Comment by vishnugupta
2 years ago
To add to your point; there's an IMF paper[1] backing this claim of "massive money transfer from the poor...to the rich".
I'm quoting the summary below
"We study credit card rewards as an ideal laboratory to quantify redistribution between consumers in retail financial markets. Comparing cards with and without rewards, we find that, regardless of income, sophisticated individuals profit from reward credit cards at the expense of naive consumers. To probe the underlying mechanisms, we exploit bank-initiated account limit increases at the card level and show that reward cards induce more spending, leaving naive consumers with higher unpaid balances. Naive consumers also follow a sub-optimal balance-matching heuristic when repaying their credit cards, incurring higher costs. Banks incentivize the use of reward cards by offering lower interest rates than on comparable cards without rewards. We estimate an aggregate annual redistribution of $15 billion from less to more educated, poorer to richer, and high to low minority areas, widening existing disparities."
[1]
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2023/03/10/Who...
I don't read that paper as backing that claim. At best the paper finds that the mechanism is more complicated than "money transfer from the poor... to the rich". To quote the conclusion directly:
"Notably, our results are not driven by income, as they hold within the sub-samples of low-, middle- and high-income individuals. In particular, high-FICO high-income consumers benefit the most from reward credit cards, but they do so at the expense of low-FICO high-income consumers. While credit card rewards are often framed as a “reverse Robin Hood” mechanism in which the poor subsidize the rich, our results show that this explanation is at best incomplete."
Technically this paper doesn’t say “poor to rich” it says “subprime borrowers to super-prime borrowers”. Income-to-FICO score is only moderately correlated. Well, it says rich to poor in the abstract and conclusions, but not the actual writing.
The paper says high-income borrowers who run balances “lose” the most in this transfer - because they spend more in absolute terms, and banks are better able to capture that through balance increase.
To quote: “our findings are inconsistent with the reverse Robinhood hypothesis”.
This is interesting. The study you cite and quote is about a transfer of money from "naive" credit card consumers to "sophisticated" credit card consumers, which correlates to "poor to rich", "less educated to more educated", etc. I'm even more interested in the transfer that occurs from both cash and non-reward-card consumers to specifically reward-card users.
Can't this be rewritten in plain English as "unsophisticated (dumb) people don't know how to use credit cards in their own interest?". Isn't that just the free in free market?
Why is a principled objection to a paternalistic state intervening to protect dumb people from making bad decisions seen as unethical? What entitles dumb people to such protection?
What’s dumb is the statement or implication, which is made constantly, that the typical person is dumb. I don’t mean to pick on you personally, who I have no grievance with, but rather to heap scorn on an idea both illogical and presented in bad faith frequently, a practice I always aspire to.
The typical person is the result of ruthless selection pressures over millions or billions of years depending on how one sets their watch, a chain of the fittest, savviest, toughest, and hardest to kill members of the most dangerous life form we know about.
Most people, more than half, are unsophisticated by the definitions implied, which would make people of above average intelligence “dumb”. Dubious, to put it mildly.
A much more plausible theory, and one not laden with all the trim and tackle of a bigoted agenda, is that the typical person receives a poor education, leaving them ill-equipped to outmaneuver operations research PhDs whose entire job is to use the very efficient frontier of mechanism design, dark patterns writ large, to outfox individuals who (in the typical case) didn’t have wealthy parents or some other greased path into an advanced degree.
And the real kicker to me, as someone who has spent serious time with seriously high-profile people in technology, is that for whatever combination of reasons (one watches out for post hoc ergo propter hoc type fallacies, cause and effect are nuanced in human affairs), I’ve found that the higher someone’s station in life is, the less formidable they seem. I don’t know if power corrodes the necessity to stay sharp, or if privileged positions emphasize some other set of traits at the expense of basic competencies, but if half the big shots I’ve met started from scratch in my neighborhood, they’d have been an easy mark for the unscrupulous and/or hungry.
Being ill-served by an education system that is broken by design, and being outfoxed by fraudsters with sophisticated mathematics who all but write their own laws doesn’t make someone stupid.
> that the typical person is dumb
The typical person is typical, and from the perspective of an atypically smart person that's dumb(er). I'm not saying I am such a person, only that they inevitably exist.
> is that the typical person receives a poor education
Uneducated, unsophisticated, and dumb are interchangeable for the purposes of this argument. People should navigate the world on their own merits, not have the state intervene on their behalf. That's the point of a free market and society.
Whether or not you're of "above average intelligence", if you use your credit card like a bank account, you deserve every bit of "wealth transfer" to people who know better that entails.
Understanding the difference between borrowing and earning doesn't require any sophisticated mathematics. Neither does understanding compounding interest payments. The only skill required is basic arithmetic. I don't see why folks feel the need to defend plainly bad decisions made by others, or advocate that they be protected from the full extent of their obvious consequences.
8 replies →
The average person is average. 50M Americans (16%) have IQs below 85.
In general, whatever their station in life, smarter people are going to locally optimize their situation better than someone who is dumb. As a society, we tend to overemphasize social class — we assume rich people are smart and poor people are dumb.
You make good points. Many high status people are good at manipulating the levers of power and influence, just as a machinist is good with wielding his tools. Money is just a tool. Fancy clothes or whatever is just a tool. Both people may possess a poor understanding of how their tools actually work.
Truly successful people know themselves and their limits. Rich people get to hire smarter people to do stuff for them. Poor people have to find a niche to maximize their value and minimize their faults.
Example of lack of sharpness? You could also work on being more concise.
1 reply →