Slashdot Mirror
Newest Job Qualification — A Good Credit History
Alien54 writes quotes an article from The Day that says "In the past, only banks and financial service companies routinely ran credit checks on potential employees. But employers in other sectors increasingly are including [credit checks] in the screening process to assess applicants' honesty and integrity, traits not readily gleaned from a résumé. US employers' use of credit checks increased 55 percent over the last five years, according to Spherion, a recruitment and staffing firm with offices around the country.... "The credit check has become a general measure of responsibility and organization," said industrial psychologist Carl Greenberg, senior vice president of Spherion. "If you cannot organize your finances, how are you going to responsibly organize yourself for a company? Organization is a measure of responsibility."
So because Mr. Smith had to max out his credit cards for Little Suzys cancer medication, he doesn't get the new job?
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
So, what if a candidate's credit history is a result of not finding a job. I've seen stories of (especially) IT people with long careers summarily right-sized out of their jobs. I've read articles (Enron?) of employees who lost their life savings and retirement funding because of (ironically) mismanagement at the top.
So now a candidate must show good credit? WTF? And if a candidate is in this financial situation because he (she) can't get a job, an employer who dismisses such candidate because they have bad credit perpetuates their situation. Shame on them!
From the article:
I call bullshit. This is an unadulterated power play and invasion of a candidate's privacy. And I suggest all out there looking for work decline the credit check as a part of the interview process.
I also think some public vetting of companies who use credit checks as part of the interview process would be interesting.
I'm boned.
Have you read my journal today?
of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.
Do you think the employer wants to hear the part about the divorce and paying alimoney and child support? They probably don't care about that part...
Definately not a utopian society we live in.
I had my identity stolen years ago and my credit was ruined.
Does this mean that as a victim, employers are allowed to victimize me by denying me employment? Yep.
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Laws exist to protect big business, politicians and the financial top 1%.
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
I know plenty of people who have money and bad credit. Credit reports have been used for more than a decade to analyze risk in situations like employment. This is nothing new. You don't have to be rich to avoid having bad credit; you merely have to honor your financial obligations. Granted, there are some cases where you can be in good shape and something like sickness appears and the next thing you know, you're in financial trouble.. and this is more of a testimony to the neglect the government has towards the problem with healthcare. If this is the only ding you have on your credit report, employers can note the distinction between a medical related debt and something like consistently missing your mortgage payment.
... when they outsource U.S. jobs?
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
If employees checked up on businesses before going to work for them or buying products from them, we might not have so many ENRONs.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Is the good credit history from rich parents or hard work.
Is the bad credit history from circumstances outside your control, or the inability to control spending.
Most people I interact with have no spending control, they blame their poor credit on things happening, not their failure to have an emergency fund, or that they eat out 4 nights a week, have 2 cars, a boat and a pair of motorcycles.
Drucker once wrote that you should seek to staff an organisation based on the strengths you could find, not the lack of weakness, because that way led to (at best) being average.
Who cares if your R&D department cant remember to pay their bills? If they are good enough it'll be cheaper to hire someone to handle all that tedious interfacing with the real world while they prove that P=NP and engrave the steps onto the back of an atom using a method they developed in the bath.
In fact the business world *already* does this. The reason I have a purchasing department and a finance department and a contracts department is because I, as an engineer, am more valuable when I can forget about problems which are more efficiently dealt with by someone else.
Now I tend to pay my bills mostly on time, because it's the lazy option. I can even see how this might be a valid test for someone who was going to work in commercial or administration. But for most staff? Work out what the job needs to be sucessful and then ignore the other flaws - after all, managing flawed but brilliant people is why you have middle management and a HR department, employing their strengths to make you money.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
I'm an international student studying in America. My credit rating is therefore practically zero, because I have no fixed long term address in the USA, few assets in the US, etc. To get a contract for my mobile phone I had to put down an extremely large deposit precisely because I had no credit rating. One of my concerns would be it can take a very, very, very long time for someone in my position to build up a good US credit rating, if even my rating at home is quite good...
Nope. If Mr. Smith mazes out all his credit cards because he didn't buy proper insurance for little Suzy, and had zero savings, and then can't afford the minimum payments because he bought too much home and a new car, then he doesn't get a new job. Credit scores are actually a decent way to judge someone's ability to judge risk and handle finances. It rewards a conservative attitude, but also penalizes those who avoid credit totally. Seems a pretty legit factor for employment to me.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
It's another example of ways to keep the poor... well poor.
And I'm not typically the type to rag on that bandwagon. But lower income families typically do not always have the luxury of being able to manage credit. Especially not in a way that would result in a good great rating.
This also doesn't take into account things that were beyond the control of the potential employee. Unless you are going to allow potential employees to speak up for the problems on the credit report, then I see this as discrimatory.
Strike that. I find it discrimatory period.
I'm a damn good employee at work, but my credit rating is horrible. I've fallen on my face too many times and have struggled to get back up. I hold myself above water now, but not enough to even begin repairing my credit. If something happened and I lost my job tomorrow, not being able to find new employment isn't going to help that situation.
"why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
The entire credit check history idea is wrong, not just when used for filtering job appplicants. It builds on the notion that those who pay their debts are more reliable, completely ignoring several key facts.
For instance, it "paints over" the problems of people who structurally use debts to pay back earlier debts. In other words: you can easily dig a hole as deep as you want, provided that you are sufficiently clever at hiding it by moving it around.
It also ignores those who do not want/need to have debts at all, as they simply have no "history". Never mind that Mr. X has had enough money of his own to survive for years and has carefully built this position by working hard from day one and by never spending money on stuff he didn't need or couldn't afford. I'd argue that people in this situation are much better at keeping track of their money and spendings than those who have payed back debts everywhere.
Linux user since early January 1992.
that I'm self-employed. good lord, why do people put up with this.
My buddy wanted to be a cop, long story short his credit was bad because of his friend, and when the did a credit check they told him he cant have the job.
Turns out you're most likely to accept a bribe with bad history.
Jeesh, there's a lot of overreaction going on here. If you've got good qualifications, it's not like the employer's going to say, "gee, he's only got a 400 FICO score; let's throw him into the trash pile." There's a whole lot more to a credit report than just today's FICO score. If you were unemployed, then your score will drop as you rack up credit to survive. That will show up in your credit history. If you've done it responsibly, the new boss will see that, despite the score. If you've got shit-loads of defaults, though, at the same time you were working and getting paid, then maybe there's something about you that merits further questioning, don't you think?
We all have things that get outside of our control. FICO scores represent you TODAY. But your credit history represents you up to SEVEN YEARS (10 for bankruptcy) ago, so yeah, it tells about YOU and not necessarily only today's bad luck.
Case in point (anecdotal "evidence"): I had two charge offs when I secured my first mortgage, and my FICO was lower than normal as a result. But a HUMAN BEING looked at my entire credit history rather than just "today's score" and could see the path that I was taking.
--Jim (me)
I once had an employee run a few credits through on her personal credit cards to reduce her balances. A nice person, but there were things going on with her finances that caused her to compromise her ethics. Had I know, I wouldn't have put her in a role that handled cc transactions.
This is rediculous. The only way to get a "good credit history" is to go in debt and then pay for it regularly. Those of us who are responsible and have next to no credit score, well maybe they just aren't interested in us.
