Are You More Or Less "Free" In A Society That

[FA_Q2]

Is it a "failure" if you or your wife gets cancer and have no insurance, Bern80? You have this fixed idea that discriminating against people with bad credit will benefit you by eliminating competition for jobs, etc., that you would have had to face otherwise.

Of course not. But just as I can't assume every single person with bad credit did it to themselves, YOU can't assume the opposite, that everyone with bad credit is blameless in it becoming that way. Unfortuantely I have observed enough people and their spending habits and have enough just plain common sense to know that in terms of the majority of cases it is the result of irresponsible money management on the part of the individual.

Instead, he is asking that you set aside the question of how this will affect you personally and ponder, is this good for my country? Is making upward mobility virtually impossible "good for America" or not IYO, Bern?

And I am asking WHO is really making the upward mobility difficult? This goes back to what I said before. If you want society to work they way you want it to, the first thing you need to do is make yourself personally accountable for your outcomes. Is upward mobility difficult because of something someone is doing to you or is it difficult because of something you are doing to yourself? Yes credit scores can be ruined through events you have no control over but that happens a) less than people want to admit because most don't admit how much control they really do have and b) that simply isn't reality in terms of what causes a bad credit score. People with bad credit scores generally have bad credit scores because they suck at handling money. That makes perfect sense because personal money mangement isn't taught in school and most parents don't teach it to their kids.

So my answer to your questin above is 'it depends'....on who is making it difficult. Is someone else really making it difficult for you? or did you do it to yourself? Where credit scores are concerned most people did it to themselves, thus they have no right to blame anyone else for opportunities denied to them as a result.

IMO, it sucks and should be illegal. And just for emphasis, I am not referring to relying on credit reports to decide who to lend money to....I am referring to using that data to decide who to give a job to, who to insure, etc.

Again I ask how often is this really happening? And isn't the reason you would be denied a loan on the basis of credit the same reason you might be denied a job on the basis of bad credit? Put yourself in the shoes of an employer trying to hire someone. You would have to be an idiot to think you are going to get the unvarnished truth about a potential applicant straight from their mouth. You think they would really let you know if they are not dependable. So what's an employer to do? They get opinions and information about the candidate from other places. They check references, past employers, and yes maybe your credit score. If you have a bad credit score of your own making I imagine that might be pertinant information to an employer because it tells them you have responsibility isssues. Saying it should be illegal to check credit is like saying it should be illegal to contact our previous employers about your job performance. I guess employers are just suppossed to hire you and pray to god your telling the truth right?

I would add that people here seem to misunderstand the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is NOT fault. They are two completely different things. There are many things in this world that I am responsible for managing or changing that I may not have any fault in creating. that does not change where the responsibility lies or the fact that you need to deal with your own responsibilities. Face it, YOU have the power to change your credit and if you are too lazy to effect that change you have ZERO grounds to restrict my rights.

 

[Madeline]

Good point...all smokers CHOOSE that habit, and its quite COSTLY to all. It severely decreases the health of the individual and those that have to be around them.

Therefore, they should ALL be charged sky-rocket prices for insurance AND be limited to the types of jobs they can have.

I'm dead serious too.

Fine, we'll "punish" smokers till there are none. Then we can get after the fat and unfit. Then the weekend warriors and crappy drivers. Then the pregnant and those who might could be. Then the men with a family history of heart disease who don't do everything possible to avoid it. Then the diabetics. Etc.

Eventually, no one will be left but as long as you are at the top of the heap, this should work quite well for you -- provided my welfare is of no importance to you.

Yep...get them out of my way. Who needs 'em!

I CANNOT believe you wrote that! Who are you and what have you done with Marc???

 

[Madeline]

I disagree. Let me give you an analogy. It is now popular to refuse to hire someone who smokes cigarettes, and to pressure any of your employers who smoke to quit. Same with obesity, physical fitness, etc.

Let's say in a few more years, this is a universal employer standard practice and I am an overweight, older, female smoker. In your analysis, I have lost no freedom because I am just as free to indulge my vices now as I ever was. I think your willingness to play an intellectual version of "hide the pea" is alarming and too many people accept it. How "free" to induldge my vices am I really, if only the people with independent means can afford to do so? Everyone else needs a job and so, must give them up.

Now you can say, well, smoking, over-eating and being sedentary are all bad behaviors so if people lose some freedom to engage in them, who cares? Just as behaviors that might stain a credit report are "bad" (even though they include being a victim of identity theft and other morally neutral events) and so if people are forced to stop those bad behaviors, so what?

WOW, just WOW. I thought that you knew me better than that. I would NEVER NEVER NEVERsay anything of the sort your freedoms are your freedoms no matter how bad they are. There is nothing worse than the legislation that protects you from yourself in the name of what is 'good' for you. That is one of the reasons that we are in decline today. EVERYTHING is protecting yourself from your own bad decisions. My case is different and explained below-

The government needs to outlaw this growing phenomena before all the people tagged as "bad risk" for loans are locked out of the middle class. If you resist this idea merely because it may not restrict YOUR freedom, I find that POV self-indulgent and ultimately, self-defeating. We do have an interest in the rights and freedoms of our fellow citizens.

