Murphy SidingI have no doubt that some (or most? I dunno.) in the insurance industry might be playing games, being less than honest or colluding, what-have-you. All I'm saying is that they have competition just like every other industry.
I completely agree.
In fact, the insurance companies have even more issues, because they cannot raise rates or cut coverage without the approval of the state.
How many other industries exist under those constraints?
York1 John
I have no doubt that some (or most? I dunno.) in the insurance industry might be playing games, being less than honest or colluding, what-have-you. All I'm saying is that they have competition just like every other industry. Going back to the original post, maybe someone in the truck insurance industry could work with a railroad to market the idea of more trucks on rails?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Convicted One Murphy Siding Insurance, I believe, is on a little different level because it's always seemed somewhat mysterious and intangible for most people When you see Warren Buffett using BNSF to leverage Geico's premiums lower in order that they can write more policies, you be sure and get ahold of me.
Murphy Siding Insurance, I believe, is on a little different level because it's always seemed somewhat mysterious and intangible for most people
When you see Warren Buffett using BNSF to leverage Geico's premiums lower in order that they can write more policies, you be sure and get ahold of me.
charlie hebdoAs to state insurance regulatory commissions, many of those in leadership positions there previously worked in the insurance industry. "Fox guarding the henhouse?"
All the more reason to be in contact with legislators. Quit complaining to the ones making the money, and complain to the ones regulating the profits.
greyhounds charlie hebdo greyhounds BaltACD All of which presumes that there is no collusion among the players. Actually, it presumes no such thing. In the first place, such collusion would be in violation of the law. I've never met anyone who was willing to go to prison for the company. Like anything, pricing collusion does happen. And the people who do it get nailed to the wall. (A recent case involved canned tuna.) There are 51+ attorney generals and generally they'd all like to make a name for themselves by nailing a price fixing scheme. We were regularly trained on not doing it. It isn't worth it either for the company or the people involved. In an industry as diverse and competitive as insurance it would be impossible. In addition to the legal ramifications, there is no need for "No Collusion." It would only take one, just one, insurance company to act in its own best interest (people tend to do that) and try to grab the business by offering a lowered price. That would break the fictitious cartel. There would have to be "Complete and Utter Collusion" and that is not possible. The railroads tried cartels. They just didn't work. Until the stupid government got involved and gave them the force of law. I see you as looking for villains instead of understanding and knowledge. Go over there with CO. To paraphrase Captain Renault: "Collusion? I'm shocked to hear anyone suggest that collusion might be going on in the insurance industry." OK, don't learn economics from an old movie. Got that. But, of course, it fits your own deranged ideology. You B the one who insists the government regulators had a valid reason for forcing rail container rates higher to non competitive levels in a depression to "Protect" truckers. You have zero evidence for this, but you insist upon it because, in your mind, government economic regulation cannot be wrong. If you're going to claim illegal activity, have some evidence. Otherwise, you're just slinging mud.
charlie hebdo greyhounds BaltACD All of which presumes that there is no collusion among the players. Actually, it presumes no such thing. In the first place, such collusion would be in violation of the law. I've never met anyone who was willing to go to prison for the company. Like anything, pricing collusion does happen. And the people who do it get nailed to the wall. (A recent case involved canned tuna.) There are 51+ attorney generals and generally they'd all like to make a name for themselves by nailing a price fixing scheme. We were regularly trained on not doing it. It isn't worth it either for the company or the people involved. In an industry as diverse and competitive as insurance it would be impossible. In addition to the legal ramifications, there is no need for "No Collusion." It would only take one, just one, insurance company to act in its own best interest (people tend to do that) and try to grab the business by offering a lowered price. That would break the fictitious cartel. There would have to be "Complete and Utter Collusion" and that is not possible. The railroads tried cartels. They just didn't work. Until the stupid government got involved and gave them the force of law. I see you as looking for villains instead of understanding and knowledge. Go over there with CO. To paraphrase Captain Renault: "Collusion? I'm shocked to hear anyone suggest that collusion might be going on in the insurance industry."
