|
On November 23 2010 11:28 Myles wrote:
This is stupid.
I hate paying higher insurance as much as the next guy, but discrimination is how insurance works. They break people into groups and determine which groups, on average, have the highest risk and then charge them more. Unless you propose that everyone pay the same rate, your argument is baseless.
If everyone were charged the same rate then drivers in demographics less likely to have an accident are going to be charged more than drivers in riskier demographics, in the name of fairness.
|
On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges.
It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism.
And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue.
|
On November 23 2010 11:28 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +There's a carve out for insurance companies, but that's because of money: I'm arguing it's morally wrong, not that it isn't reasonable for insurance companies to act as they do. How in the hell is it morally wrong to charge women less when women end up receiving less payments from insurance companies within the lifetime of their policies???
The argument is that suppose you are Vanished131, the most careful driver in the world, and you are forced to pay extra because people who have the same gender as you tend to get into accidents more frequently. That is roughly the same argument that "suppose you are black, people of your ethnicity commit more violent crimes."
I don't personally have an issue with it, but it's not about "morally wrong to charge women less", it's the concept of applying an aggregate measure to an individual that is the issue.
|
On November 23 2010 11:31 Typhon wrote:
The argument is that suppose you are Vanished131, the most careful driver in the world, and you are forced to pay extra because people who have the same gender as you tend to get into accidents more frequently. That is roughly the same argument that "suppose you are black, people of your ethnicity commit more violent crimes."
Are there more policemen in black neighborhoods?
|
@Typhon
I agree absolutely. That is the key point in this thread!
|
On November 23 2010 11:31 Typhon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:28 domovoi wrote:There's a carve out for insurance companies, but that's because of money: I'm arguing it's morally wrong, not that it isn't reasonable for insurance companies to act as they do. How in the hell is it morally wrong to charge women less when women end up receiving less payments from insurance companies within the lifetime of their policies??? The argument is that suppose you are Vanished131, the more careful driver in the world, and you are forced to pay extra because people who have the same gender as you tend to get into accidents more frequently. That is roughly the same argument that "suppose you are black, people of your ethnicity commit more violent crimes." I don't personally have an issue with it, but it's not about "morally wrong to charge women less", it's the concept of applying an aggregate measure to an individual that is the issue.
Yeah fuck those insurance companies. For ages they've had magical time machines that let them know which drivers were going to have an accident but they don't use 'em cuz they're jerks
|
On November 23 2010 11:30 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:28 domovoi wrote:There's a carve out for insurance companies, but that's because of money: I'm arguing it's morally wrong, not that it isn't reasonable for insurance companies to act as they do. How in the hell is it morally wrong to charge women less when women end up receiving less payments from insurance companies within the lifetime of their policies??? That's like saying women and men should be charged the same for meals even though women tend to eat less than men. Because it's discrimination based on a protected trait (sex). It's illegal to make decisions based on that in many situations. In Canada, for example, a landlord can't refuse a potential renter based on their gender, race, religion, etc. Women are also in general less available workers (they have longer maternity leave, work less on average) but you can't discriminate in your hiring based on sex by law.
It's not discrimination based on sex. Men and women are not receiving the same product, because women receive less insurance payouts than men over the life of their policy.
It would in fact be discrimination to charge them the same rates, because now women are putting more money into it than what they take out relative to men.
|
On November 23 2010 11:29 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:28 Vanished131 wrote:Discrimination is justified if two subgroups don't act equally. The black kids around the corner from me act very differently than myself. Let's raise their home insurance...errr...rent! Where's your scientific justification? And don't try to backpedal and be pedantic.
Black people are statistically more likely to not only be involved in crime, but be victims as well. Thus, there is a higher probability that the black kids may be robbed and the property damaged. Thus, raising their home insurance would be the correct thing to do. If home insurance companies pay out more damages to black people than white people or asian people, isn't it discrimination to charge them the same rates?
|
On November 23 2010 11:33 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:30 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 domovoi wrote:There's a carve out for insurance companies, but that's because of money: I'm arguing it's morally wrong, not that it isn't reasonable for insurance companies to act as they do. How in the hell is it morally wrong to charge women less when women end up receiving less payments from insurance companies within the lifetime of their policies??? That's like saying women and men should be charged the same for meals even though women tend to eat less than men. Because it's discrimination based on a protected trait (sex). It's illegal to make decisions based on that in many situations. In Canada, for example, a landlord can't refuse a potential renter based on their gender, race, religion, etc. Women are also in general less available workers (they have longer maternity leave, work less on average) but you can't discriminate in your hiring based on sex by law. It's not discrimination based on sex. Men and women are not receiving the same product, because women receive less insurance payouts than men over the life of their policy. It would in fact be discrimination to charge them the same rates, because now women are putting more money into it than what they take out relative to men.
