Gender discrimination on motor insurance now illegal

folan

Hi guys,

theres an AH thread for this, but its an AH thread.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0301/insurance.html

the part of this article i really noticed was

Until now, discrimination in setting insurance rates has been explicitly permitted under EU equal treatment rules 'if sex is a determining risk factor ... substantiated by relevant and accurate actuarial and statistical data'.

to me, this suggests that either:
1) Women are as likely to be involved in an incident or
2) that doesnt matter anymore.

Im all for removing any and all gender bias, but is it just me or is this gone a bit far. When I've contacted RSA about the "He drives, She dies" ads, I was told that it is ok as women statistically drive less than men and therefore a lower percentage of women are involved in crashes. Statistically, therefore, the ad was backed up with relevant facts.

Though the other side of it is that I always wondered why the distance travelled in a year (average) wasnt the deciding factor there and not sex.

I dont see the point or the gian in this, and i can only say PC for the sake of PC.

Morgase

Perhaps it's just that the stats have been updated to reflect modern times?

I suppose that back in the day in Ireland (or at least, in the 80's when I was growing up ) there was one car in the family and the man would drive that to work. So, the stats reflected that men were a bigger risk, simply because they were on the road a lot more?

I'd love to take a look at the stats themselves though.

Jesus Wept

This is long overdue and a step in a right direction.

It is not 'going too far' whatsoever.
Whether men are more expensive to insure or more likely to be involved in an accident is inconsequential and here is why:

It is not legal to factor for gender when it comes to health insurance.
Females cost health insurance companies more.
Amongst other factors, they live considerably longer (why they live longer is another minefield).

So this is why I said it is a step in a right direction. The playing field needs to be level.

Either gender can be factored into health insurance as it is with car insurance or it can't be in either or any insurance.

I don't really mind which road is taken (if done equitably).
That being said, if they were going to factor it in across the board, they ought to (but wouldn't dare) factor in race too.
Imagine how well that would go down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8354197/Women-and-pensioners-insurance-costs-set-to-rise.html

wrote:

Women face steeper car insurance premiums of up to 25pc and men lower pensions in light of the decision by the EU to ban using gender-based pricing for financial products.

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has ruled that using differences between men and women as a risk factor in setting premiums for car and medical insurance and pension schemes breaches EU rules on equality.
"Taking the gender of the insured individual into account as a risk factor in insurance contracts constitutes discrimination," the court said in a statement.
The verdict - which applies from December 21 2012 - will force changes in the current standard practice across Europe of basing insurance rates on statistics about differing life expectancies or road accident records of the sexes.

Women could face a jump of 25pc in car insurance premiums in light of the decision, while pension income form men could fall by between 5 and 10pc.
Men benefit from higher annuity rates as, statistically, they don't live as long as women. Currently men aged 65 get an income of £3,274 a year from a £50,000 pension fund, and women £2,993. In comparison, the unisex rate is £3,049 (certain types of pension already apply unisex rates).

Experts criticised the ruling and said that that premium prices are likely to be volatile for the next few months as insurers monitor their new business and adjust their pricing in response to experience.
Matt Morris, senior policy adviser, at LifeSearch said: “This is a horrible mistake by the European Court. It is essential for insurers to use gender to calculate risk based on solid actuarial evidence and statistics. It is price differentiation, not discrimination, as it is not a decision that comes down to the whim of an individual. The consumer will now suffer. Prices will go up across the board as insurance companies try to build in the new risk.”

Tom McPhail, head of pensions research, Hargreaves Lansdown, said: “According to the ECJ, Homo Sapiens is now unique in being the only species to boast three genders: Male, female and European.
“This ruling is a seismic event which will fundamentally reshape the retirement landscape. It is now imperative that every investor shops around with their pension fund at retirement; if they don’t they risk ending up with a homogenised standard–issue annuity which is almost certain to be a poor deal for them.”

Conservative MEP Sajjad Karim also condemned it as “utter madness” and a “setback for common sense”.
A recent ABI research paper suggested that some car insurers might initially set their unisex level at the male rate, particularly in the younger age bands. There are also fears that what younger men save on insurance will be spent on faster cars, potentially pushing up claims for this group further.

cantdecide

A right clever clogs over there on the motors forum posted this:

"The purpouse of insurance is shared liability. You insure your car as a way of spreading the cost of your average claims over a period of time. Forget you vs your peers for a second. Take yourself as an individual over your life.
Paying the majority of your motor insurance when you are at a particular stage of your life kind of defeats the whole purpouse, doesn't it.

It's like front-loading. Doesn't that defeat the purpouse? I think they can adjust policies based on the car's value, area you live, level of cover etc, but I always believed that the core of the policy - covering against accidental damage - should be shared among every motorist, without discrimination against age, sex or even experience in the same way that they can't discriminate against race or creed.

