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.
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.
These are just democrat politicians trying to make a points with a certain class of people, once again, without any proof or basis in reality. Its just another obvious attempt to widen the gender gap and stoke class division. I think its highly possible that the original tweet on this was planted in the first place just to start this whole ball rolling..
I heard an interesting podcast the other day about this (https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace-tech/human-biases-are-baked-into-algorithms-now-what/) Bottom line, even if the algorithm doesn’t directly consider gender as one of its parameters, it’s very possible for it to be biased for a multitude of reasons. That bias may be intentional, or completely unintentional. The presence of bias in the algorithm’s results doesn’t automatically mean Goldman Sachs is trying to discriminate, but the lack of intent doesn’t mean there’s nothing to fix, either.
Unfortunately, I fear there will be more political points scored on this than actual substantive discussion and progress.
The bias is is towards those with a significant, reliable credit history. End of story. To change this, you end up having to treat people differently for example preferential bias on the basis of gender, or even worse, lack of good credit history.
Doing exactly that with mortgages led to the sub prime financial crisis. It would be even worse with unsecured credit.
And if you keep electing these idiots, you'll keep getting more and more of this crap. Another day with the grievance industry.
Extending credit (particularly credit cards) is based on individual credit profiles (score, history, employment, ability to pay). Simple as that.
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.
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?
In this case it’s the far left trying to score points with their base
Whether it’s the far right or far left - both are sucking up all the oxygen and obstructing real solutions to real problems in favor of just stirring the pot.
Bottom line, even if the algorithm doesn’t directly consider gender as one of its parameters, it’s very possible for it to be biased for a multitude of reasons. That bias may be intentional, or completely unintentional. The presence of bias in the algorithm’s results doesn’t automatically mean Goldman Sachs is trying to discriminate, but the lack of intent doesn’t mean there’s nothing to fix, either.
And screaming 'fucking gender bias doesn't mean there's anything that needs fixing. 'Looking into' something is one thing, but laying stink without any actual supporting evidence, claiming correlation is causation is just alleging guilty until proven innocent, and is irresponsible grandstanding.
So what are some of the multitude of reasons for gender bias. More importantly how might it be unintentionally implemented. Did somebody accidentally write some code saying 'If Woman, then decrease credit line by minimum of 50%'?
It bothers me that a guy screams 'fucking sexual discrimination' and people trip all over themselves while running for their torches and pitchforks. There's not even a whiff of smoke at this point, just a lot of people wanting to make assumptions and accusations.
What's worse it G-S' reaction was to give this guy's wife the same credit limit with no explanation. Exactly the wrong thing to do without any explanation. It feeds the 'Apple and G-S are up to sumpin'! conspiracy theorists and Dev Gui gets what he wants.
G-S should have said 'Ok, will, tell you, in a tweet, why your wife got the limit she did, since it's pretty much a matter of public record, and you demand transparency, so here we go...'.
For better or worse, G-S lays it all out. If they're wrong, the apologize, make that instance right, and begin the introspection to eliminate the bias. They've got a deservedly bad rep so they need to be forthcoming, but should get to go about it same as accusers.
If they're right, it's 'Ok,Woz, it's your turn. Here's why you got what you got and she didn't...' and then 'Anybody got a beef, give us a call or drop by our bank/office and will discuss. Shame us in a tweet and that's where we'll respond'.
And Apple doesn't get to step back and disavow anything. Sure they didn't write the algorithm or handle any of the evaluation. But they did choose G-S knowing full well their bad rep. G-S as a partner, is in effect Apple's employee. Apple has share the spotlight. If it turns out Apple should have made a different, better choice they have to hitch up their big boy pants and own it.
Suing Apple (because eventually well see some of that, if it hasn't already started) wouldn't be right, but if there is a stink, Tim will have to wear some of it.
What bothers me is that the footnotes in the letter are mostly links to "news" stories. I'm not impressed by news stories being used to bolster a case.
Then I checked into the last 2 refs to the bureau and... 14: Freedom Mortgage Corporations case was a settlement because managers told loan officers that if no race was indicated that they should input "Non-Hispanic White." Huh? I thought that was a positive -- being white.
15: Regarding the bureau's change in structure that "made it unclear where concerns about fair lending... would be handled." 404: not found
Just a political letter to rag on the Trump admin. What? Nothing else to do?
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.
Can you imagine her as President? She’d destroy the economy.
The US beat Soviet empire with economical power. If these far left politicians (her and Sanders) be president the likely scenario is China will leave the US to the dust.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
So what are some of the multitude of reasons for gender bias. More importantly how might it be unintentionally implemented. Did somebody accidentally write some code saying 'If Woman, then decrease credit line by minimum of 50%'?
It bothers me that a guy screams 'fucking sexual discrimination' and people trip all over themselves while running for their torches and pitchforks. There's not even a whiff of smoke at this point, just a lot of people wanting to make assumptions and accusations.
What's worse it G-S' reaction was to give this guy's wife the same credit limit with no explanation. Exactly the wrong thing to do without any explanation. It feeds the 'Apple and G-S are up to sumpin'! conspiracy theorists and Dev Gui gets what he wants.
G-S should have said 'Ok, will, tell you, in a tweet, why your wife got the limit she did, since it's pretty much a matter of public record, and you demand transparency, so here we go...'.
For better or worse, G-S lays it all out. If they're wrong, the apologize, make that instance right, and begin the introspection to eliminate the bias. They've got a deservedly bad rep so they need to be forthcoming, but should get to go about it same as accusers.
If they're right, it's 'Ok,Woz, it's your turn. Here's why you got what you got and she didn't...' and then 'Anybody got a beef, give us a call or drop by our bank/office and will discuss. Shame us in a tweet and that's where we'll respond'.
And Apple doesn't get to step back and disavow anything. Sure they didn't write the algorithm or handle any of the evaluation. But they did choose G-S knowing full well their bad rep. G-S as a partner, is in effect Apple's employee. Apple has share the spotlight. If it turns out Apple should have made a different, better choice they have to hitch up their big boy pants and own it.
Suing Apple (because eventually well see some of that, if it hasn't already started) wouldn't be right, but if there is a stink, Tim will have to wear some of it.
Then I checked into the last 2 refs to the bureau and... 14: Freedom Mortgage Corporations case was a settlement because managers told loan officers that if no race was indicated that they should input "Non-Hispanic White." Huh? I thought that was a positive -- being white.
15: Regarding the bureau's change in structure that "made it unclear where concerns about fair lending... would be handled." 404: not found
Just a political letter to rag on the Trump admin. What? Nothing else to do?
I think it may be a very revealing exercise into how the whole process works for everyone. I doubt the banks want anyone to know because banks.
I don’t see this as an Apple issue at all, but a bank issue (if it exists).
if you are going to discuss the “wage gap” at least get the terminology right.
What’s your point?
PS: You should really look up and understand the various bias that can (and does) occur in statistics.
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.