[tomp]

> As result men are avoiding state pension and use private funds.

Does that help? I imagine there could be laws against private insurers "discriminating" based on sex (or other differences, e.g. smoker status etc.).

Some countries allow driving insurance to "discriminate" though (women pay less), so maybe they would allow pension insurance as well.

[run4yourlives2]

"Discrimination" isn't when it is based on actuarial models. Most countries' court systems have already ruled on this.

Basically, I can charge a woman x% more for disability insurance because I can mathematically prove that women are statistically more likely to claim.

[tomp]

Hm... If you made this argument for e.g. black Americans (something something more likely to be criminals), most people would scream stuff much worse than just "discrimination". Yet both of these are based on math.

[run4yourlives2]

Actually, using actuarial science in that way is still very much open to debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuarial_science#Actuaries_in...

[Dylan16807]

If you name a group, I can give you a mathematical model that will unfairly discriminate against that group, purely through how I divide up the population. "Math" is a mechanism, not an indicator of right or wrong.

[run4yourlives2]

Actuarial Science is a hard science that is a few hundred years old, not a social construct that you can manipulate.

There is no desire to "show" anything beyond having an accurate representation of probability.

[Dylan16807]

Actuarial Science is also a mechanism, not something that indicates right or wrong. It gives you answers to questions. But questions themselves can be biased.