I think that that is the only way of levelling the playing field which is the object of the exercise afterall".

He's a real handsome b*****d too.

cantdecide

I believe it's a step in the right direction and I'm not just saying that because it may save us men a few bob in about 100 years. If it were women that were being discriminated against, it would have been changed long ago.

deirdre_dub

There is a good article on this over on the BBC web site -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610

Summary - men's prices drop 10%, women's prices go up 25-30%, the real losers are retired men, and just about the only winners are the insurance companies.

Jesus Wept

deirdre_dub wrote: »

There is a good article on this over on the BBC web site -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610

Summary - men's prices drop 10%, women's prices go up 25-30%, the real losers are retired men, and just about the only winners are the insurance companies.

Well it would seem that only some premiums would go up 25-30%, the ones that are the lowest compared to that of their gender's equivalent, in order to make them equitable.

If insurance companies use this in order to ramp up all premiums, well that is an unrelated matter and something the regulators should clamp down.

The winners btw are people who believe in actual equality, not just equality if it suits you.

deirdre_dub

The-Rigger wrote: »

Well it would seem that only some premiums would go up 25-30%, the ones that are the lowest compared to that of their gender's equivalent, in order to make them equitable.

I stand corrected - they were talking about the under 30's when they mentioned that figure.

The winners btw are people who believe in actual equality, not just equality if it suits you.

Also true. However, real equality is when men and women's driving is equally safe, when men's shorter life expectancy is addressed, and when women's pay is addressed so that we can afford our new insurance premiums.

deirdre dub

Women do and SHOULD have different annuity rates to men, should probably pay more in health insurance (I don't know if we're more expensive or not, don't know about it) if that's the situation, and if the statistics show that women overall claim a lot less then women's car insurance should be cheaper.
I'm all for equality but this is daft.

deirdre dub wrote:

and when women's pay is addressed so that we can afford our new insurance premiums.

Good point

deirdre_dub

bluewolf wrote: »

Women do and SHOULD have different annuity rates to men, should probably pay more in health insurance, and if the statistics show that women overall claim a lot less then women's car insurance should be cheaper.
I'm all for equality but this is daft.

Taking just one of your points - women paying more for health insurance.

The problem with that is that you then get into the general argument that sick people (or people prone to sickness) should pay more for health insurance, which could price sick people out of the health insurance market, which kinda defeats the purpose of having health insurance in the first place!

A principle in health insurance is "community rating" - which effectively means that the healthy pay for the sick. I'm actually in favour of that. It makes good social sense to me.

What we now have here is the good drivers paying for the bad (something safe male drivers have been complaining about for ages - but now it has been extended to women drivers paying for boy racers - so maybe now something will get done about those boy racers! ).

We also have those who don't live long paying for the extra longevity enjoyed by women.

Swings and roundabouts...

Bottle_of_Smoke

Perhaps the amount you drive may now be taken into consideration. That could save money for insurance companies if in fact it is a determining factor.

One idea could be you continue paying your normal premiums, then at the end of the year you get a % refund if you can show you only drove a certain amount.

Might be impractical - not sure how it could be done if multiple people using one car. Still possible though.

deirdre_dub

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Taking just one of your points - women paying more for health insurance.

The problem with that is that you then get into the general argument that sick people (or people prone to sickness) should pay more for health insurance, which could price sick people out of the health insurance market, which kinda defeats the purpose of having health insurance in the first place!

A principle in health insurance is "community rating" - which effectively means that the healthy pay for the sick. I'm actually in favour of that. It makes good social sense to me.

What we now have here is the good drivers paying for the bad (something safe male drivers have been complaining about for ages - but now it has been extended to women drivers paying for boy racers - so maybe now something will get done about those boy racers! ).

We also have those who don't live long paying for the extra longevity enjoyed by women.

Swings and roundabouts...

Yesss... you are right really.
I just hate the thought of it spilling into pension schemes also.

I don't know now

deirdre_dub

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Perhaps the amount you drive may now be taken into consideration. That could save money for insurance companies if in fact it is a determining factor.

It could also price those who do a lot of deliveries out of the market.

Here's the deal. First of all, there is no system that is absolutely fair. Second, everyone wants their premium to be at a minimum, but everyone also wants to be looked after should something go wrong. That means that if you are lucky/smart/safe enough to not have something go wrong, you will inevitably pay for someone who wasn't as lucky/smart/safe as you.

OK - a system based on individual behaviour has a chance of being more fair. How do you judge individual behaviour? Should a smoker pay more for health insurance? What if their smoking is a result of childhood trauma - should they pay for something that was due to someone else's behaviour?

Galvasean

Yay, I can finally drive a car!

But honestly, (perhaps it's just me being cynical) this sounds like an excuse for teh insurance companies to raise their prices overall.

