Everyday RIP-OFFS (1 Viewer)

[Josh Lowe]

Here's another twist: What about, for instance, a $6000 Rolex watch? You may consider paying $6000 for a watch a joke, but it may be worth it to me.

Hear hear. And is the $20,000 Audemars Piguet "Skeletal" watch considered a ripoff by the man that forked over $6,000 for a Rolex?

Or the $1700 HD-ready RPTV viewed in the eyes of the guy who can barely stand to spend $400 on a 32" 4:3 direct view at Sam's Club?

 

[EugeneR]

I don't understand any of this. What rip-off? If you don't want to spend $5 on a subway sandwich, don't buy it. Make your lunch at home. Don't want to spend $4 on a tub of popcorn? Is there someone holding a gun to your head? Don't want to spend $3 to get your money out of an ATM? Then think ahead and go to the bank, or simply go to your own bank's ATM. With the exception of monopolies on certain things like electricity, nothing is a rip-off because no one is forcing anyone to buy anything. Convenience costs money, and if you are willing to be slightly inconvenienced, then you can save a lot of money. If you want the convenience, and the ability to do what you want when you want to do it, that costs. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[Jason_H]

I understand some of the spirit of this thread, but I also get tired of listening to fellow Americans complain. We live in the wealthiest nation in the world and at the same time pay much less for goods and services than other nations, and are also taxed much less. Complaining about getting ripped off on utlities or fraud (like a bad mechanic/repairman) is one thing. Bitching because you don't want to pay a margin on consumer goods is something else. Welcome to capatalism! If we all paid the cost of goods on everything we purchased, our standard of living sure wouldn't last very long since the entire economy would collapse.

 

[SteveA]

And speaking of insurance...How can it be that one's insurance premium goes up after an accident that was NOT HIS FAULT?

The insurance companies consider people who have frequent accidents "accident prone" whether they were at fault or not. Just because an accident is not technically your fault doesn't mean you couldn't have avoided it. That's the insurance company's way of thinking.

 

[GordonL]

And speaking of insurance...How can it be that one's insurance premium goes up after an accident that was NOT HIS FAULT?

Maybe because your state requires no-fault insurance which means your own insurance company foots the bill regardless of who is at fault? It will also go up if your daily commute is in a statistically higher accident zone.
My biggest gripes is with auto mechanics and utilities. Everytime I get my car fixed, I feel like I've just been raped.

 

[Moe Maishlish]

Steve,

Don't want to spend $3 to get your money out of an ATM? Then think ahead and go to the bank, or simply go to your own bank's ATM. With the exception of monopolies on certain things like electricity, nothing is a rip-off because no one is forcing anyone to buy anything. Convenience costs money, and if you are willing to be slightly inconvenienced, then you can save a lot of money. If you want the convenience, and the ability to do what you want when you want to do it, that costs. Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

That's the point - whether or not I go to the ATM or not, I get charged PER TRANSACTION. Be it with the Bank Teller, the ATM, over the phone, or over the internet, there's a charge associated with each transaction. The difference is that the charges are then applicable to other variable costs if I use another banks ATM, or other forms of payment.
Oh yeah - I can have my cake and eat it too. First I have my cake... then I eat it. I believe you meant "Can't eat your cake, and have it too".
And insurance companies... Don't even get me STARTED on those criminals! One of the only industries that can still discriminate openly, widely, and LEGALLY (in Canada at least) based on GENDER. When I first got my license (at 17), I was paying $2000 more per year than my younger sister who got her license at $16. Why?
"Women have less accidents". Hence.. "Men are worse drivers than women".
Bah!
Moe.

 

[MatthewA]

I think gasoline is the biggest ripoff of all, and it's against HTF policy for me to elaborate on it.

 

[nolesrule]

Your bank seems to have rediculous charges. I know it's not easy, but you should switch banks.

Or do all Canadian banks do that?

 

[MickeS]

No, he meant "you can't have your cake and eat it too". That's how the expression is. In your case, like you said, you have your cake THEN eat it. You can't have it AND eat it at the same time.

/Mike

 

[Moe Maishlish]

Joe,

I believe that the banking industry here is all pretty much the same, with the same kind of rates, service charges, and general headaches.

