I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
Yes they do, you can thank the last administration for all this heavy handed over regulations. Today banks can not extend credit on your assets, only on your ability pay based on your wages. My in-laws who are retired, sold their house to move into something more manageable and needed a temporary loan during the transition and had lots of saving and equity in the house they were selling but no bank would cut them a loan for the simple fact they have no income other than SS and some IRA income.
You should be happy your retirement accounts are not being manage by the Labor department today. That was the other regulation which came out of the 2008 crash and was put in place right at the end of the last administration. It did not get implemented by the new administration, it was killed. Otherwise the Labor department would have say so over how your retirement money could be invested. No more Apple stock in your IRA.
Those regulations came about for a good reason it was called the Great Recession. The administration you mentioned needed to stop the Ponzi schemes which the investment banks used to build a house of cards. When people or industries are left to the own devices and without oversight disaster soon follows. Did you mother tell you not to eat too much candy or did she tell you as a child that you can do whatever you want because freedom means no boundaries?
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
Because YOU would expect the results to be the same does not mean that a professional loan officer or an algorithm would. That's the trouble: amateurs are second the professionals.
They should first ask: Why would bank discriminate against a qualified borrower? That would be both illogical and illegal. Banks are in it to make money -- they don't make decisions based on what's between a person's legs.
People and businesses do illogical and illegal things all the time, otherwise racism and sexism wouldn't exist. Sometimes it's consciously, and sometimes subsconsciously. That's why you question when the results don't make apparent sense, to figure out what the problem is.
What evidence do you provide to support the claim that this is one of those instances? None. Just because something is not impossible (the moon is made of green cheese...sounds absurd but before we went there you literally couldn’t prove it wasn’t) doesn’t mean it actually is, as we learned when collected actual evidence (no cheese on the moon, sadly). You need observed evidence to prove claims in the positive. Otherwise you’re just making sounds.
I don't claim this is one of those intances, I just claim that there appears to be an issue. 20x differential in credit limit with no apparent reason is the evidence, now we figure out what the problem is. It may be a blip in Mrs Heinemeier Hansson's financial record, or it might be an issue with the algorithm, or something wrong in between.
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
They probably just read your forum posts here.
ROFL... Don't be bitter because I destroyed your rather far fetched ridiculous arguments on 5G. It makes you look small.
You sure got me with your lack of comprehension of a common English words. /s I certainly do wish I could take credit for creating the word obsolete, but it dates back to the 16th century.
It's pretty apparent that you have an inferiority complex. So, if it make you feel good to cherry pick whichever "facts" help your argument then go for it!
Weird comment. What does "cherry-picking" (which appears to be the raison d'être for most posts here) have to do with an "inferiority complex"?
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
Errrnt. What you expect, as a non-financial expert, has little bearing on reality. I’ve said it a few times in the other thread, but I’m an enterprise software dev and for many years worked for Cap One building credit application processing apps. Gender simply isn’t a variable in credit calculations. Besides being irrelevant, it’s against the law.
Husband & wife isn’t 1:1. To test gender bias, you have to find women in the same credit boat as DHH but being denied or diminished; not his wife who despite what you may think could be in a completely different credit boat.
I'm not claiming that my expectation has a bearing on reality? I'm saying that if something doesn't meet a common expectation then we should investigate why that is. You do not appear to have understood me at all correctly. Actively discriminating against gender is illegal, and extremely unlikely to be happening here, however, you can introduce a gender disparity via innocently applied means. Other people have mentioned in this thread that financial records may only be attributed to a primary account holder, therefore (as a hypothesis and example), if there is a demographic trend that the male in a relationship tends to be listed as the primary and his partner as a secondary, then that is adversely affecting the partner. The policy is not intended to be sexist, but in its effect, it is. The remedy in this case wouldn't necessarily be with Apple or Goldman Sachs, but a change to how credit scores are attributed between joint account holders.
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
Because YOU would expect the results to be the same does not mean that a professional loan officer or an algorithm would. That's the trouble: amateurs are second the professionals.
They should first ask: Why would bank discriminate against a qualified borrower? That would be both illogical and illegal. Banks are in it to make money -- they don't make decisions based on what's between a person's legs.
People and businesses do illogical and illegal things all the time, otherwise racism and sexism wouldn't exist. Sometimes it's consciously, and sometimes subsconsciously. That's why you question when the results don't make apparent sense, to figure out what the problem is.
That's true. But questioning when something doesn't make sense is different from making unfounded assumptions and particularly different from making unfounded accusations.
In this case, it appears to me that the guy didn't understand, so he immediately went to social media to make false accusations.