Jesus Wept

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Should a smoker pay more for health insurance? What if their smoking is a result of childhood trauma - should they pay for something that was due to someone else's behaviour?

I used to feel that they should pay more though recently I heard (dunno how accurate it was) that because they die so much younger on average, the cost is largely offset by this.

Different subject though.

Knasher

There is obviously a correlation between age and gender and dangerous driving so it makes sense that on average a young male should have to pay more insurance than any other group. However as everyone knows correlation doesn't imply causation.

The fairest system I can think of is if every car was fitted with a GPS unit which records a years worth of driving. At the end of the year you would submit it to your insurance brokers and they would score you for the year based on several measurable factors such as obeying the speed limit, breaking distances (i.e. if you are braking sharply behind everything or if you are leaving enough space so that you can smoothly slow down). This score would then set your insurance premiums for the coming year.

The largest side benefit of this would be that it would actually encourage people to drive safely as you would be paying for not doing so next year.

hightower1

bluewolf wrote: »

Women do and SHOULD have different annuity rates to men, should probably pay more in health insurance (I don't know if we're more expensive or not, don't know about it) if that's the situation, and if the statistics show that women overall claim a lot less then women's car insurance should be cheaper.
I'm all for equality but this is daft.


Good point

Im sorry but I didnt realise insurance was a pay by use product? By your logic if a man buys a tv he shold pay more seeing as the gender demographic says men watch more tv than women??

cantdecide

Back in 2000, I got my first car at 18. I lived in a rural area and needed a car and besides, I'm a big petrol head, I wanted a car. My first insurance was almost £4,000 in a 1.4 FIAT. What is that adjusted for inflation? €6,000+ ? It nearly killed me at the time I can assure you. How many claims have I made in ten years of driving- none.

Yungfellas these days are getting insurance for €2k max. So where did all my extra money go at the time? My point is it's all smoke and morrors anyway.

ApeXaviour

I started this thread on the topic 6 years ago. Delighted to see how attitudes have changed on the matter.

Finally this long standing hypocrisy has come to an end. If the genders were reversed this would have happened donkeys ago.

hightower1

hightower1 wrote: »

Im sorry but I didnt realise insurance was a pay by use product?

You mean you didnt know your car insurance will be seriously loaded up if you use it for a claim? :pac:

James Jones

deirdre_dub wrote: »

real equality is when men and women's driving is equally safe, when men's shorter life expectancy is addressed, and when women's pay is addressed so that we can afford our new insurance premiums.

REAL equality will occur when everyone is treated as a person rather than as a male or a female. When issues such as shared parenting becomes the de facto position in the family law courts rather than "Mother Gets All" as now occurs, when Paternity Leave is granted as a right for fathers rather than the Labour Party proposal that it be shared by the mother, and when we have an education system that has all girls study the trades and all boys study Home Economics, we have some chance of people growing up expecting to work outside the home and share the childcare and housework responsibilities regardless of their gender.


By the way, the Gender Pay Gap is a myth. As long as women continue to choose the cushy numbers (either for there family friendly duties or their relative safety) and avoid the dangerous occupations such as fishing, farming and construction where all of the workplace fatalities occur, the glass ceiling will disappear.

hightower1

bluewolf wrote: »

You mean you didnt know your car insurance will be seriously loaded up if you use it for a claim? :pac:

Then the use is still offset for gender.. man makes a claim and his price rises... woman makes identical claim her price rises but the base for each is still higher for the man. Depends on how you deem "use of inscurance... to me having the disc available on display in your car is the definition of someone with insurance. Claiming being a feature of the use. I see it that way as we need to have it as a legality.

About time male and female pfices have been brought into line. Its ridiculous that companies take advantage of the pro female attitude as a license to bash men. Adverts are a prime example of this, could you imagine an ad now that basically made women out to be thick or inadeuite in some way.... there'd be war. Yet day in day out men are made to be thick or inadiqutie on tv.

deirdre_dub

James Jones wrote: »

REAL equality will occur when everyone is treated as a person rather than as a male or a female. When issues such as shared parenting becomes the de facto position in the family law courts rather than "Mother Gets All" as now occurs, when Paternity Leave is granted as a right for fathers rather than the Labour Party proposal that it be shared by the mother, and when we have an education system that has all girls study the trades and all boys study Home Economics, we have some chance of people growing up expecting to work outside the home and share the childcare and housework responsibilities regardless of their gender.

Some interesting equality points in there, to be sure, but not quite relevant to the thread we're in, which is about insurance. I'd largely agree with most of your points (in so far as I am educated about them), except that I don't believe anyone should be made study something that doesn't interest them. I would, however, agree that the social stigma attached to e.g. boys studying home economics should be removed.

By the way, the Gender Pay Gap is a myth.

Since a pay gap is something that hinders payment for increased insurance, I'm going to hazard that this is still relevant to the topic at hand.

The link you have above is about just one, single aspect of the gender pay gap, namely career choice. There is no doubt whatsoever that career choices affect pay. The way that society seems to value some jobs (e.g. sitting in front of a computer screen on the trading floor in a bank) above others (cleaning out the sewerage system) is, well, at the very least questionable.

The gender pay gap that I'm interested in, however, is a different one. It is where someone of one gender gets paid less than someone of the other gender for doing the same job. In other words, I'm not interested in how career choice affects how one gender gets a greater or smaller share of the salary pot - and I freely and completely acknowledge that that happens. To an extent, I support it - for instance, if you put your neck on the line in your job, you should be rewarded for doing so. But that's not the pay gap phenomenon I was alluding to.

The only thing I will say is that I have to wonder, when the statistic "women get paid X% of what men get paid" is thrown out, how much of that X% is due to career choice and how much is irrespective of career choice and job performance.

deirdre_dub

Off-topic, but a discussion worth having, I think.

hightower1 wrote: »

Adverts are a prime example of this, could you imagine an ad now that basically made women out to be thick or inadeuite in some way.... there'd be war. Yet day in day out men are made to be thick or inadiqutie on tv.

Trust me - there are tons of ads that make women feel inadequate. The way they do it might not be as visible to you (given that you are male, and hence have a whole different set of instilled insecurities), but they are there. In their droves.

The way to combat those ads, I think, is to just not identify with the people portrayed in them. And, as a direct consequence of that, you will then find yourself disinclined to purchase the product being advertised! WIN! :cool:

I mean - you are not thick. You are not inadequate. Hence those ads are not about you! Even though they are "about" men, they are not about you! So the ad isn't targetted at you, and hence you shouldn't buy the product!

Edit: sorry - just realised that you were probably referring to a particular road safety ad. Any ad that tries to increase safety by making people feel inadequate or thick is counter-productive, IMNSHO.

James Jones

The-Rigger wrote: »

The winners btw are people who believe in actual equality, not just equality if it suits you.

This was responded to with

deirdre_dub wrote: »

real equality is when men and women's driving is equally safe, when men's shorter life expectancy is addressed, and when women's pay is addressed so that we can afford our new insurance premiums.

Which led to

James Jones wrote: »

REAL equality will occur when everyone is treated as a person rather than as a male or a female.

So you brought in other relevant points in relation to gender (in)equality yourself.

Although the thread is about a particular aspect of car insurance, it is in relation to Gender Discrimination which, until this ruling, was acceptable when directed against men.
Its funny how all the news reports that I've heard on this subject seem to reflect that this ruling is negative because now young women will have to pay more than they previously did, whereas up until now young men had to pay more and the media felt that was acceptable.

deirdre_dub

James Jones wrote: »

Its funny how all the news reports that I've heard on this subject seem to reflect that this ruling is negative because now young women will have to pay more than they previously did, whereas up until no young men had to pay more and the media felt that was acceptable.

It's also funny how everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the other big losers will be men who are in retirement.

To be honest, though, I suspect that has more to do with ageism than sexism. Grandpa Simpson would probably agree.

hightower1

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Off-topic, but a discussion worth having, I think.


Trust me - there are tons of ads that make women feel inadequate..

But are the feelings of inadequacy originated from the male in the ad or the advertisers eg... Buy this product or you wont be as pretty as this girl (aimed at the viewer) OR male chareter in the ad saying "your not as pretty as this girl because you didnt buy this product" (aimed at female charecter) The latter would be outragous but yet the reverse is common place in advertising.

Glade airfreshner ads gets on my t*ts, sumarised by "women know how to work a simple device - men are thick and act like chimps when confounded with the same device" Its so sexist for everyone involved seeing as they are preying on stereotyes that women are in tune with domestic prducts where as men are not. Imagine Dell using the same stereotypes where men are in tune with electronics and women are not!!!! A male charecter basically using his great new Dell pc and then a thick woman is totally confounded at home it "magically" works!!!! I'd be shocked but this in reverse it apparently acceptable?

deirdre_dub

hightower1 wrote: »

Trust me - there are tons of ads that make women feel inadequate.

But are the feelings of inadequacy originated from the male in the ad or the advertisers

Feelings of inadequacy are feelings of inadequacy, regardless of where they originate.

Glade airfreshner ads gets on my t*ts, sumarised by "women know how to work a simple device - men are thick and act like chimps when confounded with the same device" Its so sexist for everyone involved seeing as they are preying on stereotyes that women are in tune with domestic prducts where as men are not.

There are three different issues here. The first is that the ad makers, through their sexist stereotypical depiction of men, have obviously not targetted the ad at men. Glade therefore lose out on the single male market and the male-living-on-their-own market because of their sexism. I welcome that they are losing sales for their behaviour.

The second is reinforcement of female stereotypes. Actually, if you think about it for a second, what is actually being reinforced is female inadequacy. The female guests are praising the main character for how good her home smells - the implication is that if you don't have glade products in your own home, your home smells like a pig sty, and that makes you A Bad Female. Put another way - what is being reinforced is the Innate Goodness of the stereotype.

The third is a gratuitous reinforcement of male stereotypes in an attempt to endear the product to (some) women. The only way to combat stereotypes is education. Just as (some) men need to be educated about hurtful female stereotyping, (some) women need to be educated about hurtful male stereotyping. It is painful to learn how one's own stereotypes hurt others - so painful that there is a tendancy to react to those teachings with anger. (The reason why I put that in there is because if a woman is teaching you about these things, and you feel yourself getting angry, ask yourself if your anger is because she is right. I promise I'll do the same).

Imagine Dell using the same stereotypes where men are in tune with electronics and women are not!!!!

Pretty much all electronics companies used to do just that!!! What has changed is that men have become educated about those stereotypes. Also, women have been educated in matters electronical, and as a result are now more involved in electronics purchasing decisions than ever before.

Glade will change their advertising when they are educated about their stereotyping, and/or when their behaviour affects their bottom line to an extent that is unacceptable. Excluding the single male market and the men-living-on-their-own market is acceptable (for now) because men aren't as involved in such purchasing decisions (just as women weren't involved in electronics purchasing decisions). When men are truly allowed by society (which, if I may remind you, is 50% male) to be Domestic Gods, then Glade will find their advertising practices to be too counter-productive to continue.

So - guys - where is your Inner Domestic God? Does that feel "too ghey" for you? If so, then I'm sorry to say that that is one of the ultimate causes of the problem... Such is the power of stereotyping that we accept stereotyping of ourselves even when it is in our best interests to ditch it!

ApeXaviour

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The gender pay gap that I'm interested in, however, is a different one. It is where someone of one gender gets paid less than someone of the other gender for doing the same job.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal and doesn't happen in western societies except for where salary is negotiated (but asking for a higher salary is also putting your neck on the line). I'm open to correction if you find different. I haven't.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The only thing I will say is that I have to wonder, when the statistic "women get paid X% of what men get paid" is thrown out, how much of that X% is due to career choice and how much is irrespective of career choice and job performance.

In my experience, unless talking of an impoverished or totalitarian state, it's always the latter.

deirdre_dub, I'm not sure you realise the extent of anti-male advertising out there. I'll admit it does exist on the opposite end, however because of widespread female gender advocacy they are usually stemmed quickly. There is disproportionately little male advocacy... so you have advertisements that depict violence against men as humorous, that portray men as useless homer-simpson types, overgrown babies barely able to feed themselves... or at its most sinister, of men as basically evil and women as good. And we're programmed to just accept it... but switch the genders in any example and the hypocrisy shows itself clear as day.

Even in official sources, the insistence of domestic abuse as a male=instigator, female=victim is downright harmful! In a pub yesterday I saw an ad advertising www.2in2u.ie (don't bother even ticking the boxes, it annoyingly doesn't make any difference to the outcome, just click the submit button at the bottom). I was appalled at how it took such a circumscribed stance on what is not at all a gender specific issue.

Wolfe Tone

Now women will pay as much as men, prices wont go down

maximoose

I'm in the middle of trying to renew my car insurance this week

Two years no claims bonus in my own name (no driving previous to that), full license for 1.5 years and looking to insure a 1.4 Seat Leon.

€752 with Zurich if I didnt happen to have a willy, but alas I do, so that bumps it up to €1250.

I'm all f*cking for this change :mad:

deirdre_dub

ApeXaviour wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that's illegal and doesn't happen in western societies except for where salary is negotiated (but asking for a higher salary is also putting your neck on the line). I'm open to correction if you find different. I haven't.

OK - I'm going to put my neck on the line and come out with this.

I know that I'm speaking the truth because I'm transgendered, and I can tell you that there is a definite different attitude towards me now that I'm presenting as female. Thankfully it's not in my place of work (my colleagues knew the male me, and got to respect me for the talented person I am, before I came out as transgendered), but I definitely notice it in some other situations from time to time ("wtf does she know" sort of thing - it's quite subtle, but it's there).

deirdre_dub, I'm not sure you realise the extent of anti-male advertising out there.

Trust me - I do. It really really annoyed and hurt me when I believed I was male. And it still angers me today. Contrary to popular belief, transgender women don't hate men - I think men are awesome, and I feel so very angry when I see the way that society sh1ts on you too.

I don't think you realise the way that advertising works differently with women. Actually, a lot of things work differently with women...

I'll admit it does exist on the opposite end, however because of widespread female gender advocacy they are usually stemmed quickly. There is disproportionately little male advocacy... so you have advertisements that depict violence against men as humorous, that portray men as useless homer-simpson types, overgrown babies barely able to feed themselves... or at its most sinister, of men as basically evil and women as good. And we're programmed to just accept it...

And that is the key. You've gotta unprogram yourself! Seriously! No-one is going to do it for you - no-one can do it for you - you gotta do it yourself. Sorry, but them's the breaks...

but switch the genders in any example and the hypocrisy shows itself clear as day.

This is something that women have had to live with for a very long time. At this stage in our society's evolution, it's (many, though apparently not enough) men who are now also feeling it. I feel for you that you are one of those men who is feeling it.

Even in official sources, the insistence of domestic abuse as a male=instigator, female=victim is downright harmful!

I couldn't agree more. Seriously. I am quite close to a male victim of domestic violence, and the way his suffering has been minimised (to put it mildly!) is just so very wrong on so many levels.

In a pub yesterday I saw an ad advertising www.2in2u.ie (don't bother even ticking the boxes, it annoyingly doesn't make any difference to the outcome, just click the submit button at the bottom). I was appalled at how it took such a circumscribed stance on what is not at all a gender specific issue.

I hear you. For what it's worth - I hear you. I know it's not much, but I do.

iptba

On the health insurance issue, this could have been dealt with in the past, or now, if they want(ed) to be allowed threat men and women differently (for motor insurance and other insurance): have community rating across the lifetime so men of different ages pay the same (as other men, a lower rate than they would now) and women of other ages pay the same (as other women). It never happened.

I'm not sure if this idea, which is not exactly rocket science, was even mentioned - so much academic and political "energy" is spent looking at ways to help women in comparison to the academic/political energy/resources looking at situations in which men appear to be losing out.

iptba

deirdre_dub wrote: »

It could also price those who do a lot of deliveries out of the market.

Pricing out of the market is a bigger issue when there is a loading made. What will happen now is that people will pay the mean (average); without it, some people were being asked to pay a lot more than the mean putting a disproportionate burden on them.

(More theoretical point) In the business realm, one could technically argue, it put a bigger burden on men putting them at a disadvantage; put another way, I wonder if there was a category of vehicle where it turned own that premiums were more expensive for women whether this point might have been made.

The Corinthian

deirdre_dub wrote: »

The link you have above is about just one, single aspect of the gender pay gap, namely career choice. There is no doubt whatsoever that career choices affect pay. The way that society seems to value some jobs (e.g. sitting in front of a computer screen on the trading floor in a bank) above others (cleaning out the sewerage system) is, well, at the very least questionable.

The gender pay gap actually is pretty much based upon career choice, but not simply in the way that James Jones suggested. One interesting thing that has come up repeatedly in salary surveys is that in our twenties womens' salaries actually out perform men, as do childless women who have never married, when compared with childless male counterparts, overall.

A large part for the gender pay gap appears to be as a result of the role of women as the primary child carer; as a result they are more likely to take longer leave of absences and even upon their return to the workplace will be unable to put in the "110%" that is often expected of employees nowadays.

Combined with house-making duties, this also aids men in relationships because they are more free to put in the extra time and effort on their career as they do not have to sacrifice time for housework, etc.

As such, so long as the society presumes that home-making and child care are 'female' roles, then this will persist. Of course, to reverse this would also require women losing the legal and social advantage over men that exists where it comes to their children and so a lot of feminism seems to shy away from this option, instead focusing on a "why can't we have it all" approach, which is frankly doomed to fail.

The gender pay gap that I'm interested in, however, is a different one. It is where someone of one gender gets paid less than someone of the other gender for doing the same job.

There are lots of factors that go into a salary. Two people may be doing the 'same job', but if one has more experience than the other, they are more likely to be able to command a greater salary. This is relevant in that many women who choose to take a few years out to have children will return to the workplace to find that they not only lack recent experience, but also have several years less total experience than their male or childless female counterparts.

folan

Not sure how the debate turned to the gender pay gap, but fair enough.

maximoose wrote: »

I'm in the middle of trying to renew my car insurance this week

Two years no claims bonus in my own name (no driving previous to that), full license for 1.5 years and looking to insure a 1.4 Seat Leon.

€752 with Zurich if I didnt happen to have a willy, but alas I do, so that bumps it up to €1250.

I'm all f*cking for this change :mad:

this here is the crux of the issue. i am sure that when you filled out the form for a quote, it asked how much you drove per year average.

I always had an issue with this as it should negate the arguement that females drive less and are therefore less likely to be involved in a crash etc.

However, if both pick the same in the distance travelled, surely this isnt the case. And after that, its just gender discrimination.

deirdre_dub

folan wrote: »

However, if both pick the same in the distance travelled, surely this isnt the case. And after that, its just gender discrimination.

Again, there are other factors at play. Men are socialised to be competitive, which some men translate into "go fast when in a car". There is also the factor that young men are prone to suicide - how many car accidents involving just a young male driver were actually suicides?

This system spreads the pain that bit wider. Instead of just young responsible males paying for the irresponsibility (or depression ) of other young males, we all get to pay for that. That's unfair on all of us, but that's the story... As I said, maybe that will be the thing that spurs us all on to do something about the underlying problems.

The Corinthian

deirdre_dub wrote: »

This system spreads the pain that bit wider. Instead of just young responsible males paying for the irresponsibility (or depression ) of other young males, we all get to pay for that. That's unfair on all of us, but that's the story...

That's the basic principle of insurance, is it not? The payments of those who never claim pay for those who do.

Now, for reasons of commercial competitiveness, insurance companies discriminate against certain demographics because they are statistically more likely to make claims (or larger claims). I remember being a little taken aback, ten years ago, when programming an online calculator for a life insurance company and seeing how much they weighted against smokers, for example.

The question is whether it is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of gender and this is why car insurance is such an anomaly. Were we allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender for the purposes of commercial competitiveness, then job ads could openly state "women between the ages of 28 and 40 need not apply". After all, they're the one's statistically most likely to take maternity leave or leave altogether; leaving you to looking once again for a replacement, a temp (if you have to legally hold their job) and any training you have invested into them has effectively gone down the drain.

Yet commercial competitiveness does not trump the principle of gender equality there and it is illegal, yet it did with car insurance. Even health insurance did not seem to do so (in many countries women have to pay higher premiums).

Bizarre, I always thought - or men are seen a soft target who won't kick up. Guess again.

As I said, maybe that will be the thing that spurs us all on to do something about the underlying problems.

Completely agree. All too often though people prefer a quick fix than to tackle the true underlying problems.

James Jones

folan wrote: »

Not sure how the debate turned to the gender pay gap, but fair enough..

It started here:

deirdre_dub wrote: »

real equality is when men and women's driving is equally safe, when men's shorter life expectancy is addressed, and when women's pay is addressed so that we can afford our new insurance premiums.

The matter is actually greater than simply car insurance and pensions. See article in The Examiner

"Ms Reding said she will examine the implications for the EU’s law not just for the insurance sector but also on equal access to goods and services for women and men, and she will meet industry representatives in the next few weeks"

.

Will the Family Law Courts be regarded as a "service"?

metrovelvet

The only people who are going to benefit from this are the insurance companies. My prediction is that instead of men's insurance dropping the women's will increase to match the mens.

Why does the discrimination stop there? What about the age discrimination? How about married people getting cheaper insurance?

Principals are all very nice, but take microsoft and the anti trust laws in the US. Microsoft word used to come on every PC automatically when you bought it. Then they were challenged under US anti-trust and monopoly laws and now people have to dole out a few hundred dollars to get the suite.

Now ladies, lets write to the EU about discrimination in dry cleaning and hair cut prices.

So, being 'fair' ends up screwing everyone over.

*A note on anti-male advertising- Advertising works on this principal across the board -"YOU SUCK. BUY THIS."

Galvasean

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why does the discrimination stop there? What about the age discrimination? How about married people getting cheaper insurance?

I'm sick of seeing reckless drivers being discriminated against. Just because I've made 14 claims in the last six months why should I pay more than Johhny No Claims Bonus? It's discrimination I tells ya!

Before anyone takes my point seriously, it was meant in jest

Hazys

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Now women will pay as much as men, prices wont go down

Why? Mathematically there is no reason why men's insurance won't go down.

If this occurs for one insurance company you switch to a different one, if the other one does it aswell then its a cartel.

I know that this is ripoff Ireland and people will complain all day about a price and still pay it but if irish people accept that then there is no hope for Irish people.

iptba

deirdre_dub wrote: »

This system spreads the pain that bit wider. Instead of just young responsible males paying for the irresponsibility (or depression ) of other young males, we all get to pay for that. That's unfair on all of us, but that's the story... As I said, maybe that will be the thing that spurs us all on to do something about the underlying problems.

Lots of things are like that in society. Lots of tax money is spent on people who have made errors/mistakes in their lives of some sort. And in this case, the burden will be spread out more (so a smaller amount) rather than being disproportionately just other young males.

iptba

ApeXaviour wrote: »

deirdre_dub, I'm not sure you realise the extent of anti-male advertising out there. I'll admit it does exist on the opposite end, however because of widespread female gender advocacy they are usually stemmed quickly. There is disproportionately little male advocacy... so you have advertisements that depict violence against men as humorous, that portray men as useless homer-simpson types, overgrown babies barely able to feed themselves... or at its most sinister, of men as basically evil and women as good. And we're programmed to just accept it... but switch the genders in any example and the hypocrisy shows itself clear as day.

Yes, there are some stronger pressure groups than others.
Also people are trained in universities, etc. to be more vigilant for what might be seen as anti-female advertising. And primed to complain about it (and perhaps even primed to think anti-male advertising is ok as it's a man's world, the world needs to be re-balanced, etc.).

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Even in official sources, the insistence of domestic abuse as a male=instigator, female=victim is downright harmful! In a pub yesterday I saw an ad advertising www.2in2u.ie (don't bother even ticking the boxes, it annoyingly doesn't make any difference to the outcome, just click the submit button at the bottom). I was appalled at how it took such a circumscribed stance on what is not at all a gender specific issue.

Thanks for that. Initially when I heard about it I thought it was just private (charity) money but I see at the bottom that two government agencies are involved.

James Jones

iptba wrote: »

Initially when I heard about it I thought it was just private (charity) money but I see at the bottom that two government agencies are involved.

One of those Govt agencies is Cosc, "The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence".

It seems that gender based violence only affects one gender. I must get on to the Gender Equality Division who say that

"Gender equality is achieved when women and men enjoy the same rights and opportunities across all sectors of society, including economic participation and decision-making, and when the different behaviours, aspirations and needs of women and men are equally valued and favoured".

On second thoughts, maybe not. Their website states that

Government policy in this area includes:
the provision of a legal framework that provides for equal treatment of women and men;
the National Women's Strategy 2007-2016, which is the Government's policy document in relation to the advancement of women in Irish society. The Strategy contains 20 key objectives and over 200 planned actions which are grouped under the three key themes of:
Equalising socio-economic opportunity for women;
Ensuring the wellbeing of women;
and Engaging women as equal and active citizens.
a programme of positive action measures, including the Equality for Women Measure 2010-2013, to enhance women's skills and to foster their engagement in Irish society and decision-making where they are under-represented

.

iptba

ApeXaviour/James Jones, I think it would be good to have a separate thread on the www.2in2u.ie point - either of you want to start it?

Cicero

Insurance, in general, is a total rip off no matter how you look at things...

...so...you get a small dent on the bumper...no one is hurt....one person admits liability...other takes it to a dealer....cost....?...EUR1000's...

...you stay one night in a hospital...VHI pays...they send you the "bill" they paid...cost?....EUR1000s...

..many people make money out of "insurance"..but the people who have to pay are the people forced to pay insurance..in this case...car drivers...but it's applicable to other areas too...

...I'd prefer if the whole "insurance" industry was reviewed rather than some aspect of their statistical analysis.....I never agreed that women should get cheaper insurance but then again, I've never agreed with the way insurance premiums are calculated in the first place....

iptba

Cicero wrote: »

Insurance, in general, is a total rip off no matter how you look at things...

...so...you get a small dent on the bumper...no one is hurt....one person admits liability...other takes it to a dealer....cost....?...EUR1000's...

...you stay one night in a hospital...VHI pays...they send you the "bill" they paid...cost?....EUR1000s...

..many people make money out of "insurance"..but the people who have to pay are the people forced to pay insurance..in this case...car drivers...but it's applicable to other areas too...

...I'd prefer if the whole "insurance" industry was reviewed rather than some aspect of their statistical analysis.....I never agreed that women should get cheaper insurance but then again, I've never agreed with the way insurance premiums are calculated in the first place....

RE: Insurance
I know people who pay insurance for fairly small things e.g. risk is a few hundred Euro or whatever. You are paying for a lot of admin, etc. there. Personally one of the advantages of being a bit of a saver is that I don't feel the need to pay for insurance in such situations - that I'd be able to cover the cost. Over my lifetime, this should result in a profit.

Unfortunately in some situations the potential liability could be very high.

I also hate how much small amounts of damage to cars can cost.

Cicero

iptba wrote: »

I also hate how much small amounts of damage to cars can cost.

that was kind-of my point..except that car insurance is compulsory......the only reason premiums are, what they are, is because once a car repair shop see that the insurance company is paying, costs of repair/attention etc become astronomical....

I'm awaiting the car insurance industries response to this legislation...let me see....something like this....?

"due to the new ruling, all premiums will have to rise by X % to cover costs "...:rolleyes:

pizz off and stop insulting our intelligence..the only reason premiums are high is because you don't bother challenging the costs of repair coz it's too easy to load car insurance premiums of your "captive" customers rather than challenge the car repair industry as a whole...

iptba

(Random thought)

My father owns a fancy car (from when the times were good). A few weeks back, somebody ran in to the side of it. It cost over E3000 to get the door fixed. I imagine on a cheaper car, the claim would have been less. The cost of claims are what determine the cost of insurance - in which case everyone is in effect paying for people to drive fancy cars which cost a lost to fix. Everyone should be forced to drive a banger.

metrovelvet

In the US and in Australia insurance is not legally required yet EVERYONE has it. That the law does not FORCE everyone to get it, forced companies into better prices and competitiveness.