91–100 of 487 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. If you are, for example, placing rental or property ads that filter by race, age, or gender that is the official description of it.
I wonder what would happen if someone found out that Facebook's algorithm was discriminating based on race, age, or gender for any of these categories that are illegal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/28/hud-charg...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it legal to charge men more for car insurance? It’s definitely more profitable that way, but maybe so is the targeting in the article.
Because it’s not covered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.
Saying that Law X exists answers the literal question, but not the implied actual question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “It’s not cost efficient” isn’t a valid reason to discriminate against people, if you ask me. 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.
Why is it legal to charge men more for car insurance? It’s definitely more profitable that way, but maybe so is the targeting in the article.
Because car insurance isn't employment, is separately regulated, and does not exclude gender from permissible inputs into actuarial calculations.
Nothing good can come from sticking my neck out on this, but: If I were paying for advertising for a software engineering position I'd get much better ROI by excluding women and older demographics simply because they're much less likely to be suitable for the job, statistically speaking, when we're talking about the wider population in general and not just software engineers. Not because they're less capable, but bec…
A good portion of Quant trading is based off a similar principle. If I can model priors and variance better than my competitors, I can make money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it legal to charge men more for car insurance? It’s definitely more profitable that way, but maybe so is the targeting in the article.
Because it’s not covered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it’s not covered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.
While the user did ask why it's legal, I think it's clear that the question is "why is it /ethical/ to discriminate in this case and not that?". Saying that Law X exists answers the literal question, but not the implied actual question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are using the legal definition of discrimination, and I am using the economics definition of discrimination.
“Officer, you’re just using the legal definition of speeding!”
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.
Nothing good can come from sticking my neck out on this, but: If I were paying for advertising for a software engineering position I'd get much better ROI by excluding women and older demographics simply because they're much less likely to be suitable for the job, statistically speaking, when we're talking about the wider population in general and not just software engineers. Not because they're less capable, but bec…
My Aunt wrote computer code into her 60s. This was up until at most 10 years ago. She has a degree in math and went back to school after being a SAHM and got a degree in computer science from a community college, and banged out code for about 15 years. She coded circles around (and out-adulted) her younger colleagues.
An older worker can get things done in an hour that can take younger workers a day (or even longer!), and thats not even including having someone come in and fix issues with the younger person's code. The older person can mentor younger people, and will ensure that the younger workforce will turn into better workers.
On top of that you hit on the other thing, they are often more mature, have a better work life balance, and know what they want. This tends to mean less personnel issues, the person is much less likely to burn out, and the person will stay there longer.
I would happily pay 3-4x for that more seasoned person for the quality work alone, but there are so many reasons to have older, more experienced people in your company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being deliberate is not required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
> “Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question.[3] This is the "business necessity" defense.[1]” I wonder if you could argue that advertising in a particular way is a business necessity…
> ... unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question.[3] This is the "business necessity" defense.[1]”
But it's still just a hypothetical. The only way to get more certainty is for you to hire a lawyer to advise you on the matter. The only way to get absolute certainty is to actually carry out the scenario and go through a lawsuit :-)
I did a digital marketing course and have met a few digital marketers. When asked if they use social media themselves, most if not all answer "oh GOD no."