[spacephysics]

“ So, there’s definitely more work to be done – but we thought it’s important to make a best effort with the messy data we have to start the discussion.”

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.

[prepend]

I think it’s funny that they blame it on “messy data” as their problems seem to be caused by messy analysis.

[dcolkitt]

I agree that this is an important distinction. But isn't there a third option: the market's not perfectly competitive and pricing isn't just driven by the cost but also what consumers will bear?

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.

[lightgreen]

> Women tend to be burdened with more responsibilities than men, and thus have less time to carefully comparison shop.

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.

[dcolkitt]

American adult women have approximately 4 hours less of leisure time per week:

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/chapter-6-time-in...

[lightgreen]

That fact does not directly explain why women products are more expensive.

[anamexis]

How does it contradict the title of the article?