The end of sexual discrimination in Europe!

[Heraclitus]

Suuuure. This will definitly screw most men in private pension plans
Those wacky belgians with their EU Law schemes.. always trying to make life more difficult. Surely the new Unisex Tarifs wont pose any statistical problems.

Retirement Age: 67
Life Expectancy
male: 76.41 years
female: 82.57 years (~50% more pension years)

Nooooo Problem at all.


Also why is the article focused on car insurance?

I'm afraid you're a bit confused on how that would work, but I just wanted to point out that (2010 US):

Life expectancy:
Caucasian - 78.9 years
African American - 73.8 years

BTW Both Hispanics and Asians outlive Whites.

[notyoueither]

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.

You're right. And?

People in Alberta who are much more likely to be working any given week can afford to pay a bit more and cover for people in New Brunswick who are likely to work a bit less. Maybe in a hundred years the tables will turn. That's what being a nation, counting blessings, and not begrudging others is about.

The Maritimers out here working aren't *****ing about what they pay in EI. They are thanking God for a huge pile of oil in the ground that they get paid to dig up.

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.

Are you kidding?

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.

It would also lead to massive social unrest, but then who cares about driving to work when work is burned down.

[Heraclitus]

It isn't. That's why the law shouldn't forbid either. But given that there is no chance that the law will allow discrimination based on race, we don't become better off by also proscribing discrimination based on sex. It really is a perfect example of "cutting your nose off to spite your face".

Actually it makes perfect sense for the large fraction of the population against whom discrimination is allowed.

[Heraclitus]

I don't.

The basis of it is discriminating against people based on what they might do, rather than on what they have done.

Charge all new drivers a rate. Increase the rate by tickets and accidents. Decrease the rate based on years of good driving. Don't hose someone based on assumptions that may not apply to the individual.

This talk on discrimination seems topical:

[Kuciwalker]

You're right. And?

I favor telling taxpayers exactly how much things are costing them and exactly how much they're getting in return. And that's the last I'm going to say about your UI program because I don't know how it actually works.

It would also lead to massive social unrest, but then who cares about driving to work when work is burned down.

If you mean "we shouldn't somehow override the overwhelming will of the voters in order to implement this particular policy", then yes, I agree, democracy in general is more important than specific policies. What a brilliant insight on your part!

[Kuciwalker]

Actually it makes perfect sense for the large fraction of the population against whom discrimination is allowed.

As I said, you're a hypocrite.

[notyoueither]

You're right. And?

I favor telling taxpayers exactly how much things are costing them and exactly how much they're getting in return. And that's the last I'm going to say about your UI program because I don't know how it actually works.

OK. but tell me, how is charging Asher an insane amount of cash for auto insurance based on faulty assumptions of his risk related to people getting what they deserve out of a programme?

It would also lead to massive social unrest, but then who cares about driving to work when work is burned down.

If you mean "we shouldn't somehow override the overwhelming will of the voters in order to implement this particular policy", then yes, I agree, democracy in general is more important than specific policies. What a brilliant insight on your part!

Good job.

You've just explained why and how even in the Texas of the North (Alberta) the government was forced by the population to ***** slap the insurance industry and mandate what they could charge for auto insurance.

The insurance industry *****es and moans, but they keep doing business here.

[Kuciwalker]

OK. but tell me, how is charging Asher an insane amount of cash for auto insurance based on faulty assumptions of his risk related to people getting what they deserve out of a programme?

You're the one who brought up the Canadian UI program, not me.

You've just explained why and how even in the Texas of the North (Alberta) the government was forced by the population to ***** slap the insurance industry and mandate what they could charge for auto insurance.

yes, you are all so much better off with price controls

Thank you for demonstrating another example of dumb policy being the will of the voters

[Heraclitus]

As I said, you're a hypocrite.

Do you think there is something wrong with pursuing one's interest?


Why should a group of people suffer discrimination when it is economic to do so while some groups have the privilege of being exempt of this. What is hypocritical about ending government granted privilege to certain groups? This can be achieved by either universalizing the privilege or by abolishing it. Yes one leaves society as a whole richer and the other leaves it poorer and ideally we want a richer society. But why should some demographics take one for the team? What possible incentive do they have to maintain the status quo?

I see nothing hypocritical about such a pragmatic stance.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I don't.

The basis of it is discriminating against people based on what they might do, rather than on what they have done.

The entire concept of insurance is based on assessing what might happen, not what has happened.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

What possible incentive do they have to maintain the status que?[/I]

"Status que?". What a charming concept.

[Heraclitus]

"Status que?". What a charming concept.

Typo, fixed it after reading my post.

[C0ckney]

The entire concept of insurance is based on assessing what might happen, not what has happened.

what has happened is usually a good indicator of what will happen in the future.

[Drogue]

Fair is fair, I just happen to benefit in this case. Absolute fairness can never be biased, and I'm proposing letting the insurance companies discriminate using any statistics on any demographics they so choose.

Given my experience with insurance companies, I'm fairly certain this is the real answer. To them it's needless cost to simply more precisely allocate income. It doesn't matter to them if $10M a month comes half from software developers and half from mechanics, or if the split is otherwise different. Insurance companies aren't out to make YOUR rate fair or reasonable.

It is in their strong interest to make your rate more accurate, especially if their competitors don't. Example:

Women on average cost the insurance companies $90/year, men $110/year. All of the insurance companies charge $105/year (with the extra $5 going to overhead, profit, etc.) because they are too lazy to ask someone's sex. One company decides to discriminate, charging $95 for women and $115 for men. Obviously no men are going to switch, but almost all of the women will. As a result, the non-lazy insurance company gets a HUGE increase in market share and all of the lazy insurance companies end up going bankrupt because they are charging $105 for people who cost $110.

To the degree that insurance companies aren't doing this sort of thing, they are just leaving money on the table. I don't think it's a good idea for the government to micromanage industries that it believes aren't behaving as profitably as they could.

You're both saying the same thing: companies have an incentive to discriminate on everything they can that works, for the reasons Kuci posts, which leads to the prescription that Asher mentions - letting them discriminate on anything they want.

Wow, I've been back a day and I'm already agreeing with Asher. It's pretty much a non-argument in practice though, as not allowing discrimination adds so many problems. The price for all parties will end up near the higher price men pay, meaning lots of safe drivers decide to get the minimum insurance they can as it's not worth getting more at a price that for them is inflated. It just harms safer groups who end up with less insurance than they want and pay more for it than they should. Plus the ways companies will get around it (advertising only to women, bundling handbag insurance or othersuch with car insurance, only insuring cars women mainly drive, etc. - all less efficient than just discriminating properly).

It's just the EU either not realising or not caring about the unintended effects of their laws and the public not realising the outcome that will actually result from this (I've seen so many comments from men expecting to get women's rates now.

[Drogue]

what has happened is usually a good indicator of what will happen in the future.

But relying on this too much is very dangerous - ie. the financial crisis. Models based on past data assumed that the probability of something that has never happened happening was zero. It wasn't, it happened, and we all got screwed. I agree it's a good indicator, but best not to rely solely on it, in case the future looks different to the past.