Drive-thru's backing up onto streets

[kphoger]

Heck, your gender affects your car insurance rate.  Why shouldn't your credit history?

Gender typically has a small effect, but age has a very large effect, and one that I would argue should be considered discriminatory (at least based on all the other protected classes out there).

Instead of age, insurers should have to use the number of years you have been licensed.

Oh, I don't know.  Life experience in general tends to affect one's decision-making, even without taking into consideration how long one has had a license.

Got a wife and kids at home?  Chances are, you'll be less likely to make risky moves.  Etc.

[HighwayStar]

Heck, your gender affects your car insurance rate.  Why shouldn't your credit history?

Gender typically has a small effect, but age has a very large effect, and one that I would argue should be considered discriminatory (at least based on all the other protected classes out there).

Instead of age, insurers should have to use the number of years you have been licensed.

Oh, I don't know.  Life experience in general tends to affect one's decision-making, even without taking into consideration how long one has had a license.

Got a wife and kids at home?  Chances are, you'll be less likely to make risky moves.  Etc.

Except in many industries marital status and parental status are already protected classes, ie. no consideration may be given of either.

[kphoger]

Heck, your gender affects your car insurance rate.  Why shouldn't your credit history?

Gender typically has a small effect, but age has a very large effect, and one that I would argue should be considered discriminatory (at least based on all the other protected classes out there).

Instead of age, insurers should have to use the number of years you have been licensed.

Oh, I don't know.  Life experience in general tends to affect one's decision-making, even without taking into consideration how long one has had a license.

Got a wife and kids at home?  Chances are, you'll be less likely to make risky moves.  Etc.

Except in many industries marital status and parental status are already protected classes, ie. no consideration may be given of either.

As is gender.

[HighwayStar]

Heck, your gender affects your car insurance rate.  Why shouldn't your credit history?

Gender typically has a small effect, but age has a very large effect, and one that I would argue should be considered discriminatory (at least based on all the other protected classes out there).

Instead of age, insurers should have to use the number of years you have been licensed.

Oh, I don't know.  Life experience in general tends to affect one's decision-making, even without taking into consideration how long one has had a license.

Got a wife and kids at home?  Chances are, you'll be less likely to make risky moves.  Etc.

Except in many industries marital status and parental status are already protected classes, ie. no consideration may be given of either.

As is gender.

Right. And insurance is less regulated them some, allowing the use of these.
The reason gender is mostly allowed in Auto insurance still is because it is used to charge men more, if it were the other way around a law would have been passed by now. I do think California might have tried one though, or maybe they did.

[abefroman329]

Heck, your gender affects your car insurance rate.  Why shouldn't your credit history?

Gender typically has a small effect

No it doesn't, and if it didn't, then insurers wouldn't fight tooth and nail to use it for underwriting purposes

but age has a very large effect, and one that I would argue should be considered discriminatory (at least based on all the other protected classes out there).

...because you'll be old one day, and you don't want to be discriminated against?

Instead of age, insurers should have to use the number of years you have been licensed.

Number of years licensed has nothing to do with anything - a 30-year-old who has been driving for a year is going to be as cautious as a 30-year-old who has been driving for 14-15 years, maybe even more.  And I am 100% fine with older drivers being charged more for auto insurance.

[HighwayStar]

Heck, your gender affects your car insurance rate.  Why shouldn't your credit history?

Gender typically has a small effect

No it doesn't, and if it didn't, then insurers wouldn't fight tooth and nail to use it for underwriting purposes

but age has a very large effect, and one that I would argue should be considered discriminatory (at least based on all the other protected classes out there).

...because you'll be old one day, and you don't want to be discriminated against?

Instead of age, insurers should have to use the number of years you have been licensed.

Number of years licensed has nothing to do with anything - a 30-year-old who has been driving for a year is going to be as cautious as a 30-year-old who has been driving for 14-15 years, maybe even more.  And I am 100% fine with older drivers being charged more for auto insurance.

Yes the effect is small. You want to prove it to yourself? Go on some of the insurance sites and get a quote. Do an identical profile except change the gender in each. You get very minor differences.

No, more because it is inconsistent that all of these other hyper restrictive laws limit what variables firms can use, while pricing auto insurance on age is not.

