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

[MikeK]

Wow, so in your opinion personal responsibility has nothing to do with it?

And that is exactly why we are where we are today. Too many people are unwilling/unable to take personal responsibility for what got them where they are.

Rick

Because I was born in 1936 to parents who survived the Great Depression the orientation I acquired was to get a civil service job, to invest in nothing but government bonds and to never buy anything on credit. So I'm one of those who live within my means and have no debts. But I do acknowledge that more recent generations of middle class Americans have had a completely different orientation and to ignore that fact is unreasonably intolerant considering the circumstances outlined in Madeline's commentary.

Human nature is such that the behavior of a significant percentage of working class Americans will be guided by marketing influences, which outstandingly includes psychological pressure imposed by television advertising and the seductive conduct of the credit industry. I dare say if I were younger and were not influenced by my parents' ominous warnings it is likely that I would be in the same boat as a lot of other middle class debtors who are guilty of nothing more than following a deceptively exploitive lead.

What you call a deceptively exploitive lead, I call willful ignorance.

I notice you also think Ronald Reagan, the dimwit corporatist puppet, was a good president.

 

[Bern80]

Because I was born in 1936 to parents who survived the Great Depression the orientation I acquired was to get a civil service job, to invest in nothing but government bonds and to never buy anything on credit. So I'm one of those who live within my means and have no debts. But I do acknowledge that more recent generations of middle class Americans have had a completely different orientation and to ignore that fact is unreasonably intolerant considering the circumstances outlined in Madeline's commentary.

Human nature is such that the behavior of a significant percentage of working class Americans will be guided by marketing influences, which outstandingly includes psychological pressure imposed by television advertising and the seductive conduct of the credit industry. I dare say if I were younger and were not influenced by my parents' ominous warnings it is likely that I would be in the same boat as a lot of other middle class debtors who are guilty of nothing more than following a deceptively exploitive lead.

What you call a deceptively exploitive lead, I call willful ignorance.

I notice you also think Ronald Reagan, the dimwit corporatist puppet, was a good president.

I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else. I haven't brought Reagan up once in this thread.

But if people want society to work then the people in it need to start taking some personal responsibility for themselves. I don't want to hear people piss and moan about being denied something based on bad credit unless it got that way through identity theft.

To MERC you have zero right to complain about being denied opportunities due to bad credit when YOU are the one in direct control of said credit. Other than identity theft, the only way you can lose out on those opportunities is if YOU **** it up.

 

[Madeline]

I'd be willing to bet that you have in fact released your credit report and just do not know it. On the sig line for an insurance policy, apartment lease or a job, there might be an asterick and waaaay down on the page, a little bitty message that signing authorizes them to pull your report. That's all they need; they already have your SSN.

If you dun believe me, pull your reports (there are three); one section lists everyone who has been sent a copy for the past year or so.

Yeah I'm about due to check on mine anyway. What's your point? I don't have bad credit so I'm not too concerned about it.

Remember, there are three credit reporting agencies and you will a report from each one. When you get it, look at the section on who has been sent a copy during the previous period (I think it is one year). I'll bet a dozen donuts, you have had employers, etc., pulling your report and just were not aware.

I am not *hoping* this is true; I am trying to warn you -- permission is given far more often than most of us realize.

I'm am delighted you have good credit, and hope things continue to go well for you. You can read more about credit scores and credit reports here:

Federal Trade Commission

 

[Madeline]

What you call a deceptively exploitive lead, I call willful ignorance.

I notice you also think Ronald Reagan, the dimwit corporatist puppet, was a good president.

I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else. I haven't brought Reagan up once in this thread.

But if people want society to work then the people in it need to start taking some personal responsibility for themselves. I don't want to hear people piss and moan about being denied something based on bad credit unless it got that way through identity theft.

To MERC you have zero right to complain about being denied opportunities due to bad credit when YOU are the one in direct control of said credit. Other than identity theft, the only way you can lose out on those opportunities is if YOU **** it up.

Job loss and/or catastrophic illness are the driving factors in 90% of personal bankruptcies. Which of those did you feel people can control and just choose not to?

 

[Bern80]

Remember, there are three credit reporting agencies and you will a report from each one. When you get it, look at the section on who has been sent a copy during the previous period (I think it is one year). I'll bet a dozen donuts, you have had employers, etc., pulling your report and just were not aware.

Again what is your point? You and MERC keep making this sound like a bad thing that people actually check my credit score. I don't get it. Is it your argument there should be no such thing as credit scores? is it that even though we all have them you think people who do business with you, whether that be employer or a seller shouldn't get to make decisions about you based on them?