I've learned to avoid a lot of these charges (and get a MUCH higher interest rate) by transferring a good portion of my money to an INGDirect account. At least there I don't have a fee for everything.

Moe.

 

[Colin-H]

I pay $1.19 for gas. I buy my gas at BJs across US-1&9 from the huge Exxon/Tosco/Phillips/(whatever the hell it is now) refinery. And I get full service. There are some benefits to living in NJ.

I can sympathize with the auto mechanic thing. I broke down on I-95 in Connecticut and had to be towed. I was pretty shocked at the price, so when I got home, I gave the invoice to my reputable local mechanic and had him quote the price. It was almost HALF what they charged me. Not only did the double the selling price of the parts, they gave me stuff I didn't need. Example: my car only holds 2-3 units of freon, they charged me for 5. This happened in other places. Needless to say, AAA got a few letters about these guys.

 

[AjayM]

And insurance companies... Don't even get me STARTED on those criminals! One of the only industries that can still discriminate openly, widely, and LEGALLY (in Canada at least) based on GENDER. When I first got my license (at 17), I was paying $2000 more per year than my younger sister who got her license at $16. Why?

"Women have less accidents". Hence.. "Men are worse drivers than women".

Ummm, that's not discrimination. Insurance runs on statistics, if teenage men have more accidents than teen women, wouldn't it make more sense to charge them more money for insurance?

It would be discrimination if they had no proof that teenage men caused more accidents, weren't more aggresive, etc...and then charged you more money.

Andrew

 

[Ryan Wright]

Ummm, that's not discrimination. Insurance runs on statistics, if teenage men have more accidents than teen women, wouldn't it make more sense to charge them more money for insurance?

Where I live, the vast majority of drive by shootings are done by hispanic men. Should we then charge hispanics more for insurance because they are more likely to be involved in a drive by?
Didn't think so. It's discrimination, and it seems to be illegal everywhere except the big bad world of insurance. The reason they get away with it is because they only discriminate based on age and gender. They haven't brought race into the picture because they know the public backlash would be oh so nasty, but if they thought they could get away with it, they would.
Discrimination is wrong in every form.

 

[Leila Dougan]

Where I live, the vast majority of drive by shootings are done by hispanic men. Should we then charge hispanics more for insurance because they are more likely to be involved in a drive by?

Insurance also varies their prices by location. If a certain location has a higher incidence of drive-bys you can get insurance will cost more than in a place where there are fewer drive-bys.

I don't see it as discrimination. Sure the people cause the crime but its the location that determines the probability of that crime affecting you. Your car has an equal chance of being stolen in a bad neighborhood if your white or hispanic or whatever other race/ethnicity. The insurance doesn't care what race you are, they just care about the risk of your vehicle.

 

[Moe Maishlish]

Ajay,

Ummm, that's not discrimination. Insurance runs on statistics, if teenage men have more accidents than teen women, wouldn't it make more sense to charge them more money for insurance?

No, it's discrimination. That "statistics" garbage is an old and tired excuse with little backing, and should be outlawed.
There's no statistics on me personally that indicate that I'm any less a skilled driver than a woman of my age. The fact that I'm male should not impact my driving skills. There is no hardcore proof that I'm more likely to have an accident than if I were female. My being male does not physically impact my driving ability. Nor should being famale impact someone's driving ability. Nor should being 18 or 38.
If I were to have a few accidents, then I'd bring "statististics" into play. i.e. "He's had 3 accidents in 5 years, so he'll most likely to have another in the next five years...." etc. At this point, the insurance industry is applying a sweeping-generalization to analyze their insurance rates...
... and it's downright DISCRIMINATION!
By the way. I've had no accidents for which I was at fault. My sister has had 2. She's 2 years younger than I, and she drives a newer and nicer car.
She and I are now paying roughly the same amount in insurance. How would statistics explain that? 2 accidents vs. no accidents, yet we pay the same.
Moe.

 

[Brett_H]

By the way. I've had no accidents for which I was at fault. My sister has had 2. She's 2 years younger than I, and she drives a newer and nicer car.
She and I are now paying roughly the same amount in insurance. How would statistics explain that? 2 accidents vs. no accidents, yet we pay the same.

