For a more complete accounting, I recommend reading The Color of Law https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten...
How do they fare in other countries, with different histories?
Edit: Expanded the question to make it clearer.
The OP was edited in response to this, but I'm still mystified. I'm not making a particular claim about anything other than the experience of Black people in America, so I don't see how the question is relevant.
It's the significantly cheaper that is most surprising to me. They are about $100 a year vs. $175 a year for their competitions.
This makes me wonder -- have they managed to cut bloat by 40% or are they simply using different qualifications to restrict their insurance to lower risk people? If it's the latter, this comparison is not apples-to-apples.
I pay Goodcover $72/year for renters insurance, versus $148/year for a comparable policy from Liberty Mutual obtained less than three months earlier,
Giving AAs $20 off their insurance policy doesn't fix the problem. We need a Marshall Plan-type of investment in AA communities and a multi-generational commitment to try to heal the scar of slavery/racism in this country.
> I'd almost rather flag this submission than deal with commenters seeking
That approach worries me. People are discussing trying to figure out what’s going on. It is not hate or spam. Some make mistakes. Some opinions you might disagree with or even don’t like. If you don’t want to participate, then don’t. But why trying to block others from discussing the issue?
These attempts to block free speech are very worrisome. Let’s keep at least hn free from rightthink moderation.
This is why a lot of rhetoric in general is so effective: it prays on focusing on simple first order effects instead of attempting to look at issues holistically. I'm not saying hollistic analysis is simple--far from it--but one needs to be aware that life is really complex with a awhole lot of gray areas.
It's very dishonest since it's very obvious. Either complete incompetence or dishonesty.
Car insurance varies by how many miles you drive on average, because, shocker, driving more miles means a higher risk of a driving accident. What happens if the data reveal that black people drive more on average and subsequently have to pay more for auto insurance?? Relatedly, is it sexist that men pay more than women for the exact same policy on the exact same car in the exact same zip code? Since men get into more serious accidents, it doesn't appear to be sexist to me..
Univariate analyses like this need to mump off and die.
if this were a univariate, observational study of a medical condition claiming "some correlation" with an r2 of .3, the authors would be fighting mobs with pitchforks and torches.
its such a cheap play at current politics. if people cannot discern this from science, we truly are lost.
This generally means that there is a factor causing a misfit with the simplistic base model. It's fine if the factor is properly identified, which it is not in this case. I think a logarithmic fit would give much higher R2 than linear. (Logistic fit is commonly used for prices and salaries.)
This problem goes away with multifactor analysis as you see correlation in errors or not, or using nonlinear least squares, NLS.
I wonder if there non-racist explanation for this phenomenon...
This is just an ad masquerading as a study.
This is a surface level problem of something much deeper which is the preponderance of poor disproportionately black neighborhoods. Most blacks are middle class and live in diverse area but for whatever reason just as there exist China towns there exist black neighborhoods that remain so and suffer from disproportionately high rates of crime and poverty. This is what needs to be fixed .. the insurance pricing is just a symptom of that.
A more interesting metric is what is the average payout and claim rate in these same neighborhoods with high premiums. How does the premium relate to those two measures?
I realize I'm frustratedly typing and I think my frustration is the "aw shucks, who knows why this is happening. The data is a mess" conversation while there are entire books and sub disciplines in "subjective" research like Law, Politics, Geography, Urban development and others that could easily answer these questions and have many times over.
This analysis seems rather worthless for purposes of determining if insurance rates are racially biased.
Here’s an example of a crazy statement given the R2 is .309 “ The chart above shows some correlation between higher prices for renters insurance and the percentage of Blacks living in the city.”
I’m no statistician, but I think saying that an R2 of .309 is “some correlation” without pointing out that so is random noise isn’t helpful.
I would like to see insurance rates comparing racial composition while controlling for other variables. And it’s kind of shocking that they even wrote this article without at least attempting it in the post.
This contradicts the title of the article. The title implies the insurance is increased due to racial reasons, rather than it happens that in some communities that are more prone to theft/criminality, the population for those insurance areas are black.
I find it hard to believe people today are creating insurance policies that are increased because of skin color. Rather there tends to be more crime in specific areas, and people find correlation then assume causation.
For example, this can be seen in men's vs. women's home staples. Things like razors and deodorant tend to have much higher list price for their feminine versions. This isn't because women's razors cost more to make. Nor is it because executives at P&G are misogynistic pigs.
Rather it's because these products tend to be sold by monopolistic suppliers who are trying to extract the maximum price that consumers will pay. Women tend to be burdened with more responsibilities than men, and thus have less time to carefully comparison shop.
I'm not sure if this explains the racial insurance disparity. But I could easily imagine it, and we should at least investigate the hypothesis. In particular black Americans have a lot less savings and financial cushion. They're also have lower rates of financial literacy. That probably means they're less likely to comparison shop and more likely to buy low-deductible policies that tend to be less competitively priced.
Or maybe because women care more about brands and men just pick what’s cheaper. Or maybe because men need smaller variety of options. Or maybe because men consume more razors per store visitor. Or maybe because men spend less time in stores per dollar spent and selling for men is cheaper. Or a dozen other reasons.
That claim about women responsibilities is very simplistic and likely wrong. Unless you have some data to confirm you pr statement, share please if you have.
Saved you a click.