Incorrect. A 30 year old with 1 year of experience is far more likely to get into an accident than a 30 year old with 15 years of experience. New drivers are not as skilled handling the vehicle, navigating traffic, etc. How "cautious" someone drives is not what age is proxying, age is proxying experience behind the wheel. Because most people learn to drive when they are younger, it is used to account for that new driver risk. In some cases older drivers pay a bit more (but nowhere near the premium of younger drivers) mainly due to assumptions about neurological decline, which are well founded.  But trying to proxy "cautiousness" with age does not work, because it is far more dependent on personality than anything.

[abefroman329]

Yes the effect is small. You want to prove it to yourself? Go on some of the insurance sites and get a quote. Do an identical profile except change the gender in each. You get very minor differences.

I have a better idea: Go get a quote and show it to me.

No, more because it is inconsistent that all of these other hyper restrictive laws limit what variables firms can use, while pricing auto insurance on age is not.

That's just a fancy way of saying "I don't like it when people discriminate against me, but everyone else can go to hell."

How "cautious" someone drives is not what age is proxying, age is proxying experience behind the wheel.

Correct, and gender is proxying cautiousness.  Your point?

[kphoger]

And credit rating is proxying race.

* kphoger ducks and runs for cover.

[MASTERNC]

There's a McDonald's on US 202 just north of Wilmington that is right up against the road (six lane 40 MPH road).  Often during lunch or PM rush hour, traffic backs up into the street.  The sign you see in this GSV to not stop in the roadway is widely ignored.

https://goo.gl/maps/pmu8eS9MqhVn1ZLN8

[Rothman]

...Open a bank account; you get a credit score...Regularly pay your car insurance; you get a credit score...

While it probably varies among banking institutions, bank accounts and insurance policies often are *not* reported to credit agencies.

That's my issue.

"FICO is good for you."

"Ok, let me see how it's calculated."

"No.  Just take our word for it and any future need for debt will depend upon it."

While the exact number will vary among even the different reporting agencies, basically, you pay your bills on time, your score goes up. Utilize minimal money on your credit, your score goes up. The longer you maintain a credit history, your score goes up.

If someone has some late payments, constantly bump up against your credit limits or declared bankruptcy, your score goes down.

People know their past history.  If they say their score shouldn't matter, then chances are they have a history that tells creditors it does matter.

Credit agencies have been using these scores for decades. Creditors have relied on those scores for decades. They are tried and true for a high percentage of their business.

You just used more words to say what I criticized and summarized what the credit bureaus say...

[jeffandnicole]

You just used more words to say what I criticized and summarized what the credit bureaus say...

Which is no different than pricing anything else. There isn't a burger company out there that'll tell you the formula into pricing a burger for sale.

[Rothman]

You just used more words to say what I criticized and summarized what the credit bureaus say...

Which is no different than pricing anything else. There isn't a burger company out there that'll tell you the formula into pricing a burger for sale.

Pfft. Ingredients, yes.

[jeffandnicole]

You just used more words to say what I criticized and summarized what the credit bureaus say...

Which is no different than pricing anything else. There isn't a burger company out there that'll tell you the formula into pricing a burger for sale.

Pfft. Ingredients, yes.

And?

[HighwayStar]

And credit rating is proxying race.

* kphoger ducks and runs for cover.

Except it doesn't. And every firm using any kind of model that takes it into consideration knows that because variables have to be checked to be sure they don't proxy a protected class.

[Duke87]

I oppose smartphone-only deals (and smartphone-only vaccination cards, etc.), but for an entirely different reason from HighwayStar: Not everyone is able to afford a smartphone, and even for the majority that do have one, it could be lost, in need of repair, or at 0% battery.

But the smartphone deals are given by the companies because it literally costs less for them to take the order, discounts shouldn't be given to customers who save companies money? Incentives 101 here

You're missing the much bigger reason. App-only deals are given because when you install their app on your phone you're giving them all sorts of juicy valuable data about you if you don't have the wherewithal to block permissions (and most people won't). They'll know where you live, they'll know where you work, they'll know if you walk into one of their competitors' stores, they'll know who you're hanging out with if your phone spends a bunch of time near someone else's phone who also has the app, etc.

Indeed, whenever any company wants you to install their app... this is generally why. Your smartphone is a personal homing beacon tracking your every move and they want access to that info.