A FICO score is a stupid measure of responsibility for something like this. I would argue the person who plans well and doesn't get into debt is MORE responsible than the person who gets into debt and pays his monthly payments.
I know what Dave Ramsey has to say about this.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
WARNING: Heresay is included in the following comment.
I've been told by several people that the rich typically have bad credit. I mean... why worry about paying of debt quickly when your loaded?
Have there been any real-world studies that correlate having good credit with good job performance? Sounds like bullshit to me.
This reminds me of that joke that was posted on the net before:
McDonald's Fast Food Job Application
DESIRED POSITION: Reclining. HA But seriously, whatever's available. If I was in a position to be picky, I wouldn't be applying here in the first place.
MAY WE CONTACT YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYER?: If I had one, would I be here?
Someone may be a great worker on the job, but could be an obsessive-compulsive gambler or shopper off the job, which will hose their credit rating.
And organization and care in one area of someones life does not mean organization and care in all parts of their lives. Like that old bit of advice dads would give their daughters over potential dates - look at how well the guy takes care of his car. But what if you're dealing with someone who cares more for material possessions than people?
Credit reporting institutions and banks are some of the worst most disorganized institutions there is.
Take for example Bank of America, who lost thousands of customer records not long ago.
My first personal experience was that I had bogus charges from a moving company. They trashed my belongings and then charged without authorization the credit card I used initially. I wrote letters, made phone and Bank of America would do nothing about it, except report me to the credit bureau. That in turned caused the interest on my other accounts to go beyond what even a loan shark would charge (30%+). It also prevented from getting a home equity loan on a paid in full house when I really needed it - so now the bad credit I am further accumulating is real.
The banks and the credit bureau have the politicians so in their pocket it isn't funny. Does anyone think the recent changes to bankruptcy laws were to the benefit of ANY of the public?
My second experience was the mistake of suing a bank for blatant errors and illegal activity, removing funds from my account after an explicit in writing instructions not to. For some reason, the sheriff's department could not locate the bank to serve the warrant (5 local branches). But I now have the benefit of not being welcomed at any bank in my town. It's not only the politicians the banks have in there pocket.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
you dont have to be rich to have good credit but it sure helps
being very poor can definately lead to poor credit
when you have very little money whos gonna choose to pay debts over food and a roof ove rtheir head?
If it doesn't serve you, change it.
Or, you can sit back, fat and happy and allow the guys at the top, the ones with the sociopathic personalities and pathological need to win, to decide how you're going to live.
Deleted
Even if you think that you've cleaned up your record, there have been instances where the financial companies then sold your debt to a collection agency. Even after you've "proved" that the debt was from the theft.
And the financial companies do continue to issue new credit cards even when you've supposedly "locked" your credit.
That said, I don't think employers credit checking is the real problem here. As far as I've understood, US credit checking companies are usually inaccurate sleaze-bags who generate overall scores based on amazingly inaccurate information. Atleast here in Norway, there are reasonably strict rules on what information credit-scoring companies are allowed to hold, for how long and they have to tell you whenever somebody checks you up. As far as I can tell, it's working wonders for privacy. Fix the information itself and the rest will sort itself out :)
"" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
Federal laws require that companies notify job applicants before conducting credit checks, butmany firms reason that viable applicants with good credit have nothing to hide.
When a company does a credit check, it is listed in your report, so this is just another reason to look at your credit report as often as possible. If I were to find that a company I had interviewed with had checked my credit without my knowledge and I didn't get the job, I would certainly be in contact with a lawyer or the attorney general.
If you can't get a job, you can't make the payments.
This effectively relegates the poor to a permanent poor status.
I already told my HR department 3 months ago to never even think about this bullshit tactic or they'll be fired out of here like a friggin cannon ball.
We don't need credit checks for jack squat. We need criminal state & FBI background checks and that's it.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
What if some staffing consultant company one day decided that people who eat bran for breakfast are better employees (they're in cahoots with the bran industry, after all, serving each other's interests. They want to make sure you really suffer if you haven't been a fan of bran), therefore they're going to do a bran profile of all employees.
If you don't have enough bran in your history, sorry - no job for you. I guess you'll have to beg to try to start getting some bran.
Oh but don't think you'll sneak around this: They're going to do hair sampling and talk to former roommates to determine if you ate bran years ago. Simply towing the line now isn't satisfactory.
Maybe they'll do a "former lover" test to determine if you called within 6 days, and how your performance was in bed. Surely some loose, anecdotal correlation can be drawn there as well.
Sounds sort of arbitrary and ridiculous, doesn't it?
Because it is. It would be one thing if an unbiased research paper drew a strong/strong correlation between credit worthiness and performance on the job, but simply taking the word of a guy who's agenda is being served. No thanks.
Here in Canada there have been some efforts to ban any industry (for instance car insurance companies determining your rates based on your credit worthiness. Sure, they can say "Oh, but people with bad credit are more likely to be worse drivers!", but failing actual credible results, thankfully most people say "bullshit") from using metrics that haven't been positively and strongly correlated with the result they're trying to test.
"Nope. If Mr. Smith mazes out all his credit cards because he didn't buy proper insurance for little Suzy,"
The majority of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and 74% of those HAD insurance. So FOAD with the blaming of people for not having insurance. Between co-pays, non-covered items, incidental expenses, no coverage for pre-existing conditions (which can be used to deny everything except a fresh gunshot wound if they really want to stretch it) ... they haven't got a hope in hell.
Think of it. 74 % are being told to FOAD. So stop with the "its their fault because they didn't buy insurance" bullshit, and get behind a public insurance plan that covers everyone.
The interview process is the means to determine your non-suitability for a job. During the interview process, employers are looking for some reason, any reason, not to hire you. A credit check is just another way for the employer to find a reason why you should not be hired.
I remember reading that a majority of all credit reports contain errors. Unless you work really hard at getting old stuff removed there can be tons of wrong or outdated information.
They will also possibly see where you shop if you use store credit cards, whether you bought a sofa at Levitz if you finance it with Levitz, where you bought your last car from and whether you are applying for other jobs. The main reason people fall into credit problems are: divorce, a huge medical bill or loss of employment. Do this employers take this things into consideration or do they just look at the credit report and not care why it looks like it does?
About ten years ago I guy I know withdrew his application for a job that he was well qualified for because the new employer wanted a credit report. The job was for butcher. Cause we all know that keeping your spending in line is really important when slicing steaks.
Weird. I guess Slashdot doesn't like strong. Sorry about that.
Searching my credit history is bad enough but the release forms you sign to allow employers to do this usually has fine print that gives them permission without any time restraints. That is, they can check up on you whether they hire you or not and for an indeffinte period of time. I always modify their fine print to give them only 30 days of access.
How about my GF who got bad credit for ignoring a final demand. Seems reasonable until you know that they were sending everything to the wrong address and she simply didn't know. Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to work now? She has suffered from this problem for a couple of years and is finding it very hard to clear her name even though she earns very good money. Once you're into the 'computer says no' scenario it can be very hard to extricate yourself. I find this trend a bit worrying.
