patrick.net

anonymous says

Why do lenders consistently charge minorities higher interest rates

Realtors must be Asian-lovers, as Asians get lower mortgage rates than other races.

http://www.financialsamurai.com/mortgage-interest-rates-by-race/

It seems that this "discrimination" based on race BS falls apart when one looks at Asians. If there is discrimination in this country, it is based on your income, and not race.

anonymous says

Asian's may have better credit scores and larger down payments in addition to having the funds to buy down the rate even more.

Yes, and lower income of African Americans compared to whites is likely the reason for higher mortgage rates. Not race. Alternatively, we have to agree that realtors discriminate against whites to benefit Asians.

FortWayne says

In fact lending applications frequently don't even ask for race

A law called the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) enacted in 1974 makes it illegal for lenders to discriminate based on race, national origin, gender, age, marital status, or because one receives public assistance.

Another law called the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) enacted in 1975 requires lenders to collect, report, and disclose a long list of data about mortgages they originate, including each borrower’s race, ethnicity, gender, and age.

anonymous says

too bad we don't really enforce most of them or do so on a select basis.

Regulatory enforcement of equal opportunity laws can make a huge difference. Government and NAACP should regularly have applicants of different colors apply for loans and compare rates, to ensure the lenders are complying with the law. Even a credible threat of prosecution can bring lenders into compliance on a prospective basis, without litigating past actions.

anonymous says

The poor and minorities who often are one in the same have a harder time to repay anything and get the highest interest rates. I know - it's the risk, right ?

No, it's what the market will bear. If lenders know that a prospective borrower is likely to be overcharged everywhere, they don't need to offer a lower rate based on risk. If lenders know they can get away with charging more, then many are likely to do so. It doesn't require conspiracy or even animus: it's not personal, merely business. Imagine you are working in a big bank, paid on commission, and the choice comes down to more $ for your kids vs more $ for strangers. Maintaining a level playing field requires enforcement, so the bank representatives face a substantial probability of getting caught quickly and maybe fired or fined before Christmas. Routine regularatory testing can work better than sporadic litigation.

curious2 says

Dan8267 says

On a serious note, the exact quote from MLK is

"I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

He did not limit that to people of any particular color.

Of course, that is my entire point!

anonymous says

drBu Asian's may have better credit scores and larger down payments in addition to having the funds to buy down the rate even more.

Of course, again.

I'd be shocked if that were not the case.

But by SWJ logic, we should accuse banks of racism for allowing Asians to get better interest rates.

I'll make you a deal, you stop calling everyone around you racist and at least try to see it from the other side and I'll cut all those words out... except Jesus.
Jesus is holy, non-negotiable.

anonymous says

@FortWayne - it would be refreshing if one day - just one - you could write a reply that did not include the word(s) Jesus, Gay or Homo and Liberal or Dem and for the record you have no idea who or what I voted for over the years, let alone what I really support or do not support.

For all you know I could be taking alternate stances on most things just because. In most areas I am financially very conservative and in social matters fairly the opposite since I don't really care to know what other people are doing or who or what they are doing it with let alone who or what they pray to or don't pray to.

Dan8267 says

The wage gap is clearly a myth. If there were any actual evidence to support it, that evidence would have come out by now.

The wage gap is not a myth. There is all kinds of data that supports the claim that women are paid less for the same job title but what the data cannot answer is why. If we try to politicize this issue then we end up with two far too simplistic answers: women are discriminated against or women are inferior in their performance.

Of course, both of those reasons are true sometimes but not enough to even be significant. I tend to side with this very moderate analysis: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

The biggest takeaway is if you were to monetize flexibility, the gap between men and women at the same professional level would likely disappear. If you seek to shrink the wage gap, you would need to reduce the need for flexibility for women and/or increase the desire for flexibility for men. You would reward productivity over hours at the office or offer alternative schedules and workplaces.

Luckily, this describes the millennials exactly. On the macro level, you could probably do nothing and see improvement. However, I see no reason not to define success, track progress and course correct as necessary; in other words, calling it myth, even if you don't believe it requires policy changes, isn't appropriate.

jessica says

There is all kinds of data that supports the claim that women are paid less for the same job title

Job titles are meaningless, but show the data anyway. I've search long and hard for the actual data, and it's nowhere to be found. And no, a report with zero actual figures written by some anonymous bureaucrat does not constitute evidence or data.