greyhounds BaltACD All of which presumes that there is no collusion among the players. Actually, it presumes no such thing. In the first place, such collusion would be in violation of the law. I've never met anyone who was willing to go to prison for the company. Like anything, pricing collusion does happen. And the people who do it get nailed to the wall. (A recent case involved canned tuna.) There are 51+ attorney generals and generally they'd all like to make a name for themselves by nailing a price fixing scheme. We were regularly trained on not doing it. It isn't worth it either for the company or the people involved. In an industry as diverse and competitive as insurance it would be impossible. In addition to the legal ramifications, there is no need for "No Collusion." It would only take one, just one, insurance company to act in its own best interest (people tend to do that) and try to grab the business by offering a lowered price. That would break the fictitious cartel. There would have to be "Complete and Utter Collusion" and that is not possible. The railroads tried cartels. They just didn't work. Until the stupid government got involved and gave them the force of law. I see you as looking for villains instead of understanding and knowledge. Go over there with CO.
BaltACD All of which presumes that there is no collusion among the players.
All of which presumes that there is no collusion among the players.
Actually, it presumes no such thing. In the first place, such collusion would be in violation of the law. I've never met anyone who was willing to go to prison for the company. Like anything, pricing collusion does happen. And the people who do it get nailed to the wall. (A recent case involved canned tuna.) There are 51+ attorney generals and generally they'd all like to make a name for themselves by nailing a price fixing scheme. We were regularly trained on not doing it. It isn't worth it either for the company or the people involved.
In an industry as diverse and competitive as insurance it would be impossible. In addition to the legal ramifications, there is no need for "No Collusion." It would only take one, just one, insurance company to act in its own best interest (people tend to do that) and try to grab the business by offering a lowered price. That would break the fictitious cartel. There would have to be "Complete and Utter Collusion" and that is not possible.
The railroads tried cartels. They just didn't work. Until the stupid government got involved and gave them the force of law.
I see you as looking for villains instead of understanding and knowledge. Go over there with CO.
To paraphrase Captain Renault: "Collusion? I'm shocked to hear anyone suggest that collusion might be going on in the insurance industry."
OK, don't learn economics from an old movie. Got that.
But, of course, it fits your own deranged ideology. You B the one who insists the government regulators had a valid reason for forcing rail container rates higher to non competitive levels in a depression to "Protect" truckers. You have zero evidence for this, but you insist upon it because, in your mind, government economic regulation cannot be wrong.
If you're going to claim illegal activity, have some evidence. Otherwise, you're just slinging mud.
Let's see your "evidence" instead of a nasty attack. You have presented no evidence of a lack of collusion except your having previously worked for an insurance company. And really know your hobbyhorse is insisting "them pesky regulators done did the rails wrong."
As to state insurance regulatory commissions, many of those in leadership positions there previously worked in the insurance industry.
"Fox guarding the henhouse?"
Let's open this can: Every state in the U.S. has some type of insurance commission. These commissions regulate the companies, the prices, and the profits.
Some states regulate the companies very tightly, while others do very little regulation. Most states fall in the middle -- some regulation.
In 1945, the Congress ruled that states have the right to regulate insurance within the state, not the national government. This includes rates, coverage, and availability.
For example, if you have ever moved from one state to another, you know that you have to transfer car insurance, even if you are staying within the same company.
Insurance company rates and profits are regulated by your state. If you have an issue with your rates or coverage, talk to your legislator, not your agent.
Murphy Siding Insurance, I believe, is on a little different level because it's always seemed somewhat mysterious and intangible for most people.
Ahh! You must mean like when my agent threatened to not renew my auto policy if I failed to keep my homeowners insurance with him as well?
Those insurance companies, salt of the earth I tell ya! ALWAYS put the well being of their customers ahead of profit motive.
greyhoundsBut that won't fit CO's ideology, so he just ignores such things.
Thanks for crediting me with having an ideology! Most people are not near as charitable.
daveklepper I've been off the payroll for 23-1/2 years, but I'd like to chime in as follows: 1. My military service has been more important to me in both work and living in the USa and to my survival as a sane productive human being in Israel even more than MIT. 2. I would ask the question, are not some of the problems with new hires absent with new hires that are veterans of military service? So, should not wise management make every effort to hire veterans?
I've been off the payroll for 23-1/2 years, but I'd like to chime in as follows:
1. My military service has been more important to me in both work and living in the USa and to my survival as a sane productive human being in Israel even more than MIT.
2. I would ask the question, are not some of the problems with new hires absent with new hires that are veterans of military service? So, should not wise management make every effort to hire veterans?