I am not *hoping* this is true; I am trying to warn you -- permission is given far more often than most of us realize.

I'm am delighted you have good credit, and hope things continue to go well for you. You can read more about credit scores and credit reports here:

Federal Trade Commission

You're making it sound like you hope I have avoided the plague or something. Again I'm not concerned whether my employer has looked at it or not. I know it's good. For those people that have bad ones, they have bad ones for one of two reasons; 1) their identity was stolen and someone screwed up their credit or 2) they screwed up their credit themselves.

I appreciate the thought, but I'm more on top of it than most. I don't mean to sound boastful but I am being as responsible as I can be about something everyone else should be, but not enough are. That's why I don't get this thread. Sure I get that someone with bad credit won't get the opportunities that someone with good credit will. And I guess you can use buzz phrases like MERC contesting a 'loss of freedom' in that your ability to exert choice is lessened. But if this bad credit thing limiting opportunities is of real concern to you, might you not want to first ask how one gets bad credit in the first place? Well again I only of two ways, either someone steals your identity and ***** it up, or you **** it up yourself. For those that employers or sellers that may be concerned about your credit they will probably overlook it or work with you if you explain it to you. If it's the other where you screwed up your own credit, who else do you really have to blame for your loss of freedom but yourself?

 

[Madeline]

Bern80 wrote in part:

But if this bad credit thing limiting opportunities is of real concern to you, might you not want to first ask how one gets bad credit in the first place? Well again I only of two ways, either someone steals your identity and ***** it up, or you **** it up yourself.

You have this fixed idea that bad credit only comes from bad behavior, and that is untrue. Bad events happen to good people and impact their debt load or ability to pay, and they are nonetheless still "good people".

You also overlook Marc's argument about the whirlwind effect. A person has a bad credit rating because he did not pay all his bills when due. Regardless of how that initially happened, he will not be able to pay in future if he cannot get a job because he has bad credit. His failures to pay will just pile up, his credit rating will sink like a stone, and he'll be drummed out of the middle class forever. If you don't happen to think this is un-American, I wonder what version of America you value.

Mine has a high value attached to upward mobility, and the notion that anyone who wants to and works hard enough can pull himself up by his own bootstraps. The employers' use of credit reports to sift applicants is killing this value for us all.

 

[Bern80]

Job loss and/or catastrophic illness are the driving factors in 90% of personal bankruptcies. Which of those did you feel people can control and just choose not to?

I hate to get all philosophical on you but you control as much as you acknowledge you control. It's the most convenient argument ever made. X happened to me because of Y. I don't control Y so it's not my fault. You can not change what you don't acknowledge. If you don't acknowledge that you have a level of control over things like your health or your job security it is unlikely you will be able to alter the outcome of bankruptcy. People don't do that because it's easier to blame something else. It's human nature to credit yourself for your successes and blame others for your failures.

 

[Madeline]

Job loss and/or catastrophic illness are the driving factors in 90% of personal bankruptcies. Which of those did you feel people can control and just choose not to?

I hate to get all philosophical on you but you control as much as you acknowledge you control. It's the most convenient argument ever made. X happened to me because of Y. I don't control Y so it's not my fault. You can not change what you don't acknowledge. If you don't acknowledge that you have a level of control over things like your health or your job security it is unlikely you will be able to alter the outcome of bankruptcy. People don't do that because it's easier to blame something else. It's human nature to credit yourself for your successes and blame others for your failures.

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.

Mebbe so, although none of us can predict the future and you might could one day be a "have not" yourself, or someone you love might could be. But even this is not Marc's point.

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?

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.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80 wrote in part:

But if this bad credit thing limiting opportunities is of real concern to you, might you not want to first ask how one gets bad credit in the first place? Well again I only of two ways, either someone steals your identity and ***** it up, or you **** it up yourself.

You have this fixed idea that bad credit only comes from bad behavior, and that is untrue. Bad events happen to good people and impact their debt load or ability to pay, and they are nonetheless still "good people".

You also overlook Marc's argument about the whirlwind effect. A person has a bad credit rating because he did not pay all his bills when due. Regardless of how that initially happened, he will not be able to pay in future if he cannot get a job because he has bad credit. His failures to pay will just pile up, his credit rating will sink like a stone, and he'll be drummed out of the middle class forever. If you don't happen to think this is un-American, I wonder what version of America you value.

Mine has a high value attached to upward mobility, and the notion that anyone who wants to and works hard enough can pull himself up by his own bootstraps. The employers' use of credit reports to sift applicants is killing this value for us all.

If all of that were actually true, you might have a point. But what percentage of employers actually use credit scores as determining factor in hiring someone. Of those employers which ones using at as the sole means of determining whether they will hire you or not? If the later were the case a job interview ought to consist of no interview at all, just turning in your credit scores?