10 years ago AOL almost ruined my credit history because of their flakey accounting systems. Took me a while to sort things out there too. Little mistakes like this should not lead to enormous consequences.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
I was an irresponsible youth with a drug habit once upon a time. During that time, I managed to ruin my credit rating pretty thoroughly, and it remained tarnished during the period when I'd got my shit together, and was working in the IT industry as a credit controller. I was extremely good at my job, which was enforcing business to business credit terms, despite having shockingly bad personal credit. Professional ingetrity and the ability to manage your personal affairs aren't necessarily related. I don't rate this as a valuable selection tool.
I am a student in Electrical Engineering about to graduate. Now, I managed to pay for part of my education through scholarships, but the rest I had to borrow on credit cards and other lines of credit. My credit rating is not as good as I'd like it to be (terrible?) and I can't imagine having to fork over those records. Hopefully if I am required to get a credit check, my potential employer would have the insight to see that students might have absolutely terrible credit, and it is not due to money mismanagement. When you have to shell out 5 times what you make in a year to pay for something that you HOPE will help you in the future, if it was anything other than education, people would call you stupid. My younger brother on the other hand dropped out of grade 9 and is working at Wendy's and he has great credit, almost perfect. They just let him buy a $45000 truck (Canada). Me on the other hand, probably couldn't lease a second-hand pinto.
Checking to see if someone has repeatedly missed payments or defaulted on loans is not the same as checking to see that they have a "strong" credit history, whatever that may be. Certainly the credit score is irrelevant, but it doesn't even show up on a standard credit check. What does show up is all of your past loans and how many times you missed payment deadlines. So if you have no credit history (recent immigrant) or have massive amounts of debt (paying for Suzy's cancer treatments), you don't have bad credit per se. I may not want to give you a loan at a favorable interest rate, but I won't judge you to be irresponsible. But if you've repeatedly missed making payments on your credit cards, car lease, mortgage, etc., I may deem you irresponsible and not want to hire you.
For a lot of individuals that will have to depend on school loans for reducating themselves within the market it's a hard call for those that are actively pursuing better things for themselves. Then there are those caught in unforeseen events such as medical emergencies that they can't avoid, otherwise they might die. Then there are those that are not necessarily educated enough to know any better to protect themselves from smiley glad-hands. I know a lot of people take advantage of the credit system and I know that there are those that depend on high interest for their income. To decrease lifestyle due to bancruptcies or accumulating debt, more so than what they are already going through, is like beating a dead horse. It goes no where for no one and only satifies a very negative agenda. It might be a measure of imcompitence on both sides but ultimately both sides will be motivated to change their policies.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The vast majority of people in the world can't afford proper food or housing, let alone insurance. We've got enough systems in place to keep the poor stuck where they are, we don't need another one.
It shouldn't be a problem if you actively working on maintaining good credit and your finances. I wouldn't be concerned about whether or not your credit history would prevent you from getting a good job. A bad credit history can prevent you from getting a good place to live. When I got my apartment last year, my deposit was $200, the first month rent was $200 off, and I got a free microwave oven for signing a one-year lease. I had a great credit history and my income wasn't that consistent because I was contracting at that time. A friend applied for an apartment in the same complex because he thought he would get the same deal since he was contracting too. Nope. Bad credit history would get him an apartment with a deposit equal to the first month for a month-to-month agreement. Now he's living with a couple of recovering drug addicts since they didn't require a credit check or that much money up front.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... as long as it's okay for me to see their current balance sheets. Fair is fair. It's the same principle as asking me what I made at previous jobs: I'll tell them only if they'll release their current payroll numbers to me. If they don't like it, to heck with 'em.
Where have you been? This has been happening for years.
Personally i think it should be made illegal, as your credit ablity has no bearing on if you can flip burgers or write good code. But, in this country, corporations wants trump citizens rights.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
>> they're in cahoots with the bran industry, after all...
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I suspect a link to the Toilet Paper industry as well.
So now we have collateral consequence of old criminial records and bad credit preventing people from getting jobs. America will/is turning it's own citizens into criminals just to be able to survive.
I manage a data center (Level II, Grade B) but designed to for a financial company and by God I see a buttload of suspect accounts here. 99% of the truly fraudulent activity we catch, inevitably comes down to someone who is a career criminal. This career criminal may also be a person who's in dire financial straits now and then but hardly any more often than among law abiding citizens.
The fact that someone in dire straits is applying for a job here says they're trying to turn their lives around; the amount of security we have (even down to everyone wearing pocket-less monkey suits for anyone walking into the server area) is obvious. People with criminal records aren't allowed to work here, but I inherited enough good white hat security people (2 who jumped ship from current employment at Tier-1 providers) to take care of potential threats from the rest. We're not perfect, but our insurer thinks we are!
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
What a load of crap.
"industrial psychologist Carl Greenberg"
Thank you Mr. Greenberg for helping solidify such a Myopic view of our credit system and what its "says" about people.
Let you be the one.
...that it's easy to get. And credit and credit cards got popular way back when *job security* was taken as a given. People didn't jump around as much, because they were headed towards that pension, and outsourcing wasn't a factor near as much. You can still get credit issued today, but they don't insist that along with getting the credit that you have adequate income insurance to take care of the credit payments if you get laid off or your job goes *elsewhere*. This could be fixed with one new law, just like you need insurance to drive for instance, but I bet the lending industry would try to stop it. And one more-make ARMS illegal. That's just a bad news way to get credit as many people are finding out now who went for that "make easy money because credit was easy and looked to be cheap forever" real estate scheme that has been going on for some years now.
THEY have to prove that you owe them money - and that usually involves having something with your signature on it. Write to the credit reporting agency and ask them to take it off. The company that claims you owe them money has 30 days to prove that you do or they have to take it off.
I had my identity stolen. It was a huge mess but a few months later, I got it all cleaned out.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Use Bold instead.
Cedit checking employees and potential hires is a tool. Like any other tool, it can be used well or abused. It is also definitely necessary as recommendations from previous employers have been *USELESS* for more than a decade.
I've personally seen, both as an employee observing co-workers and employer observing employees, that there are strong (but not 100%) correlations between working effectivelly and maintining good credit (which is not about being rich, it is about being organized).
The good employers will use this as one of many tools to evaluate employees, examining it both in context and in detail. For example, if I find errors in a resume and cover letter, that is already a strike, and if it correlated with a bad credit score, then why would I expect to get good results from this person? I would also notice that when all other indicators are good, but there is a bad credit score, that this could be a hardship circumstance that I should examine.
OTOH, many HR departments will look at only a FICO score, and just eliminate anyone under X. This is not only unfair, but also STUPID, as it wrongly eliminates many potentially excellent employees. I wouldn't want to work for such an organization.
At least, the father of little Suzy exists. For all practical purposes, I don't. It has been indicated to me (and I checked it) that I don't exist in any credit-reporting databases. My SS number and name are nowhere to be found.
How was I able to achieve such a feat? Even since I came to the US back in 1995 I always paid in cash or personal check. Some large amounts, such as school tuition, were paid by check; everything else - including rent and car - by cash. For online shopping, I use my debit card. At one point I was stupid enough to apply for a credit card, at which point - having no credit - I've chosen a secured credit card. I haven't gotten it because the bank (Chase) couldn't verify my identity, despite me sending in the copy of my driver license and SS card.
At this point, I've got a good job. As such, I don't consider not being able to get another job to be high enough price for being outside of the credit system.
