The end of sexual discrimination in Europe!

[Kuciwalker]

Can you explain to me how charging a young man who needs to travel for work $2 to 4000 a year in insurance is a small unfairness?

Small in comparison with the fact that e.g. the Canadian government pays for the healthcare of wealthy Canadians with money that could buy food for starving Haitians.

It's a stealth government subsity to humanity?

When humanity consists entirely of working mothers and their children, perhaps.

In civilised countries it is paid for by wider taxes and insurance schemes on the working population.

I don't know the details of specific implementation of mandatory maternity leave, but in most systems I'm pretty sure male employees aren't compensated for the lower wages they accept so that women who take the leave (and whose labor is, intrinsically, less valuable because of it due to training costs, etc.) can have nominal wage parity. Also, I expect in at least some systems the actual pay during the paid leave comes from the company, not the government.

Kind of like how school taxes are paid by all land owners regardless of whether they have children or not.

Yes, kind of like how schools have an explicit budget provided to the taxpayers so they know how much of societies resources are being spent. Paid maternity leave enforced by regulation creates hidden costs, and the taxpayers aren't told their size.

[Kuciwalker]

More bafflegab.

My rate is 10% or less of what it could be based entirely on the experience the insurance industry has with me as an individual.

How do you know that the insurance company really ought to be charging you 10x as much?

[Kuciwalker]

Moreover, the scheme "charge people based on the accidents they've had in the past" is nearly as "unfair" as the scheme of charging people based on sex, etc. It assumes that the # of accidents you've had in the past isn't mostly a matter of luck (unless you have a LOT of accidents, it is) and that you are going to have the same rate of accidents going forward.

[notyoueither]

Small in comparison with the fact that e.g. the Canadian government pays for the healthcare of wealthy Canadians with money that could buy food for starving Haitians.

Horse hockey.

Wealthy Canadians pay for the care they recieve, and more.

It's a stealth government subsity to humanity?

When humanity consists entirely of working mothers and their children, perhaps.

Actually, it consists partly of old men with no children who need to have services provided for them and be cared for by children of other people. We all have an interest in the next generation.

I don't know the details of specific implementation of mandatory maternity leave, but in most systems I'm pretty sure male employees aren't compensated for the lower wages they accept so that women who take the leave (and whose labor is, intrinsically, less valuable because of it due to training costs, etc.) can have nominal wage parity. Also, I expect in at least some systems the actual pay during the paid leave comes from the company, not the government.

You could try a national system of employment insurance where all employees and employers pay into a system and those who need draw from it. Maternal and paternal leave are considered a need and mothers and fathers may draw from it.

Yes, kind of like how schools have an explicit budget provided to the taxpayers so they know how much of societies resources are being spent. Paid maternity leave enforced by regulation creates hidden costs, and the taxpayers aren't told their size.

No more extra cost than those who engineer their own paid furloughs, and most likely a good bit more productive.

[notyoueither]

Moreover, the scheme "charge people based on the accidents they've had in the past" is nearly as "unfair" as the scheme of charging people based on sex, etc. It assumes that the # of accidents you've had in the past isn't mostly a matter of luck (unless you have a LOT of accidents, it is) and that you are going to have the same rate of accidents going forward.

You are completely ignoring my second sentence.

I explicitly said that the insurance industry takes into account a range of behaviour and experience with the individual that are not based on accidents.

[Kuciwalker]

Horse hockey.

Wealthy Canadians pay for the care they recieve, and more.

So it's not unfair that they get expensive cancer treatments when the same money could prevent dozens of people in the third world from starving?

You could try a national system of employment insurance where all employees and employers pay into a system and those who need draw from it. Maternal and paternal leave are considered a need and mothers and fathers may draw from it.

I don't know nearly enough about the Canadian employment insurance system to comment on it.

No more extra cost than those who engineer their own paid furloughs, and most likely a good bit more productive.

Are people who engineer their own paid furloughs common, especially in comparison to people who take paid maternity leave?

I'm not sure how it is relevant.

[notyoueither]

Horse hockey.

Wealthy Canadians pay for the care they recieve, and more.

So it's not unfair that they get expensive cancer treatments when the same money could prevent dozens of people in the third world from starving?

Yes, it is not unfair that taxpayers are kept alive and productive and paying taxes so that the GoC can afford a bit more foreign aid.

Try harder.

You could try a national system of employment insurance where all employees and employers pay into a system and those who need draw from it. Maternal and paternal leave are considered a need and mothers and fathers may draw from it.

I don't know nearly enough about the Canadian employment insurance system to comment on it.

Useful and national social programs are possible. You guys should try them some time.

No more extra cost than those who engineer their own paid furloughs, and most likely a good bit more productive.

Are people who engineer their own paid furloughs common, especially in comparison to people who take paid maternity leave?

I'm not sure how it is relevant.

