dee_dee

crowley said:

airnerd said:

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?

Here you go:
https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/credit-card-debt-is-a-bigger-problem-for-women-vs-men

larryjw said:

crowley said:

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.

Agree with your assessment. Discriminator intent is not required to discriminate. The issue is does the discrimination have a
pernicious effect. 

It's impossible that credit card companies are discriminating against women.  If shareholders found out, all hell would break loose.  Credit card companies want everyone to have as high credit limit as possible with as low of risk as possible.  The only way men or women could be favoured is if data showed one of the two sexes were delinquent more than the other.  Young men for example pay higher car insurance because they crash their cars more.  But as the GS representative confirmed, gender does not play a role in determining credit worthiness.  So far I've only seen cases where women who don't have jobs are married to rich men.

designr said:

But I ask again, if there is a gender bias here (whether with Apple, Goldman or "in the credit and credit rating system") as some seem to think, what is the motive for this bias?

Stop trying to inject logic into the conversation. 

anantksundaram said:

I don’t — and I don’t care to — know who DHH is and whether he has a “trophy wife” who is, according to you, a “nothing (typical)” etc., but that has nothing to do with the point of the article. It is an Apple-branded card, and Apple can’t simply ignore the fallout that will result from this. It is already hitting the mainstream media in a big way, and I am guessing the publicity will grow.

It has *everything* to do with the article.  It seems you are a bit slow to catch on so I'll explain it again for you again.  DHH is a millionaire, he has a wife, who makes nothing (typical).  If she wants to spend money (DHH's money) then she should ask him for an allowance of some sort, then everyone would be happy.

anantksundaram said:

dee_dee said:

For someone as smart as DHH, he sure can be an idiot. He makes millions of dollars a year, his wife makes nothing (typical).  Credit card companies don’t care what sec you are.  They just want to lend you as much money as possible without risk of losing it. 

You must live in a neighborhood where it’s atypical for millionaire husbands to cover the finances for their “nothing (typical)” wife.

Cool. Very cool.

Hey - if DHH wants a trophy wife then that’s his business.  But don't cry like a little bitch because his credit limit is 20x what hers is.