Well, statistics would say that for every case like yours, there's "x" number of cases that are the reverse. In this instance, the other cases (where the male has a higher propensity to speed, take risks, get into accidents) outnumber yours, therefore you (as a member of the statistically more risky group) get charged more.

Let me ask you a question: without using "discrimination", how would you propose an insurance company charge its clients for its services? By evaluating each individual on a case by case basis? And how would we do this for someone who is just beginning to drive, thus has no driving record? At some point, you have to lump people into categories in order to be able to rate them. Ideally, you do this with as fine a level of granularity as possible, but nevertheless, you need to start somewhere.

-Brett.

 

[Leila Dougan]

Can you guys honestly say that the 16 yr old whose been driving for 6 months has the same level of experience and driving maturity that the 40 yr old whose been driving since 16 has? I think you'd be hard pressed to find a significant amount of people who've driven in every weather type imaginable and encountered a wide range of driving and traffic conditions.

Out here in NM I didn't get experience driving in snow and ice until I'd been driving for nearly 4 years. The first time my car started sliding on ice I freaked out. Eventhough I had learned in drivers ed what to do in icy conditions, its hard to really know what you're doing until you've done it at least once. Thankfully no cars were around and I regained control of my car. Now I will feel more confident when it happens again.

 

[GordonL]

There's no statistics on me personally that indicate that I'm any less a skilled driver than a woman of my age.

That may be true, however, the accident-free drivers are in effect subsidizing the accident-prone drivers because the rates are spread out over the whole group based on statistics.

But isn't this preferable to the alternative - that is, if you get into one accident, only your rates gets jacked up to the point where you can't afford to pay it? The current way, the costs get spread out over a whole group.

If you want lower rates, get married. Married men pay the same rates as unmarried women.

 

[Moe Maishlish]

Brett,

Let me ask you a question: without using "discrimination", how would you propose an insurance company charge its clients for its services? By evaluating each individual on a case by case basis? And how would we do this for someone who is just beginning to drive, thus has no driving record? At some point, you have to lump people into categories in order to be able to rate them. Ideally, you do this with as fine a level of granularity as possible, but nevertheless, you need to start somewhere.

My understanding is that automobile insurance covers the risk of the driver, and potentially the vehicle that they are driving. So in answer to your question...
Let's assume that Total Insurance Cost = Driver Risk + Vehicle Risk.
(Yes, I'm aware the are probably other factors involved, but these two seem to fit the discussion, and are most probably the major factors in determining insurance cost).
Driver Risk: Reflective of the drivers ability to handle/manipulate/drive a vehicle.
In terms of new drivers, when you get your licence, you recieve a grading (A+, A, B+, B, or percentages... whatever - a standardized grading system could be adopted). These grades are independent of sex, age, race, etc, and simply reflect the results of the driving test/exam. That grade should apply to determining the skill-level of the driver.
As most tests (swimming, math, computers, etc) determine skill level to some extent, this would help as a common starting point for everyone, regardles of age, race, etc. This is reflective of the beginners driving skill!
Use the final grade to calculate some value for everyone to pay as their Driver Risk.
Vehicle Risk: What is the risk of this vehicle being involved in a serious accident or causing serious injury, and what would it cost to fix/replace.
A combination of what the car is worth (Mercedes vs. Hyundai for example), safety features, safety ratings (crash impact tests), theft rate, year of production, etc.
These are documented numbers, and can be used to calculate a number based on the assigned criteria.
Before I get flamed - this is a basic idea of how to reform the auto-insurance system, and not something I'm proposing as the final answer.
In my opinion, I can say this would be better than basing insurance criteria on statistics that are totally independent of risk values.
"Oh, you're a size 11 shoe size? STATISTICALLY SPEAKING more size 11's have accidents than size 10's. Your rates have now DOUBLED."
Moe.

 

[Moe Maishlish]

Gordon,

If you want lower rates, get married. Married men pay the same rates as unmarried women.

I don't know if it's worth the sacrifice!

Moe.