cmgiuliani@watmath.UUCP (cmgiuliani) (05/27/84)
newbug snack.
You cannot attack the practice of charging women less for insurance on the
basis that it would be unfair to extend such statistical practices to such
matters as how much to pay for physical labour -- should women be paid less
because they are not as strong.
Insurance use Statistical generalizations because they have no other
information available to them. It is too expensive/difficult to obtain
other relevant info. In any such case, "discrimination" is justifiable.
If I have to hire either person A or person B for a technical job, knowing
only that person A is male and person B is female, I will hire the male.
This is based on the *true* generalization that men are better at (or if you
like more commonly educated in) technical fields. If I want such a person
for a receptionist, I will choose the female, since women are generally better
at social functions.
This is a lousy way to hire people -- I would rather know more about the
candidates. It is a lousy way to handle insurance, but no other way is
practical. What we call "discrimination" in the perjorative sense is the
incorrect application of generalities when more significant info is available.
But sometimes discrimination is the only logical course.
Carlo @ the U of Waterloors55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (05/29/84)
The question really boils down to: what characteristics are OK to use when determining insurance rates, and which shouldn't be used? For example, home address is used for auto insurance, and seems to be justifiable, but use of sex causes much controversy. My tendency (as someone who usually believes in the benefits of a free market) is to let the insurance companies base their rates on whatever makes sense to them. If use of finer distinctions, or different distinctions indicates that some group is paying too much for their insurance, then some insurance outfit should see this and begin offering plans which base their rates on these new distinctions. This type of thing already happens all the time, with all of the special group insurance rates that various companies, schools, fraternal organizations, etc, offer. (For example, the University of Illinois offers alumni relatively low cost term life insurance, based on some statistics that show that U of I grads have better health, and a better life expectancy than the population at large.) If under 25 males who've taken a high-performance driving course are really paying too much (and I think that may be true), then some insurance company somewhere should be offering lower rates for that combination (unless this group is so small that it isn't worth seeking their business.) Other examples: Antique car insurance offered from specialist companies (antiques only) at lower rates than the big outfits are willing to give. Does anyone know if the Sports Car Club of America offers any group insurance deals? This would tend to indicate that people who should be good (skilled, at least) drivers do present some better risks. At the other extreme, there are auto insurance outfits that cater to those who are uninsurable from the big companies. They've seen a market where they feel people are paying too much, and have jumped in to fill it. Bob Schleicher ihuxk!rs55611