Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01.03.2011, 13:43
Upthehatters2008's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: In the kitchen at parties.
Posts: 4,540
Groaned at 204 Times in 120 Posts
Thanked 6,078 Times in 2,378 Posts
Upthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond repute
Statistics and Discrimination

Insurance premiums to change after ECJ gender ruling


Continue reading the main story Insurers cannot charge different premiums to men and women because of their gender, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled.


I am all for rulings against sexual discrimination, (even if most of them are made by Women Judges )

But, for Insurance purposes, risk assessment is based on probability, determined by demographical statistics. If woman drive more carefully, it wil show up in the number of accidents , split that into age groups, again into location and again into model of car driven , and the tables get quite complicated, but remain accurate enough to create premiums for people in these risk groups.

Remove the ability to differentiate (discriminate ???) and that means all drivers are equal and will end up paying the same premium, possibly.

It works well I suppose for Basic Medical Insurance in Switzerland , but will it work for other insurances such as Car/Driver insurance ?

Gents first please.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01.03.2011, 14:42
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
Remove the ability to differentiate (discriminate ???) and that means all drivers are equal and will end up paying the same premium, possibly.
Initially, perhaps ("innocent 'til proven guilty") - but one could reasonably expect the renewal premium of someone who subsequently makes a claim to be significantly higher than that of someone who doesn't ("guilty").

If the insurance companies are unhappy about the ruling, this is because it's going to cost them money - it's certainly not due to some late-breaking social altruism on their part.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01.03.2011, 14:53
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,954
Groaned at 295 Times in 199 Posts
Thanked 19,026 Times in 8,002 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

i guess this means my premiums will be lower
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01.03.2011, 14:54
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,954
Groaned at 295 Times in 199 Posts
Thanked 19,026 Times in 8,002 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
If the insurance companies are unhappy about the ruling, this is because it's going to cost them money - it's certainly not due to some late-breaking social altruism on their part.
i guess they can just charge women more. perfect money making opportunity.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01.03.2011, 14:59
parnell's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geroldswil
Posts: 642
Groaned at 219 Times in 140 Posts
Thanked 2,165 Times in 1,024 Posts
parnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
Initially, perhaps ("innocent 'til proven guilty") - but one could reasonably expect the renewal premium of someone who subsequently makes a claim to be significantly higher than that of someone who doesn't ("guilty").

If the insurance companies are unhappy about the ruling, this is because it's going to cost them money - it's certainly not due to some late-breaking social altruism on their part.
It's also because it's incredibly stupid :

Quote:
The advocate general, Juliane Kokott, argued that there was insufficient evidence that women live longer, or that men are worse drivers, because they are biologically men or women. Instead, she said, those differences "merely come to light statistically."
This is de-facto stupidity on a Dubya Bush scale - with equally damaging consequences for Europe.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank parnell for this useful post:
  #6  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:03
economisto
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

I am totally into this! It always irked me to see that "diamond" advert - only for women because women are safer drivers. Funny thing about statistic is that you can slice a sample any way you like. Take all the population and slice off the people with blonde hair. They're either going to be safer drivers than the rest, or not-as-safe drivers as the rest (they're also either going to be more or less trustworthy, rich, intelligent etc). Put another way, how would it sound if there were a product that excluded, for example, black people or Jews? And if it could be statistically founded? Just proves how stupid statistics can be.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #7  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:05
Upthehatters2008's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: In the kitchen at parties.
Posts: 4,540
Groaned at 204 Times in 120 Posts
Thanked 6,078 Times in 2,378 Posts
Upthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

What wlll happen to Sheilas Wheels ???
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Upthehatters2008 for this useful post:
  #8  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:08
economisto
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
What wlll happen to Sheilas Wheels ???
It'll have to be Sheila's, Bruce's, and Suresh's wheels.

