4 ms·

You’d have to demonstrate that the pricing consistently is high/low based on one of the protected classes to successfully challenge it.

morkalork 1y ago
Assuming their model is accurate at predicting economic value and assuming that the wage gap between men and women still exists, wouldn't it be relatively straightforward to show men as a group are quoted higher prices?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- eastbound 1y ago
  Men aren’t a protected class. I’m not sarcastic: They really are not, it’s legally ok to charge men more.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    The general problem here is that "disparate impact" is incoherent. If you charge everyone the same price then you're de facto excluding people with less money, and therefore have a disparate impact on the basis of various protected classes because of the correlation between e.g. race and poverty. Now suppose you charge less to people with less money. Is that what you're supposed to do? No, sorry, there was a preexisting disparity in your customer population on the basis of national origin and doing that makes it worse, you still lose. There are multiple protected classes and how something affects one of them is often the inverse of how it affects a different one, so it isn't possible to not have a disparate impact. And then whether something is considered to in any given case is nothing but politics and vibes.
  - darth_avocado 1y ago
    If you are getting a different treatment purely because you’re a man, then you can absolutely sue and win.
  - red-iron-pine 1y ago
    "Men" and "being a man" sure as hell is a protected class, and there are plenty of lawsuits to back it up. e.g. https://www.foxnews.com/story/texas-man-settles-discrimination-lawsuit-against-hooters-for-not-hiring-male-waiters https://www.foxnews.com/story/texas-man-settles-discriminati... like it's literally a 5 second search on the google or bing to prove
cjbgkagh 1y ago
I thought the bar was that you had to prove that it doesn't discriminate which a is much higher, I thought this is what drove many settlements. Personally I would rather limit all price discriminations to a simple predictable and publicly inspectable customizable formulae. It's like the finance guys who exalt the virtues of increased liquidity but that disappears the moment you try to use it. Similar for the extra complexity for price discovery.

morkalork 1y ago

Assuming their model is accurate at predicting economic value and assuming that the wage gap between men and women still exists, wouldn't it be relatively straightforward to show men as a group are quoted higher prices?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
eastbound 1y ago
Men aren’t a protected class. I’m not sarcastic: They really are not, it’s legally ok to charge men more.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  The general problem here is that "disparate impact" is incoherent. If you charge everyone the same price then you're de facto excluding people with less money, and therefore have a disparate impact on the basis of various protected classes because of the correlation between e.g. race and poverty. Now suppose you charge less to people with less money. Is that what you're supposed to do? No, sorry, there was a preexisting disparity in your customer population on the basis of national origin and doing that makes it worse, you still lose. There are multiple protected classes and how something affects one of them is often the inverse of how it affects a different one, so it isn't possible to not have a disparate impact. And then whether something is considered to in any given case is nothing but politics and vibes.
- darth_avocado 1y ago
  If you are getting a different treatment purely because you’re a man, then you can absolutely sue and win.
- red-iron-pine 1y ago
  "Men" and "being a man" sure as hell is a protected class, and there are plenty of lawsuits to back it up. e.g. https://www.foxnews.com/story/texas-man-settles-discrimination-lawsuit-against-hooters-for-not-hiring-male-waiters https://www.foxnews.com/story/texas-man-settles-discriminati... like it's literally a 5 second search on the google or bing to prove

cjbgkagh 1y ago

I thought the bar was that you had to prove that it doesn't discriminate which a is much higher, I thought this is what drove many settlements. Personally I would rather limit all price discriminations to a simple predictable and publicly inspectable customizable formulae. It's like the finance guys who exalt the virtues of increased liquidity but that disappears the moment you try to use it. Similar for the extra complexity for price discovery.