For sure, it seems like the cry of sexism seems to have been taken up very quickly. But if that's the only apparent differentiator, and the same issue doesn't arise with other vendors, then I can see why that becomes the obvious suspect.
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
Because YOU would expect the results to be the same does not mean that a professional loan officer or an algorithm would. That's the trouble: amateurs are second the professionals.
They should first ask: Why would bank discriminate against a qualified borrower? That would be both illogical and illegal. Banks are in it to make money -- they don't make decisions based on what's between a person's legs.
People and businesses do illogical and illegal things all the time, otherwise racism and sexism wouldn't exist. Sometimes it's consciously, and sometimes subsconsciously. That's why you question when the results don't make apparent sense, to figure out what the problem is.
What evidence do you provide to support the claim that this is one of those instances? None. Just because something is not impossible (the moon is made of green cheese...sounds absurd but before we went there you literally couldn’t prove it wasn’t) doesn’t mean it actually is, as we learned when collected actual evidence (no cheese on the moon, sadly). You need observed evidence to prove claims in the positive. Otherwise you’re just making sounds.
I don't claim this is one of those sintances, I just claim that there appears to be an issue. 20x differential in credit limit with no apparent reason is the evidence, now we figure out what the problem is. It may be a blip in Mrs Heinemeier Hansson's financial record, or it might be an issue with the algorithm, or something wrong in between.
What evidence do you think GS should've supplied:"Here's why your credit limit is 1/20th that of your husband"? I've never once seen any issuer do a compare and contrast for a credit limit (or interest rate) based on other people they may know. So exactly where is this evidence you claim exists if you have zero information either individuals core credit data?
I know they can't and won't show us any fundamental math for determining credit worthiness, but I would love to see more transparency in the overall metrics used. As we've seen with this silly cry of sexism without any due diligence, plenty of people have said their female spouse was given a higher credit limit than them despite many years of marriage and multiple joint accounts. The law of parsimony should be considered until additional data is obtained to prove otherwise: the spouses credit ratings (not necessarily credit scores) likely aren't nearly as similar as DHH and Woz believe.
If, for instance, we were to find out the GS has determined that individuals who have more than 5 active cards—which includes store and gas cards—aren't as credit worthy despite the extra cards helping to increase their total credit limit which in turn helps keep their percentage of credit used (both used to help increase your FICO score), then we can address whether GS is right or wrong, but only in terms of how it will affect their bottom line. But, again, we simply don't know anything about their process to claim annoying is rigged, unfair, or even bad for business.
Finally, I haven't seen anyone ask when each party signed up the Card. For all we know GS started off early adopters and/or had Apple give them a list of influential people in the tech industry atypically high credit limits and/or lower interest rates in order to help market the Card. I'd certainly run the numbers to see if that would be worth it, after all they can lower the limit and raise the VIR at any time.
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
It means Goldman Sachs is not really in the credit card business and have made a mess of the Apple Card. They offered me a credit line 20% of my other cards. They apparently made this decision based on one yearly income and not my real credit history.
I think that may be becoming more common. Even my existing card companies that I have been with for years keep bugging me to tell them my income -- they never asked before. And one, when I asked them for a different card in exchange for one I've been using for 10 years with zero lates, refused unless I would tell them my income.
One guy who apparently has something like 375,000 followers on Twitter (or whatever), described as a “prominent” software developer, makes a profanity laden accusation and the New York Department of Financial Services starts an investigation. And the media response? GUILTY unless proven innocent!
Media needs something to attract eyes and ears for the next 6 hours..
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
Again, but if course they will deny that.....they will dance around and around until they get caught
There’s nothing wrong or illegal about discriminating against someone simply because they’re retired. It’d be the same as discriminating against someone because they’re unemployed. If you’re retired, you’re unemployed by choice. Banks will still look at other sources of income (social security, investment income, etc.) if you don’t have any of those, why should anyone extend unsecured credit to you in the first place?
And today they not only admitted it but knew about it before the launch but it was just too inconvenient to make the changes needed to (and probably didn’t want to get on the bad side of the Apple) to do it right and launched anyway. It is Goldman Sachs. What is Apple doing partnering with this company anyway? They should have known better.
I'm retired -- which means that my savings are high and my income is low. As a result GS gave me the lowest credit line of all my cards (about half).
Does that mean that they discriminate against retired people?
It means Goldman Sachs is not really in the credit card business and have made a mess of the Apple Card. They offered me a credit line 20% of my other cards. They apparently made this decision based on one yearly income and not my real credit history.
Nonsense. It’s their money, and a first-run card issuance. They’re under no obligation to loan you as much as you want or feel entitled to. Still a credit card, and not a mess. You just have sour grapes, again.
