When it comes to using occupation, it seems to me that it doesn;t have to be a poor versus rich issue. It\’s like this. Person A can own a landscaping business and person B can be a computer programmer, both makign the same amount of money per year. Person A busts his tail all day everyday, working very hard physically. Person B sits in a desk chair all day, and likely doesn\’t put in as many hours per day. When the workday is over and they get in their vehicile to go home which one might be more likely to be extremely exhausted, and therefore less alert on the roadways? I realize that\’s pretty simple, but I could see that as an example where occupation would be a valid criteria. Heck, I make very little money working a desk job, whereas the landscape guy makes so much more than I do and works so much harder. So, because he makes more, you can just ignore the fact that he works extremely hard, and that would have no bearing on his ability to operate a vehicle?
I do squat. It would stand to reason that I would be more alert than he is. I don\’t think it has to be about how much money one makes, but it can be about the work the do and how that might affect their driving.
Two earlier comments make my point. One is a long defense of insurance companies without any specific discussion of the two things in the article, education and occupation. The other is short, but jumps right to race and class warfare.
I was just trying to injetc some analysis and come up with an example where using occupation would be valid. Obviously if an insurance company has a nefarious motive for using any factors, like wanting to discriminate against a particular race or income level, that would be wrong.
I guess though, discussion and analysis are antiquated. It seems we stand firmly on one side or the other and either rush to defend, or throw some card such as race or class. No real thought, analysis, discussion, open mindedness, etc. on either side.
As someone said in the very beginning of this discussion \”education & occupation are directly related to economic well-being.\” That is social fact. Just read any college text.
Yes, I am sure you can find uneducated folks who are doing better than you. But on the whole, those with little education and/or crap jobs are worse off than most.
So, if we believe that tier rating based on education/occupation is okay, then what else do we believe in???? (again sarcastic in this last paragraph)
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
When it comes to using occupation, it seems to me that it doesn;t have to be a poor versus rich issue. It\’s like this. Person A can own a landscaping business and person B can be a computer programmer, both makign the same amount of money per year. Person A busts his tail all day everyday, working very hard physically. Person B sits in a desk chair all day, and likely doesn\’t put in as many hours per day. When the workday is over and they get in their vehicile to go home which one might be more likely to be extremely exhausted, and therefore less alert on the roadways? I realize that\’s pretty simple, but I could see that as an example where occupation would be a valid criteria. Heck, I make very little money working a desk job, whereas the landscape guy makes so much more than I do and works so much harder. So, because he makes more, you can just ignore the fact that he works extremely hard, and that would have no bearing on his ability to operate a vehicle?
I do squat. It would stand to reason that I would be more alert than he is. I don\’t think it has to be about how much money one makes, but it can be about the work the do and how that might affect their driving.
Bubba- Huh?
I was being sarcastic in order to make a point! Race
Two earlier comments make my point. One is a long defense of insurance companies without any specific discussion of the two things in the article, education and occupation. The other is short, but jumps right to race and class warfare.
I was just trying to injetc some analysis and come up with an example where using occupation would be valid. Obviously if an insurance company has a nefarious motive for using any factors, like wanting to discriminate against a particular race or income level, that would be wrong.
I guess though, discussion and analysis are antiquated. It seems we stand firmly on one side or the other and either rush to defend, or throw some card such as race or class. No real thought, analysis, discussion, open mindedness, etc. on either side.
Maybe I\’m just lost. Flame away.
As someone said in the very beginning of this discussion \”education & occupation are directly related to economic well-being.\” That is social fact. Just read any college text.
Yes, I am sure you can find uneducated folks who are doing better than you. But on the whole, those with little education and/or crap jobs are worse off than most.
So, if we believe that tier rating based on education/occupation is okay, then what else do we believe in???? (again sarcastic in this last paragraph)