Racism is dead!

[HomerJS]

The statistics don’t say anything about causation. My statement says exactly what the dead bodies say, that blacks are both victimized and commit homicide at rates several multiples of whites, something like 6 or 8 times. Likewise the higher default rates for blacks doesn’t suggest causal factor.

Here's what you omit. People are victimized by people they are near. 88% of whites are victimized by other whites. >90% of blacks are victimized by other blacks.(from memory don't have exact numbers)

Again the phrase "blacks commit" asserts the commit is because of the black

 

[glenn1]

Here's what you omit. People are victimized by people they are near. 88% of whites are victimized by other whites. >90% of blacks are victimized by other blacks.(from memory don't have exact numbers)

Again the phrase "blacks commit" asserts the commit is because of the black

Using percentages doesn’t distract from overall numbers. If you’re willing to deny that per unbiased statistics like those provided by the FBI that per capita blacks are highly over represented in both sides of homicide statistics then I don’t think we share enough reality to have a worthwhile conversation. Denying reality because you don’t like its implications is a poor precondition for determining g what policies should be supported to change that reality.

 

[HomerJS]

Using percentages doesn’t distract from overall numbers. If you’re willing to deny that per unbiased statistics like those provided by the FBI that per capita blacks are highly over represented in both sides of homicide statistics then I don’t think we share enough reality to have a worthwhile conversation. Denying reality because you don’t like its implications is a poor precondition for determining g what policies should be supported to change that reality.

Your defense of statistics is noteworthy while at the same time discounting mine.

 

[glenn1]

Your defense of statistics is noteworthy while at the same time discounting mine.

I’m discounting their relevance not their accuracy. That blacks kill more blacks and whites more whites and it’s likely due to proximity is an interesting factoid. But it has no relevance to why black per capita rates of both homicide and mortgage default are higher than whites and other races. Thus leading to the implication that we may need to move away from ostensibly “race blind” decision factors (like perhaps credit score) which lead to lower approval rates. For then it’s a decision about whether the result of more equal results should be favored over a more equal process. That’s a perfectly reasonable position to take but we should acknowledge that’s the choice we’re making and state explicitly for all why we are doing it.

 

[sweenish]

Are default data racist also? Like I posted earlier blacks have higher default rates despite facing discrimination. It would be preferable and more honest to say to achieve your social policy aims, you’d be OK with making originators use looser lending standards for blacks to achieve loan parity. With the acknowledged understanding that per previously obtained statistics we know their default rates will be higher and thus likely losses higher as well. That’s not being racist or patronizing, it’s being honest with reality.

I was not posting on topic. I don't have enough information to contribute to the the notion that banks are racist. I would not be surprised either way, though.

My response was about the notion that all liberals think affirmative action is the only policy solution to racism. I mean, obviously it's not, but the idea that there should be a policy solution is stupid. People should just maybe stop discriminating based on skin color and invented stereotypes.

I think what would be great is making it easier to sue racists for things like passing a minority over for a job, denying someone with solid credit history a loan, etc. (Aside, credit scores are themselves just a massive scam). In this way, they simply can't afford to be racist, and hopefully we stop giving a voice to these people.

EDIT: I really don't have great solutions, but I've worked alongside closet racists/bigots/misogynists, and it amazes me how much credence they're given on almost all topics.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

The one piece of information not used in the study was credit score. Did you all read that way down at the bottom? They didn't include credit scores when looking at rejection numbers. Do you think there might be a connection between credit score and getting a loan? It's almost like they won't lend money to people that have a history of not paying it back.

You sir get the fuck out of here with your logic and thought process to critique opinionated news pieces. That has no place here, and you know it!

No but seriously, have you guys all gone full retard? I don't even need a study to state that blacks and latinos are much more likely to have a low credit score than a white person. That isn't racism, it's just a fact of life. Credit scores can't discriminate - it's based entirely upon your own actions.

 

[umbrella39]

So what you are saying is minorities are more apt to be scofflaws and not pay their credit cards?

All you need is a median 580 to qualify for an FHA mortgage... I'm not full retard enough yet to think that Latinos and Blacks have intrinsically lower scores simply because they are minorities. You said that which I'm pretty sure isn't going to surprise anyone reading... Your own actions you know...

 

[Zaap]

No but seriously, have you guys all gone full retard?