Discrimination: "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit"
It is discrimination. It is based on sex. It is therefore sexism.
And they are receiving the same product: a certain insurance protection, which has whatever attributes you want. You get the same thing. One just pays more, and I understand why, but it's still sexism. And that's still wrong.
|
On November 23 2010 11:30 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:29 shinosai wrote:
I don't really care if women are charged less based on their demographic, but there does seem to be something more at work here than just that. I mean, there are females my age that have been in multiple accidents that will be charged less insurance than me. I've never been in an accident, period. How does that make sense? I'm still somehow more likely to get into an accident than a female who's been in multiple accidents, just because I'm male?
I highly doubt there's any sort of statistic that can support that theory. Seems that gender is given far more weight than driving record, which is retarded. There's more factors than driving record and gender.
Yea, there are. Too bad gender seems to be the most important one, eh?
|
On November 23 2010 11:34 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:29 jalstar wrote:On November 23 2010 11:28 Vanished131 wrote:Discrimination is justified if two subgroups don't act equally. The black kids around the corner from me act very differently than myself. Let's raise their home insurance...errr...rent! Where's your scientific justification? And don't try to backpedal and be pedantic. Black people are statistically more likely to not only be involved in crime, but be victims as well. Thus, there is a higher probability that the black kids may be robbed and the property damaged. Thus, raising their home insurance would be the correct thing to do. If home insurance companies pay out more damages to black people than white people or asian people, isn't it discrimination to charge them the same rates?
Oh ok, you're agreeing with me.
|
On November 23 2010 11:33 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:31 Typhon wrote:
The argument is that suppose you are Vanished131, the most careful driver in the world, and you are forced to pay extra because people who have the same gender as you tend to get into accidents more frequently. That is roughly the same argument that "suppose you are black, people of your ethnicity commit more violent crimes." Are there more policemen in black neighborhoods?
I can't answer that for sure, but from my personal experiences, there are more policemen in rich well-to-do, predominantly white neighborhoods. Especially so if they border less well-to-do areas.
|
On November 23 2010 11:25 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:21 Z3kk wrote:On November 23 2010 11:16 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:14 Z3kk wrote:
The thrust of this is that insurance companies are there to make money, and they won't do it by being blatantly and needlessly sexist or discriminatory. In fact, flagrant discrimination might result in a devastating lawsuit and a public relations disaster.
As everyone else has been saying, it's actuarial science. Companies will make more money if they manage risks effectively. They look at statistics, and men's overall rates are worse (as many are saying). Men also make significantly more money than do women, so a ten-dollar difference in insurance rates is immaterial.
I wish yo luck with your protest to Geico, but I'm telling you now that you really don't have much of a case. There are cases in which sexism is involved, but this isn't one of them. It is sexist BY DEFINITION. I understand actuarial science and how it determines rates based on risk, but that doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Or that it's not wrong. Okay, I was under the impression that we were discussing the social issues: i.e. whether or not there is a "reverse sexism" going on here...I'm not being (or trying to be, at least) inflammatory, but at this point you're discussing semantics. Definition is somewhat subjective--not all of us will agree on an exact definition--but if your definition is accepted (any form of bias towards a race), then sure: it's sexist. However, this "sexism" isn't what I'm referring to, and has little to no impact on the social issue of sexism (which, in this case, I believe is ludicrous because companies are merely trying to determine the best course of action to reap a profit). Actuarial science may or may not be incorrect sometimes, but it's something with which companies can work, and they're definitely going to do that if they want any hope of earning money. Agreeing on definitions and pointing out when a word fits a definition is not semantics, it's the most basic piece of work that has to be established in order for communication to work. And if you think that "discrimination based on sex" is an unusual definition for "sexism," then you are wildly unaware. Saying that "A fits the definition of X, and X is wrong" is not semantics, its the most basic of analytic arguments. I'm not disputing the math of actuarial science, I'm disputing the morality. I'm aware that it increases profits for insurance companies, but that doesn't make it morally right, especially as we have established in our culture and our laws that sexism (discrimination based on sex, statistically or otherwise) is illegal. There's a carve out for insurance companies, but that's because of money: I'm arguing it's morally wrong, not that it isn't reasonable for insurance companies to act as they do.
