jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/27/84)
I'm not quite sure why people keep comparing insurance to pensions. As I understand it, insurance is basically gambling - you bet the insurance company something will happen to you, the company bets it won't, and you get paid off if you "win". naturally, the company is going to take the odds into account in deciding how much you have to pay for a certain size payoff. A pension is a kind of reward for extended service, offered as an inducement to work at a certain place. It shouldn't have anything to do with gambling or statistics. men and women should get equal benifit from a pension (note - this does not necessarily mean equal total funds). But differing insurance rates for men and women reflect differing measured odds of an accident occuring, regardless of whether one can imagine why those odds should be different or not. It's not hypocrisy - it's evidence that the two kinds of payments are more different than similar. Jeff Winslow
warren@ihnss.UUCP (Warren Montgomery) (05/29/84)
Ah, but insurance and annuities (the form most pensions take) are both very similar gambles. With a pension, the company bets that you will die before collecting very much of your reward, while you bet that you will live long enough to make it worthwhile. The stake is the money that you and/or the company contributed while you worked. Pensions and life insurance are in fact two sides of the same gamble, while car insurance is just a little different. In both cases, it is claimed that sex biases the fair odds, which is why this arose in net.women. As I said in my last note, where gambling is involved, particularly involuntary gambling (like insurance required by law), I don't think that there can be any solution which everyone will see as fair. -- Warren Montgomery ihnss!warren IH x2494