3 ms·

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 th

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.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      Well, no, that’s not how it works. For example the argument that serving disabled customers costs more because you have to put a ramp in won’t fly in any courtroom. Some customers cost more and as a business you deal with it for the same price, end of story.
      - AmericanChopper 7y ago
        Everybody already knows that they’re paying for facilities for disabled people. There’s a specific piece of legislation in the US to deal with that, and very few people have much of a problem with such discrimination against able bodied people. But you’re still ignoring my point. I’m not making a case for any particular way of dealing with this. It’s simply a fact that no matter what you do in this situation, you must discriminate. The only factors that can be controlled are who you discriminate against, and how you do it.
        goatinaboat 7y ago
        I’m not ignoring it, I’m pointing out that it isn’t really a thing. Discrimination is defined in any practical sense as differentiation on price due to a protected characteristic. If that isn’t happening then there is no discrimination. Sometimes this acts in favour of one group and sometimes not so much but you don’t get to pick and choose. On any protected characteristic, or there is no point in even having the legislation. Those complaining that their early pension privileges are being taken away is a great example. Imagine if it was the other way round. It’s not discrimination to have an unfair privilege situation corrected.
        AmericanChopper 7y ago
        Then perhaps you simply don’t comprehend the point? > Discrimination is defined in any practical sense as differentiation on price due to a protected characteristic Ok great. Let’s go with this. We only care about discrimination against protected classes. So you’re selling car insurance. This is a risk transfer service, your job is to quantify the risk a customer poses, and charge them a premium for transferring the risk to you. You figure out that being a man is a risk factor. You can choose to measure it or not, it’s still going to be a risk factor no matter what. Now you’ve got two choices: 1. Charge men a higher premium to cover the additional risk. You’re now discriminating against men (a protected class). 2. You could calculate all the risk factors for a customer, and then charge them extra if they’re a women (or give them a discount if they’re a man, or deny service to men, or simply not measure risks associated with gender, it’s all the same thing). Now men and women are paying the same premiums, all other factors being the same. But as women pose less risk, the cost for them to transfer that risk is higher. Now you’re discriminating against women (another protected class). It doesn’t matter how you frame it, or what parameters you tweak. The fact that these two protected classes cost cost a quantifiably different amount to provide the service to, you have to discriminate against one of them. The only thing that can possibly be controlled is who you discriminate against, and how you do it.

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.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    Well, no, that’s not how it works. For example the argument that serving disabled customers costs more because you have to put a ramp in won’t fly in any courtroom. Some customers cost more and as a business you deal with it for the same price, end of story.
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      Everybody already knows that they’re paying for facilities for disabled people. There’s a specific piece of legislation in the US to deal with that, and very few people have much of a problem with such discrimination against able bodied people. But you’re still ignoring my point. I’m not making a case for any particular way of dealing with this. It’s simply a fact that no matter what you do in this situation, you must discriminate. The only factors that can be controlled are who you discriminate against, and how you do it.
      - goatinaboat 7y ago
        I’m not ignoring it, I’m pointing out that it isn’t really a thing. Discrimination is defined in any practical sense as differentiation on price due to a protected characteristic. If that isn’t happening then there is no discrimination. Sometimes this acts in favour of one group and sometimes not so much but you don’t get to pick and choose. On any protected characteristic, or there is no point in even having the legislation. Those complaining that their early pension privileges are being taken away is a great example. Imagine if it was the other way round. It’s not discrimination to have an unfair privilege situation corrected.
        AmericanChopper 7y ago
        Then perhaps you simply don’t comprehend the point? > Discrimination is defined in any practical sense as differentiation on price due to a protected characteristic Ok great. Let’s go with this. We only care about discrimination against protected classes. So you’re selling car insurance. This is a risk transfer service, your job is to quantify the risk a customer poses, and charge them a premium for transferring the risk to you. You figure out that being a man is a risk factor. You can choose to measure it or not, it’s still going to be a risk factor no matter what. Now you’ve got two choices: 1. Charge men a higher premium to cover the additional risk. You’re now discriminating against men (a protected class). 2. You could calculate all the risk factors for a customer, and then charge them extra if they’re a women (or give them a discount if they’re a man, or deny service to men, or simply not measure risks associated with gender, it’s all the same thing). Now men and women are paying the same premiums, all other factors being the same. But as women pose less risk, the cost for them to transfer that risk is higher. Now you’re discriminating against women (another protected class). It doesn’t matter how you frame it, or what parameters you tweak. The fact that these two protected classes cost cost a quantifiably different amount to provide the service to, you have to discriminate against one of them. The only thing that can possibly be controlled is who you discriminate against, and how you do it.