Thing is, insurances work by trying and testing individual's driving performance anyway - it's insane that people can get a priori reductions based on gender and I'm shocked that this was ever allowed.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:09
Upthehatters2008's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: In the kitchen at parties.
Posts: 4,540
Groaned at 204 Times in 120 Posts
Thanked 6,078 Times in 2,378 Posts
Upthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Toilets next ?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:11
parnell's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geroldswil
Posts: 642
Groaned at 219 Times in 140 Posts
Thanked 2,165 Times in 1,024 Posts
parnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
I am totally into this! It always irked me to see that "diamond" advert - only for women because women are safer drivers. Funny thing about statistic is that you can slice a sample any way you like. Take all the population and slice off the people with blonde hair. They're either going to be safer drivers than the rest, or not-as-safe drivers as the rest (they're also either going to be more or less trustworthy, rich, intelligent etc). Put another way, how would it sound if there were a product that excluded, for example, black people or Jews? And if it could be statistically founded? Just proves how stupid statistics can be.
No it proves that you don't understand the law of large numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:12
economisto
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
Toilets next ?
Separate but equal seems fair. It's OK to have women-only car insurance as long as they don't gain advantage from it. OK so put another way, it's like a prospective employer pointing to statistics saying that men typically earn more, advance further, are better educated, take less maternity leave/sick leave etc and so that employer has decided to employ men exclusively.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:15
parnell's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geroldswil
Posts: 642
Groaned at 219 Times in 140 Posts
Thanked 2,165 Times in 1,024 Posts
parnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
Separate but equal seems fair. It's OK to have women-only car insurance as long as they don't gain advantage from it. OK so put another way, it's like a prospective employer pointing to statistics saying that men typically earn more, advance further, are better educated, take less maternity leave/sick leave etc and so that employer has decided to employ men exclusively.
No it's nothing like that since the first employer to take on women , find that they do the same work - for less - since the above employers follow your logic driving down the cost of female labour - therefore exploiting the anomaly to maximise profit.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:16
economisto
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
No it proves that you don't understand the law of large numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.
I should groan you for today's most ridiculous post (including the noise to signal thread) but I don't want to add to what is already a deluge. Please read my previous posts on this thread which basically amount to an admission of correlation but a distrust of causation in many statistics.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:17
economisto
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
No it's nothing like that since the first employer to take on women , find that they do the same work - for less - since the above employers follow your logic driving down the cost of female labour - therefore exploiting the anomaly to maximise profit.
It's irrelevant, a priori discrimination is harmful to society whatever the outcome or rationale.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank for this useful post:
  #15  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:18
Carlos R's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Roundn'about Basel
Posts: 7,231
Groaned at 105 Times in 95 Posts
Thanked 9,934 Times in 4,178 Posts
Carlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond reputeCarlos R has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
i guess this means my premiums will be lower
Yeah, but in CH, your health insurance premiums would go up...
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Carlos R for this useful post:
  #16  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:18
Upthehatters2008's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: In the kitchen at parties.
Posts: 4,540
Groaned at 204 Times in 120 Posts
Thanked 6,078 Times in 2,378 Posts
Upthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
No it proves that you don't understand the law of large numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_large_numbers

In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

And you miss the point. It has for a very long time been unlawful to discriminate based on gender. Insurance companies now have to wake up and catch up. Regardless of how you twist or view statistics. Nobody argues against the fact that women are generally better drivers in terms of having fewer accidents.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:19
Deep Purple's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 5,273
Groaned at 15 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 5,284 Times in 2,568 Posts
Deep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond reputeDeep Purple has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

At first this seemed totally mad, but there may be some logic in it.

Determining an insurance policy on the basis of gender alone would certainly be discrimination. Whilst women may tend to drive less than men, have smaller cars and have more minor accidents, that is not true for all women. It is also true that all male drivers are not 'boy racers'.

I guess that what this ruling is trying to do is get the companies to determine the policy on factual risks rather than generalisations.

In future, other factors may have more bearing: Model/age of car; mileage; occupation/type of car use etc.

No mention of gender, but the comparative risks should be evident.

This should not make a major difference to overall policies.

A 30-year-old person employed as a secretary, driving 8000 miles a year to and from work in a 5-year-old Renault Clio should still be able to get a low premium.

A 24-year-old person in a new BMW driving 40,000 miles a year as a sales rep can still expect to pay a fortune.
__________________
"I'll say I can't tell you when, But if my spirit is strong, I know it can't be long, No questions I'm not alone, Somehow I'll find my way home" Rod
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:21
economisto
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
And you miss the point. It has for a very long time been unlawful to discriminate based on gender. Insurance companies now have to wake up and catch up. Regardless of how you twist or view statistics. Nobody argues against the fact that women are generally better drivers in terms of having fewer accidents.
And those that are will get lower premiums anyway because of No Claims Bonuses.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:22
parnell's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Geroldswil
Posts: 642
Groaned at 219 Times in 140 Posts
Thanked 2,165 Times in 1,024 Posts
parnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond reputeparnell has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

Quote:
View Post
I should groan you for today's most ridiculous post (including the noise to signal thread) but I don't want to add to what is already a deluge. Please read my previous posts on this thread which basically amount to an admission of correlation but a distrust of causation in many statistics.
No your previous posts point to a basic misunderstanding of sampling. Your ego seems to be preventing you seeing this.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at parnell for this post:
  #20  
Old 01.03.2011, 15:23
Upthehatters2008's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: In the kitchen at parties.
Posts: 4,540
Groaned at 204 Times in 120 Posts
Thanked 6,078 Times in 2,378 Posts
Upthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond reputeUpthehatters2008 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Statistics and Discrimination

...and the rub... If I have had an accident already, am I more likely to have another accident or not ? Assuming the average number of accidents peopel cause , is , say for arguments sake, 3 , and I have had 3 accidents , I am statistically likely not to have another accident and my premiums should go down. But they won't will they...
Reply With Quote
Reply




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Swiss Statistics Deep Purple Other/general 2 12.12.2011 13:43
Swiss weather statistics. krlock3 Other/general 9 25.05.2009 13:27
Realtime statistics mark Announcements 7 25.10.2006 20:09


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 18:30.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0