Show me the actual salary and benefit data in CSV format with each column described in a text file, and I can data-mine the shit out of that. Not only would I be able to tell you exactly what, if any, wage gap exists, but also which individual companies are responsible and how to fix it. But if you have no data, you have no case. Hearsay means nothing. Data is everything in this matter.

In any case, equal pay for equal works requires, by definition, abandoning capitalism. Capitalism is allowing owners of the means of production to determine the distribution of revenue from that production. If you mandate equal pay for equal work, you are by definition no allowing the owners to determine distribution of revenue. So pick what you want, equal pay or capitalism. I'd go with the former myself.

jessica says

The biggest takeaway is if you were to monetize flexibility, the gap between men and women at the same professional level would likely disappear.

I've heard that men are more likely to haggle for a higher starting salary, and may be more likely to change jobs for a higher salary, while women may be more likely to accept the first offer and stay put.

Also, I wonder if women are more likely to choose jobs that divert more of their salary into "benefits," e.g. mandatory insurance programs. WSJ reported that the then-mandatory WI teachers' union contract diverted around half of total payments to mandatory "benefits", including $24k/yr medical insurance per teacher. Unfortunately, women do seem more likely to sign up for unnecessary and injurious tests, e.g. excessive diagnostic radiation, so policies that cover "free" diagnostic tests can cost a lot.

anonymous says

Growing up in supposedly the predominant race as well as the race/gender combination I realized as a child the degrees of discrimination that existed just within that little realm.

You are projecting your childhood experience as that race/discrimination perception onto everyone. Now do you really think that's smart to say if a few people feel certain way, therefore everyone else does? You are not the only person who has ever been discriminated against, I have been discriminated against plenty whenever it was beneficial to the other side. But I don't assume every little "unequal outcome" is discrimination like you do.

The difference here is if one does not get a loan because he/she can't pay their bills, you see that as discrimination, I see it as common sense. That is because you are very much on the left and see everything as discrimination and matter of equal outcomes for everyone. That's a general problem with the left, the mindset.

Then again - if you were a white and best of all a male, chances are low any of this would have affected you or at least very much.

-----------

White Guys: "There is no racism or discrimination. Us White Guys are the least racist of all, ever! Bigly!!"

Dan8267 says

argue that voter ID laws are intended to fight voter fraud is an utter lie. Every voter ID law every proposed by Republicans have been designed solely for the purpose of rigging elections by preventing legal voters from voting. That is the entire intention, and it's painfully obvious. To say otherwise is a lie.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/voter-id-proponents-point-to-laws-in-other-countries/2012/07/12/gJQAVlGCfW_blog.html?utm_term=.f1f77f5f2da4#comments

Same for leftists who say it's discriminatory..in your world, leftist = republican = conservative, but whatever

One commenter, who is prob more sensible states:

"the authors ...

"...also pointed out that in many other countries, it’s much easier to obtain identification than it is in the United States because ID cards are issued to all citizens automatically:

“Countries such as Spain, Greece, France, Malta, Belgium, and Italy provide national identity documents to their citizens to use for many purposes, including travel, banking, and healthcare access as well as voting.”

That says it all doesn't it?

The obvious solution is a national ID system, applicable to all citizens, for a whole host of purposes, including voting, banking and healthcare.

But who are those who always obstruct and delay and drag their feet on a sensible national ID system?

A few libertarians on the right (mostly anti-tax zealots) plus the usual crowd of "advocates" on the left for various minorities and immigrants on the left who want to crash the gates to get government benefits.

drBu says

Alternatively, we have to agree that realtors discriminate against whites to benefit Asians.

Other than your neck of woods in California, where else is that true?

MMR says

But who are those who always obstruct and delay and drag their feet on a sensible national ID system?

A few libertarians on the right (mostly anti-tax zealots) plus the usual crowd of "advocates" on the left for various minorities and immigrants on the left who want to crash the gates to get government benefits.

