This is well known. There is a paper from the FDIC that points out that if you make lending decisions based on platform (iPhone vs android or macOS vs windows) you are likely discriminating because iPhone and macOS skew older, richer, and whiter. It is one of the things that makes letting ML have access to big random data sets for lending and finance so dangerous.
Assuming your question is not rhetorical: because it probably does not predict what you think it does.
People with higher incomes probably buy more expensive phones. You already have their income on a loan application, so you don't need a blackbox NN model to confirm it.
Throwing in a bunch of corrolated features into a model won't help improve accuracy.
But if you throw in a bunch of weak features that together sum to a predictor of race (or other protected attributes), then aside from being grossly unethical, may well be illegal.
If race and _____ are correlated, won't any predictor of _______ also be a predictor of race? That logic could be used to even ban using income as a predictor.
Everything is corrolated [1]. So putting that aside, context matters.
Contextually there is no reason to suspect that a phone operating system has anything to do with anyone's ability to repay a loan, anymore than the color of their car or their eye color.
Income and existing debt does, obviously.
What you don't want, and what is not legal, is denying a loan because of nonsense predictors that happen to be very strongly corrolated to race and very weakly corrolated to the ability to repay a loan.
If color of car, or operating system, is a strong predictor then the model is probably being overtrained on the training data and probably wouldn't generalise well in the real world.
I don't know, I think that people with red cars and people with white cars might have different loan repayment behaviors and I think the model should be allowed to try to figure out.
First, a sale of $14M doesn't get you $14 - you'd get less than 10 - best case.
Second, your after inflation return in the current environment may be quite ugly - $300K or $400K a year will not feel rich in any east or west coast city.
Disagree. $300K/yr with $10MM in the bank will absolutely feel rich.
The reason people with $300K household incomes in Boston/NYC/Silicon Valley don't feel rich is because out of that $300K, they're buying housing and saving for retirement/college/rainy day. Take that away, and $300K spendable is a fairly luxurious lifestyle.
I suppose it depends on what feels rich. The kinds of places you go when you are actually rich cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a day, and they have shops where most of the stuff costs tens or hundreds of thousands, and everyone around you is carrying, flying, driving, or sailing things that cost hundreds of thousands or millions.No one I know who makes 300K (after tax) - unless they have a net worth that is in the 10s of millions - feels rich.
There's a huge difference between $300k/year and $300k/year with 7 figures in the bank. The latter means you can afford a down payment on decent property anywhere, which means you are actually making an investment instead of pissing everything away on rent.
If you don't feel rich at that point you need to get your head straight. Obviously there is always someone richer, but you are deep deep into the 1% of the richest country in the world and you need to be thinking about your greater life's purpose.
It's not just $300K/yr of W-2 income being discussed; it's that combined with a net worth of $10MM. You could pay cash for that ~$2 million condo and still have $15K/mo to spend after tax. No need to save for retirement (that's what the $8MM is already covering) or college (break off a bit when that time comes).
If that situation feels "minimum viable" to someone, I don't think their primary problem is money-related.
What a silly argument, this is the top one percentile in net worth and income. You're confusing the behavior of billionaires with what rich actually means.
Nah, 14M isn't enough to practically afford a NetJets card - unless you are making about 5M - in which case you'd expect to have more than 14M. I work on WS and am very senior, so often fly private, and I have a bunch of friends who always fly private. The generally accepted threshold is about 25M with an income of 2-3+ before it makes any sense. I suppose that if you had no other expenses (like a nice house and cars or a thing for vacations or art) you could afford it for a while as your only extravagance, but it isn't that special. In fact, for long haul, 1st on an airline like Cathay or Singapore is better than a G650ER in many ways. For short haul domestic a private jet blows away commercial, but mostly I'd rather spend my money in other ways.