THIS forum?

All day, everyday, all the time.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So what you are saying is minorities are more apt to be scofflaws and not pay their credit cards?

All you need is a median 580 to qualify for an FHA mortgage... I'm not full retard enough yet to think that Latinos and Blacks have intrinsically lower scores simply because they are minorities. You said that which I'm pretty sure isn't going to surprise anyone reading... Your own actions you know...

Anyone can qualify for any loan - the question is if you - as a bank loaning funds - want to take the risk.

So to state something stupid like "All you need is a median 580 to qualify for an FHA mortgage" is stupid. A 580 is what I started with when I had no credit history. That doesn't mean that you have the income. That doesn't mean you have the down payment.

 

[glenn1]

So what you are saying is minorities are more apt to be scofflaws and not pay their credit cards?

All you need is a median 580 to qualify for an FHA mortgage... I'm not full retard enough yet to think that Latinos and Blacks have intrinsically lower scores simply because they are minorities. You said that which I'm pretty sure isn't going to surprise anyone reading... Your own actions you know...

I think you're attempting to ascribe some kind of moral judgement to people who are just citing statistics that on the surface don't look good for a particular group. If you can remove your desire to find some kind of way we're making into something racist then it would be easier to engage with you. For example, if I cited statistics indicating that on average, blacks are less likely to be proficient swimmers that doesn't mean I'm a Klansman saying "aha this shows that blacks are the inferior race." It does mean however that while "ability to swim" might logically seem like a good neutral criteria for selecting someone like a PE instructor, when we look at the results we realize while it seems like an unbiased standard it actually has an outsized and adverse impact on blacks even though there was absolutely no racial intent. Credit scores might have the same dynamics where although there was no intent for it to produce 'racist' outcomes it still effectively does.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I think you're attempting to ascribe some kind of moral judgement to people who are just citing statistics that on the surface don't look good for a particular group. If you can remove your desire to find some kind of way we're making into something racist then it would be easier to engage with you. For example, if I cited statistics indicating that on average, blacks are less likely to be proficient swimmers that doesn't mean I'm a Klansman saying "aha this shows that blacks are the inferior race." It does mean however that while "ability to swim" might logically seem like a good neutral criteria for selecting someone like a PE instructor, when we look at the results we realize while it seems like an unbiased standard it actually has an outsized and adverse impact on blacks even though there was absolutely no racial intent. Credit scores might have the same dynamics where although there was no intent for it to produce 'racist' outcomes it still effectively does.

Racism is a 2-way street. If white people being more adept to swimming is considered "racism" or "biased" even then by default the fact that just about every runner in the Olympics is black should be as well. But of course, everyone doesn't acknowledge hypocrisy like that and thus we have double standards. Go figure.

 

[HeXen]

Dead? I get discriminated against for being white all the time by blacks. Actually just 2 weeks ago at McD's, I'm the only one at the counter and the black male behind the counter pokes around, pretending to be busy as he occasionally glances at me to see if I'm still there as i'm just staring at him. I decided to time it on my phone, 9 minutes and some seconds is how long he continued to ignore me before my staring at him made him uncomfortable enough to finally take my order. That's his little way of fixing racism and I find that stuff funny actually. I'm just glad blacks can't be racist because of *excuse despite it defeats the definition.

Racism is about how you are treated, the caveat is that most people treat others based from a myriad of factors such as dress, how they speak, attitude..etc. In general everyone seems to treat others politely when face to face alone for situations involving business errands, transactions..etc but really shitty from behind a wheel, behind a keyboard, behind their back, in collusion with peers..etc.

 

[glenn1]

Racism is a 2-way street. If white people being more adept to swimming is considered "racism" or "biased" even then by default the fact that just about every runner in the Olympics is black should be as well. But of course, everyone doesn't acknowledge hypocrisy like that and thus we have double standards. Go figure.

