kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) (05/21/84)
.
Can you say reverse discrimination? Uh huh, thought you could.
Here's an interesting newsie. A while ago, some woman charged a major
western university with sex discrimination. Seems the university retirement
plan discriminated against women, paying them less money each month than men
who had contributed the same amount to the program. Sounds pretty bad huh?
The actuaries said women at the university live several years longer than
their male counterparts. They reasoned that women get, on the average, the
same amount back as men, just in smaller installments over a longer period
of time.
Well, it was found to be discriminatory. Now women get the same monthly
check as their male colleagues. For more years. That's fair, right?
--------------
I think discrimination based on mathematically demonstrable differences
between men and women should be legal.
--
Kurt Guntheroth
John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc.
{uw-beaver,decvax!microsof,ucbvax!lbl-csam,allegra,ssc-vax}!fluke!kurttims@mako.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (05/23/84)
> The actuaries said women at the university live several years longer than > their male counterparts. They reasoned that women get, on the average, the > same amount back as men, just in smaller installments over a longer period > of time. > Well, it was found to be discriminatory. Now women get the same monthly > check as their male colleagues. For more years. That's fair, right? But the longer you live, the more cumulative wages you need to support yourself. Arn't retirement benefits supposed to last through the entire retirement, i.e. until you die. I think it's quite fair. Otherwise, the university should just give a lump sum to the retirees when they retire, and if they live too long, tough. I don't think that's a good idea.
warren@ihnss.UUCP (Warren Montgomery) (05/24/84)
This really ought to be going to net.legal or net.politics. I don't see any really good solutions to "discrimination" in insurance and pensions. Any economic transaction in which the value received is not a direct function of the price payed is going to be unfair to somebody, at least in their definition of unfair, and all forms of insurance and most pension and other employee benefits plans fall into this category. We can try to adjust it so statistically everybodies expected returns are equitable, however without being able to predict the future, the results will never be equitable. It will be interesting to see what our legal system does with this one, but don't expect a solution that everyone will be happy with. The problem with debates like this and even the equal pay for equal work argument is that they lead people to believe that these are the only reasons for the statistics on low pay for women. Survey after survey turns up data that show that in the same job with the same qualifications, the pay and advancement opportunities for a woman are still significantly less than for a man. This is a real problem that can be addressed without any debate over statistics or over equal worth, and we don't seem to be doing all that great a job at it. -- Warren Montgomery ihnss!warren IH x2494
scw@cepu.UUCP (05/25/84)
The problem with paying women less retirement pay is that usually retirement
pay is an annuity, (that is you are not getting back what you put in but
rather the interest on same) or some mixture of annuity+principle. The
ammount of an annuity depends only on how much you payed in and the interest
rate, not on how long you draw on it.
--
Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology)
uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw
ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (06/02/84)
> From: scw@cepu.UUCP Fri May 25 09:40:55 1984 > > The problem with paying women less retirement pay is that usually retirement > pay is an annuity, (that is you are not getting back what you put in but > rather the interest on same) or some mixture of annuity+principle. The > ammount of an annuity depends only on how much you payed in and the interest > rate, not on how long you draw on it. An annuity is an inverse installment loan. Annuity payments include principle and interest. A lifetime annuity is an annunity paid based on your expected length of life (those who live less get cheated, those who live longer make out). The issue is not whether annuity payment amounts should be based on life expectancy, but whether gender is a valid predictor of life expectancy (especially since most annuities have used no other). As I noted before, a major study in Pennsylvania has indicated that almost all of the difference in male and female life expenctancy is attributatble to smoking. D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
boylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan) (06/03/84)
My impression was that women live longer than men regardless
of the smoking factor. Is there a definitive reference about this?
All this retirement stuff is a bunch of crud. Why don't "they"
simply leave it up to the individual to setup an IRA style account
and spend it upon retirement however/how fast they feel like it?
If people don't plan ahead or blow it all early in retirement,
too bad for them. I am not against starvation based upon stupidity...
Retirement benefits tend to be a lose anyhow because people move
around so much more frequently. Last job I was at I had money in
the retirement fund for two years during the years of ??% inflation
and when I left I didn't even get simple interest on it. Mandatory
programs are so great...
I like profit-sharing instead.
--
Chris Boylan
{mgnetp | ihnp4 | uwvax}!dicomed!boylandgary@ecsvax.UUCP (06/05/84)
>From: boylan@dicomed.UUCP (Chris Boylan) Sun Jun 3 15:28:05 1984 > >My impression was that women live longer than men regardless >of the smoking factor. Is there a definitive reference about this? > I keep referring to a Pennsylvania study that indicated almost (but not) all the mortality difference is due to smoking. Unfortunately, my notes on that are at home. I'll try to remember to post something on it tomorrow. In any event, no single study is definitive, of course. The point is that we don't know exactly what the relationships are. We just know that sex is not the only (and almost certainly not the most important) predictor of life expectancy, but most retirement programs have used it and no other. >All this retirement stuff is a bunch of crud. Why don't "they" >simply leave it up to the individual to setup an IRA style account >and spend it upon retirement however/how fast they feel like it? >If people don't plan ahead or blow it all early in retirement, >too bad for them. I am not against starvation based upon stupidity... But it isn't stupidity that keeps me from knowing how long I'll live. I could try surviving just on the interest, but I don't love my heirs all THAT much. Or I could assume that I'll live to, say, 88 and if I overshoot dive off a bridge or go on welfare or look you up for a loan. Hmm. Seems to make more sense to have a group of people get together and take advantage of the fact they'll live a fairly predictable life span on the average and on that basis dole out principal and interest to all concerned. That's what we call a lifetime annuity. And you can have it your way AND my way, since you can 'roll over' an IRA into an annuity at retirement. So everybody's happy! Quite agree on the poor nature of the current retirement system. Although almost everybody works where there is a retirement plan of some kind, a good majority of us (meaning Americans) have very poor prospects, unless we've worked at one place for 40 years. That's one reason I like Duke's plan - fully vested from day 1, even if I quit tomorrow! If only private businesses had TIAA/CREFF and so on... Well, I've got mine! D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary