“It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me.
An analogy to your justification: the most cost efficient thing to do with hazardous chemicals is to dump them down the drain.
An analogy to your justification: the most cost efficient thing to do with hazardous chemicals is to dump them down the drain.
Moreover, it's not, in general, a legal reason in the US to discriminate where a protected class is involved, including, in employment, age over 40 or gender.
Because car insurance isn't employment, is separately regulated, and does not exclude gender from permissible inputs into actuarial calculations.
Specifically, compared to perfect allocation of costs, it's a small subsidy from people outside of opposite-sex couples to opposite-sex couples, whereas not having gender rating with otherwise status quo policies is a large subsidy from women not in opposite-sex couples to men not in opposite-sex couples.
Under status quo policies, opposite sex couples are in practice fairly free to gender-optimize insurance pricing by putting the less expensive to insure driver as primary on the more expensive to insure vehicle, regardless of actual primary driver.
So that’s ok but for some reason if it were a particular race they wouldn’t think to charge people More by race so honestly I don’t know how to answer your question in a logically consistent manner.
Not completely sure, but I think it is.
Saying that Law X exists answers the literal question, but not the implied actual question.
But of course, there could be laws that prohibit linking vehicle insurance cost to gender.
My solution, when I've been married, has been having my wife get insurance, and add me as a driver. But that doesn't matter so much now that I'm older.
Edit: I do agree that discrimination by gender is fundamentally unethical.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6007501/Canadian-le...
It's really not; disparate impact deals with it, but the doctrine was articulated in a case with ample evidence that the policy at issue, though facially neutral, was adopted as a deliberate replacement for explicit racial discrimination with an intent to maintain it's discriminatory effect and without other business purpose, and the doctrine was clearly intended principally to address such veiled-substitute policies.
The Supreme Court did not hold that, it merely noted that the lower courts had held that, and noted that a lack of discriminatory intent was “suggested” by the Company's efforts to help undereducated employees by financing a major portion of remedial education (part, but not all, of the policy held to be disparate impact was adoption of high school diploma requirements for positions for which such requirements has no substantial relation to job performance.)
The Supreme Court explicitly did not consider whether there was intent to discriminate, because it was not necessary to do so to resolve the case.
Not if what the algorithm optimizes is a measure provably closely linked to job performance.
In fact, as the array of protected classes and the statistical means available will probably over time allow proving prohibited disparate impact for any hiring method other than an algorithmic method optimizing a true job performance measure, algorithmic methods may soon be practically mandatory.
OTOH, algorithmic methods targeting any figure of merit that isn't provably tightly linked to job performance are going to be problematic, sure.
Part of employment law is to break this loop.
Anyway, I completely changed my comment to more closely go along with the point I want to be making.
Regardless, besides being unfair the idea that the policy is economically justified doesn’t seem to be immediately intuitive to me. It seems like you should advertise on subject matter for that kind of thing, e.g. people who watch EEVBlog would get an advertisement for electrical engineering jobs.
Companies make stupid decisions all the time.
That is the literal definition of capitalism. The opposite of it, 'Communism' - Every one gets to win the prize. isn't exactly known to work well.
It's literally the perfect reason to do discrimination. It is just like discriminating for having work experience, education, demonstrably market skills, etc.
Someone lacking relevant market skills or education etc can go out and fix that.
Also generally perpretrated, by the same body that bans it.
A great beauty about human beings is that they have a natural tendency to find what is best for them and their communities in spite of legalities that attempt to distort reality.
In any case, what you are ascribing as unlawful discrimination is absolutely lawful and you would be naive to believe that there were castings for white asian geriatric women for the role of Black Panther to abide a law about the positively-discriminated groups you mention.
Movies and TV tend to be among the worst for discrimination as a result.
Not really, if they lack economic resources, have dependents, have low IQ, low grit, or lots of other reasons.
Ultimately it comes down to what parts of a person you think they are 'responsible for' and what parts they aren't. You're saying that someone being a certain skin color isn't something they should lose opportunities for, but it's okay if they do so for being too dumb to complete and advanced education, even if they were born that way.
My point isn't that you're right or wrong about either of these, but that if you really dig into this you'll find that any such narrative supporting an egalitarian notion that 'people ought to be equal' collapses with a few simple questions about genetics, free will, parenting, intelligence, and other such topics. Nobody gets an equal shot at anything.
Perhaps I should also remind you that this isn’t 4chan.
The law is not God's word. It's open to criticism, and we're criticizing it. If you want to participate in the discussion, great. But, "It's illegal because the law says you're not allowed to do it," is not a meaningful contribution.
There was no additional criticism offered here. No one has made the point that 'it's the law therefore it's good', and you're massively misrepresenting the arguments here.