Dave, I remember reading in a magazine article about employment opportunities where they interviewed high level people in tech companies that the company I worked for said that they had very good results hiring people with military experience. The trouble in later years is that there is not the large pool available since the draft was discontinued. I'm not saying that I think the draft should be reinstituted, but there was a favorable side to it. For instance, many youngsters learned to get along with others from different areas and backgrounds, and they learned respect for authority.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
greyhounds Convicted One Having thought further about the process through which Greyhounds states that insurance cost savings will eventualize, I have to say that I have serious doubts that material savings will be passed back to the customer. At least not the small guys. More loads traveling by rail will mean a reduced volume of rubber tire traffic. Since constant growth is a fundemental requirement for prosperity in a capitalist system, the decline in rubber tire traffic will, despite the commensurate dip in claims, move the Geedy insurance company to protect it's Geedy stockholders by not returning those savings to their customers. If anything at all, they will excuse this decision as a convoluted strategy whereby they will not have to raise premiums as soon or as much in the future. "Cynical me",...I know. Pshaw! This a wierd contention that when a demand goes down (less risks to cover), the price will increase. I think such a contention probably results from an ideology that causes an out right rejection of reality. There is no possible gain from the use of logic and reason. CO's mind is locked and facts won't make a dent. I've got some experience and knowledge of insurance pricing. If the risks/claims go down (resulting from using rail instead of over the road) competition within the insurance industry will cause the premiums to go down. And again, it's common in the insurance industry to have non profit mutual pools. So any for profit company has to be competitive with such pools. But that won't fit CO's ideology, so he just ignores such things.
Convicted One Having thought further about the process through which Greyhounds states that insurance cost savings will eventualize, I have to say that I have serious doubts that material savings will be passed back to the customer. At least not the small guys. More loads traveling by rail will mean a reduced volume of rubber tire traffic. Since constant growth is a fundemental requirement for prosperity in a capitalist system, the decline in rubber tire traffic will, despite the commensurate dip in claims, move the Geedy insurance company to protect it's Geedy stockholders by not returning those savings to their customers. If anything at all, they will excuse this decision as a convoluted strategy whereby they will not have to raise premiums as soon or as much in the future. "Cynical me",...I know.
Having thought further about the process through which Greyhounds states that insurance cost savings will eventualize, I have to say that I have serious doubts that material savings will be passed back to the customer. At least not the small guys.
More loads traveling by rail will mean a reduced volume of rubber tire traffic. Since constant growth is a fundemental requirement for prosperity in a capitalist system, the decline in rubber tire traffic will, despite the commensurate dip in claims, move the Geedy insurance company to protect it's Geedy stockholders by not returning those savings to their customers.
If anything at all, they will excuse this decision as a convoluted strategy whereby they will not have to raise premiums as soon or as much in the future.
"Cynical me",...I know.
Pshaw!
This a wierd contention that when a demand goes down (less risks to cover), the price will increase. I think such a contention probably results from an ideology that causes an out right rejection of reality.
There is no possible gain from the use of logic and reason. CO's mind is locked and facts won't make a dent.
I've got some experience and knowledge of insurance pricing. If the risks/claims go down (resulting from using rail instead of over the road) competition within the insurance industry will cause the premiums to go down. And again, it's common in the insurance industry to have non profit mutual pools. So any for profit company has to be competitive with such pools.
But that won't fit CO's ideology, so he just ignores such things.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Convicted One Murphy Siding What you're suggesting only works if the insurance company has no competition. Insurance companies have to compete for the business just like (most) everyone else. Sure, just like the oil companies right? Any kink anywhere in the system motivates them all to raise their prices.
Murphy Siding What you're suggesting only works if the insurance company has no competition. Insurance companies have to compete for the business just like (most) everyone else.
Sure, just like the oil companies right? Any kink anywhere in the system motivates them all to raise their prices.
Murphy Siding Does Berkshire Hathaway own any insurance companies?
Warren Buffett owned GEICO at one time, not sure if he still does
greyhounds This is an article from the Wall Street Journal about how truckers' insurance rates are skyrocketing. It's behind a paywall. https://www.wsj.com/articles/surging-truck-insurance-rates-hit-freight-operators-1157893483 So possibly a trucker could save money by railing the load and reducing his/her own liability along with the insurance carrier's liability. (If the train has an incident it's on the railroad, not the trucker.) This should lead to lower insurance costs for the trucker. And truckers are in dire need of lower costs. Please don't tell me about "Greedy" insurance companies. I'm retired from Allstate and I know how insurance prices are set. It's a very competitive line of business and any company that gets "Greedy" will quickly loose its customers. .