I'd argue that there are a lot more "advocates" on left than tea partiers, but anybody with an opposing idea is telling bald-faced lies

MMR says

your neck of woods in California

I live in purple area of a very red state with a very high percentage of Asians, and not CA. With respect to your question, please see nationwide data which I linked above: http://www.financialsamurai.com/mortgage-interest-rates-by-race

this is not in CA, it is over US of A as a whole.

errc says

Us White Guys are the least racist of all

I am not sure about that, but I have enough Asian, Pacific Islanders, Hispanics etc around me and they are not Mother Theresa with respect to stereotyping and many of them have interesting attitudes towards other races.

"Of course, again. I'd be shocked if that were not the case. But by SWJ logic, we should accuse banks of racism for allowing Asians to get better interest rates."

Patrick--studies obviously understand that income and credit scores affect rates and they normalize for those variables.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/06/29/bank-pay-106m-over-loan-discrimination-charges/86526572/

"However, the court complaint charged that an audio recording of a internal BancorpSouth meeting around September 2012 "clearly articulates the bank's policy or practice to reject minority applicants more quickly than white applicants, as well as the bank's perception of African Americans."

"During the session, a BancorpSouth manager instructed loan officers and processors that mortgage applications from minorities and others the bank viewed as "protected class" members should be "turned down" in 21 days, the complaint said. "Borderline" customers should also be turned down quickly, the manager said, while applications from whites were not subject to shorter reviews, the complaint alleged."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jpmorgan-mortgage-minorities-20170118-story.html
"Between 2006 and 2009, JPMorgan charged at least 53,000 black and Latino borrowers more than white borrowers with the same credit and risk profile"

I could post about a thousand more. But, rest assured, that the people writing these stories are well aware of credit scores and income.

Injustice is worth opposing no matter who it is committed against!

That said, banks are in the business of doing loans, and nobody at the bank gets paid for turning people down for loans. In fact, it costs the bank money to initiate or prequalify someone for a loan whether or not they qualify. So if they're making a policy like this to turn down marginal candidates of a certain culture, it's for an economic reason. Sure they're making a generality and that's what stereotypes actually are! But it's apparently in their best economic interest to do so. If we want this behavior to change, we need to tip the economic scales towards giving out loans to marginal minority applicants. A program that incentivizes a banker for making these loans would help, but could also really hurt too! Remember what happened in 2008? A crapload of marginal minorities got loans for homes they couldn't afford and then foreclosed. It almost crashed our banking system.
Be careful when you try to mess with economics. The market doesn't come with training wheels for the less fortunate.

It's not the market doing this--it's humans with human emotions and human prejudices. Loans made to minorities in red lined districts (CRA) actually performed better than other loans during the 2008 crisis.

Quigley says

Injustice is worth opposing no matter who it is committed against!

Pollution is an injustice committed against everyone including future generations. Oppose that.

joeyjojojunior says

"Between 2006 and 2009, JPMorgan charged at least 53,000 black and Latino borrowers more than white borrowers with the same credit and risk profile"

Probably just cherry picking statistics, that's very typical. Statistics are misleading, kind of like speaking English gives cancer statistic.

"Probably just cherry picking statistics, that's very typical. Statistics are misleading, kind of like speaking English gives cancer statistic."

When did it become so easy for people to simply disregard out of hand facts and truth because it disagrees with their preconceived notions?

Dan8267 says

Job titles are meaningless, but show the data anyway. I've search long and hard for the actual data, and it's nowhere to be found. And no, a report with zero actual figures written by some anonymous bureaucrat does not constitute evidence or data.

https://www.bls.gov/cps/data.htm

I know there was just news about how Google said the effort would be too expensive to get data for their employees in relating to a pay gap so I agree that expansive data across companies is probably hard to come by. The BLS has a sample size of 60,000 but it seems to be pretty raw.

You don't have facts, you have opinions

joeyjojojunior says

"Probably just cherry picking statistics, that's very typical. Statistics are misleading, kind of like speaking English gives cancer statistic."

When did it become so easy for people to simply disregard out of hand facts and truth because it disagrees with their preconceived notions?

No-it's a fact that J.P Morgan charged minority applicants higher rates than non-minorities with the same credit and risk profile.