It is not restricting MY freedoms but ALL freedoms for the EXACT reason that you thought I was giving - all in the name of protecting YOU from yourself. Again, your credit is YOUR responsibility and you are missing the grater picture. It is not the governments place to determine the type and caliber of employee that you hire.

Hello? The government outlaws employment discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, etc. How is outlawing discrimination based on credit rating any different?

People are locked out of loans because they are bad risks for a REASON. If there is money to be made someone WILL give out loans and service those people.

FA_Q2, I have ZERO interest in trying to force anyone to lend to those with crappy credit. This thread is about using credit ratings for reasons OTHER than deciding to whom to lend money.

that is the ENTIRE basis for the system and it is one born out of FREE MARKETS precisely because it works and the government getting involved leads to what we have today - the destruction of the entire economy in the name of giving people a chance they have not worked for. Let me be clear - you have ZERO right to a job or to a loan.

I agree, but neither does a credit reporting agency or a conspiracy among them and the business community have the right to render me totally unemployable.

Those are things that you must work to obtain and things that you WILL have if you put forth the effort to obtain them. Artificially controlling the markets causes situations where we need to readjust taking things from honest people.

Yanno how I feel; some crappy credit occurs for a morally neutral reason.

You are also missing the fact that it is the RIGHT of the employer, loan agent or property owner to protect their assets and choose who to service and who to ignore.

This is exactly Marc's point -- there is no rational relationship between a good employee and crappy credit in 99% of the jobs in this country. If it is irrational and harmful for employers to discriminate based on bad credit, why shouldn't we outlaw that practice?

If you had those assets I believe you would see things far different. Limiting your ability to protect your investments and/or find the best applicant for a job is rather insane and punishes those that have worked for what they have and how they are seen while uplifting those that have not.

I am hiring right now -- I'll be interviewing tomorrow. As always, I seek a candidate who the job market would likely reject and hire from that pool, as I value loyalty and long-term employment. This position is fairly highly paid, and since I work from home that person will have access to damned near everything I own. I have absolutely no intention of pulling a credit report, and doubtless the person I hire will have crappy credit.

I am looking for an older worker who has been unemployed quite awhile, and I'd be shocked if they didn't have bad credit. I think my hiring criteria are rational -- and since I have used them all throughout my career and never regretted but one hiring decision, I am confident they still make good sense.

That is not how a society works and certainly not the best way to do business. You are also operating on the idea that there is no options for those that have made mistakes and that is plainly NOT true.

The "option" to improve your credit rating is fictious to a person who cannot get a job -- because they have bad credit. This is Marc's nightmare merry-go-round argument.

There ARE existing laws that are quite extensive to protect you from fraud and allow you to restore your credit. It is actually EXTREMELY easy to restore your credit if you are willing to put in the large amount of time that it takes dealing with the collectors. I know because my father moved his score from the low 400's to 780 in a few years. There are options but, again, you have to WORK for what you get and it is YOUR responsibility. It is DEAD WRONG to limit others freedoms out of your avarice and absolutely destructive to a nation to do so.

Why am I greedy merely because I want my fellow Americans to have a future?

In all honesty, this nation needs FAR less credit anyway and people NEED to wake up to this fact.

I agree, and one change I'd enact by law is I would prohibit a credit reporting agency from downgrading the credit score of a person solely because he has no debt.

Credit scores should not be the foremost thing on your mind because there should never be a problem with it. There is only 2 situations that a responsible adult should have borrowed money: purchase of a car and house. Credit cards and loans other than that are DUMB. I support your right to do the wrong thing but I REFUSE to limit the rights of other because you choose that path. NEVER give up rights because they never return.

I do believe the rights of Americans to seek a better life are disappearing due to abusive use of our credit reports.

 

[shintao]

Good point...all smokers CHOOSE that habit, and its quite COSTLY to all. It severely decreases the health of the individual and those that have to be around them.

Therefore, they should ALL be charged sky-rocket prices for insurance AND be limited to the types of jobs they can have.

I'm dead serious too.

Why wouldn't that refer to you as well? You breath the pollution of industrys, gasing your car, etc. Why should you get a free pass, especially if you are city dweller or live around a pollution industry of acid rains and such. You should hve to pay higher insurance rates, and be limited to the types of jobs you can have.

 

[Madeline]

Good point...all smokers CHOOSE that habit, and its quite COSTLY to all. It severely decreases the health of the individual and those that have to be around them.

Therefore, they should ALL be charged sky-rocket prices for insurance AND be limited to the types of jobs they can have.

I'm dead serious too.

Why wouldn't that refer to you as well? You breath the pollution of industrys, gasing your car, etc. Why should you get a free pass, especially if you are city dweller or live around a pollution industry of acid rains and such. You should hve to pay higher insurance rates, and be limited to the types of jobs you can have.

What the anti-smoker crew never admits is that we have a HUGE slipperly slope problem here. Today, cigarette smoking...tomorrow, diabetes...the day after that, the gene for Huntington's.

