Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Actuarial Discussion Forum > General Actuarial
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Life, Health & Pension

Health Actuary Jobs
Insurance & Consulting jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows

Actuarial Recruitment
Visit DW Simpson's website for more info.
www.dwsimpson.com/about

Casualty Jobs
Property & Casualty jobs for Students, Associates & Fellows


General Actuarial Non-Specific Actuarial Topics - Before posting a thread, please browse over our other sections to see if there is a better fit, such as Careers - Employment, Actuarial Science Universities Forum or any of our other 100+ forums.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #101  
Old 07-28-2016, 05:30 PM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elinor Dashwood View Post
If NC had suddenly allowed discrimination against women or black people:
1) They would be in violation of federal law.
2) The SoA should still stay out of it.
Or if a state had suddenly allowed discrimination against people with red hair:
1) They would not be in violation of federal law.
2) it would still be wrong, and
2) The SoA should still stay out of it.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but as far as I can tell, NOBODY in this thread has been in favor of the stupid NC law. But a lot of people are suggesting that opposing SoA involvement is due to implicit support for the law.

LOGIC, people. Use some logic.
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Apr 5, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 07-28-2016, 05:51 PM
Jared Ogle's Avatar
Jared Ogle Jared Ogle is offline
Member
AktŁerler Derneği
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
College: Trump University
Favorite beer: Schaefer
Posts: 552
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO View Post
Or if a state had suddenly allowed discrimination against people with red hair:
1) They would not be in violation of federal law.
2) it would still be wrong, and
2) The SoA should still stay out of it.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but as far as I can tell, NOBODY in this thread has been in favor of the stupid NC law. But a lot of people are suggesting that opposing SoA involvement is due to implicit support for the law.

LOGIC, people. Use some logic.
I think there are plenty of actuaries in favor of that law. They talk about it almost every day, just not on the AO.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 07-28-2016, 06:57 PM
chicken_po_boy's Avatar
chicken_po_boy chicken_po_boy is offline
Member
CAS
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 401 Poydras New Orleans, LA 70130
Studying for Nothing Ever Again
College: been there, done that
Favorite beer: You gonna finish that?
Posts: 2,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JMO View Post
Or if a state had suddenly allowed discrimination against people with red hair:
1) They would not be in violation of federal law.
2) it would still be wrong, and
2) The SoA should still stay out of it.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but as far as I can tell, NOBODY in this thread has been in favor of the stupid NC law. But a lot of people are suggesting that opposing SoA involvement is due to implicit support for the law.

LOGIC, people. Use some logic.
Agreeing with the SOA's decision to sign the letter <> suggesting that opposing SoA involvement is due to implicit support for the law
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-28-2016, 10:58 PM
mawashi-san mawashi-san is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 225
Default

For those of you that are worried that all the transgendered actuaries in NC will lose their jobs, I would urge you to take a deep breath and relax. Consider the following:

1) Transgendered people are an absolutely tiny percentage of the population, about 0.3% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_d..._United_States). The SOA has about 25,000 members. Assuming proportionality, that would suggest about 75 transgendered SOA members nationwide, and only a subset of that for NC. And that is almost certainly an overestimate since transgendered people are substantially less likely to be employed at all, much less hold professional jobs (http://www.hrc.org/blog/transgender-...nt-and-poverty).

2) Being transgendered is not a protected class for employment in about half of the country, so I don't see how there's anything special about NC in this respect. (See the table in the wiki link above).

3) Not that #2 really matters. Insurance companies in NC aren't waiting with bated breath for the legislature to pass "anti-gay" legislation. FINALLY NOW WE CAN FIRE ALL TEH GAYS RAAAARRRR. It's absurd. Companies nowadays are PC to a fault. If anything, in light of the attention I would expect NC companies to virtue signal even harder than usual.

4) As I understand, bathrooms in private offices fall outside the scope of the NC law.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 07-29-2016, 12:29 AM
El Actuario's Avatar
El Actuario El Actuario is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 406
Default

Opining as a gay actuary here...

I find it annoying that so many people paint HB 2 - and LGBT rights in general - as a "purely political issue." My existence is not a political statement, and these laws have a very real impact on my life.

To the extent that anti-LGBT legislation affects the professional opportunities of its members, the SOA has reason to speak out. Perhaps they could have gone about this in a better way, but I'm proud of their stance nonetheless. To the naysayers - be grateful that you don't have to worry about getting fired, denied housing, or having your family delegitimized because of your identity. Not everyone has that luxury.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 07-29-2016, 02:06 AM
swimmer92's Avatar
swimmer92 swimmer92 is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 24,935
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Actuario View Post
Opining as a gay actuary here...