I would say that at least as much time is taken on the EI ski team as is taken in maternity leave, on average.

EI is a social program, of course it is abused. Maternity leave would be way down there on the list of abuses.

Do you want your blood to curdle? It used to be that you could quit your job and collect. I should not need to explain that the program was very popular with young men who ski.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, it is not unfair that taxpayers are kept alive and productive and paying taxes so that the GoC can afford a bit more foreign aid.

Try harder.

I disagree with you. I think the fact that, among people of equal virtue, some live in incredible luxury and others in extreme poverty. I think that unfairness totally dwarfs the idea that you might have to pay a little bit extra on car insurance.

[Kuciwalker]

Maternity leave would be way down there on the list of abuses.

I wasn't calling maternity leave "abuse" at all. I have been pointing out that mandatory paid maternity leave as a regulation is a stealth tax and subsidy. I'm not going to comment on Canada's implementation of universal (as distinct from mandatory) paid maternity leave because, as I said, I don't know how it works. It may still contain hidden taxes and subsidies.

Regardless, this seems totally irrelevant to my point that auto insurance companies should be able to discriminate based on sex and race, because by doing so they produce better outcomes for society.

[notyoueither]

Yes, it is not unfair that taxpayers are kept alive and productive and paying taxes so that the GoC can afford a bit more foreign aid.

Try harder.

I disagree with you. I think the fact that, among people of equal virtue, some live in incredible luxury and others in extreme poverty. I think that unfairness totally dwarfs the idea that you might have to pay a little bit extra on car insurance.

I think you are doing a poor job of trying to demonstrate the lack of description in the term 'fair.'

[Kuciwalker]

How would you define fairness? I would define it roughly as "people who make similar choices should receive similar rewards".

[notyoueither]

Maternity leave would be way down there on the list of abuses.

I wasn't calling maternity leave "abuse" at all. I have been pointing out that mandatory paid maternity leave as a regulation is a stealth tax and subsidy. I'm not going to comment on Canada's implementation of universal (as distinct from mandatory) paid maternity leave because, as I said, I don't know how it works. It may still contain hidden taxes and subsidies.

What could be hidden? Employees pay ~2% of earnings into the employment insurance plan. Employers are taxed a matching amount.

If you become unemployed and qualify you collect.

Laid off qualifies. Maternity qualifies.

Quitting no longer qualifies.

The Employment Insurance programme generates surpluses for the federal government.

Regardless, this seems totally irrelevant to my point that auto insurance companies should be able to discriminate based on sex and race, because by doing so they produce better outcomes for society.

And I think you are cracked if you think that discrimination based on race could ever produce a better outcome for society.

And then the same things that apply to race can be applied to sex.

And then many of them can be applied to age. The only thing age has going for it is that you can grow out of it. However, it still sucks to be 18, male, clean driving record, need to get to work and have an insurance bill 20% of your annual wage. If you cannot see a problem with that, you are willfully blind.

[Kuciwalker]

What could be hidden? Employees pay ~2% of earnings into the employment insurance plan. Employers are taxed a matching amount.

If you become unemployed and qualify you collect.

Laid off qualifies. Maternity qualifies.

Your payment into the system isn't based on the probabilities that you will be laid off, etc.: it is a tax on people who aren't likely to do those things and a subsidy to those who are.

It's also not clear what the purpose is of paying through a special plan, rather than putting the taxes into the general fund and taking the benefits out of it.

And I think you are cracked if you think that discrimination based on race could ever produce a better outcome for society.

It would more accurately deter people who are more likely to cause accidents from driving. Thus, fewer accidents.

[Heraclitus]

As I said, I'm fine with using demographics to set rates as long as they're consistent and reasonable.

If you're using age and sex, also use profession, sexual orientation, race, etc. They could mine that information if they wanted to, but if they did they'd have to give people like me a break on my rates. And why would they do that?

I'm getting high rates because they look at my age and gender and assume I'm some irresponsible hooligan who drives drunk, stunt drives, and street races. I find it pretty offensive.

One of my friends who did have an at fault accident had his insurance barely go up at 17. It was already high enough as it is, I guess there was no need to put it up more.

I'm ok with either system. A system where people are allowed to discriminate on setting the rates is from a economic perspective better but I can understand some people would feel bad about it.

But as Asher points out using some demographic criteria and not others isn't really right. It just seems unfair to certain demographics when its ok to discriminate based on some demographic criteria but not others. How do we decide that? A popularity contest? What happened to protecting the rights of the minority with limits on the power of democracy? Why arbitrarily pick on the, nearly by definition, unpopular group?

[Kuciwalker]

But as Asher points out using some demographic criteria and not others isn't really right.

This is nonsense. If your preference ordering is "discriminate with all possible data" > "do not discriminate at all" > "discriminate with some possible data", you are a hypocrite.