3 ms·

If gender is predictive of higher/lower risk for a particular policy, then banning its use seems bizarre. It makes even less sense if the the insurance company

by neilc 13y ago

If gender is predictive of higher/lower risk for a particular policy, then banning its use seems bizarre. It makes even less sense if the the insurance company is allowed to consider other factors that are correlated with gender (e.g., age, profession).

russellsprouts 13y ago
If it were illegal for all companies, you could probably assume each company would have approximately an equal number of men and women. They could charge the men and women the same price - the average of the old men's and women's rates. The income would be the same.
pessimizer 13y ago
The case that can be made for banning such a practice is that gender doesn't determine higher/lower risk, it's just associated with it. There's nothing about gender in an of itself that makes you drive badly, even if 80% of women get together at a secret meeting and agree to drive badly. In that case, the 20% would be suffering discrimination purely because of their gender. >It makes even less sense if the the insurance company is allowed to consider other factors that are correlated with gender (e.g., age, profession). Agreed.
- Houshalter 13y ago
  >There's nothing about gender in an of itself that makes you drive badly, even if 80% of women get together at a secret meeting and agree to drive badly. In that case, the 20% would be suffering discrimination purely because of their gender. Look at it the other way around. By not taking it into account, 100% of men would be suffering because of the 80% of women. In any case, this isn't any different with all other factors. Age and profession for example. There are really good 16 year old drivers, why should they have to pay higher insurance? By your logic making any predictions is wrong if they aren't 100% accurate. Gender is just a subcase.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Making any decision with the potential to damage society and perpetuate class divisions, without 100% accuracy, is wrong. Because human lives are more important than maximizing profit.
    - Houshalter 13y ago
      >Making any decision with the potential to damae society and perpetuate class divisions Nothing about this damages society or perpetuates class divisions and I haven't the slightest idea where you got that from. We aren't talking about arbitrarily discriminating against a group of people, but charging them slightly more because they cost slightly more. Or less. And for the most part, other factors like past history and the like will vastly outweigh that information, unless you actually believe it makes a difference. In which case why shouldn't it be used? >Because human lives are more important than maximizing profit. This is the stupidest expression going around the internet. Obviously human lives are more important than maximizing profit (well not so obviously, as almost everyone risks their own lives and often the lives of others for money and convenience. Driving cars for example.) This adds nothing to the conversation except to make it seem like the other side is against human lives which obviously aren't. No one has ever said "maximizing profit is more important than human lives."
- itsybitsycoder 13y ago
  >There's nothing about gender in an of itself that makes you drive badly, even if 80% of women get together at a secret meeting and agree to drive badly. It's interesting you've assumed that it's the women who are paying the higher premiums. Contrary to the stereotype about women being bad drivers, it's men who pay the gender premium on car insurance.

by neilc 13y ago

russellsprouts 13y ago

If it were illegal for all companies, you could probably assume each company would have approximately an equal number of men and women. They could charge the men and women the same price - the average of the old men's and women's rates. The income would be the same.

pessimizer 13y ago

The case that can be made for banning such a practice is that gender doesn't determine higher/lower risk, it's just associated with it. There's nothing about gender in an of itself that makes you drive badly, even if 80% of women get together at a secret meeting and agree to drive badly. In that case, the 20% would be suffering discrimination purely because of their gender. >It makes even less sense if the the insurance company is allowed to consider other factors that are correlated with gender (e.g., age, profession). Agreed.

Houshalter 13y ago
>There's nothing about gender in an of itself that makes you drive badly, even if 80% of women get together at a secret meeting and agree to drive badly. In that case, the 20% would be suffering discrimination purely because of their gender. Look at it the other way around. By not taking it into account, 100% of men would be suffering because of the 80% of women. In any case, this isn't any different with all other factors. Age and profession for example. There are really good 16 year old drivers, why should they have to pay higher insurance? By your logic making any predictions is wrong if they aren't 100% accurate. Gender is just a subcase.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Making any decision with the potential to damage society and perpetuate class divisions, without 100% accuracy, is wrong. Because human lives are more important than maximizing profit.
  - Houshalter 13y ago
    >Making any decision with the potential to damae society and perpetuate class divisions Nothing about this damages society or perpetuates class divisions and I haven't the slightest idea where you got that from. We aren't talking about arbitrarily discriminating against a group of people, but charging them slightly more because they cost slightly more. Or less. And for the most part, other factors like past history and the like will vastly outweigh that information, unless you actually believe it makes a difference. In which case why shouldn't it be used? >Because human lives are more important than maximizing profit. This is the stupidest expression going around the internet. Obviously human lives are more important than maximizing profit (well not so obviously, as almost everyone risks their own lives and often the lives of others for money and convenience. Driving cars for example.) This adds nothing to the conversation except to make it seem like the other side is against human lives which obviously aren't. No one has ever said "maximizing profit is more important than human lives."
itsybitsycoder 13y ago
>There's nothing about gender in an of itself that makes you drive badly, even if 80% of women get together at a secret meeting and agree to drive badly. It's interesting you've assumed that it's the women who are paying the higher premiums. Contrary to the stereotype about women being bad drivers, it's men who pay the gender premium on car insurance.