This is an article from the Wall Street Journal about how truckers' insurance rates are skyrocketing. It's behind a paywall.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/surging-truck-insurance-rates-hit-freight-operators-1157893483
So possibly a trucker could save money by railing the load and reducing his/her own liability along with the insurance carrier's liability. (If the train has an incident it's on the railroad, not the trucker.) This should lead to lower insurance costs for the trucker. And truckers are in dire need of lower costs.
Please don't tell me about "Greedy" insurance companies. I'm retired from Allstate and I know how insurance prices are set. It's a very competitive line of business and any company that gets "Greedy" will quickly loose its customers. .
I'd have to say being a veteran certainly opened doors for me, and it still opens doors for others. Employers, in my experience anyway, like to hire veterans as they're a "known quantity," that is graduates of a stern school that in this era of the all volunteer military no-one makes them enter. They have the work ethic and the spirit of teamwork, plus as I've said earlier the experience of the best leadership school around.
Flintlock, we could probably go on all day trading stories like this.
Convicted, things sure changed in later years. We got tired of working while looking over our shoulders. I always had the impression management wanted to get rid of us and replace us with new-hires at minimum wage.
Paul of CovingtonThe company back then was kind of like family in its loyalty to old-timers.
It's interesting to weigh what you mention here in contrast to the stories one hears where companies abandon institutional knowledge through forced retirement and early severance packages.
Paul, did you let him live?
Seriously, I had the same issue with another technician a few years back. I live in Richmond, he covered the Frederickburg area, about 60 mile to the north of us. My manager told me he was having problems keeping up with his copier repairs and could I head north and take some machines off his hands? "Certainly!" says I.
Well no damn wonder he was having problems! His machines were filthy and badly in need of critical parts replacements, and according to the service logs he'd only been there a day or two previously! On all of them!
I took care of four copiers, got them running smoothly, then called my manager. "Danny, I've done here, I might as well come home."
"This soon? It's no-where near 5:00."
"I'm wiped out of parts!"
"WHAT?"
"I'll talk to you about it when I get to the shop. I'll see you in about an hour and a half."
Turns out others had the same problem with him. He was gone in about a year, the boss just couldn't straighten him out. And he'd been on the job a good ten years!
Speaking of judging generations, three co-workers come to mind that had about 20 years seniority on me that were practically worthless. It's not that they didn't know, but they just didn't care.
One case really stands out in my mind. I drove about 230 miles to help on a problem. The problem was just minor things that were routine maintenance. I pointed out what was needed and listed the parts to order. A couple of weeks later, I was told that he was still having problems, and I drove back to help. When I got there, he took me to a wall locker and said, "Here are the parts you ordered." The company back then was kind of like family in its loyalty to old-timers.
I'd say absolutely, we all too often judge a whole generation based on the worst examples, but after all, it's the worst examples who always seem to stand out more and get most of the publicity.
I certainly laugh at some of the antics of some Millenials, and shake my head at others, but one thing I learned in the service was don't judge a group by the actions of a few. Human nature being what it is each group has it's outstanding performers and it's losers. That's how it is and how it's always been.
Flintlock76What goes around comes around you know. I remember the antics of the 1960's when some "Boomers" were doing crazy stuff in the streets and our elders thought the world was going to hell in a handbasket. Now who's the elders?
What you say certainly resonates with me. Relative to the experiences we have with new hires, I often think of how people have (allegedly) bemoaned the decline between generations since the days of ancient Greece.
Could this all be just a matter of perception? It's hard for me to imagine that, because at least when I first entered the work force, I cared, I wanted to learn the needed skills, I wanted to be a valuable asset..etc etc.
I believe for myself that I judge a good work day by the value of product going out the door....but these kids just seem oblivious to any link that productivity is what enables them to be paid. To them a good day means last till 5:00 before hitting the time card.
Do you think that it's possible that we judge the entire generation based upon only the worst examples, and this has been going on for thousands of years?
So this could all be a "Marcus Aurelius" type thing?
Flintlock76 "OK, Boomer!"
"OK, Boomer!"
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.