Yes this is true, although in the example of the Olympics we have an objective standard by which to judge to see the black athletes perform better (I have no idea if this is true, but go with it for sake of argument). In the case of blacks and mortgage loans we have a standard which while seemingly objective (rejection rates for blacks vs. other races) may not be the ideal metric as the causation factors may be more complex than "blacks are victims of racism." Since the banks have regulatory incentives to demonstrate how their policies and procedures would ostensibly show they're not making decisions on racist basis, perhaps we need to reconsider whether that's the correct metric to use. Or maybe consider whether these well-intended efforts are actually leading to perverse consequences that end up causing the opposite of the social policy we're trying to achieve. Perhaps for example to try to avoid outsized rejection rates for blacks based on "neutral" criteria, lenders are trying to sandbag black lenders into seeking lower mortgages they'd be more likely to be approved for. This in turn means those black borrowers either self-select or get pushed into buying homes in lesser desirable neighborhoods, which in turn appreciate less than a home in a different neighborhood thus driving higher default rates even though the presumption would be the black borrowers would be more easily able to service the debt on a "cheaper" loan.

I'm guessing that we need to completely rethink what we want our social policy outcome to be, which might mean going away from "approval rates for mortgage applications should be about equal between blacks and whites otherwise it's evidence of racism" and move to something like "show how you lending decision supports the lowest chance for borrower default." The first metric might lead to trying to link blacks to buying houses in the ghetto (because they're cheaper) and then lose to default, where the second might mean lenders push black borrowers to stretch their budgets to buy a house in the "white suburbs" because with future appreciation they were less likely to default in the future.

Basically my point is that we can't start with the assumption that banks are deliberately trying to screw blacks due to racism. We need to start with the assumption the banks may need to treat borrowers of different races differently in order to best serve them, indeed being a good fiduciary to them might mean that we can't treat blacks the way we would treat whites. Maybe our goal needs to be changed from "treat everyone identically regardless of race or other factors" to "help everyone achieve the best possible outcomes even if it means you need to treat them differently because of race."

 

[Amused]

A good example. More to come. When adjusted for income, the crime rates for whites and blacks are quite equal.

The issue is poverty, not skin color.

But racists gotta racist, I guess.

Tell the lowliest white man he's better than the highest black man, and (LBJ quote stops, my own inserted) he'll believe anything else you tell him and vote for you against his own interests.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137


Household Poverty And Nonfatal Violent Victimization, 2008–2012
Erika Harrell, Ph.D., Lynn Langton, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Lance Couzens, Hope Smiley-McDonald, Ph.D., RTI International

November 18, 2014 NCJ 248384



Presents findings from 2008 to 2012 on the relationship between households that were above or below the federal poverty level and nonfatal violent victimization, including rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. This report examines the violent victimization experiences of persons living in households at various levels of poverty, focusing on type of violence, victim's race or Hispanic origin, and location of residence. It also examines the percentage of violent victimizations reported to the police by poverty level. Data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. During 2012, about 92,390 households and 162,940 persons were interviewed for the NCVS.



Highlights:

• 
  For the period 2008–12—
• Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).
• Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000).
• The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.
• Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
• Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).
• Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

 

[cytg111]

I get discriminated against some times at work when in a group where I am the only male. Bitches gang up on me.
I also get discriminated at work due to age, there is a whole christmas party I cant attend cause I am too old (over 30).
I am pretty sure I get discriminated against also cause I am a ginger .. no soul and all that.
Also, when I am buying drugs, cause I look like a I dont 'belong' in the scenery the dealer charges me more.
Also .... Ok, some of these may be made up.
I think it is a tribal instinct, some basic instinctive way to find a group to bond with over something, it ups the survival chance. I will also bet 5$ that this is described pretty extensively in sociology and psychology literature. If only we were taught these basic things about our own nature in school. Oh well.

 

[glenn1]

A good example. More to come. When adjusted for income, the crime rates for whites and blacks are quite equal.

The issue is poverty, not skin color.

But racists gotta racist, I guess.

Tell the lowliest white man he's better than the highest black man, and (LBJ quote stops, my own inserted) he'll believe anything else you tell him and vote for you against his own interests.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137


Household Poverty And Nonfatal Violent Victimization, 2008–2012
Erika Harrell, Ph.D., Lynn Langton, Ph.D., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Marcus Berzofsky, Dr.P.H., Lance Couzens, Hope Smiley-McDonald, Ph.D., RTI International

November 18, 2014 NCJ 248384



Presents findings from 2008 to 2012 on the relationship between households that were above or below the federal poverty level and nonfatal violent victimization, including rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. This report examines the violent victimization experiences of persons living in households at various levels of poverty, focusing on type of violence, victim's race or Hispanic origin, and location of residence. It also examines the percentage of violent victimizations reported to the police by poverty level. Data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes, reported and not reported to the police, against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. During 2012, about 92,390 households and 162,940 persons were interviewed for the NCVS.