So you manage your finances well. Awesome. Why don't you prove it? Instead of whining about the game, play it to your full advantage.
Since I got my first credit card in university, I've put everything I can on them. And nothing that I can't. (Well, except when we first moved into our new home - couldn't quite afford the move and the new appliances, but then I paid that all off with my line of credit with much better interest rates.) The only times I ever carry a balance is if I forget to pay.
Now, ten years later, if I feel the need to do something credit-based, I have basically no worries. Companies constantly are trying to offer me more credit. I just refuse them with a "sorry - I have all the credit I can afford right now." They generally don't push it. But, if I did want a new card or additional credit for some reason, I should have no problems getting it.
Turns out that it could help me find a job, I suppose. All because I played their game with their rules to my advantage.
Side note: Personally, I get that some people run into tough times and can't afford emergencies that come up, and that insurance companies couldn't possibly act any less ethically without actually causing "accidents" that they don't cover ("acts of God ... and our paid shills"). I don't really see why companies should be using this as a tool in the hiring process. But for those with good credit, I also don't see any reason not to play the game to their own advantage. Get a low-credit credit card. Use it. Pay it off. Accumulate points for free stuff. And improve your credit score, all at no actual cost to you (no fees, no interest, free stuff).
This is an unadulterated power play and invasion of a candidate's privacy. And I suggest all out there looking for work decline the credit check as a part of the interview process.
Unequal Bargaining Positions
Employer (or potential employers) and employees do not have equal bargaining positions. In almost every case, people need their job a lot more than the company they work for needs them. (*)
Further, even small companies have vast resources, far beyond that of all but the super rich. These resources include money, of course, but also huge amounts of mainpower and expertise that the company can use for anything it needs to do to reach its goals.
Corporate Goals
I admit it is an oversimplification to speak of company's goals as if a corporation has pure of thought and purpose. Companies are made of people, and each person has their own ideas for what the company should do. Companies are also hierarchies, which means that people near the top have more influence over things.
In spite of this simplification, companies do tend to act in predictable ways, and we can talk of them having goals. So of course most companies want staff to work hard and get low salaries. It's a natural source of conflict.
Levelling the Playing Field
In reality, the system mostly works. But it works because of controls on the power of companies. Historically these came from workers collaborating to equalize their bargaining positions (union activity). More recently, the government has created a series of laws to try to keep things working (for instance, if none of the staff but senior management take advantage of a company 401(k), then it's tax-sheltered status is revoked).
I don't believe vast amounts of new regulations are necessary, but I do believe that employers will constantly try to take advantage of employees in new and creative ways, and regulators need to be willing and able to review each of their tactics and push back against it if it too egregious.
So... should something be done in this case? My gut feeling is yes, credit checks are far too invasive for a job applicant. If the problem is that former employers are unwilling to give accurate references for fear of being sued, then the legislature can grant a limited immunity to former employees answering reference checks. It's a shame that the courts aren't more reasonable, and that people don't feel like they can say when someone is crap or not, but there it is.
(*) I've seen several people who thought they were critical for their company. In all cases, they were fired, and in all cases, the company survived without them. I have a theory that this is because the modern corporation is modelled after the military. Military units are designed with the expectation that people will die, and that the unit should still be operational (of course with reduced efficiency). Likewise, people leave companies with short notice, so companies need to be able to survive the loss of any one person.
wow. what great progress for america. i'll never pass a credit check, i owe hospitals & drs about 70k+, and it is gonna get a lot more soon (i have ongoing issues).
add in that employers will soon have to run your name against the 'no work' list (brought to you by the ppl who gave us the 'No fly' list) and easily 20-30% of this country will be denied the oppertunity to earn.
great to see this progress we are making here in the 21st century....
-.no
"Sounds sort of arbitrary and ridiculous, doesn't it?"
Not really. "Regular" employees are much less likely to take longer-than-average bathroom breaks during the workday.
Seriously, though, consider the importance of the credit score of an employee in any sort of industry in which employees routinely handle large monetary transactions. Who's more likely to embezzle from you, the guy with a good debt-to-income ratio who makes his payments on time, or the guy who's deeply in debt an makes only the minimum payment every month?
Or say you are an 18 year old college student and get handed 3 credit cards on arrival at university. A year later you are $3000 in debt and you haven't paid your bills a half-dozen times. Stupid, yes, but maybe that person has learned their lesson. But you're still fucked.
I can answer for this one. When I got out of college I had two credit cards and over $30,000 in debt just from tuition. Both of the credit cards were maxed pretty quickly trying to get and keep myself on my feet while I aclimated to the real world. During that time I applied to many jobs many of which ran credit checks. I was employed by one such company. Having debt and lots of it does not lead to bad credit. Not keeping up with your debt on the other hand does.
I find it kinda weird... considering that a lot of companies say it's too burdensome to even bother checking to make sure someone's in the country legally.
One could argue that capitalism will take care of any company that passes over qualified applicants because of a B.S. measure, so long as their competition does not do the same thing. I would keep government regulation out of it unless the practice is so widespread that the free market cannot work it out - for instance, hiring on the basis of race needed government regulation because it was so widespread. Not enough employers bar bran eaters to make it a real problem. On the other hand, if businesses that do scan credit reports do better than businesses that do not, you don't really need a scientific controlled study to draw a conclusion. The practice will become widespread because the businesses that do not practice it will be driven out of business.
My suspicion is that this is yet another corporate fad that will fizzle out. It probably appeared in some bullshit magazine that all of the H.R. executives read.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
wet behind the ears 19 year old Randian. Grok social engineering from the private sector Objectivist.
You've never had a medical problem beyond the flu have you?
Little suzy gets bitten by a mosquito. She suddenly can't go pee after a few days. You go to the doctor and discover she has encephallitis and will die. They go nuts trying to save her, in the process they discover she now has hemophellia. They start popping in drugs that cost $21,000 per dose into her to try and stop the bleeding. Next thing you know you owe them $2.0M dollars.
They put a lein on your home because you're not paying fast enough.
Some of the doctor offices, but not all of them forgive the debt. Apparently the state run one feels you should pay back more than your home is worth.
Don't think that happens? Think Again
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Nope. Hell, they don't even make sure the offshore offices aren't staffed with crooks. Sure, they have access to your credit history and medical records, but why worry?
My kneejerk reaction is, like most people, to envision the guy deep in debt as a shady, irresponsible person, and the former as a responsible, librarian sort. Yet I realize that is 99% because that sort of image has been pushed on me by the industry.
In reality, barring any actual metrics I think there is no way of saying. It's entirely possible that the former is so paranoid about their credit score and social standing, that they embezzle, while the latter is desperate to keep their job to try to dig themselves out of their hole, and wouldn't dare offend their employer. I mean when you hear about embezzling, one often hears about people embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars. Surely they didn't use that to pay off their delinquent student loans (indeed, usually they bought lots of properties, having investments -- they're models of credit worthiness).
Hell, let's just go all the way and chuck them in jail. Then, we can onshore all sorts of jobs since we'd have a broad-based captive workforce. Then we could compete with Chinese prison labor!
Drucker once wrote that you should seek to staff an organisation based on the strengths you could find, not the lack of weakness, because that way led to (at best) being average.