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
Because YOU would expect the results to be the same does not mean that a professional loan officer or an algorithm would. That's the trouble: amateurs are second the professionals.
They should first ask: Why would bank discriminate against a qualified borrower? That would be both illogical and illegal. Banks are in it to make money -- they don't make decisions based on what's between a person's legs.
People and businesses do illogical and illegal things all the time, otherwise racism and sexism wouldn't exist. Sometimes it's consciously, and sometimes subsconsciously. That's why you question when the results don't make apparent sense, to figure out what the problem is.
What evidence do you provide to support the claim that this is one of those instances? None. Just because something is not impossible (the moon is made of green cheese...sounds absurd but before we went there you literally couldn’t prove it wasn’t) doesn’t mean it actually is, as we learned when collected actual evidence (no cheese on the moon, sadly). You need observed evidence to prove claims in the positive. Otherwise you’re just making sounds.
I don't claim this is one of those intances, I just claim that there appears to be an issue. 20x differential in credit limit with no apparent reason is the evidence, now we figure out what the problem is. It may be a blip in Mrs Heinemeier Hansson's financial record, or it might be an issue with the algorithm, or something wrong in between.
Nope, not evidence. As has been explained, even spouses can have different credit histories and ratings. She could even have cards he doesn’t know about.
Evidence would be 1:1 comparisons — that is, women as wealthy as DHH with the same credit history, being turned down. Spouses are not credit-clones of their mates.
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
Errrnt. What you expect, as a non-financial expert, has little bearing on reality. I’ve said it a few times in the other thread, but I’m an enterprise software dev and for many years worked for Cap One building credit application processing apps. Gender simply isn’t a variable in credit calculations. Besides being irrelevant, it’s against the law.
Husband & wife isn’t 1:1. To test gender bias, you have to find women in the same credit boat as DHH but being denied or diminished; not his wife who despite what you may think could be in a completely different credit boat.
I'm not claiming that my expectation has a bearing on reality? I'm saying that if something doesn't meet a common expectation then we should investigate why that is.
Even that isn’t true — there is not a common expectation that a spouse shares or inherits their partner’s credit rating. Credit is personal, and there are a million reasons they can diverge. That was some ignorant expectation by DHH, and now a million other people who read the story, but it never was the common expectation before. Credit is personal.
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
Errrnt. What you expect, as a non-financial expert, has little bearing on reality. I’ve said it a few times in the other thread, but I’m an enterprise software dev and for many years worked for Cap One building credit application processing apps. Gender simply isn’t a variable in credit calculations. Besides being irrelevant, it’s against the law.
Husband & wife isn’t 1:1. To test gender bias, you have to find women in the same credit boat as DHH but being denied or diminished; not his wife who despite what you may think could be in a completely different credit boat.
I'm saying that if something doesn't meet a common expectation then we should investigate why that is.
Investigation sounds good, but part the very part of that is to understand why one would expect that their credit worthiness be exactly the same because they are married. I don't see how there is evidence to support that it's a common expectation. As StrangeDays succinctly stated: Credit is personal.
Following on my post earlier about the vanishing joint account concept, there is recent article (moneyunder30.com) that notes only US Bank and PNC Bank offer joint credit card accounts - everyone else:
Bank of America Barclays Capital One Chase Credit One Discover Wells Fargo
and others do not.
From what I can determine, authorized users get little to no credit benefit from that status
Given one spouse or the other generally “handles” the homes’ finances, a test would be for women who are primary account holders for their household accounts to provide feedback as to their offered Apple/Goldman credit line vs their “authorized user” husbands.
i don’t have statistics but I wonder what percentage of finances are managed by men vs women in a marriage. I recall it was much more men than women in a story years ago... if so, the built in “bias” if can be called that is the move away from true joint accounts by nearly every financial institution. That breaks the shares credit benefit for the financially “passive” spouse in the relationship.
Woz would never, ever resist an opportunity to "jump into the fray" and shit on Apple with glee. It's like he's always had resentment towards SJ and Apple because he wanted to give computers away, while SJ wanted to make it a business. It's pretty pathetic how the guy has literally done fuck-all for decades, lives off and is enriched by his AAPL, and yet trollishly bashes the company and promotes others at all times. Lack of class and self-respect.
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
Because YOU would expect the results to be the same does not mean that a professional loan officer or an algorithm would. That's the trouble: amateurs are second the professionals.
They should first ask: Why would bank discriminate against a qualified borrower? That would be both illogical and illegal. Banks are in it to make money -- they don't make decisions based on what's between a person's legs.
People and businesses do illogical and illegal things all the time, otherwise racism and sexism wouldn't exist. Sometimes it's consciously, and sometimes subsconsciously. That's why you question when the results don't make apparent sense, to figure out what the problem is.
