insurance companies are profiteering by charging men more. This is fairly baseless in reality because of the existence of active competition. A company loses customers AND revenue if it arbitrarily raises its prices in an economic system.
The more likely scenario is that women are being charged less because of data that pointed towards profit maximization (taking customers from competing businesses as well as interesting previously uninterested buyers) by lowering its prices for women to one that more are willing to pay for. These price wars would also explain why insurance businesses are running deficits. It's the loss of these female customers who are uninterested in purchasing car insurance at higher prices that these companies don't want to lose as losing them implies running even higher deficits than they have already.
So just to sum all of that up, if the companies would maximize profit by not charging women less, there would be no reason for them so do so. This does not necessarily mean that they charge men more which would be entirely counterintuitive if competing insurance companies are not changing or are reducing prices. But what if they are colluding as you suggest?
In the case that insurance companies are colluding, there is a different problem altogether, but this is absurd as they're all losing money competing amongst themselves as is. And just to be clear, I'm assuming that the insurance companies aren't completely retarded.
Your argument about the majority of drivers being hit with higher costs doesn't really prove anything as that's just how insurance works. The entire basis of the insurance industry is the hope that people are more cautious than retarded in all things house, car, and life related. You pay insurance on the bet that you will get into an accident and will need money. It's really all a gamble, and the house (insurance industry) equalizes it with different prices dependent on different factors. Sounds sketchy, but competition itself is a powerful regulatory mechanism that will even logically lead them all into giving the edge to the buyers against their best interests.
|
On March 03 2011 21:29 Jones993 wrote:Show nested quote +The practice is controversial and widely considered inappropriate and illegal. Let me see if I understand. When you read the above sentence you interpret the following meaning from it: Racial profiling is legal. I also believe you are incorrectly interpreting the statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causationJust because there appears to be a link between gender and accidents does not mean there actually is one
I hate when people pull this out, without actually knowing what it signifies. Poor Hume is probably turning in his grave...
Assuming causation if an event is close to 100% correlated to another is a useful heuristic we use every day. To be a true skeptic of this, you would have to check your watch every time you see the sun come up whether it is actually 6 am.
In science, a huge part of a theories worth is it's predictions of the future. If you affirm that if event A happens, B happens, that is all you need to say. You don't even need to state what way the causation is or whether both are caused by a third (I'm excluding chance here, because if you have a large enough series of data points, the chance of the correlation actually being chance is going towards 0).
How is this relevant? Law enforcement has collected data that predicts that X% of population Y will commit a crime. They therefore increase scrutiny of that population.
Same with insurance companies.
Funny thing is, most people that are offended by profiling profile themselves:
If you were to work at an airport and you had the capacity to check 2 out of 100 people.
Now as your check-in is for flights to Atlanta, you usually have 98 retirees and 2 people that look like middle eastern decent. Who would you check?
tl;dr: Even if correlation does not prove causation, neither does correlation disprove causation. Also, we all benefit from profiling.
|
On March 05 2011 18:11 Brotkrumen wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2011 21:29 Jones993 wrote:The practice is controversial and widely considered inappropriate and illegal. Let me see if I understand. When you read the above sentence you interpret the following meaning from it: Racial profiling is legal. I also believe you are incorrectly interpreting the statistics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causationJust because there appears to be a link between gender and accidents does not mean there actually is one I hate when people pull this out, without actually knowing what it signifies. Poor Hume is probably turning in his grave... Assuming causation if an event is close to 100% correlated to another is a useful heuristic we use every day. To be a true skeptic of this, you would have to check your watch every time you see the sun come up whether it is actually 6 am. In science, a huge part of a theories worth is it's predictions of the future. If you affirm that if event A happens, B happens, that is all you need to say. You don't even need to state what way the causation is or whether both are caused by a third (I'm excluding chance here, because if you have a large enough series of data points, the chance of the correlation actually being chance is going towards 0). How is this relevant? Law enforcement has collected data that predicts that X% of population Y will commit a crime. They therefore increase scrutiny of that population. Same with insurance companies. Funny thing is, most people that are offended by profiling profile themselves: If you were to work at an airport and you had the capacity to check 2 out of 100 people. Now as your check-in is for flights to Atlanta, you usually have 98 retirees and 2 people that look like middle eastern decent. Who would you check? tl;dr: Even if correlation does not prove causation, neither does correlation disprove causation. Also, we all benefit from profiling.
Well said I was about to add something but realized that it was already among your points!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