Highlights:

• 
  For the period 2008–12—
• Persons in poor households at or below the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) (39.8 per 1,000) had more than double the rate of violent victimization as persons in high-income households (16.9 per 1,000).
• Persons in poor households had a higher rate of violence involving a firearm (3.5 per 1,000) compared to persons above the FPL (0.8–2.5 per 1,000).
• The overall pattern of poor persons having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both whites and blacks. However, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary across poverty levels.
• Poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000) had lower rates of violence compared to poor whites (46.4 per 1,000) and poor blacks (43.4 per 1,000).
• Poor persons living in urban areas (43.9 per 1,000) had violent victimization rates similar to poor persons living in rural areas (38.8 per 1,000).
• Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

Dead bodies don't really care about adjustments for income. I don't think the sheriff coming to repossess the house of someone who defaults on their loan really cares much about it either. Again I don't know why you're making a fuss about this, presenting those statistics were meant to show an example of where there was a difference between races (incarceration rates are another) where an ostensibly "neutral" system led to adverse results for blacks with a suggestion that it's likely the 'neutral system' that needs changing and not some moral failings on the part of the impacted blacks.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I get discriminated against some times at work when in a group where I am the only male. Bitches gang up on me.
I also get discriminated at work due to age, there is a whole christmas party I cant attend cause I am too old (over 30).
I am pretty sure I get discriminated against also cause I am a ginger .. no soul and all that.
Also, when I am buying drugs, cause I look like a I dont 'belong' in the scenery the dealer charges me more.
Also .... Ok, some of these may be made up.
I think it is a tribal instinct, some basic instinctive way to find a group to bond with over something, it ups the survival chance. I will also bet 5$ that this is described pretty extensively in sociology and psychology literature. If only we were taught these basic things about our own nature in school. Oh well.

You're a ginger?! Can we get you banned for that?

 

[Atreus21]

Clearly now that we've had a black president there's no more invidious racism in the US and people of equal situations get treated equally by institutions regardless of their skin color

https://www.revealnews.org/article/for-people-of-color-banks-are-shutting-the-door-to-homeownership/

It said it controlled for income, loan amount and neighborhood. Did it control for credit score/history?

 

[Atreus21]

Probably a smart position for them to take considering the information would be used against them given disparate impact results despite their lending criteria being race blind. You might not like that reality but it is reality, just like the reality that blacks commit homicude at rates multiples of whites. Statistics aren’t racist, ignoring them because you don’t like the implications of them to your social policy can be however.

Even if that is so, it's wrong to say, "you're black, therefore you're a risk."

If blacks are being denied at a greater rate owing to poor credit history, then that's fair. But if not, then it's not.

 

[urvile]

cause I am too old (over 30).

I know where you are coming from there dude. On occasion millennials send me emails at work comprised entirely of txt language? Stuff like r u gud? I hate it. Because I have to spend several hours deciphering it so I can reply. The last thing I want is for them to think I am passed it. Those little fuckers will eat me alive. They can sense senility and fear from a mile away.

 

[Atreus21]

Basically my point is that we can't start with the assumption that banks are deliberately trying to screw blacks due to racism. We need to start with the assumption the banks may need to treat borrowers of different races differently in order to best serve them, indeed being a good fiduciary to them might mean that we can't treat blacks the way we would treat whites. Maybe our goal needs to be changed from "treat everyone identically regardless of race or other factors" to "help everyone achieve the best possible outcomes even if it means you need to treat them differently because of race."

I don't see the justice in that unless race is directly relevant, such as hiring for a Chinese restaurant, or in the case of sex discrimination, hiring a woman to play in the WNBA.

 

[umbrella39]

Anyone can qualify for any loan - the question is if you - as a bank loaning funds - want to take the risk.

So to state something stupid like "All you need is a median 580 to qualify for an FHA mortgage" is stupid. A 580 is what I started with when I had no credit history. That doesn't mean that you have the income. That doesn't mean you have the down payment.

We were talking about credit scores to qualify for a mortgage. I mentioned nothing of all the other things you'd CLEARLY need to get to the goal line. You've moved the goalposts...