Ugh, I guess I wasn't clear enough...that was my fault. What I meant was that you're confining the definition of sexism specifically to anything discriminatory towards a sex. If we use the wikipedia definition, you're saying that its morally wrong for there to be "sex discrimination"--that is, discrimination based on sex. Sexism itself is an entire attitude or prejudice towards a sex. Insurance rate disparities might be sex discrimination, but it's not an underlying attitude that specifically targets males.
It's a clear and defined fact that men, on average, accumulate more costs in damages. Thus, a firm might "sexually discriminate" (and in this case, I mean differentiate, not offensively carry a bias) between the two and recognize that it should increase rates for men, so as not to lose too much money. It's not truly immoral or sexist to do so, because being truly bigoted (i.e. sexist) would imply an overall belief or attitude that men are inferior or otherwise worse than women.
|
I learned in drivers ed men ARE more likely to get in car accidents than females. so :/
sources?
Don't see what else can really be said.
|
On November 23 2010 11:25 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:23 Impervious wrote:
Gender equality is women getting paid the same as men.
Gender equality is not being questioned or ignored or humiliated when coming forward about being raped or sexually assaulted.
Gender equality is not having domestic violence be the number one cause of injury to women.
You make me sick. Don't compare your bullshit hardships to what women have gone through and still go through.
Believe it or not, there are actually two sides to this coin..... Not in this issue about auto insurance rates. There are real issues of gender inequality when it comes to parental rights, abortion rights, alimony, societal acceptance of being a victim of rape/domestic violence, etc. Auto insurance rates is a stupid issue to hang your hat on.
Yes, but those issues are generally imperfect in both directions, not just one direction.
Why should a woman earn the same wage as a man in the same job, if they have different productivity? Shouldn't the more productive employee earn more? Nooooo, because that would be sexist.....
Of course, nobody should be ignored or humiliated when coming forward about sexual assaults, however, do you know how fucked up shit gets when you get charged for sexual assault for something that was consensual, but her boyfriend found out about it? Thankfully, I had it dropped, and my family was out of the country at the time, so they know nothing about what happened.....
Also, those domestic violence statistics would be skewed somewhat differently if men actually came forward with their injuries from it..... It's not only one gender that suffers from that.
Of course, you're also going to forget things like custody battles though, since it's better for the kids to be with their mothers, right? How about spousal support, since it's creating undue stress and hardship on the woman of the household?
I know someone who finished Law school, and during the party afterwards, he got drunk and ended up getting a girl pregnant. Believe it or not, this was actually her plan (she lied about taking birth control). She won't even let him have contact with his kid, and if he ever works (he's still living in his parent's basement), she'll take something like 30% of it until the kid is 18. And, yes, this is Canada we're talking about here. It's a fucking shame, because he's fucking brilliant, and he is completely against the ruling, so his course of action is to simply not work.....
A lot of people who have your type of romanticized/chivalristic view of gender equality really need a wakeup call.
|
On November 23 2010 11:31 Typhon wrote:
The argument is that suppose you are Vanished131, the most careful driver in the world, and you are forced to pay extra because people who have the same gender as you tend to get into accidents more frequently. That is roughly the same argument that "suppose you are black, people of your ethnicity commit more violent crimes."
I don't personally have an issue with it, but it's not about "morally wrong to charge women less", it's the concept of applying an aggregate measure to an individual that is the issue.
That is an issue that goes beyond gender. If Vanished131 is truly the most careful driver in the world, how the hell is the insurance company supposed to know that? At some level, you have to apply aggregates because such personal information is impossible for the insurance company to obtain (though they would love to have it).
|
On November 23 2010 11:31 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:28 Krigwin wrote:On November 23 2010 11:27 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:25 jalstar wrote:
The biggest men's rights issues is false rape charges and will continue to be for a while. This isn't even a men's rights issue. Sure it is. It has to do with sexism against men, which would be a violation of men's rights. I'm not going to get into some semantics argument regarding the definition of sexism, but please let's not equate something as trivial as insurance rates with actual men's right issues like false rape charges. It's not semantics. It's the most basic part of an argument. If anyone is being semantic, it's you in trying to claim that "discrimination based on sex" is somehow not the definition of sexism. And I'm not claiming that insurance rates are the biggest issue.