That is not an opinion. It is a fact.

My favorite MLK quote. The liberals don't want to hear it of course.

jessica says

I know there was just news about how Google said the effort would be too expensive to get data for their employees in relating to a pay gap so I agree that expansive data across companies is probably hard to come by.

1. We live in the Information Age. Getting this data is damn cheap. About five cents for all 310+ million Americans if no profit-taking is had.
2. It would not matter how hard the data is to come by. Once it is had, publishing it on the Internet is free.
3. If the data has not been gathered, then there is no credence to the assertion that a pay gap exists. If the data has been gathered, there is no reason not to publish it to support the assertion. Not only would publishing the data prove the assertion if it is true, but it is also absolutely necessary in order to understand the problem in detail and to solve it.

No one should take seriously any claim by someone who says "I have evidence for this, but I won't show you.". That is a red flag. If someone came to my office making such a claim, I would kick his ass out immediately for wasting my time.

Even personal data can be anonymized without compromising the demographics. This is literally done every freaking day on planet Earth by literally thousands of organizations. This problem has been solved. There is no excuse for not backing up such a politically polarizing claim with evidence.

In any case, I would be extremely shocked if such data were even possible to gather under the current system. We live in a capitalist society. That means one and only one thing: the owners pay people based on bargaining power, not productivity. Not only would this make equal pay for equal work impossible, regardless of whether the inequality has any correlation to gender, but it also incentivizes the owners to create an information disparity between themselves and the employee thus making the collection of the very data you need to support your assertion impossible to gather. The best you can do is compare pays for job titles within the same company, and that's like comparing pay for employees with the same car color. It's completely meaningless. If the hidden statistics is based on that, then they are worthless regardless of whether or not that anonymous bureaucrat did the math right, and he or she probably didn't.

There's a reason why all math and science papers show their work and the evidence, and are peer reviewed. Doing math and science right is damn hard. Doing math and science wrong is damn easy. Most people, especially non-scientists, do the latter. Non-peer-reviewed studies are worthless. Assertions based on statements of private studies with no work shown are worst than worthless. They are propaganda and should never be taken seriously.

FortWayne says

You don't have facts, you have opinions

FortWayne is talking to himself, now?

You are not stating why, you are assuming the why.

So I tell you it's a fact that English speaking people have more cancers.

joeyjojojunior says

No-it's a fact that J.P Morgan charged minority applicants higher rates than non-minorities with the same credit and risk profile.

That is not an opinion. It is a fact.

MMR says

leftist = republican = conservative

Not even remotely true. You clearly also have reading comprehension problems. I'm beginning to suspect that many people are utterly incapable of comprehending anything that violates their tribalism. This should be a named law. Let's call it the law of Tribal Willful Ignorance or TWI for short.

The left, the right, Stalinist, and Islamists are all conservative tribes. There are also probably dozens more such conservative tribes throughout the world. Clearly these tribes hate each other. They also dominate different power structures precisely because they hate each other and cannot work together.

I've said many times on this site that the Republican Party is dominated by godless greedy owners and batshit crazy, racist, white Christians. Together, they form the conservative right, an unholy marriage created in the 1950s and 1960s by Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy. What was called the left and the right were completely different things before the sixth party system, which I have written about extensively in the threads regarding the last election. So the labels left and right may be the same, but the meaning of those labels changed. The same goes for the two major parties. Same labels, but the parties switched roles and constituents. There's a reason the American South used to vote Democrat as a block and now vote Republican as a block. The Republicans of today are the Democrats of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century. Freedom Caucus equals Dixiecrat.

Anyway, the Republican Party is controlled by the conservative right. The Democrats, unfortunately, are largely dominated by the conservative left. The left doesn't has quite the stranglehold on the Democrats as the right has on the Republicans because the Democrats are composed of anyone who isn't a batshit crazy religious racist or morally bankrupt owner motivated entirely by greed. This is why there are more Democrats than Republicans. It's also why Republicans all vote the same way and the Democrats constantly in-fight. It's easier to brainwash a homogeneous population than a heterogeneous one.