Let's get real here and really play this out. You apply for a job with a company that wants to look at your credit score. Your credit score happens to be bad. Either it's bad because of something you can control (which is the group the vast majority of people would fall into) or it is because of something out of your control (and as I mentioned in a previous post you better be willing to do some hard introspection in determining whether it was really out of your control). Let's back up and ask why an employer or seller would look at your credit in the first place? Logically because they want an unvarnished view of your reliability and responsibility. Now these people are as presumably bright as you or I am, so I would imagine they also account for the fact that one can have bad credit for reasons out of their control. So I think we can reasonably throw out the scenario where you don't get a loan or job because of bad credit that you had zero fault in creating. That leaves not getting said loan or job because of what YOU did to your credit. Now either knowing your credit is a vital piece of information in knowing whether you can do a job or determine the probablity that you will actually pay in which case said seller or employer has every right not to hire or loan to you. Or they looked at it without considering any other factors (i.e. your actual interview) in which case i'm not sure I'd even want to work at a company where the only criteria for getting hired is good credit score.

My point is I think you and MERC are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Yes. Because you can choose whether or not to practice thrift and industry and whether to spend your money on what you need instead of what you want.

 

[Madeline]

Bern80 wrote in part:

But if this bad credit thing limiting opportunities is of real concern to you, might you not want to first ask how one gets bad credit in the first place? Well again I only of two ways, either someone steals your identity and ***** it up, or you **** it up yourself.

You have this fixed idea that bad credit only comes from bad behavior, and that is untrue. Bad events happen to good people and impact their debt load or ability to pay, and they are nonetheless still "good people".

You also overlook Marc's argument about the whirlwind effect. A person has a bad credit rating because he did not pay all his bills when due. Regardless of how that initially happened, he will not be able to pay in future if he cannot get a job because he has bad credit. His failures to pay will just pile up, his credit rating will sink like a stone, and he'll be drummed out of the middle class forever. If you don't happen to think this is un-American, I wonder what version of America you value.

Mine has a high value attached to upward mobility, and the notion that anyone who wants to and works hard enough can pull himself up by his own bootstraps. The employers' use of credit reports to sift applicants is killing this value for us all.

If all of that were actually true, you might have a point. But what percentage of employers actually use credit scores as determining factor in hiring someone. Of those employers which ones using at as the sole means of determining whether they will hire you or not? If the later were the case a job interview ought to consist of no interview at all, just turning in your credit scores?

Let's get real here and really play this out. You apply for a job with a company that wants to look at your credit score. Your credit score happens to be bad. Either it's bad because of something you can control (which is the group the vast majority of people would fall into) or it is because of something out of your control (and as I mentioned in a previous post you better be willing to do some hard introspection in determining whether it was really out of your control). Let's back up and ask why an employer or seller would look at your credit in the first place? Logically because they want an unvarnished view of your reliability and responsibility. Now these people are as presumably bright as you or I am, so I would imagine they also account for the fact that one can have bad credit for reasons out of their control. So I think we can reasonably throw out the scenario where you don't get a loan or job because of bad credit that you had zero fault in creating. That leaves not getting said loan or job because of what YOU did to your credit. Now either knowing your credit is a vital piece of information in knowing whether you can do a job or determine the probablity that you will actually pay in which case said seller or employer has every right not to hire or loan to you. Or they looked at it without considering any other factors (i.e. your actual interview) in which case i'm not sure I'd even want to work at a company where the only criteria for getting hired is good credit score.

My point is I think you and MERC are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

This is a discussion, Bern, not a lecture. You are free to disagree with Marc, and I think you make valid points....if the practice is not unduly abusive, less harm than Marc predicts will occur. I cannot refute that -- and I will also concede that, as of now, not every employer, landlord and insurance company is using credit to screen applicants.

But some are. There are no costs associated with the practice because the employer, etc. can pass that on to the applicant if he chooses. It doubtless does make life easier for employers.

So why is it you think it is unlikely this will become a much more wide-spread phenomena?