What evidence do you provide to support the claim that this is one of those instances? None. Just because something is not impossible (the moon is made of green cheese...sounds absurd but before we went there you literally couldn’t prove it wasn’t) doesn’t mean it actually is, as we learned when collected actual evidence (no cheese on the moon, sadly). You need observed evidence to prove claims in the positive. Otherwise you’re just making sounds.
I don't claim this is one of those intances, I just claim that there appears to be an issue. 20x differential in credit limit with no apparent reason is the evidence, now we figure out what the problem is. It may be a blip in Mrs Heinemeier Hansson's financial record, or it might be an issue with the algorithm, or something wrong in between.
Nope, not evidence. As has been explained, even spouses can have different credit histories and ratings. She could even have cards he doesn’t know about.
Evidence would be 1:1 comparisons — that is, women as wealthy as DHH with the same credit history, being turned down. Spouses are not credit-clones of their mates.
Sure it's evidence. It's not case closed evidence, but there's definitely a large discrepancy between the two cases, and from the details we know about the situation it is, thus far, unexplained.
Something doesn't have to knowingly target gender to be sexist. There seems to be something off in the algorithm if it's giving such widely disparate results for individuals who you would otherwise expect to get the same or similar result. It is very logical to question that.
Errrnt. What you expect, as a non-financial expert, has little bearing on reality. I’ve said it a few times in the other thread, but I’m an enterprise software dev and for many years worked for Cap One building credit application processing apps. Gender simply isn’t a variable in credit calculations. Besides being irrelevant, it’s against the law.
Husband & wife isn’t 1:1. To test gender bias, you have to find women in the same credit boat as DHH but being denied or diminished; not his wife who despite what you may think could be in a completely different credit boat.
I'm not claiming that my expectation has a bearing on reality? I'm saying that if something doesn't meet a common expectation then we should investigate why that is.
Even that isn’t true — there is not a common expectation that a spouse shares or inherits their partner’s credit rating. Credit is personal, and there are a million reasons they can diverge. That was some ignorant expectation by DHH, and now a million other people who read the story, but it never was the common expectation before. Credit is personal.
It is a common expectation that people with identical financial and personal circumstances should be able to access the same financial products. It could be that there is an as yet unidentified and important difference between the credit worthiness of Mr Heinemeier Hansson and his wife, and that's why some form of investigation should happen, to work out what it is, and whether the algorithm is reasonable or discriminatory.
Comments
Those regulations came about for a good reason it was called the Great Recession. The administration you mentioned needed to stop the Ponzi schemes which the investment banks used to build a house of cards. When people or industries are left to the own devices and without oversight disaster soon follows. Did you mother tell you not to eat too much candy or did she tell you as a child that you can do whatever you want because freedom means no boundaries?
I know they can't and won't show us any fundamental math for determining credit worthiness, but I would love to see more transparency in the overall metrics used. As we've seen with this silly cry of sexism without any due diligence, plenty of people have said their female spouse was given a higher credit limit than them despite many years of marriage and multiple joint accounts. The law of parsimony should be considered until additional data is obtained to prove otherwise: the spouses credit ratings (not necessarily credit scores) likely aren't nearly as similar as DHH and Woz believe.
If, for instance, we were to find out the GS has determined that individuals who have more than 5 active cards—which includes store and gas cards—aren't as credit worthy despite the extra cards helping to increase their total credit limit which in turn helps keep their percentage of credit used (both used to help increase your FICO score), then we can address whether GS is right or wrong, but only in terms of how it will affect their bottom line. But, again, we simply don't know anything about their process to claim annoying is rigged, unfair, or even bad for business.
Finally, I haven't seen anyone ask when each party signed up the Card. For all we know GS started off early adopters and/or had Apple give them a list of influential people in the tech industry atypically high credit limits and/or lower interest rates in order to help market the Card. I'd certainly run the numbers to see if that would be worth it, after all they can lower the limit and raise the VIR at any time.
Evidence would be 1:1 comparisons — that is, women as wealthy as DHH with the same credit history, being turned down. Spouses are not credit-clones of their mates.
Bank of America
Barclays
Capital One
Chase
Credit One
Discover
Wells Fargo
and others do not.
Given one spouse or the other generally “handles” the homes’ finances, a test would be for women who are primary account holders for their household accounts to provide feedback as to their offered Apple/Goldman credit line vs their “authorized user” husbands.
i don’t have statistics but I wonder what percentage of finances are managed by men vs women in a marriage. I recall it was much more men than women in a story years ago... if so, the built in “bias” if can be called that is the move away from true joint accounts by nearly every financial institution. That breaks the shares credit benefit for the financially “passive” spouse in the relationship.