Home Politics & Debate

End of Sheilas Wheels?

24

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Me too, but sadly there is a huge wealth of evidence which supports this.

    I don't think I doubt that there's evidence for it: younger, less experienced drivers being disproportionately involved in accidents, statistically speaking, seems almost obvious enough to be an axiom.
    It's not like the "some bloke down the pub said" evidence which is stereotypically used to support racism and anti-immigration discrimination. What we have to accept is that Insurance of any kind is based on risk factors, and being a male, under 25 is a big one when it comes to driving. Just as smoking is when it comes to health, bungee jumping is when it comes to travel insurance.. etc

    I understand it's risk-based, and I think in this case what I take exception to is the methodology used to calculate insurance premiums - using these statistics at all.

    However, I think your analogies are far from exact. There's a difference between being statistically more likely to be involved in an accident if you choose age and gender as your risk variables, and the extra risk incurred by putting one's head in a crocodile's mouth.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't think I doubt that there's evidence for it: younger, less experienced drivers being disproportionately involved in accidents, statistically speaking, seems almost obvious enough to be an axiom.

    The evidence isn't that it's less experienced drivers, but young drivers. Even a new driver over 25 is actually a lower risk than one under 25.
    I understand it's risk-based, and I think in this case what I take exception to is the methodology used to calculate insurance premiums - using these statistics at all.

    To be fair, that's how risk assessment works.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And a woman is more likely to cost an employer money.

    Are they? Says who? The CBI?

    They're a set of thieving liars and anyone who believes them is a cretin.

    True fact: statutory maternity pay is paid by the Government, not the employer.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .True fact: statutory maternity pay is paid by the Government, not the employer.

    And it's taxable :grump:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There are genetic variations associated with risk-taking behaviour. Would those people advocating Y chromosome-influenced insurance premiums be willing to undergo genetic testing for these other genetic risk factors?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It seems there's a lot of mixing correlation and causation here. Whenever you draw lines around a group of people, odds are you're going to find statistical differences between them. I'm not sure that's justification for discrimination.

    What if you tallied up the hair colour of all people who had accidents and it turned out that blonde haired people appeared to be disproportionately having accidents. Should hair colour be factored into insurance premiums?

    Causation can be inferred from sets of data by using proper experimental data. No statistican/economist/biostatistican etc would make a complete fool out of themselves by publishing conclusions based on two sets of correlating data.

    Insurance is an extremely competitive business where firms cannot afford to have incorrectly priced risk based on shoddy data. Young and male drivers cost them the most money so they charge them the most money.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    True fact: statutory maternity pay is paid by the Government, not the employer.

    And the lost productivity during the time you have to train someone else to do the job? Someone working on the checkout at Tesco is easy to replace. Someone in a highly-skilled job, involving a lot of specialised knowledge, in a small team is far more difficult.

    And ignoring maternity pay, a study by the University of Helsinki in 2008 revealed that as a group, women between the ages of 40 and 60 take 46% more sick days than men of the same age. This is after days off to care for sick children are removed from the figures.

    And of course, the validity of this study is slightly irrelevant, because like insurers, employers would presumably be under no obligation to justify their methods for judging candidates to anyone else.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't believe in the assertion in the first place.

    Okay, how about charging men more for drinks in a club in order to cover the cost of the security staff whose services their gender disproportionately creates a need for?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Women earn less on average so maybe it's fair they pay less car insurance.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Okay, how about charging men more for drinks in a club in order to cover the cost of the security staff whose services their gender disproportionately creates a need for?

    Isn't that what Ladies drink free, Ladies free entry night do anyway?

    NB As Arctic Roll has pointed out, this ruling is also going to cost men more in Life Insurance Annuity. We used to get preferential rates there.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    If you argue that gender should play no role in employment and pay, then you have to concede that it should play no role in insurance either.

    I can't really see an argument here.

    Either gender based descrimination with use of statistics is acceptable across the board or it not. :confused:
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not entirely sure why it should matter in pay? :confused:

    But I have said that I believe child care arrangements should be questions in interviews but I would want to ask them of men too anyway, especially given paternity leave changes. It would tell me as much about him as her.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Employer take a financial risk when taking on employees just as insurers take on risk when insuring drivers.

    insurers offer different premiums why can't an employer offer different salaries?
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Isn't that what Ladies drink free, Ladies free entry night do anyway?
    No, ladies nights are generally about getting more women into a club in order to attract paying men. They're also illegal, since it's illegal to have different terms of service based on gender, race, etc.
    NB As Arctic Roll has pointed out, this ruling is also going to cost men more in Life Insurance Annuity. We used to get preferential rates there.
    That's okay. My principles aren't based on pure self-interest.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Employer take a financial risk when taking on employees just as insurers take on risk when insuring drivers.

    insurers offer different premiums why can't an employer offer different salaries?

    On what basis?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Men are more suited to physical labour. They're are as a rule stronger, and have more stamina, less likely to suffer injury, and be more productive in roles that require such qualities.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Men are more suited to physical labour. They're are as a rule stronger, and have more stamina, less likely to suffer injury, and be more productive in roles that require such qualities.

    Isn't that performance related pay?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    isn't that similar to a no claims bonus?
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    a salary is comparable to the premium, and performance related pay comparable to a no claims bonus
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Isn't that performance related pay?

    No, performance-related pay would be based on individual performance not the average performance of your gender.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    A lengthy emotional debate on the procedure of the industry, with no-one thus far questioning what is essentially a coercive customer base.

    Acquiescence of the corporatist/fascist world ?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    If you argue that gender should play no role in employment and pay, then you have to concede that it should play no role in insurance either.

