What if female CC users were statistically more likely to pay off their balances quickly [ie. every month or within a few months].
What if male CC users were statically slower payers that took years to pay off their balances [essentially over spending].
Then, CC Co's would prefer not to lend to female CC users. What if the CC/Bank says something like, 'well we can't offer them zero so let's offer these female borrowers XX lower credit limit than the statistical slow paying [high interest income generating] male CC users.'
Voila! More cash from the guys than the gals. Let's write a musical! Guys & Dolls in CreditCardLand. /s
Where’s the stat that says women are worse at paying off credit cards?
Women have more debt than men, including student loan debt, auto loans, credit card debt and medical debt, therefore it makes perfect sense that this group of borrowers would have lower scores than another group (men) that has lower debt across the board.
Credit worthiness should be judged on numbers alone and if a woman's numbers suck, then they shouldn't complain about it because fair is fair and people must face the consequences for all of their decisions and habits.
If the fact they can be paid less for the same job in the USA and that's the explanation for their larger debt that's easily fixed, it is the 21st Century, even in the USA. That said blaming or invesigating Apple is totally absurd when it is the Bank behind this.
The “pay gap” is not true. It has been debunked numerous times.
Supposedly there is a stat that charges more interest for some females than males, and Congress gets involved because that's discriminatory. Meanwhile since the invention of auto insurance 16 year old boys are charged more than 16 year old girls because stats show there is a reason...and that's acceptable.
Yeah?
16 year old boys crash cars more often.
Where’s the stat that says women are worse at paying off credit cards?
1) Surveys != Stats. Having women say one thing and men say another is not fact.
2) Having to rely on credit doesn’t mean you’re worse at paying them off. It means you’re a better profit center for the lenders.
Surveys create data. Stats are derived from data.
What’s your point?
Soli is right. Surveys may create data but whether it's valid statistical data depends on how the survey was conducted, sample size, how the subjects were chosen, etc.
Figures lie and liars figure....
In medicine it has become a generally accepted truth that the single largest predictor of the outcome of any trial (read "data, statistics, etc...") is who funded the trial. There are nearly infinite ways to manipulate statistics. (We see that going on today in multiple attempts to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. Census).
Supposedly there is a stat that charges more interest for some females than males, and Congress gets involved because that's discriminatory. Meanwhile since the invention of auto insurance 16 year old boys are charged more than 16 year old girls because stats show there is a reason...and that's acceptable.
Just gonna grab my popcorn and watch this one unfold.
Teen boys have a history of recklessness comparative to teen girls, I do not think women are a higher credit risk compared to men. This is what this is about.
My first name is non-gender specific, a majority of people with my name are female and I am male. I have a credit card with a $17,000 limit, have not paid one cent in interest in over 20 years yet I was only given a limit of $3000 from Goldman Sachs. Can any of you tell me why?
What if female CC users were statistically more likely to pay off their balances quickly [ie. every month or within a few months].
What if male CC users were statically slower payers that took years to pay off their balances [essentially over spending].
Then, CC Co's would prefer not to lend to female CC users. What if the CC/Bank says something like, 'well we can't offer them zero so let's offer these female borrowers XX lower credit limit than the statistical slow paying [high interest income generating] male CC users.'
Voila! More cash from the guys than the gals. Let's write a musical! Guys & Dolls in CreditCardLand. /s
A candy store owner notices women spend twice as men in their store. The store creates a policy to alway serve female clients first and make the men wait until all the women have been served. Do you seen anything wrong with this?
Where’s the stat that says women are worse at paying off credit cards?
Women have more debt than men, including student loan debt, auto loans, credit card debt and medical debt, therefore it makes perfect sense that this group of borrowers would have lower scores than another group (men) that has lower debt across the board.
Credit worthiness should be judged on numbers alone and if a woman's numbers suck, then they shouldn't complain about it because fair is fair and people must face the consequences for all of their decisions and habits.
If the fact they can be paid less for the same job in the USA and that's the explanation for their larger debt that's easily fixed, it is the 21st Century, even in the USA. That said blaming or invesigating Apple is totally absurd when it is the Bank behind this.
The “pay gap” is not true. It has been debunked numerous times.
