5 ms·

We're all very smart here for considering justifications as too why this happened, but please don't get lost in the weeds. The financial calculation here was ri

We're all very smart here for considering justifications as too why this happened, but please don't get lost in the weeds. The financial calculation here was ridiculously broken, and it needs to be fixed at almost all costs. As folks who use algorithms as tools, we should use this story as a reason to be more accountable. It's tone deaf to publicly postulate a lack of sexist intention for the sake of women reading this. We should solely be exploring how to fix this massive error.

cjbprime 7y ago
Well put.
gojomo 7y ago
Disagree completely: Completely gender-oblivious algorithms correlated to actual profitability-differences between the two distinct borrowers could've caused the discrepancy, leaving nothing at all "ridiculously broken". That super-wealthy married partners don't always get the exact same credit line, when applying separately, is not particularly an issue of justice that "needs to be fixed". (If their finances are truly completely merged, the simple fix is: whoever gets the bigger credit line asks for a 2nd card on their account – though I see Apple Card may not yet offer that traditional option.) The mechanical assumption that married partners who apply separately must get the same credit line as each other is more patronizing, simple-minded, and disrepectful of their separate life-paths than the alternative. If wife JHH were not just rich but also famously so (within a certain industry), while conversely husband DHH was an "extremely private person" whose stated profession for the last few years (or maybe decade?) was "homemaker", I'd not be surprised for her to get (& deserve!) a credit line that's 20x his. And there’d be nothing “ridiculously broken” about that, either.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  Here is what you're missing: Given community-property laws, yes, married partners more than a couple of years into their marriage ought to always get the same results. If not, then something is broken, because things are being taken into account that shouldn't be, by law. Whether they practically share all finances on a daily basis or not, legally all of their property and income is shared.
  - dominotw 7y ago
    > Whether they practically share all finances on a daily basis or not, legally all of their property and income is shared. This assumes that this the case for the lifetime of credit. Would we have to consider possibility of divorce given it happens at a high rate?
    - shanemlk 7y ago
      Typically their finances are still shared after divorce. No one "escapes" marriage.
  - gojomo 7y ago
    That's not sufficient, unless community-property laws also perfectly predict both: (1) likelihood of repayment & ease of collection; and (2) net-profitability of a customer, after all fees, charge-reversals, support-costs, etc are considered. You're under the hypnotic sway of a legal fiction – "community property" – that paints an attractive, childlike simplicity over the situation that doesn't exist in reality. On the other hand, credit companies have real data about repayment rates, collection yield, & lifetime profitability. And even with the strongest possible community property laws, in the event of disputes (& divorces!), there's no magic wand a creditor can wave to costlessly collect from DHH if JHH defaults, or vice-versa. Even if the creditor is completely in-the-right, essentially, all they can do is send threatening letters & make adverse credit reports – which will have differential effectiveness against individuals despite any legal fiat claiming they're the same financial unit. And whether DHH would be on the hook for JHH's debts is murky & jurisdiction-dependent. Only some US states use "community property" rules to make spouses jointly responsible for each others' debt – and notably, Illinois (where DHH's partnership/CTO position in 37signals is based) isn't one of them. (See: <https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/am-i-liable-my-spouses-credit-card-debt.html>. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/am-i-liable-my-spous...) Some reports also place DHH's residence in Spain – and according to <http://www.coupleseurope.eu/en/spain/topics/2-is-there-a-statutory-matrimonial-property-regime-and-if-so-what-does-it-provide/> http://www.coupleseurope.eu/en/spain/topics/2-is-there-a-sta..., there, "each spouse… is not responsible for the debts of the other". So what's the legal or statistical basis for your implication that "community property" makes them identical credit- and profitability- risks? (Has the couple even revealed that they're in a "community property" jurisdiction?)
jimmaswell 7y ago
Maybe millionaires aren't the favored customers of credit card companies. They'd get a bit more on interchange fees than the average customers but they'd never run a balance and pay interest or late fees.
- shanemlk 7y ago
  True. But the point of the article was hoping it doesn't happen to regular folk.

cjbprime 7y ago

Well put.

gojomo 7y ago

Disagree completely: Completely gender-oblivious algorithms correlated to actual profitability-differences between the two distinct borrowers could've caused the discrepancy, leaving nothing at all "ridiculously broken". That super-wealthy married partners don't always get the exact same credit line, when applying separately, is not particularly an issue of justice that "needs to be fixed". (If their finances are truly completely merged, the simple fix is: whoever gets the bigger credit line asks for a 2nd card on their account – though I see Apple Card may not yet offer that traditional option.) The mechanical assumption that married partners who apply separately must get the same credit line as each other is more patronizing, simple-minded, and disrepectful of their separate life-paths than the alternative. If wife JHH were not just rich but also famously so (within a certain industry), while conversely husband DHH was an "extremely private person" whose stated profession for the last few years (or maybe decade?) was "homemaker", I'd not be surprised for her to get (& deserve!) a credit line that's 20x his. And there’d be nothing “ridiculously broken” about that, either.

pwinnski 7y ago
Here is what you're missing: Given community-property laws, yes, married partners more than a couple of years into their marriage ought to always get the same results. If not, then something is broken, because things are being taken into account that shouldn't be, by law. Whether they practically share all finances on a daily basis or not, legally all of their property and income is shared.
- dominotw 7y ago
  > Whether they practically share all finances on a daily basis or not, legally all of their property and income is shared. This assumes that this the case for the lifetime of credit. Would we have to consider possibility of divorce given it happens at a high rate?
  - shanemlk 7y ago
    Typically their finances are still shared after divorce. No one "escapes" marriage.
- gojomo 7y ago
  That's not sufficient, unless community-property laws also perfectly predict both: (1) likelihood of repayment & ease of collection; and (2) net-profitability of a customer, after all fees, charge-reversals, support-costs, etc are considered. You're under the hypnotic sway of a legal fiction – "community property" – that paints an attractive, childlike simplicity over the situation that doesn't exist in reality. On the other hand, credit companies have real data about repayment rates, collection yield, & lifetime profitability. And even with the strongest possible community property laws, in the event of disputes (& divorces!), there's no magic wand a creditor can wave to costlessly collect from DHH if JHH defaults, or vice-versa. Even if the creditor is completely in-the-right, essentially, all they can do is send threatening letters & make adverse credit reports – which will have differential effectiveness against individuals despite any legal fiat claiming they're the same financial unit. And whether DHH would be on the hook for JHH's debts is murky & jurisdiction-dependent. Only some US states use "community property" rules to make spouses jointly responsible for each others' debt – and notably, Illinois (where DHH's partnership/CTO position in 37signals is based) isn't one of them. (See: <https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/am-i-liable-my-spouses-credit-card-debt.html>. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/am-i-liable-my-spous...) Some reports also place DHH's residence in Spain – and according to <http://www.coupleseurope.eu/en/spain/topics/2-is-there-a-statutory-matrimonial-property-regime-and-if-so-what-does-it-provide/> http://www.coupleseurope.eu/en/spain/topics/2-is-there-a-sta..., there, "each spouse… is not responsible for the debts of the other". So what's the legal or statistical basis for your implication that "community property" makes them identical credit- and profitability- risks? (Has the couple even revealed that they're in a "community property" jurisdiction?)

jimmaswell 7y ago

Maybe millionaires aren't the favored customers of credit card companies. They'd get a bit more on interchange fees than the average customers but they'd never run a balance and pay interest or late fees.

shanemlk 7y ago
True. But the point of the article was hoping it doesn't happen to regular folk.