Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jpalomaki 3517 days ago
I would assume things like income and education are already now used in this kind of pricing decisions.
2 comments

To a point, yes. I don't think they are allowed to know the income in the US - and I'm not sure they can ask your education either.

But they do use credit score, which negatively affects poor people. They say it is because people with poor credit are more likely to file a claim (note it isn't because of poor driving, just simply ability to cover a smaller incident).

They also use crime rates in an area, how far you drive to work, whether or not you have off street parking - and if that parking is by your house or not. All indicators of a person's finances.

Civil status affects insurance rates - after getting divorced, my rates increased. I've never had a ticket nor an accident. (I think they lower after marriage - somehow, you are assumed to be more responsible even though nothing else changed).

It is amazing how much doesn't depend on your actual driving habits. I understand some of it (ie, crime rate, how much you drive to work) because it does increase risk, but not things like whether or not I'm married.

You can volunteer that you are a college graduate to get a discount.
Yeah, education totally keeps your rates low in the US. They can't demand to know your education, but since you get a lower rate the better educated you are, you'd certainly volunteer that info.
Credit score does not negatively affect poor people, it negatively affects people with bad credit. There are plenty low-income people with excellent credit because they don't make bad financial decisions, and plenty of high-income people with terrible credit because they don't know how to manage their money.
Indeed, often acquired directly, but most often supported through proxies, which often have multiple partial correlations, such as, median house price in the applicant's area, crime rate in the applicant's area, applicant's job title, etc.
That's a good point - maybe this is just the de-cloaking of what already goes on based on a really specific example. Will we generally accept it though, when it's laid out so plainly?