Supposedly there is a stat that charges more interest for some females than males, and Congress gets involved because that's discriminatory. Meanwhile since the invention of auto insurance 16 year old boys are charged more than 16 year old girls because stats show there is a reason...and that's acceptable.
Yeah?
16 year old boys crash cars more often.
Where’s the stat that says women are worse at paying off credit cards?
A 2015 National Debt Relief Survey showed exactly that. Most studies have shown women tend to carry higher debt loads than men (on average) and that could, on average, result in outcomes that look biased. Women tend to have better on time payment records and at the same time, slightly higher default rates.
Oddly, late payments (but paying it off) is much more profitable to the CC issuer than on time but defaulting.
That said, are credit limits biased? Absolutely. Otherwise everyone would get the same exact limit. Let that sink in. They are biased for a reason. They are not 100% egalitarian with everyone getting the same exact outcome.
The amount of debt based on sex is really irrelevant - that’s already taken into account with your credit score. Likewise debt to income is pretty straight forward (although one can argue that that is indirectly biased based on income inequality, but that’s a separate issue.)
The real question that a card issuer need to know is how likely is someone to default on their debt? Maxing out your card and paying it off is a card issuer’s dream. Maxing it out and defaulting is a big money-loser. If women are statistically more likely to default then that would potentially be a valid reason for lower credit limits.
I thought banks made money on late fees, and interest on a high cc balance.
Meh. No one cares what Warren says. She’s earned it.
I care, she's a lot smarter and a lot more accomplished than someone with nothing better to do (myself included) than someone commenting on AppleInsider.
The chances for tЯump’s version of the CFPB taking action on this are between zero and none. The bureau exists in name only right now.
IMO, highlighting the lack of activity by Trump's version of the CFPB is probably the main point.
before you have activity you must have cause!!! Nothing I’ve seen so far indicates any sort of sex discrimination. The cries of a couple of butt hurt woman do not mean that the company had a discriminatory policy in place.
Says the man who runs the world and can only see what one can see through cut out eye slots.
To make this a legitimate investigation the complaints to will new to lay all of their cards on the table in order to assess if there is bias. Credit reports, payment histories, insurance claim history, Lexis Nexus profile, etc. No one will do this so there is no need to investigate anything for these blowhards.
Yes because their is absolutely no gender bias in this country, right? I wonder how many would have an opinion on this if Apple was not connected to this card.
Supposedly there is a stat that charges more interest for some females than males, and Congress gets involved because that's discriminatory. Meanwhile since the invention of auto insurance 16 year old boys are charged more than 16 year old girls because stats show there is a reason...and that's acceptable.
Yeah?
16 year old boys crash cars more often.
Where’s the stat that says women are worse at paying off credit cards?
A 2015 National Debt Relief Survey showed exactly that. Most studies have shown women tend to carry higher debt loads than men (on average) and that could, on average, result in outcomes that look biased. Women tend to have better on time payment records and at the same time, slightly higher default rates.
Oddly, late payments (but paying it off) is much more profitable to the CC issuer than on time but defaulting.
That said, are credit limits biased? Absolutely. Otherwise everyone would get the same exact limit. Let that sink in. They are biased for a reason. They are not 100% egalitarian with everyone getting the same exact outcome.
The amount of debt based on sex is really irrelevant - that’s already taken into account with your credit score. Likewise debt to income is pretty straight forward (although one can argue that that is indirectly biased based on income inequality, but that’s a separate issue.)
The real question that a card issuer need to know is how likely is someone to default on their debt? Maxing out your card and paying it off is a card issuer’s dream. Maxing it out and defaulting is a big money-loser. If women are statistically more likely to default then that would potentially be a valid reason for lower credit limits.
I thought banks made money on late fees, and interest on a high cc balance.
I wouldn't word it that way. They usually charge for late fees and accrued interest increases adds to you balance, but that's not the same as paying down a debt. On a bell curve there are people on one end that aren't good for business because they pay it off and/or use it very little thereby generating no income for the company, and on the other the same thing because they've defaulted on their account and are likely to declare bankruptcy.
What if female CC users were statistically more likely to pay off their balances quickly [ie. every month or within a few months].
What if male CC users were statically slower payers that took years to pay off their balances [essentially over spending].