[J N Winkler]

This discussion of credit scores and their uses and abuses has been interesting.  I agree that in general, systematic compilation and assessment of credit files is necessary in order to have a functioning lending industry.  But it does not follow that the algorithms for calculating credit scores should be opaque or unregulated.  Credit reporting itself is highly regulated.

I don't think it's realistic for a consumer to expect there to be a regulation to address every conceivable fairness argument, any more than it is for lenders to expect to operate without any oversight at all.  So much of this is up for grabs and is contingent on political arbitrage, with results that vary (often radically) from state to state.

[HighwayStar]

I oppose smartphone-only deals (and smartphone-only vaccination cards, etc.), but for an entirely different reason from HighwayStar: Not everyone is able to afford a smartphone, and even for the majority that do have one, it could be lost, in need of repair, or at 0% battery.

But the smartphone deals are given by the companies because it literally costs less for them to take the order, discounts shouldn't be given to customers who save companies money? Incentives 101 here

You're missing the much bigger reason. App-only deals are given because when you install their app on your phone you're giving them all sorts of juicy valuable data about you if you don't have the wherewithal to block permissions (and most people won't). They'll know where you live, they'll know where you work, they'll know if you walk into one of their competitors' stores, they'll know who you're hanging out with if your phone spends a bunch of time near someone else's phone who also has the app, etc.

Indeed, whenever any company wants you to install their app... this is generally why. Your smartphone is a personal homing beacon tracking your every move and they want access to that info.

This is actually the correct answer on that one. Its not about any savings in ordering or crap like that.

[HighwayStar]

This discussion of credit scores and their uses and abuses has been interesting.  I agree that in general, systematic compilation and assessment of credit files is necessary in order to have a functioning lending industry.  But it does not follow that the algorithms for calculating credit scores should be opaque or unregulated.  Credit reporting itself is highly regulated.

I don't think it's realistic for a consumer to expect there to be a regulation to address every conceivable fairness argument, any more than it is for lenders to expect to operate without any oversight at all.  So much of this is up for grabs and is contingent on political arbitrage, with results that vary (often radically) from state to state.

The algorithms are heavily regulated by extension from the reporting regulations, underwriting regulations, etc.

[1995hoo]

I oppose smartphone-only deals (and smartphone-only vaccination cards, etc.), but for an entirely different reason from HighwayStar: Not everyone is able to afford a smartphone, and even for the majority that do have one, it could be lost, in need of repair, or at 0% battery.

But the smartphone deals are given by the companies because it literally costs less for them to take the order, discounts shouldn't be given to customers who save companies money? Incentives 101 here

You're missing the much bigger reason. App-only deals are given because when you install their app on your phone you're giving them all sorts of juicy valuable data about you if you don't have the wherewithal to block permissions (and most people won't). They'll know where you live, they'll know where you work, they'll know if you walk into one of their competitors' stores, they'll know who you're hanging out with if your phone spends a bunch of time near someone else's phone who also has the app, etc.

Indeed, whenever any company wants you to install their app... this is generally why. Your smartphone is a personal homing beacon tracking your every move and they want access to that info.

This is actually the correct answer on that one. Its not about any savings in ordering or crap like that.

There's a useful saying everyone needs to remember: If it's not clear to you how an app developer makes money by offering a "free" service, it means YOU are the product.

[Scott5114]

I don't think fast-food app developers are generally interested in such fine-grained data as GPS tracing. That sort of thing tends to be most interesting to the sellers of advertising, not the advertisers themselves. Advertisers want to use that data to limit their ad spend to likely customers only. Once you install an app, they already know you're a likely customer.

Getting a customer to install an app has plenty of other benefits, though:

- collecting data about all of the customer's purchases into a single customer profile, which can then be used for analytics and marketing information
- enforcing customer loyalty by offering rewards programs based on the customer profile
- discouraging customer disloyalty (if you have the Burger King app you may be more likely to visit it than restaurants you don't have the app for)
- ability to send push notifications
- using the GPS to direct the customer to the nearest location

[rickmastfan67]

I don't think fast-food app developers are generally interested in such fine-grained data as GPS tracing. That sort of thing tends to be most interesting to the sellers of advertising, not the advertisers themselves. Advertisers want to use that data to limit their ad spend to likely customers only. Once you install an app, they already know you're a likely customer.