    Straw man argument.

    Employers can and do assess each candidate individually for a job, and as such do not need to rely on generalised statistics. Employers can ask your medical history and your sickness record. They can assess your productivity and take references.

    Car insurers can't assess each driver individually, so they have to use generalised statistics. They have no idea what I am like as a driver so judge me according to their information about married 27-year-old men with one child who work in the law and live in my postcode.

    I don't like paying more for my car insurance because of my gender or because a postcode boundary change put a scabby council estate in my area. But I don't think it is unreasonable to price risk according to gender and according to race.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Straw man argument.

    Employers can and do assess each candidate individually for a job, and as such do not need to rely on generalised statistics. Employers can ask your medical history and your sickness record. They can assess your productivity and take references.

    Eventually. But for a big company to get to the interview stage, a company will go through a screening process not to dissimilar to how an insurance company will judge customers. The only difference is that they can't legally throw all of the women's CVs in a bin at the start.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Car insurers can't assess each driver individually

    Of course they can. Ever heard of the No Claims Bonus? Where they live, miles they do, what car they drive - all variables that are far more specific to the individual than whether they have a cock or a not.

    When employer advertise a job with a specific salary they havn't at that point in time assessed anybody on a individual basis, so why can't they use statisitics to offer a different salary for male applicants, when there are statisitics to show that in generaly men are going to be more productive.

    I don't think you've thought this through properly. Either that or you're a hypocrite.

    Age again is another one that shouldn't be factor. It's just as bad. Young drivers subsidise older driver because insurance companies use them to prop up cheaper premiums in offers of house insurance to those older driver. The whole fucking system is bent. Hopefully this is just a start. Pensions too.

    If it was statistically proven that blacks are a high risk, then is descrimination based on race acceptable?
    Either desrimination across the baord is acceptable or it's not.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Of course they can. Ever heard of the No Claims Bonus?

    So, what does the insurance company do when someone has just passed their test / started driving? Or would it be right for a learner driver to be charged higher premiums, even though they may be a pretty good driver and may have no accidents or whatnot?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Melian wrote: »
    So, what does the insurance company do when someone has just passed their test / started driving? Or would it be right for a learner driver to be charged higher premiums, even though they may be a pretty good driver and may have no accidents or whatnot?

    Work out a premium based on other variables that are certainly more specific to the individual than their genatlia. Where they live, milage, car they drive, job they do etc.

    Employers have to offer a salary before the interview process begins? Why can't insurerers work a standard premium for learner drivers and then experiance and lack of no claims be used to take that standard down?
    Just as an employee may be offered a standard salary and then get perfomance realted raises and bonuses?

    Me having a cock does make me crash my car. I have never claimed, so why should a female with all other things being equal still get to pay less than me?

    If you want equality than either we accept statistics as an argument for descrimaination across the boards or we ignore it.

    I'm quite happy to pay more insurance if employers are allowed to advertise different salaries for different ages, races and genders.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Work out a premium based on other variables that are certainly more specific to the individual than their genatlia. Where they live, milage, car they drive, job they do etc.

    Me having a cock does make me crash my car.

    Neither does one deciding to drive a certain car or choosing to live in a certain area.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Melian wrote: »
    Neither does one deciding to drive a certain car or choosing to live in a certain area.

    The car you drive is a choice and and a factor in the how much any claim may come to. The more expensive the car the high the claim.
    And of course it's more specific to you as an individual than what you have in your pants.

    Where you live is a factor in how likely you are to be broken into, and by and large a choice. And again is more specific to you as an individual than what you have in your pants.

    Born male or female is not a choice seeing as each one of us shares this attribute with rougjhly 50% of the population it's hardly specific to the individual is it?
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Of course they can. Ever heard of the No Claims Bonus?

    Yep. When you prove that the statistical model doesn't apply to you, you get a cheaper premium. That's exactly how it should be.
    Employers have to offer a salary before the interview process begins? Why can't insurerers work a standard premium for learner drivers and then experiance and lack of no claims be used to take that standard down?

    But that's exactly what happens, which is why my insurance isn't £3700 but it it is for a man who's 18.

    Employers don't have to offer a salary to a specific candidate before the interview process, they do have to have pay bands though so that similar people are being paid similar amounts for a similar job. I started further up the pay band for my job than other applicants because I have more experience.

    I'd add that I also hate the thieving fucks that run insurance companies, so much of what they do is stealing, nothing more nothing less. But this change/clarification in the law will just make it easier for them to thieve even more, by ramping up women's premiums even though they're less likely to crash without cutting men's premiums. Everyone will just pay more, and the insurance companies will just make more money. Trebles all round!
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,169 Skive's The Limit
    Yep. When you prove that the statistical model doesn't apply to you, you get a cheaper premium. That's exactly how it should be.

    That's not how it works though. Think it through. The statistical model always apply's even if you proove it wrong. Gender is always a factor in insurance even for a driver that has never claimed.


    But that's exactly what happens, which is why my insurance isn't £3700 but it it is for a man who's 18.

    There's no standard premium that ignores age and gender.
    Employers don't have to offer a salary to a specific candidate before the interview process

    But they are prevented from advertising different pay for men and women despite evidence to show that women can be less productive and have more time off in many jobs. It's no different. And I've seen plaenty of posts in the past from you about the gap in pay between men and women.
    Bit hypocritical I reckon.

    There are plenty of variables that insurance companies can use to give you a premium - variables that are much more specific to you as an individual. Age and gender should have fuck all to do with it.

    So what if everyone will pay more, I don't see that as an argument.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
Sign In or Register to comment.