After working in a Dilbert style environment for a few months it has occurred to me that for the upper management, average (at best) is plenty good enough. They aren't worried so much about competition as long as the same money they've always made keeps rolling in. They're more concerned about theft and anything that shrinks that incoming revenue stream. In other words, most of these companies have the market sewn up with legislation and sheer buying power. Growing that revenue stream is not accomplished through radical discovery, just more of the same. Hence you get something like Walmart. Put up another store, get $x more income. Linear growth is fine for them. Pretty soon, you have corporate sprawl. They don't care if their cashiers are high school dropouts that can't count. The register can count for them. They've learned to accept complete failures because once a person is hired, any firing is just going to result in lawsuits that diminish that incoming revenue stream.
Since the lazy crooked credit databases don't care about EVER fixing your data, even when its their screwup or due to fraudulent use etc.
"Yes, your honor, scumbag credit bureau claims I have this delinquent check for $10000 that was actually forged by joetrashdiver back in 1984, and in fact they repeated this slanderous/libelous lie yet again last month when a job I applied to asked them about me."
Choicepoint, the parent company of company which was in charge of purging the voter rolls in FL of convicted felons, offers a range of employee background checks: criminal background checks, motor vehicle records, credit reports, employment verification, educaion verification, license and certification verification, reference background checks, and drug testing.
All of which sounds, on the face of it, reasonable. But employees should be able to see the information being provided to the employer and have the right to challenge it. For example, identity theft can permanently ruin your credit reports. Even if the credit bureaus fix your credit report, there are reports that the companies' data mining efforts repeatedly undo these fixes. Which means that once information is falsely associated with you, it can come back to haunt you at any time, no matter what you do.
Personally, I think a fix for this is that if companies want to provide information to third parties without your consent and without your ability to review it, then those companies should be held financially liable for any damages to you. That would light a fire under them to correct any problems. Right now they have no incentive to remove incorrect but damaging information about you. In fact the opposite. From their perspective a high false positive rate on identifying negative information about somebody is not a problem. So, their customers didn't hire that guy who would have been great. How will they ever know? But false negatives have a huge impact: if they hire somebody who checked clean, but he turns out to be a shoplifter, they'll never use your service again.
I think a better business model would be for the companies to be hired by the worker, not the employer. In that case you'd waive any rights to sue for damages in your service agreement, but in return you would be in control -- within limits -- of your information. When you apply for employement, you give the reference of a respected background check company. It'd be like applying to graduate school: your college sends a transcript which is "official". It may contain details that you'd rather hide, but there's no chance there's anything in it that will surprise you.
Finally, I should point out that companies are now in the business of providing highly detailed information about individual consumers' behavior and spending habits. It's only a matter of time before companies using this data hit on the idea of using the same services to figure out what a prospective employee is like. Imagine: your prospective employer finds out you like to buy guns, including automatic weapons, and and weirds him out.
The problem with these services is the same. They gain their popularity by the incredible depth of detail they provide about you; however there is no real incentive to remove false data.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Some have commented on discriminating against the poor. I find this is also a way to discriminiate against students who have recently graduated from post-secondary education. I know a lot of students who have $50,000 + debts. Many of them are great workers, have good personalities, no criminial history and are looking for experience in their fields. This isn't to say they don't pay their student loans. They do. But I'm sure this doesn't help them out.
Some employment agencies were quoted in the article. I've dealt with a few of them over the years, and I don't believe its so much the employers using this tactic as much as it is the agencies. And if one is *only* employed by an agency (temp, contract work) how the hell can you really build up a good credit with no stable income?
And for those of us like me, with glaring errors on my report? I check my credit report once a year. This year, I found out that they don't know where I live. Apparently I live 80 miles away, in a town I've never even visited. My job? Yeah, the most recent place of employment they have for me is from 4 years ago. Actual credit history? I bought a new car 3.5 years ago; it's going to be paid off in three weeks. There are no late payments, it's ontime, it was a solid ~$14,000 loan. It's not even listed on the big three credit bureau reports. My screwed up credit card from six years ago? Yeah, that was my bad, but it managed to get listed.
So people say "Oh, you can get that all cleared up!". To those people I ask, have you ever tried?!? I can't call; they will only listen to letters. The last letter I wrote got me a response from one of the Big Three (I won't say which) which basically said "We don't believe you are who you say you are. Sorry."
I have a good job right now, one I'm very happy with, but if I need to go job hunting and they rely on a credit check, they might not even believe I'm who I say I am. Basically, the credit system is designed to get great deals for people who can already afford it, and to fuck anyone who is poor and can't afford to climb out of the cracks they've fallen into. Employers checking credit? Should be completely illegal except for certain specific (read: handling lots of money) jobs. Screw this.
The person perpetrating the fraud will have no problem signing your name on those documents. Those documents will be signed with your name.
And when the signed document comes back, the debt will go right back on your report.
YOU have to provide sufficient evidence that you did NOT incur that debt.
And even then, you have to watch your credit report so you can fix it again when that debt is sold to a collection agency.
The law is on the side of the financial institutions in this matter. It is not on your side. If you cannot provide the evidence or you later lose some of the documentation, YOU are responsible.
If you can't get a job, you can't make the payments.
If you can't get a job, you shouldn't be buying a bunch of crap you can't afford.
I'm aware that the US economy seems to be driven by consumer debt, but on an individual level it is simply a dumb lifestyle. People don't need brand-new cars, nor a huge HDTV-ready flat-screen TV, nor the latest computer hardware, etc., etc. If you can afford them, that is pay for them with cash, then feel free. Else, by maintaining a debt load of one's own creation, that person is setting themself up for disaster.
- Borrowing money or commiting long term to certain financial obliegations (eg: rent payments)
- Certain "sensitive" employment positions, aka financial institutions/companies where you will in a postion to steal large amounts of money or government/public sector positions where it might be of interest for people to bribe you
For anything else it should not be allowed by law
And a non existant credit rating for anyone over a certain age (say 21 to 25) should be considered good (where at the moment is it considered bad) because it basiclly means that person has never overextended themselves to the point that they need to go into debt
...and never use credit, but still want a job?
You'll have no history. Is this good or bad?
BWilde
Perhaps, then, the employee is choosing to disqualify themselves by showing sufficient lack of common sense that they voluntarily live somewhere without a health care system?
No, they voluntarily chose to be not insured. Either this fool had a job, but didn't buy himself insurance, or he didn't have a job, and thus qualified for government assistance.
He screwed up, but I have a feeling he doesn't blame himself like he should.
The young, let's say recent college grads, have maybe one or two large-ish debts.
Older, mid-career guys -- and moreso for men than women -- have many more opportunities
to miss a payment or default on a loan or go bankrupt or be unemployed for years at a stretch.
Women, believe it or not, frequently get married in their early twenties, and even though they generally work for a living, they often depend at least in part on their husband's income, and of course, the pressure of the debt often falls on the man.
So a credit check as a reason not to hire, discriminates with a bias against older males.
Now, I personally hope to not find myself interviewing for any job where they would be looking for reasons not to hire me after they had me on their hook. I know from experience as the one doing the hiring, that it is very expensive and time consuming to get someone good in the door. The more mature folks often have credit and tax issues. The more creative folks often wouldn't pass a drug test. Some of the most passionate workers are also people who would never be inclined to follow a dress code or even a strict schedule.