Then, CC Co's would prefer not to lend to female CC users. What if the CC/Bank says something like, 'well we can't offer them zero so let's offer these female borrowers XX lower credit limit than the statistical slow paying [high interest income generating] male CC users.'
Voila! More cash from the guys than the gals. Let's write a musical! Guys & Dolls in CreditCardLand. /s
A candy store owner notices women spend twice as men in their store. The store creates a policy to alway serve female clients first and make the men wait until all the women have been served. Do you seen anything wrong with this?
My What-If happens to be 180° of my understanding/feelings of the situation... so I presented a counter-intuitive What-If. Soli made my counterpoint succinctly: ...On a bell curve there are people on one end that aren't good for business because they pay it off and/or use it very little thereby generating no income for the company...
Although I understand your point with your What-If. The owner wouldn't need to be as radical as your example. Perhaps, they would serve the men after every 4th woman. The men could represent 1/3 of their business. Cash is cash. Take it. /s
Where’s the stat that says women are worse at paying off credit cards?
Women have more debt than men, including student loan debt, auto loans, credit card debt and medical debt, therefore it makes perfect sense that this group of borrowers would have lower scores than another group (men) that has lower debt across the board.
Credit worthiness should be judged on numbers alone and if a woman's numbers suck, then they shouldn't complain about it because fair is fair and people must face the consequences for all of their decisions and habits.
If the fact they can be paid less for the same job in the USA and that's the explanation for their larger debt that's easily fixed, it is the 21st Century, even in the USA. That said blaming or invesigating Apple is totally absurd when it is the Bank behind this.
The “pay gap” is not true. It has been debunked numerous times.
So instead of confronting the reality that the "wage gap" is a myth you make a benial comment about the Earth being flat. What you can’t refute, you insult. Yep.
Supposedly there is a stat that charges more interest for some females than males, and Congress gets involved because that's discriminatory. Meanwhile since the invention of auto insurance 16 year old boys are charged more than 16 year old girls because stats show there is a reason...and that's acceptable.
Yeah?
16 year old boys crash cars more often.
Where’s the stat that says women are worse at paying off credit cards?
1) Surveys != Stats. Having women say one thing and men say another is not fact.
2) Having to rely on credit doesn’t mean you’re worse at paying them off. It means you’re a better profit center for the lenders.
Surveys create data. Stats are derived from data.
What’s your point?
So you think that what a few individuals "feel" about their ability to pay a bill equates to "the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample," especially in relation to their actual history being delinquent on a bill? I'd really love to see how you derived that data against women based on that data.
PS: You should really look up and understand the various bias that can (and does) occur in statistics.
I am betting I understand selection bias much more than you think I do.
And yes, surveys, when run correctly, is exactly how the practice of science of collecting and analyzing numerical data happens in the real world.
Where’s the stat that says women are worse at paying off credit cards?
Women have more debt than men, including student loan debt, auto loans, credit card debt and medical debt, therefore it makes perfect sense that this group of borrowers would have lower scores than another group (men) that has lower debt across the board.
Credit worthiness should be judged on numbers alone and if a woman's numbers suck, then they shouldn't complain about it because fair is fair and people must face the consequences for all of their decisions and habits.
If the fact they can be paid less for the same job in the USA and that's the explanation for their larger debt that's easily fixed, it is the 21st Century, even in the USA. That said blaming or invesigating Apple is totally absurd when it is the Bank behind this.
It would be nice for people to stop posting the same lie over and over and over again as your lead in did.
There is no statistical evidence women get paid less for the same job. Period. End of sentence.
if you are going to discuss the “wage gap” at least get the terminology right.
1) Not even close to being true and there are countless peer reviewed sources for hard data backing up MacPro's comment, but if you feel that it's biased then you should create a better study that elucidates the error from decades of science data.
2) Based on your previous comment, if someone says it's true its statistical data proving it so. Funny that.
1) Actually, you are supporting a flat out lie. "If the fact they can be paid less for the same job in the USA [...]" is a flat out lie because Mac Pro added "for the same job". The science does NOT support this and only supports the statement WITHOUT those 4 critical words added. There are countless political stump speeches and 10X that number of news commentators trying to say what Mac Pro did in the hope the lemmings will simply believe it without understanding it.