MMR says

“Countries such as Spain, Greece, France, Malta, Belgium, and Italy provide national identity documents to their citizens to use for many purposes, including travel, banking, and healthcare access as well as voting.”

That says it all doesn't it?

The obvious solution is a national ID system, applicable to all citizens, for a whole host of purposes, including voting, banking and healthcare.

But who are those who always obstruct and delay and drag their feet on a sensible national ID system?

1. The politicians in those countries do not try to suppress legal voters using ID laws. As I have proven time and time again with real evidence, the sole purpose of the voter ID laws sponsored by Republicans is to stop legal votes, not illegal ones.

2. I have proposed a national ID system for use in voting and other things that does not suppress votes, but would actually increase votes. Not a single rightwing conservative on PatNet supported that system precisely because it would increase the number of poor blacks who voted. Every one of you objected to it, so clearly it's not about stopping illegal votes to you but rather stopping legal votes.

But hey, prove me wrong. Advocate my system. It uses an unforgable ID that won't keep a single legal person from casting a vote even if he doesn't have the ID at the time. Meanwhile, it will prevent any illegal vote even if someone casts it by flagging votes for verification and providing the person with an unforgable ID on the spot.

So, would you support a system that increases legal voter turnout, especially among the poor and black and Democratic voters, while eliminating the possibility of in-person voter fraud? I await your support.

joeyjojojunior says

"Probably just cherry picking statistics, that's very typical. Statistics are misleading, kind of like speaking English gives cancer statistic."

When did it become so easy for people to simply disregard out of hand facts and truth because it disagrees with their preconceived notions?

What he's saying (or meaning) is Correlation does not equal Causation. These facts exist independently from the conclusions you wish to draw.

"You are not stating why, you are assuming the why. So I tell you it's a fact that English speaking people have more cancers"

Ah, so you think the fact that minorities are charged higher rates is due to a correlation? Care to explain why it is so highly correlated?

@ Quigley--

Yep, I understood his point and just responded. So, what explains the high correlation then?

joeyjojojunior says

@ Quigley--

Yep, I understood his point and just responded. So, what explains the high correlation then?

Plenty of theories have been floated already on this very thread! Take your pick.
My favorite:
Everyone agrees that Afro Americans are the least wealthy of any ethnic group. It would make sense that they have the least credit/cash/ability to buy houses on average. This could stem from a systemic cultural problem whereby they can't seem to get their finances in order. Disordered finances will lead one to ruin no matter what one makes! Ever heard the aphorism: some people will be poor no matter how much money they make!? It's true, because irresponsibility with finances will indebt and impoverish you even if you're making six figures.

My solution: start teaching personal finance in high school! It would be the single most valuable class anyone could take.

It's not just that they are a minority! If that were true, then the same thing would be happening with Asians, Jews, and Middle Easterners. It's not, by the way. In fact, those three minority groups can boast a far higher acceptance rate than whites!
The difference is (I believe) a cultural focus on finance education in those three cultures. Even white people dont get the right finance education they need to be successful.

Quigley says

My favorite:

Everyone agrees that Afro Americans are the least wealthy of any ethnic group. It would make sense that they have the least credit/cash/ability to buy houses on average. This could stem from a systemic cultural problem whereby they can't seem to get their finances in order

No, they adjusted for that. Try again.

Quigley says

It's not just that they are a minority! If that were true, then the same thing would be happening with Asians, Jews, and Middle Easterners. It's not, by the way. In fact, those three minority groups can boast a far higher acceptance rate than whites!

The difference is (I believe) a cultural focus on finance education in those three cultures. Even white people dont get the right finance education they need to be successful.

I think the problem is their leaders. Black leaders, the liberals, who constantly scream that all blacks are worthless and are oppressed and there is no point of trying in life unless you are a basketball star or a drug dealer. They are fucking their own over with the message they are sending to their children, just so they can become their self appointed "leaders". Those people like Al Sharpton are real dirt bags. When a black man succeeds and does not agree with the message, they become a pariah of the "black leaders" group. Those fucks even were criticizing Obama until Obama came out to kiss their asses. I remember Sharpton criticizing Obama, because he was afraid that Obama would inspire black people to rise above stupid identity politics and make Sharptons of the world irrelevant.