daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (05/19/84)
I think blondes should pay more for car insurance because they have more fun and probably more accidents (it might be worth studying the statistics). The point is, how do you define the groups for which rates are set. If some company decided to charge Mormons lower insurance rates there would probably be a major outcry about religious discrimination, despite the fact that good Mormons don't drink or smoke and would therefore be better risks for auto, life and fire insurance. Is it more reasonable to use sex as the discriminator or are there better divisions? Dave Rabinowitz hplabs!hp-pcd!daver
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (05/30/84)
If Mormans are better insurance risks because they don't drink or smoke, then they should get a better rate because of that, not because of their religious beliefs. I, not a Mormon, get a lower rate because I don't smoke. It's clear that there are certain habits that contribute to bad driving. Smoking and drinking have been identified as such and information about them has been used in an appropriate way. Insurance, however, is a peculiar device. Basically, it is a way for the individual to be protected against disaster by the collaberation of the masses. The insurance companies take a cut off the top to provide the clearing house service, and to keep claims within reason (a job they *sometimes* even do). The net result of any insurance scheme, in the idealized case where there is noone profiting from the dynamics of insurance, should be that each individual gets out what they pay in, over time. (That is to say, in gaming terms, that it is a zero payoff game.) However, this discussion started with the observation that Allstate pays women less than men, and that they believe that they're right to do so. Ellen hit the nail right on the head when she noted that there is statistical evidence that women are safer drivers, but no such evidence that they perform differently in the workplace. Valid statistical differences (and for some insights into just what I mean by *valid*, I commend "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould [no relation, by the way] to the reader's attention) are a reasonable basis for determining insurance rates so that a zero-payoff situation can be maintained. However, when we deal with pay and work, we are dealing with the worth of people, not how likely they are to make a claim against the insurance fund. Those who would pay women less than men are saying that women are worth less, not only as workers but as people. If we are to recognize that women are as much people as are men, we must pay them as such. Enough for now! In closing, I'll recommend "The Cinderella Complex" again, for insights into why it is that many women choose lower-paying jobs and/or careers. (And not only do women deserve equal pay in the workplace, but an equal voice! For that matter, most of the men need more voice in the workplace, too.) -- Ed Gould ucbvax!mtxinu!ed
falk@uiucuxc.UUCP (05/30/84)
#R:mako:-13400:uiucuxc:22800020:000:910
uiucuxc!falk May 29 16:52:00 1984
[*]
Many of the respondents to this long running discussion on inequities of
car and/or life insurance rates are interested in "eliminating the discri-
mination" by making the insurance rates for both sexes equal--- are these
same people interested in eliminating inequities in insurance rates inter-
ested in eliminating inequities in *pay* between the sexes?
It seems to be much easier to equalize the costs between the sexes (e.g.,
eliminating or reducing alimony or child support to working women) than
to equalize the benefits (ensuring that working women get paid the same
or comparable rates that working men do).
I am in favor of equalizing the benefits *first*, then worry about whether
or not females should be paying higher car insurance premiums (they will
be able to afford them, then!).
-Connie
(uiucdcs!uiucuxc!falk)cmgiuliani@watmath.UUCP (cmgiuliani) (05/30/84)
Insurance companies will discriminate by whatever divisions are profitable
and will be tolerated. If they discovered that for some reason Orientals
are higher auto-insurance risks, they would probably like to classify rates
in accordance, but public backlash against "racism" would probably prevent
it.
So if Mormons show real differences, then they would no doubt like to charge
different premiums. But it is not profitable to have different rates for
every possible division -- just those that show major trends -- such as sex.
Carlo @ the U of Waterlootron@fluke.UUCP (Peter F. Barbee) (06/06/84)
This message is empty.