Here is a thought for you: Your sewer pipe is leaking and flooding your basement. The plumber is at the door. Do you spend the time to check his citizenship status, do a drug test, run his TRW, measure his hair length, and evaluate his tattoos, or do you let him fix your leaky sewer pipe?
A place that has the luxury of looking for reasons to disqualify otherwise qualified applicants, clearly doesn't need their help that badly to begin with... meaning, if they can drag their feet about hiring, they can also swiftly lay off... Think about it!
If my shop needed a sysadmin or a C programmer, it means we would be replacing someone with at least 15 years experience. We pay well, but even so, it is often very difficult to get someone qualified in the door. We may *wish* we had so much demand that we could look for arbitrary reasons to cut down the number of applicants, but it isn't ever the case. (I realize there will doubtless be a dozen slashdot posts from unemployed admins and C programmers with tons of experience, but where were you when my company was looking for you???)
Enough of this, I gotta go prune my mesquite trees.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Of course, the majority on /. will say that there's no reason to unionize - that wouldn't be American.
/."
Here's the thing - the corporate world has people brainwashed into thinking that's it's unamerican - that unions are evil. However, coporations are going to continue to chip away at our rights, until only the true believers will be allowed into their domes.
Of course, this is going to fall onto deaf ears... however, in 50 years, you'll be saying "yeah, I saw something like that on
Unions are our right to organize - individually we have little power.
into perfect thinking-machines that never make mistakes?
I'm not a religious person but I know we claim to be a Christian nation and at the same time we go against Christian teachings. Didn't Jesus kick out the money changers from the temple? Didn't Jesus say "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"?
Make your argument. Spell it out.
But I'll ask anyway: how long does (student loan) hardship forebearance typically last?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
And I don't mean /. - I mean the financial reality of the American middle class.
Health insurance is too often inadequate, non-group plans are laughable and obscenely expensive.
The average American has less than a paycheck in ther savings account. I'm willing to consider it's not because of an en masse change in responsibility, that there are may be structural changes that have helped to create these conditions.
More importantly, credit ratings do not tell the story of *how* someone got where they are. Perhaps you should sit down with some of the folks in NOLA who have been paid in the neighborhood of $2,000 for the loss of their $100,000 home. And that's with the insurance they were supposed to have. They're ruined. And their credit score will look the same as someone who went on a spending bender.
But the financial companies, and now insurance companies as mentioned in other comments, and anyone who believes your financial position is an indication of character, has got people by the short ones.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Get an American Express for students credit card. They'll give it to you. Use it responsibly (i.e. don't forget to make a payment every month), and watch your credit rating rise ... I've done the same, and got to a point were every week I was getting ~2 to 3 new card applications.
The Raven
I decided to place a very simple and basic notice into all of my credit reports that it is against my religion to accept credit from anyone and that anyone who offers me credit knowing this fact will not be paid because I consider that a Gift.
That's right, anyone wanting to steal my identity is going to get one hell of a surprise as I have already informed all of the credit bureaus that I don't believe in credit and that any credit extended will not be paid off as it's a gift to me. Thank you for your consideration and for the gift of free money.
I finally checked my credit histroy a while ago. And what I found:
1. A company had made me a job offer, and were listed as my current employer - even though I NEVER worked for them.
2. One credit company would not send a credit report to my home address. Since I got technical journals there, "it was a work address"! It took filing a FEDERAL compalaint before they backed off.
3. My Dad stayed with us for 5 months while his house was being built. After that, His name was on most histories with my wife's names in histories.
4. Wrong addresses and phone numbers.....
So, I don't mind being checked, but the information is BS anyway.... (even after all that my rating is very high)
On a somewhat related note, a number of states are putting much more weight into the credit history of bar applicants when determining whether a particular person is fit to practice law. (If it's bad enough, i.e. multiple bankruptcies and no plan to get out of debt, people have been found unfit to practice law and ineligible to take the bar exam). I see more of a connection in that situation than for the average engineer, scientist, IP job, etc. Lawyers are responsible for an incredible amount of money which does not belong to them. If you're irresponsible with your own money, why should you be trusted with another persons?
What?
My employer does this, but I think they're just looking for someone with enough debt to want to rob the company. It doesn't come in to play in our thumbs-up/thumbs-down decision in engineering to hire someone (the final word). Still, some of the best programmers I've known must have terrible credit (never paying bills on time, etc), because one of the key traits shared by all of these programmers is the ability to focus on one thing to the detriment of all else.
Let HR departments keep doing stuff like this and you'll see more and more "for immediate consideration, please send your resume to this address" where the address in question is not someone in HR.
It's long since time that we returned the task of deciding on competence to competent people.
Have you ever tried to get private/individual health insurance?
Seriously.
It can't be done.
In many states there's ONE carrier willing to issue individual health insurance, and it typically eliminates anyone with a "pre-existing health condition." You might think you're in the clear on that, but very, very few people can reach their mid-30s without having SOMETHING that they can use to deny coverage. I think in some areas NOBODY is willing to issue individual health insurance policies at any price.
When my COBRA ran out a few years ago the only insurance coverage I could get was the state-mandated "insurance of last resort". I was willing to make the sacrifices for the coverage, but most people couldn't since the premium was nearly half my mortgage payment. Fortunately my car was paid off and in reasonably good condition.
Our health care system is seriously screwed up -- did you know something like 47 million Americans are without insurance? It is absolutely inexcuseable for an industrial nation to not have, at a minimum, universal catastrophic health insurance to cover basic care for cancer, heart attacks, etc. People could still have private insurance for private hospital rooms, more exhaustive treatments, etc. It would be far cheaper for everyone involved than forcing doctors and hospitals to absorb massive losses on the uninsured and being forced to pass those costs onto everyone else (disproportionally hitting other uninsured patients since they can't negotiate capped prices), to say nothing of eliminating millions of bankruptcies caused solely by medical expenses.
(Don't get me started on people without insurance being forced to use ERs as 'urgent care', creating long waits for the rest of us and driving up costs since an ER visit is far more expensive than an RN and doc in a storefront office.)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
I should get penalised for avoiding credit totally?
What if I just want to keep my finances simple.
I have two accounts (one high interest savings one), 1 debit card. Why would I ever need credit? If I can't afford something now, I wait.
I can see only two loans that I will ever need. Student loan (which in the UK is risk free, you only pay it back once you are earning above a threshold), and a mortgage.
Personally I can't stand having to remember that I need to leave a certain amount aside for something. I organised it such that my rent and paycheck perfectly co-incide. Everything in my account is then spending money (including food)..
Perhaps you can enlighten me on why avoiding credit makes me a worse employee?
.sigs are for losers
I have dumped all forms of "casual financing." This includes things like gas cards and other credit cards along with anything else that allows you to pay later.
Houses are an exception and cars are pretty marginal when it comes to financing stuff. Just pay everything you can with cash! Ultimately, it's merely a matter of personal discipline whether or not you pay by debit or credit. There's always the "well, buts" and the "what-ifs" but the fact of the matter is that most everyone is simply wasting money playing the whole credit game.