Yea, I'm just going to say cz seems to get it.
Can we agree on this:
1) The definition of sexism is: discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities (taken from dictionary.com)
2) Therefore, it is sexist to charge different rates for men and women.
and finally,
3) TLO is really handsome.
|
On November 23 2010 11:36 Z3kk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2010 11:25 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:21 Z3kk wrote:On November 23 2010 11:16 cz wrote:On November 23 2010 11:14 Z3kk wrote:
The thrust of this is that insurance companies are there to make money, and they won't do it by being blatantly and needlessly sexist or discriminatory. In fact, flagrant discrimination might result in a devastating lawsuit and a public relations disaster.
As everyone else has been saying, it's actuarial science. Companies will make more money if they manage risks effectively. They look at statistics, and men's overall rates are worse (as many are saying). Men also make significantly more money than do women, so a ten-dollar difference in insurance rates is immaterial.
I wish yo luck with your protest to Geico, but I'm telling you now that you really don't have much of a case. There are cases in which sexism is involved, but this isn't one of them. It is sexist BY DEFINITION. I understand actuarial science and how it determines rates based on risk, but that doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Or that it's not wrong. Okay, I was under the impression that we were discussing the social issues: i.e. whether or not there is a "reverse sexism" going on here...I'm not being (or trying to be, at least) inflammatory, but at this point you're discussing semantics. Definition is somewhat subjective--not all of us will agree on an exact definition--but if your definition is accepted (any form of bias towards a race), then sure: it's sexist. However, this "sexism" isn't what I'm referring to, and has little to no impact on the social issue of sexism (which, in this case, I believe is ludicrous because companies are merely trying to determine the best course of action to reap a profit). Actuarial science may or may not be incorrect sometimes, but it's something with which companies can work, and they're definitely going to do that if they want any hope of earning money. Agreeing on definitions and pointing out when a word fits a definition is not semantics, it's the most basic piece of work that has to be established in order for communication to work. And if you think that "discrimination based on sex" is an unusual definition for "sexism," then you are wildly unaware. Saying that "A fits the definition of X, and X is wrong" is not semantics, its the most basic of analytic arguments. I'm not disputing the math of actuarial science, I'm disputing the morality. I'm aware that it increases profits for insurance companies, but that doesn't make it morally right, especially as we have established in our culture and our laws that sexism (discrimination based on sex, statistically or otherwise) is illegal. There's a carve out for insurance companies, but that's because of money: I'm arguing it's morally wrong, not that it isn't reasonable for insurance companies to act as they do. Ugh, I guess I wasn't clear enough...that was my fault. What I meant was that you're confining the definition of sexism specifically to anything discriminatory towards a sex. If we use the wikipedia definition, you're saying that its morally wrong for there to be "sex discrimination"--that is, discrimination based on sex. Sexism itself is an entire attitude or prejudice towards a sex. Insurance rate disparities might be sex discrimination, but it's not an underlying attitude that specifically targets males. It's a clear and defined fact that men, on average, accumulate more costs in damages. Thus, a firm might "sexually discriminate" (and in this case, I mean differentiate, not offensively carry a bias) between the two and recognize that it should increase rates for men, so as not to lose too much money. It's not truly immoral or sexist to do so, because being truly bigoted (i.e. sexist) would imply an overall belief or attitude that men are inferior or otherwise worse than women.
The wikipedia definition is not a definition at all, it's the beginning of an encyclopedia entry. If you consult the dictionary you'll see that sexism is essentially "discrimination based on sex."
I'm not disputing the reasoning behind insurance companies rate pricing: if I were a CEO driven to increase profits, I'd use the same system. But it's still sexism, per the definition (not wikipedia's long essay).
|
Insurance is about cost spreading. The really high burdens of car accidents are spread across all of the policyholders, who pay for such costs with their premiums. A countervailing principle is that costs should be individualized rather than spread across the group. Premiums that account for age, sex, good grade discount etc etc try to strike a balance between these two ideas. You are paying for the amount that a average person of your standing/sex/driving record/etc costs the social fund paid to by all policyholders.
|
It's actually elderly drivers who cause the most accidents rather than younger drivers/male/female.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
