5 ms·

This paints a great picture, thank you. You're not arguing whether she deserves it, but whether the law actually ties the two together properly. My point here h

This paints a great picture, thank you. You're not arguing whether she deserves it, but whether the law actually ties the two together properly. My point here however was to not only fix the algorithms but the laws too. Idealistic, I know.

gojomo 7y ago
But what ideals require that spouses' assets & liabilities be even more strongly linked, and any offered credit always identical, and that it should be even easier for creditors to pursue people for their spouses' debts? (As you've not described these ideals, just asserted them, is the rationale religious in nature?) The fact that jurisdictions as varied as California, Illinois, most other US states, Spain, & much of the EU don't yet do that is evidence to me that any "idealistic" case driving such a determination mustn't be too widely held. And many couples prefer the separate treatment that's allowed them by current law. (Can you imagine the rage from a DHH-type, in mirror-universe where he and his wife had worked to maintain separate finances, but the law clipped his credit based on her income & repayment history? It'd be pretty similar!) Finally, even if the laws of every jurisdiction, from towns to the UN, required such a link – it still wouldn't be identically costly/profitable to lend to each spouse of a pair, or equivalently costly/easy to collect in difficult situations. Married partners don't become identical in earning power, conscientiousness, concern about their credit-rating, profitability, etc by either the act of marriage or any legislative fiat by people who wish that might be so. In matters of the heart, sure, defer to romantics who see marriage as a total, unquestionable unification of two people into one eternal unit. In actuarial matters of lifetime probability and credit risk, defer to the people who have the real data & money on-the-line: creditors.
- shanemlk 7y ago
  I've always assumed the origins of marriage were religious in nature and that the only legal purpose was to join finances. But after doing a google search to not look like an idiot, it seems like marriage was started to legitimize children and that religion didn't officially get involved in marriage til around the 8th century. So I do have to say, my "idealistic" side is falling apart at this point. I still have my concerns about her having 5% of the credit limit of her husband based on current laws. The difference in credit limit here is so great that it seems at first glance to be a general calculation mistake. I don't think we can safely take sexism off the table (if their lives were swapped but not their gender, would DHH have received a credit limit that was 5% of his wife's?). Unfortunately, it sounds like we'll never know what variables were at play here and how they impacted the calculation.

gojomo 7y ago

But what ideals require that spouses' assets & liabilities be even more strongly linked, and any offered credit always identical, and that it should be even easier for creditors to pursue people for their spouses' debts? (As you've not described these ideals, just asserted them, is the rationale religious in nature?) The fact that jurisdictions as varied as California, Illinois, most other US states, Spain, & much of the EU don't yet do that is evidence to me that any "idealistic" case driving such a determination mustn't be too widely held. And many couples prefer the separate treatment that's allowed them by current law. (Can you imagine the rage from a DHH-type, in mirror-universe where he and his wife had worked to maintain separate finances, but the law clipped his credit based on her income & repayment history? It'd be pretty similar!) Finally, even if the laws of every jurisdiction, from towns to the UN, required such a link – it still wouldn't be identically costly/profitable to lend to each spouse of a pair, or equivalently costly/easy to collect in difficult situations. Married partners don't become identical in earning power, conscientiousness, concern about their credit-rating, profitability, etc by either the act of marriage or any legislative fiat by people who wish that might be so. In matters of the heart, sure, defer to romantics who see marriage as a total, unquestionable unification of two people into one eternal unit. In actuarial matters of lifetime probability and credit risk, defer to the people who have the real data & money on-the-line: creditors.

shanemlk 7y ago
I've always assumed the origins of marriage were religious in nature and that the only legal purpose was to join finances. But after doing a google search to not look like an idiot, it seems like marriage was started to legitimize children and that religion didn't officially get involved in marriage til around the 8th century. So I do have to say, my "idealistic" side is falling apart at this point. I still have my concerns about her having 5% of the credit limit of her husband based on current laws. The difference in credit limit here is so great that it seems at first glance to be a general calculation mistake. I don't think we can safely take sexism off the table (if their lives were swapped but not their gender, would DHH have received a credit limit that was 5% of his wife's?). Unfortunately, it sounds like we'll never know what variables were at play here and how they impacted the calculation.