3 ms·
That some conditions are economically risky is not a prejudice, that's my whole point. Choosing the healthier person for a position is a perfectly rational thin
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y ago
That some conditions are economically risky is not a prejudice, that's my whole point. Choosing the healthier person for a position is a perfectly rational thing to do, and increasing insurance rates with higher risks due to their health situation also is perfectly rational (and note that that's not just limited to health insurance) - you'd have to turn the whole economic system on its head to fix that.
- gress 12y agoActually it's unknown whether it's the rational thing to do. It is only rational given a narrowly defined self interested actor making the choice, but that actor cannot know whether they are participating in a tragedy of the commons situation and undermining the overall environment (of employable people) in which they must grow and function. The fact that selfish actors can sometimes do more harm than good in the pursuit of their interests is the reason we have regulation.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 12y agoThanks for writing it down, I couldn't be bothered ;-) And not only could the particular actor destroy their own environment of empoyable people in the long term, they also through some bad luck could get into a position where they themselves end up in the role of the (un)employable people, which also might make it "long term rational" to hedge against that by supporting a different culture. So, yeah, I meant only that self-interested actor with a particularly short time horizon.