I don't NEED credit... with the exception of buying a house. (It'd be ridiculous to presume someone could save up for a house and buy it outright... and if you could, you'd be the target of every investigation imaginable anyway.) I think the whole credit "industry" needs to be abandoned. Provided you actually pay your bills, you're only wasting your money when you could avoid all interest costs by paying cash. Build up a savings. All manner of good things happen to you when you do not the least of which is that warmer, safer feeling you have knowing there's money in the bank instead of "available credit."
Mostly I think this is bullshit, most peoples credit history does not reflect the kind of person they are. I agree it is discriminatory and the practice needs to be tested in court. But I also think this is a symptom of a deeper problem. With such a large unemployed workforce employers get 1000s of applications for every job. So basically HR ends up having to use voodoo to distinguish between all the applicants for any particular job.
Parent is one of the most insightful comments I've seen on slashdot in years!
If you can't get a job, you shouldn't be buying a bunch of crap you can't afford.
I'm aware that the US economy seems to be driven by consumer debt, but on an individual level it is simply a dumb lifestyle. People don't need brand-new cars, nor a huge HDTV-ready flat-screen TV, nor the latest computer hardware, etc., etc. If you can afford them, that is pay for them with cash, then feel free. Else, by maintaining a debt load of one's own creation, that person is setting themself up for disaster.
While I don't particularly like the level of consumer debt it's not just because of people buying expensive things that keep consumer debt high. This case in the article is an example of someone who put the medical expenses of his daughter for cancer on credit card(s). That's not a simple matter of "is it needed" unless it's taken to be "is life needed?".
FalconShould there be a Law?
I just realized I needed to clarify something from the last post....
Many doctors won't accept patients without insurance (and without life-threatening conditions) even if they can pay for their treatment on the spot. I don't know why, but if you can't see a doctor then you don't have any choices other than the ER.
One proposed solution is literally RN (or was it 'practicing nurses'?) in store-front offices, with limited prescription-writing rights for antibiotics and light pain killers. They could take care of routine colds and infections, broken bones, etc., and would know when to refer the patient to an affiliated doctor. A $20 RN visit is far more affordable than an $80 doctor visit (or $300+ ER visit), and will have the secondary effect of lowering overall costs by catching serious problems early.
But there's been resistance to having RN-based front-line health care. Gosh, I wonder why?
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
So every time you apply for that job, you are getting a negitive on your credit report. So you go for 50 job interviews looking for that PERFECT job. They do 50 checks on you and while you started OUT with good credit.. you now have very BAD credit as you are seen as a credit seeker.
This should be illegal and companies that do it should be fined and their HR directors jailed. Credit has nothing to do with the person's ablity or capiblity to do the job. Period!
Scenario 1: Let's say you're working somewhere and don't have health coverage. You don't make a lot of money, and you can't afford to buy health insurance. You get laid off or fired and can't pay it any longer if you had it. And you get sick, or you have an accident. Or let's say you have health insurance, but there are gaps. Or you have a pre-existing condition and it's not covered by your health insurance. Let's say you are fixing something and drop a tool, and it cuts you. Or you get hit in the crosswalk by a guy who has no insurance and is judgement proof. Or you're attacked by a mentally ill homeless person. Or some emergency happens. So you go to the emergency room - federal law mandates they must treat you even if you can't pay, or they can't be reimbursed by Medicare - and fortunately the injury is minor and you won't suffer permanent damage or disability. Now, you're okay, but you can't pay the bill, which will probably run a minimum of $600 from the hospital, plus perhaps another $200 for the E.R. doctor's bill. Maybe a few incidental items bring the total bill to about a thousand bucks. Maybe you qualify for the hospital to pay some or all your bill from their fund for the uninsured - some have donation plans where people give money for this purpose - but you have to know about it and ask about it. If you don't, they're not going to tell you it's available.
Guess what, when you can't pay, they're going to report you! Now, not only do you have bad credit, a place that looks at your credit before hiring you isn't going to hire you because you have unpaid bills! Now you're unemployed, and can't get work because you're not employable because of your bad credit history! Watch from there as things get worse as you can't pay your bills and have even worse problems. And forget about asking to have a comment inserted into your record, it won't make any difference, creditors and the people who get these reports will no doubt score these things electronically so that the computer will scan them, a person won't, thus, nobody is going to see it and they won't hear your side.
Scenario 2: Consider this: you're late on one $20 payment on your Sears credit card, and it could cause some company to refuse you a loan to purchase a house, because your credit isn't "pristine." This actually happened in the case of one man who had been seeing Europe for a few months, came back and went to buy a truck after he totalled his car, and needed to finance it because the insurance settlement was for the depreciated value and he couldn't pay cash for the remainder. Seems he left money with someone to pay his bills while he was overseas, such as the utilities and such while he was out of the country, and instead of paying his bills they spent the money. Even if he can get the money back it's irrelevant; he's still got some issues on his credit report. Even if he pays the creditors back, with interest, he's still going to have a bad mark on his credit for several months until the reports clear.
Scenario 3: A nice old lady, next door to me, put me on her credit card as an authorized user with a card with my name on it back a few years ago so I could rent a car when she wanted to go on vacation and needed someone to drive her around (she doesn't have a license, and I didn't have a regular credit card (most car rental companies won't take a check card or other debit card even if you have enough money). I forgot about it otherwise. She died. She owed the credit card company money, about $20,000. They put a black mark on my credit report even though I'm only an authorized user; I'm not responsible for the bill. While I sor
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
now here's the biggest bullshit i have ever heard! you work at a shit job and cant' pay your bills. now you are STUCK with that shit job to continue failing to pay your bills, pissing all creditors off. you may be the nicest, brightest or most hard working person but fuck you for buying some food or toilet paper once in a while and not paying off those 50 dollars a month to uncle sam. great. we're all screwed.
My first job out of college in 1992 (during a nasty recession) was as a car salesman. I almost didn't get the job (and then of course, I was asked to quit after two months because I was so lousy at it). Anyway, during the interview, the guy asked me if I gambled or did cocaine. I said "of course not" ... which was true BTW. Then he shook his head a bit and siad that the people who have expensive habits like that often make really good salesmen because they really need money.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I think anyone here that disagrees with companies doing credit history checks has a very good reason which they can cite. Mine-I had my identity stolen several years ago. I still get calls about it. Second hand-best friend while still in school started a business with a partner using his own perfect credit. Short story-great business idea but not enough clients to keep it going so when the lease was up so was the business. His partner refused to take responsibility during the liquidation, and there is always someone to pay. Then after graduation it took him 6 months to find a job. As a result of these combined factors my friend ended up in the lawyers hands. He fought as hard as he could to pay everyone, but everyone wanted their money NOW, not a minimum payment. This goes to show that having good credit does not have as much bearing on ability to manage and/or be a good employee. It was instead market forces that drove the business under not inability to be good businessmen. Although my buddy struggled mightily to pay it was not good enough.
Those who support credit checks seem to think that if you just pay attention and manage it right nothing goes wrong. Well, it does not quite work that way. As part of my identity theft cleanup I had to change account numbers. In the change process my mortgage company confused my name with another client - so I paid his significantly larger mortgage 2 months in a row as well as my own the first month. Since my mortgage came out second to the other guy's mortgage, the second month meant I did not have enough money. everything got cleared with the mortgage company - eventually. But, I hope everyone gets the point here. I HAD enough money, extra even, I was managing it properly, but due to forces out of my control I got screwed, so is it really fair that I should be out of contention for a job without the opportunity to defend myself? As others have stated, it is not easy to get a mistake cleared.
