A few years ago in Glendale a car dealership told a client that loans did not get approved for clients with names ending in "ian" and "yan". You guys and your fantasy race-neutral car buying world...
freeman3 wrote:A few years ago in Glendale a car dealership told a client that loans did not get approved for clients with names ending in "ian" and "yan". You guys and your fantasy race-neutral car buying world...
bbauska wrote:Please show where the race is a component of the loan process resulting in higher loan costs based only on the race.
It would look like this:
Person A has a FICO of 725 and is black. Their costs are x.
Person B has a FICO of 725 and is white. Their costs are y.
Compare x to y on a statistically significant sample size. (alliteration intended)
the most comprehensive study of markups was released last year by Vanderbilt business professor Mark A. Cohen. Professor Cohen studied more than 1.5 million General Motors Acceptance Corporations (“GMAC”) loans made between 1999 and April 2003. [9] Cohen’s study revealed that African-Americans are three times as likely as similarly situated white customers to be charged an interest rate mark-up on their loans financed by the General Motors Acceptance Corporation. According to the report, discrimination in the GMAC loans was across the board, regardless of the profession of a buyer or model of car purchased. Cohen’s report concludes that after conducting “numerous statistical tests” the higher interest rate charged to African-Americans cannot be explained by “creditworthiness or other legitimate business factors.”[10]
Richard Voith, senior vice president of Econsult, a financial-research firm in Philadelphia, has found results similar to those in the Cohen report. Voith’s study was limited to Hispanic car buyers in Chicago. The study, based on millions of Ford Motor Credit loans made between 1997 and 2001, found that buyers with Hispanic surnames paid an average of about $ 266 more per loan than did non-Hispanics with similar credit histories. [18] The study also found that the average loan mark-up for borrowers with Hispanic surnames was 3.46 percentage points. [19] The average non-Hispanic customer got a 2.78 percentage point mark-up.[20]
freeman3 wrote: If you're Japanese...they love you. Very low claims rate. Hispanic? Not so much.
danivon wrote:bbauska wrote:Please show where the race is a component of the loan process resulting in higher loan costs based only on the race.
It would look like this:
Person A has a FICO of 725 and is black. Their costs are x.
Person B has a FICO of 725 and is white. Their costs are y.
Compare x to y on a statistically significant sample size. (alliteration intended)
This paper from Columbia Law cites studies:
http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/defau ... ership.pdfthe most comprehensive study of markups was released last year by Vanderbilt business professor Mark A. Cohen. Professor Cohen studied more than 1.5 million General Motors Acceptance Corporations (“GMAC”) loans made between 1999 and April 2003. [9] Cohen’s study revealed that African-Americans are three times as likely as similarly situated white customers to be charged an interest rate mark-up on their loans financed by the General Motors Acceptance Corporation. According to the report, discrimination in the GMAC loans was across the board, regardless of the profession of a buyer or model of car purchased. Cohen’s report concludes that after conducting “numerous statistical tests” the higher interest rate charged to African-Americans cannot be explained by “creditworthiness or other legitimate business factors.”[10]Richard Voith, senior vice president of Econsult, a financial-research firm in Philadelphia, has found results similar to those in the Cohen report. Voith’s study was limited to Hispanic car buyers in Chicago. The study, based on millions of Ford Motor Credit loans made between 1997 and 2001, found that buyers with Hispanic surnames paid an average of about $ 266 more per loan than did non-Hispanics with similar credit histories. [18] The study also found that the average loan mark-up for borrowers with Hispanic surnames was 3.46 percentage points. [19] The average non-Hispanic customer got a 2.78 percentage point mark-up.[20]
freeman3 wrote:Personal injury claims rates do vary by race. It seems impossible that they would do it directly that way...maybe some other non-racial factor that gets tied into race, I don't know. Maybe claims rates by zip code? I have no idea. But there are noticeable differences.
To which I would answer, what evidence do we have that this has changed in the period since?Doctor Fate wrote:This is compelling.
However, as it appears to be 15 years old, it does raise the question as to whether this is still the practice.
danivon wrote:To which I would answer, what evidence do we have that this has changed in the period since?Doctor Fate wrote:This is compelling.
However, as it appears to be 15 years old, it does raise the question as to whether this is still the practice.
In another area of lending, mortgages, this University of Chicago paper - http://home.uchicago.edu/~buchak/papers ... nation.pdf - shows that while the differential reduces when there is greater competition, it still persists, falling by only about 25%.
So, even if there was greater competition in auto-finance than 15 years ago, there is reason to conclude that (absent other major changes to the way that auto-finance operates) racial discrimination would still be a feature.
What other changes can you suggest?
Please show where the race is a component of the loan process resulting in higher loan costs based only on the race.
something tells me you didn't waste much time to read the latest one, which is saying that capitalism - or rather more competition - has reduced discrimination, just not by a lot.Doctor Fate wrote:danivon wrote:To which I would answer, what evidence do we have that this has changed in the period since?Doctor Fate wrote:This is compelling.
However, as it appears to be 15 years old, it does raise the question as to whether this is still the practice.