 

[Bern80]

I do believe the rights of Americans to seek a better life are disappearing due to abusive use of our credit reports.

You have the right to PURSUE those things, you don't have the right to HAVE those things. Attaining a better life takes a lot of responsibility on the part the individal and my observation has been most people aren't willing to assume that.

I just have a hard time seeing how the use of credit scores cold be abused by a lender or employer to deny a loan or positin to someone in a way that is unjust to that person.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree. Let me give you an analogy. It is now popular to refuse to hire someone who smokes cigarettes, and to pressure any of your employers who smoke to quit. Same with obesity, physical fitness, etc.

Let's say in a few more years, this is a universal employer standard practice and I am an overweight, older, female smoker. In your analysis, I have lost no freedom because I am just as free to indulge my vices now as I ever was. I think your willingness to play an intellectual version of "hide the pea" is alarming and too many people accept it. How "free" to induldge my vices am I really, if only the people with independent means can afford to do so? Everyone else needs a job and so, must give them up.

Now you can say, well, smoking, over-eating and being sedentary are all bad behaviors so if people lose some freedom to engage in them, who cares? Just as behaviors that might stain a credit report are "bad" (even though they include being a victim of identity theft and other morally neutral events) and so if people are forced to stop those bad behaviors, so what?

WOW, just WOW. I thought that you knew me better than that. I would NEVER NEVER NEVERsay anything of the sort your freedoms are your freedoms no matter how bad they are. There is nothing worse than the legislation that protects you from yourself in the name of what is 'good' for you. That is one of the reasons that we are in decline today. EVERYTHING is protecting yourself from your own bad decisions. My case is different and explained below-


It is not restricting MY freedoms but ALL freedoms for the EXACT reason that you thought I was giving - all in the name of protecting YOU from yourself. Again, your credit is YOUR responsibility and you are missing the grater picture. It is not the governments place to determine the type and caliber of employee that you hire.



People are locked out of loans because they are bad risks for a REASON. If there is money to be made someone WILL give out loans and service those people.



that is the ENTIRE basis for the system and it is one born out of FREE MARKETS precisely because it works and the government getting involved leads to what we have today - the destruction of the entire economy in the name of giving people a chance they have not worked for. Let me be clear - you have ZERO right to a job or to a loan.



Those are things that you must work to obtain and things that you WILL have if you put forth the effort to obtain them. Artificially controlling the markets causes situations where we need to readjust taking things from honest people.



You are also missing the fact that it is the RIGHT of the employer, loan agent or property owner to protect their assets and choose who to service and who to ignore.



If you had those assets I believe you would see things far different. Limiting your ability to protect your investments and/or find the best applicant for a job is rather insane and punishes those that have worked for what they have and how they are seen while uplifting those that have not.



That is not how a society works and certainly not the best way to do business. You are also operating on the idea that there is no options for those that have made mistakes and that is plainly NOT true.



There ARE existing laws that are quite extensive to protect you from fraud and allow you to restore your credit. It is actually EXTREMELY easy to restore your credit if you are willing to put in the large amount of time that it takes dealing with the collectors. I know because my father moved his score from the low 400's to 780 in a few years. There are options but, again, you have to WORK for what you get and it is YOUR responsibility. It is DEAD WRONG to limit others freedoms out of your avarice and absolutely destructive to a nation to do so.


In all honesty, this nation needs FAR less credit anyway and people NEED to wake up to this fact.

I agree, and one change I'd enact by law is I would prohibit a credit reporting agency from downgrading the credit score of a person solely because he has no debt.

Credit scores should not be the foremost thing on your mind because there should never be a problem with it. There is only 2 situations that a responsible adult should have borrowed money: purchase of a car and house. Credit cards and loans other than that are DUMB. I support your right to do the wrong thing but I REFUSE to limit the rights of other because you choose that path. NEVER give up rights because they never return.

I do believe the rights of Americans to seek a better life are disappearing due to abusive use of our credit reports.

I do believe the rights of Americans to seek a better life are disappearing due to abusive use of our credit reports.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

And yet you have no defense of the fact that it is due to the people themselves and they have the control AND responsibility. That is the bottom line here. The idea that the government needs to come in and save you from yourself is EXACTLY the same slippery slope that you were talking about. Yesterday, seatbelts, today credit reports and tomorrow the right to eat a damn hamburger because fat people are less likely to get a job. Face it, regulation credit reports as you say would be a HUGE infringement on our actual right with little to no gain. The only thing it would cause is a further slip into the need for credit that you should not have in the first place.

 

[FA_Q2]

BTW - LOL at the ad for a free credit score on this thread. Hilarious.

 

[Nonelitist]

Essentially REQUIRES an individual to have good credit to do/have practically anything.

Aka, an abode, whether rent or own, a car, access to loans (well, this one more understandable), and many other things that decades ago was not necessary.

Hey dumbass.... I just filed bankruptcy and got loans from some of your friends and have no plans of paying it back.

Can you loan me a a thousand bucks?

STupid fuck.