461–470 of 568 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bad credit score doesn't really mean you've made bad choices. It just means you had some bad luck. The reasons for your bad luck can range from medical bills, job loss, missing work when poor (it snowballs) and other such things. It might mean you made a bad decision when you were 18, but it is still hanging around on your credit. You might have been in a financially abusive relationship. Shit happens, and it is na…
> A bad credit score doesn't really mean you've made bad choices. It doesn't necessarily mean this, sure. But, if we found a thousand people with bad credit scores and did a deep audit, we wouldn't discover 1000 who had unavoidable, unpredictable misfortune. We likely wouldn't even find 500. > Shit happens, and it is naive to think I've heard alot of "shit happens" excuses over the years. Few of them struck me as "no…
No, they shouldn't be looking at this in the first place, because it is -- at best! -- tangentially related to job performance. If you're worried that your employee is going to be distracted by personal financial issues, taking away their option to have steady income certainly isn't going to fix the situation.
> Is that feature worth the slow accretion of extra (and sometimes hidden) fees that are pushing housing/rental prices higher in an era of skyrocking housing costs?
What does this have to do with anything? Housing costs are skyrocketing primarily because of housing scarcity in desirable places to live (where existing residents have enacted policy to restrict further building). On top of that, we have wages that have not been keeping up with inflation, and a general increase in income inequality that helps to push housing further out of reach.
Maybe it's a different limit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How on earth can people be denied jobs for poor credit? You're not a creditor to your employer! Isn't this just the "social credit" system that people worry about in China, except privatised?
The reality is that credit rating has a strong correlation with responsibility. Thus, for example, in places where it's legal to do so insurance rates will be different. This does end up sweeping up a few who were hit by unavoidable circumstances but most people who get in credit trouble were skating too close to the edge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How on earth can people be denied jobs for poor credit? You're not a creditor to your employer! Isn't this just the "social credit" system that people worry about in China, except privatised?
Well, people can be denied jobs for almost every reason (except a couple explicitly listed taboo reasons i.e. protected classes), so if any employer believes that defaulting on your debt correlates with e.g. trustworthiness of a candidate, they are free to use credit rating as (dis)qualifying criteria - no matter if that belief is true or not.
Some places don't legally allow this, so we should think about why: because it's abused, perhaps? Because it furthers discrimination?
The list of current protected classes isn't some holy thing; we can and should add to things that companies aren't permitted to discriminate based on, when those things are found to be harmful to people and society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone with poor credit may be assumed more likely to commit fraud or steal from the company. Someone with poor credit might also be assumed to be personally irresponsible and lazy, and more likely to slack off, ignore necessary details or cut corners. It isn't fair but in the US money carries moral weight, and many people assume the less of it you have, the worse of a person you are.
It's also possible that someone in debt would do something dishonest against the company, if a bad actor offered them money to do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone with poor credit may be assumed more likely to commit fraud or steal from the company. Someone with poor credit might also be assumed to be personally irresponsible and lazy, and more likely to slack off, ignore necessary details or cut corners. It isn't fair but in the US money carries moral weight, and many people assume the less of it you have, the worse of a person you are.
>It isn't fair but in the US money carries moral weight, and many people assume the less of it you have, the worse of a person you are. This isn't about money, this is about debt. Owing money around really does sound like something a bad person would do.
Using debt wisely as an individual is a great way to be able to have and do things that you wouldn't otherwise be able to have and do, and it's perfectly possible to manage that responsibly.
In my 20s I had a girlfriend who considered it a negative that I was carrying educational debt. Despite the fact that a) I was easily making my monthly payment and living within my means, and b) taking on that debt allowed me to attend a top-tier university, which ended up opening several doors in my later professional life that likely would not have otherwise been open to me. My life (15+ years later) is immeasurably better for having taken on that debt, which I fully repaid years ago.
Sure, there's such a thing has taking on too much debt, and being unable to service your debt within the financial framework of your income and expenses. But even if that happens, you're most like not a "bad person". Financial literacy and education in many places (especially the US) is not particularly great, so it's no surprise that many people make bad financial decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Owing money around really does sound like something a bad person would do. Why would this be your default assumption? People can end up owing money for any number of moral reasons. I'd rather someone have 10,000 in debt because they borrowed to help someone with medical debt who would have died otherwise, than for that hypothetical person to die because of a lack of money. From there, it's easy to posit someone losi…
Why would this be your default assumption I am not saying it is fair, or that I would make this assumption. However, car insurance is the same way. If some indicator shows correlation with a bad driver, eg age, birth sex, type of car, rates go up! Same thing with unpaid/delinquent debt. It is an indicator. If you have 10 good potential employees to hire, and one has bad debt....
Car insurance providers have a ton of data that correlates all those factors you mentioned, so for the most part it's reasonably fair for them to set rates based on that. No such data exists when it comes to debt and employment, as far as I can see. Just a bunch of people here arguing back and forth for their personal opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't about owing money or even debt. You can be in a lot of debt and have good credit. You can also have very little debt and have very poor credit because you couldn't pay a hospital bill or didn't get the final electric bill from your old apartment paid before it went to collections. It is really about keeping poor people out. You might be able to argue something about responsibility if you can prove that they…
Disagree. There's no intent to keep poor people out. Someone who has little but doesn't spend too much will generally have good credit. Creditors these days tend to treat medical debt separately--someone who has only medical debt probably is someone who is responsible but something happened to them. Likewise, back in the era of the housing collapse and strategic default creditors would look at someone who had a forec…
No, that metric has nothing to do with it. The main things that affect your credit score are a) age of oldest credit line, b) on-time payment history, c) amount of available credit, d) credit utilization.
While "not spending too much" can be correlated to (b) and (d), it's not always a particularly strong correlation.
And even if you do all those things right, one bill -- even for $50 -- sent to collections (because your automated bill pay randomly stopped working and you didn't notice for several months -- this happened to me) can knock 50-100 points off your credit rating. Sometimes you can get this fixed, but the biller has no obligation to send a correction to the credit bureaus even if you pay the $50 and explain why you missed the bill. Enjoy waiting 7 years for that negative report to "scroll off" your score calculation. It just did for me a few months ago, and despite the fact that I have otherwise excellent credit, I was surprised how much my score went up after this was off my record.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It isn't fair but in the US money carries moral weight, and many people assume the less of it you have, the worse of a person you are. This isn't about money, this is about debt. Owing money around really does sound like something a bad person would do.
The presence of debt makes you more susceptible to bribes and blackmail.
But please, most people have debt! Mortgages, a car loan, educational debt. Revolving credit card debt, even if they pay off the statement balance every month. (Maybe you personally don't, but you are not typical if that's the case!)
Sure, if you have debts that you are having trouble paying, maybe you'd be more susceptible to accepting a bribe or caving to blackmail? But c'mon, for most jobs out there this is just not a consideration.