 

[FA_Q2]

This ENTIRE thread relies on a completely inane basis. Your credit is YOURS and a company's right to consider that information in your hiring process is COMPLETELY their own right. They can base your employment on WHATEVER they want as long as it is not a protected right. If they happen to think that the most important skill is rubbing you stomach and head while standing on one foot, THEN SO BE IT. Don't like it, don't work there. Not only is it a non issue but your credit is subject to your life and a bad credit score DOES NOT TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO ANYTHING. The supposition that you cannot get anything in life because you have a bad score is crap and the fact that a company should be subject to a risk because YOU think you have some 'right' to a others money in the form of a loan regardless of a credit score that allows them to make a good decision you are insane. I personally have a terrible credit score because if a company does a piss poor job or does not deliver on a service that they promised I do not pay them. I do not care what my score is because it has not nor will it ever cause me to loose anything that I want to get. I OWN my own home DESPITE my credit score, own 2 cars and have zero problems. As a matter of fact, I am BETTER OFF. the only thing I cannot get is a credit card that offers a rewards system and the thing there is, I DO NOT WANT IT.
The REAL issue here is that people REFUSE to take personal responsibility for their life and actions. It is YOUR credit and YOUR job to care for it. That is YOUR responsibility and if YOU want the things a good score can get you then you need to keep your score in good standing. That is the story PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Am I more free in this system - HELL YES - because that system offers me opportunities that I can take or leave behind as ALL systems provide. Should I not want to partake, I am not forced and if I choose I can reap those benefits. What you miss is that it is ALL ON YOU and that is EXACTLY what freedom is. Take options away because some cannot accept responsibility and you are TAKING FREEDOM FOR COMFORT. That is an option I am NOT willing to accept. If you want things in life then you need to work for them. Keep this idiotic mentality of entitlement and the NOW satisfaction then you will pay the price. I do not use credit, do not want credit, and will never get credit minus the purchase of my home (which I consider a purchase that is responsible with credit). If I do not have the cash for something I can go without until I do. Because of this, not only is my credit score a non issue but I more and live better than anyone in my economic sphere that I know. If the system bothers you and you believe that you are less free under this system THEN DO NOT PARTICIPATE but stay the hell AWAY FROM MY RIGHT TO DO SO.

 

[Madeline]

This ENTIRE thread relies on a completely inane basis. Your credit is YOURS and a company's right to consider that information in your hiring process is COMPLETELY their own right. They can base your employment on WHATEVER they want as long as it is not a protected right. If they happen to think that the most important skill is rubbing you stomach and head while standing on one foot, THEN SO BE IT. Don't like it, don't work there. Not only is it a non issue but your credit is subject to your life and a bad credit score DOES NOT TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO ANYTHING. The supposition that you cannot get anything in life because you have a bad score is crap and the fact that a company should be subject to a risk because YOU think you have some 'right' to a others money in the form of a loan regardless of a credit score that allows them to make a good decision you are insane. I personally have a terrible credit score because if a company does a piss poor job or does not deliver on a service that they promised I do not pay them. I do not care what my score is because it has not nor will it ever cause me to loose anything that I want to get. I OWN my own home DESPITE my credit score, own 2 cars and have zero problems. As a matter of fact, I am BETTER OFF. the only thing I cannot get is a credit card that offers a rewards system and the thing there is, I DO NOT WANT IT.
The REAL issue here is that people REFUSE to take personal responsibility for their life and actions. It is YOUR credit and YOUR job to care for it. That is YOUR responsibility and if YOU want the things a good score can get you then you need to keep your score in good standing. That is the story PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Am I more free in this system - HELL YES - because that system offers me opportunities that I can take or leave behind as ALL systems provide. Should I not want to partake, I am not forced and if I choose I can reap those benefits. What you miss is that it is ALL ON YOU and that is EXACTLY what freedom is. Take options away because some cannot accept responsibility and you are TAKING FREEDOM FOR COMFORT. That is an option I am NOT willing to accept. If you want things in life then you need to work for them. Keep this idiotic mentality of entitlement and the NOW satisfaction then you will pay the price. I do not use credit, do not want credit, and will never get credit minus the purchase of my home (which I consider a purchase that is responsible with credit). If I do not have the cash for something I can go without until I do. Because of this, not only is my credit score a non issue but I more and live better than anyone in my economic sphere that I know. If the system bothers you and you believe that you are less free under this system THEN DO NOT PARTICIPATE but stay the hell AWAY FROM MY RIGHT TO DO SO.

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?

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.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

 

[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.

 

[MarcATL]

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!

 

[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-

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. 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. 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.

 

[FA_Q2]

I refer you to this post that you agreed with in another forum. I equate this as the same thing -
(did not quote here because I do not want to bring that in this debate - just a reference for you, maddie)

 

[Bern80]

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?

 

[Bern80]

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.

Poor analogy. I know many employers are doing that now, which I don't agree with even though I don't smoke. It depends on what the criteria tells the employer about you. And your credit score tells employers a lot more about you than whether you smoke does.


That said, an employer should be able to evaluate whatever they need to in order to determine if you can do the job. If your credit score is pertinant so be it. If your weight is, so be it. If whether you smoke is, so be it.