The end of sexual discrimination in Europe!

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think this makes sense whatsoever.

If they cut someone else's rates, they jack someone else's. It's zero-sum, is it not? Why would you make the case that one would switch from one provider to another to save money while the other would not? If I knew there was a company out there that did NOT discriminate on sex, I'd jump on that. So would almost all the men. The savings are huge.

Yes, that's the point. The men and women are (in the example) all buying from companies that don't discriminate based on sex. One company starts discriminating based on sex, so all the women switch to it and the men stay with the old companies (or switch to them from the innovative one). All the old companies lose lots of money and the new one earns huge profits.

[Kuciwalker]

Why is it OK to discriminate based on sex, but not on race?

I believe that it's okay to discriminate based on either.

[notyoueither]

All the companies are employing men and women.

One company figures out that disruption to the workforce from maternity leave can be done away with by only employing men...

[notyoueither]

I believe that it's okay to discriminate based on either.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

All the companies are employing men and women.

One company figures out that disruption to the workforce from maternity leave can be done away with by only employing men...

Oh, you're talking employment, not insurance policies? I don't believe that maternity leave should be mandatory, or that its cost should not be represented in wages.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

As HC pointed out, this relies on the assumption that people get into accidents frequently enough that individual sampling alone produces accurate results. I don't believe that's true now, and it will (hopefully) become even less true in the future.

And, of course, past driving history is almost always a major factor in price.

[Kuciwalker]

Also, it is socially valuable to deter 16-25yo males from driving before they get into an accident.

[notyoueither]

All the companies are employing men and women.

One company figures out that disruption to the workforce from maternity leave can be done away with by only employing men...

Oh, you're talking employment, not insurance policies? I don't believe that maternity leave should be mandatory, or that its cost should not be represented in wages.

I'm talking stats and how they can be applied to people unfairly because they assume that x will exhibit behaviour close to groups that you tag him or her with.

And maternity leave is mandatory in any civilised country. Corporations exist to serve the populous, not the other way around.

[notyoueither]

As HC pointed out, this relies on the assumption that people get into accidents frequently enough that individual sampling alone produces accurate results. I don't believe that's true now, and it will (hopefully) become even less true in the future.

And, of course, past driving history is almost always a major factor in price.

Then why do the insurance companies drop my rate so much due to my years of spotless record?

And they do not just gauge accidents. They view all behaviour over time that suggests stability and good judgement. Tickets, continuous insurance, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm talking stats and how they can be applied to people unfairly because they assume that x will exhibit behaviour close to groups that you tag him or her with.

This "unfairness" produces substantially better overall outcomes than your approach. It is also much, much smaller than most sources of unfairness in the world that I bet you oppose fixing.

And maternity leave is mandatory in any civilised country. Corporations exist to serve the populous, not the other way around.

Mandatory maternity leave is a stealth government subsidy to women who work and then decide to become mothers, paid for by a stealth government tax on people who work for the same companies as they. It would be much fairer to pay that subsidy directly from the government, and take it out of the taxes on the general population.

[Kuciwalker]

Then why do the insurance companies drop my rate so much due to my years of spotless record?

Did you even read the post you're responding to?

[notyoueither]

Answering the first sentence. The second sentence is bafflegab and base covering.

It's blue! It's blue! Unless it's red...

[Kuciwalker]

Then you should have noticed the important word alone.

[notyoueither]

This "unfairness" produces substantially better overall outcomes than your approach. It is also much, much smaller than most sources of unfairness in the world that I bet you oppose fixing.

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?

Mandatory maternity leave is a stealth government subsidy to women who work and then decide to become mothers, paid for by a stealth government tax on people who work for the same companies as they. It would be much fairer to pay that subsidy directly from the government, and take it out of the taxes on the general population.

It's a stealth government subsidy to humanity?

In civilised countries it is paid for by wider taxes and insurance schemes on the working population. Kind of like how school taxes are paid by all land owners regardless of whether they have children or not.

[notyoueither]

Then you should have noticed the important word alone.

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.