I find it annoying that so many people paint HB 2 - and LGBT rights in general - as a "purely political issue." My existence is not a political statement, and these laws have a very real impact on my life.

To the extent that anti-LGBT legislation affects the professional opportunities of its members, the SOA has reason to speak out. Perhaps they could have gone about this in a better way, but I'm proud of their stance nonetheless. To the naysayers - be grateful that you don't have to worry about getting fired, denied housing, or having your family delegitimized because of your identity. Not everyone has that luxury.


/thread
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 07-29-2016, 09:33 AM
freddecker's Avatar
freddecker freddecker is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: 家 [Theoretically 4th St]
Favorite beer: WarsteinerDunkel, Gumballhead (T)
Posts: 4,203
Default

I think you should be able to hire or fire anyone for any reason you so desire. Being an actuary has nothing to do with that.
__________________
Hey man, where'd you get that lotion?
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 07-29-2016, 09:48 AM
Enough Exams Already Enough Exams Already is offline
Member
SOA AAA
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Actuario View Post
Opining as a gay actuary here...

I find it annoying that so many people paint HB 2 - and LGBT rights in general - as a "purely political issue." My existence is not a political statement, and these laws have a very real impact on my life.

To the extent that anti-LGBT legislation affects the professional opportunities of its members, the SOA has reason to speak out. Perhaps they could have gone about this in a better way, but I'm proud of their stance nonetheless. To the naysayers - be grateful that you don't have to worry about getting fired, denied housing, or having your family delegitimized because of your identity. Not everyone has that luxury.
But the issues surrounding NC HB2 are in no way actuarial, which is the crux of the problem over whether the SOA should be speaking corporately--that is, as a representative of actuaries collectively--about it.

Denial of housing, being fired, et al., are not actuarial issues. Whatever impact NC HB2 has on your life, it has it not because you are an actuary nor because of how you perform actuarial work.

Moreover, if the SOA is going to take a public stance on NC HB2, it now legitimizes clients' demanding to know where individual actuaries stand on the issue as a condition of employing those actuaries for their actuarial needs.

That serves neither actuaries nor their clients. It only injects politics into what should be a professional, fiduciary relationship.
__________________
"Allow me to introduce you to the American public.
You'll want to wash your hands afterward."
--Samantha

"I guess I just have a lower prior-expectation of humanity than you folks. You win for optimism, but I win for accuracy."
--Pseudolus

"I wonder if there's a lower bound on how dumb the internet can get. We gotta be getting close, right?"
--Mother of DragQueens
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 07-29-2016, 09:49 AM
SamTheEagle's Avatar
SamTheEagle SamTheEagle is offline
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 54,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Actuario View Post
Opining as a gay actuary here...

I find it annoying that so many people paint HB 2 - and LGBT rights in general - as a "purely political issue." My existence is not a political statement, and these laws have a very real impact on my life.

To the extent that anti-LGBT legislation affects the professional opportunities of its members, the SOA has reason to speak out. Perhaps they could have gone about this in a better way, but I'm proud of their stance nonetheless. To the naysayers - be grateful that you don't have to worry about getting fired, denied housing, or having your family delegitimized because of your identity. Not everyone has that luxury.
Just because it affects you personally does not make it a non-political issue. Do you really want to open the door to a politically conservative SOA president throwing his/her support behind, for example, a religious liberty bill in his/her official capacity? It's a bad and potentially dangerous precedent.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 07-29-2016, 10:09 AM
JMO's Avatar
JMO JMO is offline
Carol Marler
Non-Actuary
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Back home again in Indiana
Studying for Nothing actuarial.
Posts: 37,606
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamTheEagle View Post
Do you really want to open the door to a politically conservative SOA president throwing his/her support behind, for example, a religious liberty bill in his/her official capacity?
1. IFYQ
2. Most of the so-called religion liberty laws are actually laws FAVORING some particular religious (or pseudo-religious) viewpoint.
3. I am, in fact, in favor of religious liberty. As stated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
__________________
Carol Marler, "Just My Opinion"

Pluto is no longer a planet and I am no longer an actuary. Please take my opinions as non-actuarial.


My latest favorite quotes, updated Apr 5, 2018.

Spoiler:
I should keep these four permanently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rekrap View Post
JMO is right
Quote:
Originally Posted by campbell View Post
I agree with JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westley View Post
And def agree w/ JMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG View Post
This. And everything else JMO wrote.
And this all purpose permanent quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr T Non-Fan View Post
Yup, it is always someone else's fault.
MORE:
All purpose response for careers forum:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorNo View Post
Depends upon the employer and the situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sredni Vashtar View Post
I feel like ERM is 90% buzzwords, and that the underlying agenda is to make sure at least one of your Corporate Officers is not dumb.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.29075 seconds with 9 queries