Case in point, the stat is "When comparing full time employed women to full time employed men, women make 81% of the earnings of men." Now, it might be you believe a full time employed janitor at a hospital deserves the same exact compensation as the same hospital's top neurosurgeon at which point we are at an impasse and will never agree. So the first point is the stat does not take into account things like age, occupation, experience, value added to the company, overtime and at least a dozen other variables.
Another case in point is as the bulk of peer reviewed science supports, in all age groups, their seems to be a 2%-4% wage gap that might be a result of gender. It also supports there is a definite wage gap for people in their 20's with men and women with similar qualifications (same school, same grades same studies) getting jobs at the same firm. In these conditions women's median compensation is between 2%-7% more than men. This advantage is gone by the time they reach their early 30's. The 81% statistic that the mindless sheep regurgitate does not take into account hours worked and simply looks at the yearly compensation based (predominantly) on US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Also within these same statistics is that the men within the data set work, on average, 44 hours per week while the women work, on average, 40 hours per week. This one simple point accounts for 50% of the mythical "wage gap".
Where’s the stat that says women are worse at paying off credit cards?
Women have more debt than men, including student loan debt, auto loans, credit card debt and medical debt, therefore it makes perfect sense that this group of borrowers would have lower scores than another group (men) that has lower debt across the board.
Credit worthiness should be judged on numbers alone and if a woman's numbers suck, then they shouldn't complain about it because fair is fair and people must face the consequences for all of their decisions and habits.
If the fact they can be paid less for the same job in the USA and that's the explanation for their larger debt that's easily fixed, it is the 21st Century, even in the USA. That said blaming or invesigating Apple is totally absurd when it is the Bank behind this.
The “pay gap” is not true. It has been debunked numerous times.
So instead of confronting the reality that the "wage gap" is a myth you make a benial comment about the Earth being flat. What you can’t refute, you insult. Yep.
Comments
What if female CC users were statistically more likely to pay off their balances quickly [ie. every month or within a few months].
What if male CC users were statically slower payers that took years to pay off their balances [essentially over spending].
Then, CC Co's would prefer not to lend to female CC users. What if the CC/Bank says something like, 'well we can't offer them zero so let's offer these female borrowers XX lower credit limit than the statistical slow paying [high interest income generating] male CC users.'
Voila! More cash from the guys than the gals. Let's write a musical! Guys & Dolls in CreditCardLand. /s
Pay gap debunked by feminists (link):
Yes you are right and the world really is flat.
I care, she's a lot smarter and a lot more accomplished than someone with nothing better to do (myself included) than someone commenting on AppleInsider.
Says the man who runs the world and can only see what one can see through cut out eye slots.
Yes because their is absolutely no gender bias in this country, right? I wonder how many would have an opinion on this if Apple was not connected to this card.
Although I understand your point with your What-If. The owner wouldn't need to be as radical as your example. Perhaps, they would serve the men after every 4th woman. The men could represent 1/3 of their business. Cash is cash. Take it. /s
We wanted Sherrod Brown to run, but are firmly behind Elizabeth Warren.
Case in point, the stat is "When comparing full time employed women to full time employed men, women make 81% of the earnings of men." Now, it might be you believe a full time employed janitor at a hospital deserves the same exact compensation as the same hospital's top neurosurgeon at which point we are at an impasse and will never agree. So the first point is the stat does not take into account things like age, occupation, experience, value added to the company, overtime and at least a dozen other variables.
Another case in point is as the bulk of peer reviewed science supports, in all age groups, their seems to be a 2%-4% wage gap that might be a result of gender. It also supports there is a definite wage gap for people in their 20's with men and women with similar qualifications (same school, same grades same studies) getting jobs at the same firm. In these conditions women's median compensation is between 2%-7% more than men. This advantage is gone by the time they reach their early 30's. The 81% statistic that the mindless sheep regurgitate does not take into account hours worked and simply looks at the yearly compensation based (predominantly) on US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Also within these same statistics is that the men within the data set work, on average, 44 hours per week while the women work, on average, 40 hours per week. This one simple point accounts for 50% of the mythical "wage gap".
2) I never once said or implied that..