In another area of lending, mortgages, this University of Chicago paper - http://home.uchicago.edu/~buchak/papers ... nation.pdf - shows that while the differential reduces when there is greater competition, it still persists, falling by only about 25%.
So, even if there was greater competition in auto-finance than 15 years ago, there is reason to conclude that (absent other major changes to the way that auto-finance operates) racial discrimination would still be a feature.
What other changes can you suggest?
Many things change over time.
Here's the thing with academic papers: I'm not going to deconstruct them. If I find ONE that rebuts yours, do I win?
The answer, of course, is "No."
If you believe your paper is objective, then fine. Good for you. If you believe a greedy, money-grubbing capitalist cares more about discriminating than making money, nothing I can say or show is going to change your mind.
That's what we call "wasting time."
Identity politics—the artificial segmentation of Americans into antagonistic groups organized along often imagined ethnic, racial and sexual categories—is tearing America apart. President Trump can do something about it.
Government played a key role in creating these identities. The establishment of a new official taxonomy of Americans started roughly in 1966, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission began asking companies with more than 100 employees to collect information through the EEO-1 form on “Negro, American Indian, Oriental and Spanish-surnamed” employees. What began as an effort to track how policies affected people thought to be disadvantaged easily but tragically slid into government-sanctioned promotion of victimhood and racial preferences. The goal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to prohibit racial discrimination, was turned on its head....
Starting in 1980 the census began tabulating all residents into groups that correspond to a vague and unscientific color code: white, black, brown, yellow and red.
If you don’t think of yourself that way, the government will do it for you. There’s a box on the census for “some other race,” but the bureau explains: “When Census 2010 data were edited to produce the estimates base, respondents who selected the Some Other Race category alone were assigned to one of the OMB mandated categories.”
For people who tick multiple boxes—permissible since 2000—OMB has instructed the Census Bureau to “allocate” responses that “combine one minority race and white” to “the minority race.” As Mr. Hollinger puts it, “thus the federal government quietly reinserted into the tabulation of the census the principle of hypodescent”—the technical term for the old segregationist one-drop rule—“that the opportunity to make ‘more than one’ was publicly said to repudiate.”
Until the Trump administration stopped it last month, the census was preparing to add in 2020 yet another vast pan-ethnic grouping—“Middle East or North Africa”—for residents with ancestry anywhere between Morocco and Iran. That would have made a minority of everyone from Rep. Darrell Issa to the late Steve Jobs.
Every level of American government now follows this scheme, as do most other major institutions. Public schools promote the invidious idea that all subjects, even math, should be taught differently to children depending on where administrators place them on the pentagon. Universities have become cultural battle zones where students search for victim status rather than truth. And if you work for a large organization, there’s someone in your human-resources department whose job is to put you into one of the government-created silos.
Ray Jay wrote:Slightly raising the level of the conversation, here's an interesting op ed I saw earlier this week.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-can- ... ge=1&pos=1
I don't fully agree with this -- we do have this legacy of slavery and segregation over here -- , but I appreciate the level of thought. Here's an excerpt for those who cannot accessIdentity politics—the artificial segmentation of Americans into antagonistic groups organized along often imagined ethnic, racial and sexual categories—is tearing America apart. President Trump can do something about it.
Government played a key role in creating these identities. The establishment of a new official taxonomy of Americans started roughly in 1966, when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission began asking companies with more than 100 employees to collect information through the EEO-1 form on “Negro, American Indian, Oriental and Spanish-surnamed” employees. What began as an effort to track how policies affected people thought to be disadvantaged easily but tragically slid into government-sanctioned promotion of victimhood and racial preferences. The goal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to prohibit racial discrimination, was turned on its head....
Starting in 1980 the census began tabulating all residents into groups that correspond to a vague and unscientific color code: white, black, brown, yellow and red.
If you don’t think of yourself that way, the government will do it for you. There’s a box on the census for “some other race,” but the bureau explains: “When Census 2010 data were edited to produce the estimates base, respondents who selected the Some Other Race category alone were assigned to one of the OMB mandated categories.”
For people who tick multiple boxes—permissible since 2000—OMB has instructed the Census Bureau to “allocate” responses that “combine one minority race and white” to “the minority race.” As Mr. Hollinger puts it, “thus the federal government quietly reinserted into the tabulation of the census the principle of hypodescent”—the technical term for the old segregationist one-drop rule—“that the opportunity to make ‘more than one’ was publicly said to repudiate.”
Until the Trump administration stopped it last month, the census was preparing to add in 2020 yet another vast pan-ethnic grouping—“Middle East or North Africa”—for residents with ancestry anywhere between Morocco and Iran. That would have made a minority of everyone from Rep. Darrell Issa to the late Steve Jobs.
Every level of American government now follows this scheme, as do most other major institutions. Public schools promote the invidious idea that all subjects, even math, should be taught differently to children depending on where administrators place them on the pentagon. Universities have become cultural battle zones where students search for victim status rather than truth. And if you work for a large organization, there’s someone in your human-resources department whose job is to put you into one of the government-created silos.