4 ms·

> There may be a hidden layer of discrimination at play here as well. Studies and surveys have shown that some segments of consumers, such as women, African Ame

by deogeo 7y ago

> There may be a hidden layer of discrimination at play here as well. Studies and surveys have shown that some segments of consumers, such as women, African Americans, and Latinos, may experience higher hassle costs when dealing with customer service. Their source for the 'women' part of that claim only says that, given the same treatment, women get more annoyed than men [1]. Not what I would classify as 'discrimination'. [1] https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/06/women-get-more-annoyed-than-men-with-aspects-of-bad-customer-service/index.htm https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/06/women-get-m...

boomboomsubban 7y ago
>Not what I would classify as 'discrimination'. No, but it does classify as different hassle costs as they claim. The summary words it poorly, but the article is just showing that some groups experience more hassle than others.
- deogeo 7y ago
  No, the sourced article says that some groups get more annoyed than others, when exposed to the same hassle.
  - Filligree 7y ago
    Hence, higher hassle cost.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    That source doesn't say that they were exposed to the same hassle, the hassle can't be the same in survey accounts. Not really the point though.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      The source presents a survey asking "How annoyed were you by X", with women answering as more annoyed for the same X. How you interpret that as "hassle can't be the same in survey accounts", I have no idea.
      - boomboomsubban 7y ago
        Imagine we're both answering the second question mentioned, whether we were "annoyed at not being able to get a human being on the phone." The previous night one of your loved ones was very sick, and though you called the hospital you were unable to get a human on the phone. Meanwhile, my food delivery came without a side dish, and I was unable to get a human on the phone to get my $3 back. The survey is now asking both of us the same question, but do you think we're experiencing the same thing while deciding how to answer it? Or would our past experiences cause the hassle to have much different weight for both of us. We would need to be in a controlled experiment for us to have the same hassle. A survey has us answer from our own experiences of being in similar situations.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  It doesn’t really matter if you can classify it as discrimination or not. It’s perfectly reasonable and legal (in most states) to discriminate in particular instances where there is a real cost difference between servicing x and y group. It’s why men pay more for car insurance. Men cost more to insure. Is that discrimination? Yes. What’s the alternative? Having women subsidise men’s car insurance. Well that’s discrimination too.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    Is that discrimination? Yes. What’s the alternative? Having women subsidise men’s car insurance. Well that’s discrimination too. In the EU discrimination of this sort is indeed illegal.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      Which sort? In this case, every possibly option is discrimination.
      - goatinaboat 7y ago
        See here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610 Pension age was also equalised (women used to get it age 60, men 65) but feminists are still fighting tooth and nail against that one. https://www.independent.co.uk/money/pensions/pensions-changes-unfair-to-women-to-be-debated-by-mps-a6793586.html https://www.independent.co.uk/money/pensions/pensions-change...
        AmericanChopper 7y ago
        You’re not really answering the question. I understand the legislation, but it’s still discrimination. To charge men more for car insurance is to discriminate against them. To charge men and women the same is discrimination against women, by charging them proportionally more than men in regards to the risks they present. The underlying premise is that men cost more to ensure than women (you could debate that, but it’s a pretty solid premise). In any scenario like this, you must discriminate in order to do business, regardless of how you reorganize all the parameters.

by deogeo 7y ago

boomboomsubban 7y ago

>Not what I would classify as 'discrimination'. No, but it does classify as different hassle costs as they claim. The summary words it poorly, but the article is just showing that some groups experience more hassle than others.

deogeo 7y ago
No, the sourced article says that some groups get more annoyed than others, when exposed to the same hassle.
- Filligree 7y ago
  Hence, higher hassle cost.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  That source doesn't say that they were exposed to the same hassle, the hassle can't be the same in survey accounts. Not really the point though.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    The source presents a survey asking "How annoyed were you by X", with women answering as more annoyed for the same X. How you interpret that as "hassle can't be the same in survey accounts", I have no idea.
    - boomboomsubban 7y ago
      Imagine we're both answering the second question mentioned, whether we were "annoyed at not being able to get a human being on the phone." The previous night one of your loved ones was very sick, and though you called the hospital you were unable to get a human on the phone. Meanwhile, my food delivery came without a side dish, and I was unable to get a human on the phone to get my $3 back. The survey is now asking both of us the same question, but do you think we're experiencing the same thing while deciding how to answer it? Or would our past experiences cause the hassle to have much different weight for both of us. We would need to be in a controlled experiment for us to have the same hassle. A survey has us answer from our own experiences of being in similar situations.
AmericanChopper 7y ago
It doesn’t really matter if you can classify it as discrimination or not. It’s perfectly reasonable and legal (in most states) to discriminate in particular instances where there is a real cost difference between servicing x and y group. It’s why men pay more for car insurance. Men cost more to insure. Is that discrimination? Yes. What’s the alternative? Having women subsidise men’s car insurance. Well that’s discrimination too.
- goatinaboat 7y ago
  Is that discrimination? Yes. What’s the alternative? Having women subsidise men’s car insurance. Well that’s discrimination too. In the EU discrimination of this sort is indeed illegal.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    Which sort? In this case, every possibly option is discrimination.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      See here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610 Pension age was also equalised (women used to get it age 60, men 65) but feminists are still fighting tooth and nail against that one. https://www.independent.co.uk/money/pensions/pensions-changes-unfair-to-women-to-be-debated-by-mps-a6793586.html https://www.independent.co.uk/money/pensions/pensions-change...
      - AmericanChopper 7y ago
        You’re not really answering the question. I understand the legislation, but it’s still discrimination. To charge men more for car insurance is to discriminate against them. To charge men and women the same is discrimination against women, by charging them proportionally more than men in regards to the risks they present. The underlying premise is that men cost more to ensure than women (you could debate that, but it’s a pretty solid premise). In any scenario like this, you must discriminate in order to do business, regardless of how you reorganize all the parameters.