 

[umbrella39]

I think you're attempting to ascribe some kind of moral judgement to people who are just citing statistics that on the surface don't look good for a particular group. If you can remove your desire to find some kind of way we're making into something racist then it would be easier to engage with you. For example, if I cited statistics indicating that on average, blacks are less likely to be proficient swimmers that doesn't mean I'm a Klansman saying "aha this shows that blacks are the inferior race." It does mean however that while "ability to swim" might logically seem like a good neutral criteria for selecting someone like a PE instructor, when we look at the results we realize while it seems like an unbiased standard it actually has an outsized and adverse impact on blacks even though there was absolutely no racial intent. Credit scores might have the same dynamics where although there was no intent for it to produce 'racist' outcomes it still effectively does.

What are you on brother glenn? I posted a truth about the median of the 3 scores that one must have to even been considered for an FHA loan. Nothing of the down payment or means to pay a mortgage. He made a pretty stupid and fairly racist remark about minorities having lower credit scores because they are minorities. He cited no stats so your anecdote is just that. Sorry, I'm not a finger pointing "You are a Racist" poster. Wrong tree. I have no desire to ferret out racism here. With some posters it's like using a vowel and sticks out like a sore thumb...

 

[Ackmed]

What are you on brother glenn? I posted a truth about the median of the 3 scores that one must have to even been considered for an FHA loan. Nothing of the down payment or means to pay a mortgage. He made a pretty stupid and fairly racist remark about minorities having lower credit scores because they are minorities. He cited no stats so your anecdote is just that. Sorry, I'm not a finger pointing "You are a Racist" poster. Wrong tree. I have no desire to ferret out racism here. With some posters it's like using a vowel and sticks out like a sore thumb...

First link when searched; https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cred...r-110000848.html#9-creditcards-survey-loyalty

In 2013, more than 64 percent of white American borrowers had a FICO score of 720 or higher compared with 41 percent of Latino borrowers and 33 percent of African-American borrowers.

Im not suggesting that blacks have a lower average score just because they are black. That would be silly. There are other things you can get from that linked article, one being that blacks are twice as likely (15% to 7%) to being "credit invisible", meaning they do not have enough credit to even get a score. Its clear that other factors play a part in credit score too, age, income, state, etc.

I believe that the underlying issues are what play a big part in credit scores. Its not solely the color of ones skin. In fact, race plays no part in the score. How we are raised plays a big part, and I would like to see more emphasis on educating young people about credit. What can hurt you, what can help you, how to get and maintain a good score. Credit score doesn't really matter to those who live a life of paying in cash/debit, never taking out a car or hours loan, or any other line of credit. For those that do, a bad credit score can cripple them. Higher rates, bigger deposit, and more. It can seriously limit your life choices and drag you down for years. Starting off behind is only going to compound that. I genuinely feel for people I talk to that struggle so badly because of credit, that are depressed.

The data from that article and several more I looked at all say the same thing. Blacks have lower credit score on average than whites, Asians, and Latinos in America. It is not because the color of their skin. Its for a whole host of other reasons, that a lot of people don't want to talk about. Any time certain things come up, the messenger is attacked instead of trying to figure out the problems. Like with other issues, we need to combat the root of the problem, not waiting until it becomes a full fledged weed. Attack the issue when its starting. This all starts with education, family, and environment. Those of us who can help need to step up. I for one would like to change the narrative on this and other issues. If we do nothing, things will continue to get worse and worse. Its hard to blame someone for their actions 100%, when they may not have any guidance whatsoever. Left to make our own way, I don't think all of us would make good life decisions.

 

[HomerJS]

Basically my point is that we can't start with the assumption that banks are deliberately trying to screw blacks due to racism. We need to start with the assumption the banks may need to treat borrowers of different races differently in order to best serve them, indeed being a good fiduciary to them might mean that we can't treat blacks the way we would treat whites. Maybe our goal needs to be changed from "treat everyone identically regardless of race or other factors" to "help everyone achieve the best possible outcomes even if it means you need to treat them differently because of race."

Do you know banks and governments have a history of redlining. Banks may still be guilty of the practice.

BTW - If credit scores were the only factor how did Donald Trump find banks willing to give him money after his multiple bankruptcies?