Getting a customer to install an app has plenty of other benefits, though:

- collecting data about all of the customer's purchases into a single customer profile, which can then be used for analytics and marketing information
- enforcing customer loyalty by offering rewards programs based on the customer profile
- discouraging customer disloyalty (if you have the Burger King app you may be more likely to visit it than restaurants you don't have the app for)
- ability to send push notifications
- using the GPS to direct the customer to the nearest location

I personally kill all apps manually whenever I'm not using them, mainly to prevent them from tracking me if they ask for location info.  At least most of them respect my killing (Force Stop) of them, and don't restart unless I reactivate them myself.

[rickmastfan67]

Most fast food places here in Louisville are still drive thru only. I suspect that some will never reopen their dining rooms. (Fine by me).

We're finally getting some opened inside here in the Pittsburgh area for dine-in.

McDonald's was the first last year, but they've had a few times where they closed the inside for awhile again, and then reopened.  But as of today, they are open inside.

Taco Bell was the next to fully reopen inside, however, their hours aren't constant.  I've gone there once @ 12:30PM, and the inside is closed, but hitting them up another day at 5:30PM and they're open inside.  It's been hit and miss, but they've been getting my business as of late as long as they're open inside, as I rather be able to stretch my legs while sitting down and eating instead of having them cramped inside of the car.

Wendy's has (well, at least the one I can check) is 'partially' open inside.  You can go in and order, but you can't sit and eat inside yet.

Arby's is still drive-thru only.  However, I did run across one that was open inside in the South Hills of Pittsburgh one day, unlike my local one.  My local one also has the worst hours too.  They had been only open till 8PM for quite some time (c19 hours), but only recently, changed to 9PM (compared to Taco Bell being normally open till 11PM or later in the drive-thru just across the street).  This is a location that used to be open till 1AM (drive-thru) in the past.  Plus, my local Arby's HAD been the #1 store in Pittsburgh in sales.  Can't see that being the case anymore with their messed up hours, and sometimes slow service as of late.

UPDATE: Wendy's JUST reopened inside today.  Found out by dumb luck by driving by it and seeing somebody sitting inside at the window that wasn't dressed in a Wendy's uniform.  So, ate there today for lunch.   Finally got my first Frosty Float in just over 2 years (drink + Jr Vanilla Frosty). 

[HighwayStar]

Most fast food places here in Louisville are still drive thru only. I suspect that some will never reopen their dining rooms. (Fine by me).

We're finally getting some opened inside here in the Pittsburgh area for dine-in.

McDonald's was the first last year, but they've had a few times where they closed the inside for awhile again, and then reopened.  But as of today, they are open inside.

Taco Bell was the next to fully reopen inside, however, their hours aren't constant.  I've gone there once @ 12:30PM, and the inside is closed, but hitting them up another day at 5:30PM and they're open inside.  It's been hit and miss, but they've been getting my business as of late as long as they're open inside, as I rather be able to stretch my legs while sitting down and eating instead of having them cramped inside of the car.

Wendy's has (well, at least the one I can check) is 'partially' open inside.  You can go in and order, but you can't sit and eat inside yet.

Arby's is still drive-thru only.  However, I did run across one that was open inside in the South Hills of Pittsburgh one day, unlike my local one.  My local one also has the worst hours too.  They had been only open till 8PM for quite some time (c19 hours), but only recently, changed to 9PM (compared to Taco Bell being normally open till 11PM or later in the drive-thru just across the street).  This is a location that used to be open till 1AM (drive-thru) in the past.  Plus, my local Arby's HAD been the #1 store in Pittsburgh in sales.  Can't see that being the case anymore with their messed up hours, and sometimes slow service as of late.

UPDATE: Wendy's JUST reopened inside today.  Found out by dumb luck by driving by it and seeing somebody sitting inside at the window that wasn't dressed in a Wendy's uniform.  So, ate there today for lunch.   Finally got my first Frosty Float in just over 2 years (drink + Jr Vanilla Frosty). 

See if it is consistent or not. I have some that are open and closed at random intervals with no way of knowing until you try the door.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

For the most part any dining rooms in the Twin Cities that aren't fully reopened at this point are due to staffing issues, not COVID.

[HighwayStar]

For the most part any dining rooms in the Twin Cities that aren't fully reopened at this point are due to staffing issues, not COVID.

I think that has been true most places for months now, but they keep using COVID as an excuse where possible.