So yes, you might be able to look back at a bad employee in hindsight and say to yourself that by the looks of his credit score you should have known he was susceptible to doing something like XX, but should you deny yourself the chance to hire a good employee? Is that not what a probation period is for, to judge character and ability on the job? At my institution it is 6 months, 3 months longer than the industry average.
Companies should use their brains and not weed out a candidate before speaking in person.
There are numerous reasons why people can have bad credit. Identity theft, unexpected medical expenses, taxes, natural disasters, even corporate bankruptcies. You see, if a corporation files bankruptcy, it can just 'commit suicide' and cease to exist. Its principals, who are often the ones responsible for running it into the ground, simply start a 'new life' and a new corporation with the assets that they manipulated out of the old corporation. Unfotunately, individuals, can't just simply cease to exist and then re-emerge as a new entity. Its quite hypocritical for a corporation who's principals are basically immune from the effects of financial mismanagement can discriminate against those that are not (i.e. the employee).
Perhaps its time to write your congressman and get this practice outlawed. There once was a time in the USA where the lawmakers actually served and looked out for the public. I can remember when the practice of using lie detectors during the employment screening process was outlawed, except for cases where the job warranted it. A credit check may be in order for a CFO or even a bank teller, but is it really necessary for the person who asks "Would you like fries with that?"
I'm not a lawyer, let alone a labor lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt.
My understanding was that any time you add a hoop for applicants to jump through that doesn't have anything to do with the job, and if that hoop makes it harder for minority group members to apply, you're under the gun of the antidiscrimination laws.
In my last job it was routine to run a security check on all new employees, but at least they didn't demand my blood like most(?) companies do these days (ie; drug testing).
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
I have ADHS and in special situations i am sucked in my work and i can't do anything else. In the time of my Diploma, i ignored some Mails and now my credit history is tainted. I made an very good Diploma, but now i shouldn't get the Job?
Is it surprising that more and more People hate our society and made stupid thinks? We don't need to import our terrorists, we made them at home. Disillusioned People with kick-ass education, that are able to build MacGyver-like bombs or crack critical Infrastructure.
And sometimes i think that we deserve it.
But what happens when the credit agencies screw up?
I spent one summer fighting Experian because they screwed up my credit references. I got turned down for a mortgage and I wanted to know why - never been heavily in debt (student overdraft is all), credit card gets paid directly out of my current account every month, got no loans. Turns out it was because according to Experian I wasn't on the electoral voting register. I knew this was BS because I always sign up for the electoral roll. Ended up taking a train to London, back to the old council town hall in Hackney, and ask to see my records - yup, I was in there on the computer, the nice admin lady let me check it on the screen. I phone Experian then and there and say "you've got it wrong, I'm on the electoral roll for those years". Experian person: "No you're not, we've checked your records" Me: "ok I am handing you over to the Hackney council electoral official, could you confirm I am on the screen we're looking at?" (she confirms, passes phone back to me). Experian person: "ah, we must have made a mistake, I'll change it".
Thanks Experian. You screwed up my life.
Moral of story: private credit agencies make mistakes, screw up your life, and don't give a toss.
My advice to you all: if you're going to be entering into a situation where your credit record will be checked (e.g. loan, mortage, etc) do a check first and clear up any mistakes the credit agencies might have made. Obviously, you have to pay them, a private company, to look at your records....
Right, keeping all the money at the top. Increasingly, America is resembling ancient India as our social infrastructure moves inexorably into a rigid caste system. I'm sure there will be legislation against this, as soon as the unemployment rate shoots through the roof (more than it already has under GW shitbrain bush, anyhow).
It may not be much to plan for $2,000 in medical expenses if you make $52,000 a year but it can be very hard if you only make $26,000 a year and many people make less than that.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If my finances were ok i wouldn't need a job!
Credit checks are the new drug testing. They're the latest "because we can" tactic employed by HR to winnow resumes. Like drug testing, once they find out it isn't an efficient tactic, and they're excluding otherwise desirable candidates, they'll stop. The biggest problem with the whole thing is that the information on credit reports is so often inaccurate. I have an uncommon last name. It's almost, but not quite, unique within the United States. I'd hate to be "John Smith," though. I don't know what employers are using. Are they actually looking at open trades and payment history, or just at FICO score? I hope they're not just looking at FICO score. Many things about FICO scoring are counterintuitive. For example, making payment on a long-past-due debt can *lower* your score. Making a payment "resets the clock" and makes the debt seem current, and FICO heavily weights current activity. Then there's the fact that it's better to have five cards with a $5,000 limit each than to have one card with a $25,000 limit. And if you close out your oldest card, that can drop your score. Like that card you got fresh out of college, with the 25% interest rate. You might think you're better off closing that account and using the ones you got more recently that have better terms, but keep it open--one heavily-weighted factor is "age of oldest open account". And so on.
>This effectively relegates the poor to a permanent poor status.
Repealing the estate tax would enable hereditary dynasties. There's an attempt at keeping the rich rich.
Are laws and policies helping keep people in the middle class, or are they being pushed out? Someone's actually tracking politicians's voting records on issues that affect the middle class
A middle class seems to be essential for a free society. Hopeless poor and idle rich make for a dictatorship.
Someone ELSE that gets it- and is in a position to do something about it.
Pending funding, my company's going to be in the position and we've got the same
basic policy.
Why? Because every one of the CXO crowd at this company has been through the
same wringer over the past 5+ years!
Credit score means NOTHING about organizing your life or the work you do in the workplace.
Credit score means you took on debt and either paid it off or not based on circumstances
and decisions- but since circumstances DO play a goodly part of this stuff, it's NOT
at all useful for determining work worthiness.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Are you serious???
Hell, I am dis-organized as it gets, but I have a 762 credit rating. Depending on which credit service you check, I am about as good as it gets...
"So Mr. Smith borrows thousands of dollars and fails to repay it, he doesn't get the new job?"
I know it's all the rage here on slashdot to blame big, bad corporations for making an evil profit, and that personal responsibility is about as poplar as the current occupant of the White House, but this is bordering on the silly.
Credit is something that you choose to exercise. It's a business relationship between you and the credit issuer, where they provide you a service (a temporary infusion of cash, often unwisely spent) in return for a consideration (usually interest on the average daily balance). Utilizing this service and failing to pay back what you have borrowed is akin to theft. If you borrowed 5k from a friend and didn't pay it back, we'd all agree that you weren't much of a friend. Play the same trick on a faceless company (say charging back against a small business owner) and you can feel proud that you've "stuck it to the man" and take the accolades and +5 insightful on slashdot, as a brave hero of the masses.
In any event, the example is ridiculous (but a very nice straw man). You don't max out your credit cards to pay medical bills if you have any sense at all. You make payment arrangements with the hospital (they almost all make a practice of this, and generally are very understanding if you're actually making payments). I know, as I used to work for a hospital that did this all the time.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
They start popping in drugs that cost $21,000 per dose into her to try and stop the bleeding
Fix patent laws and this problem goes away. More government interference to fix problems caused by government interference is never a good thing.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
There is another benefit, and is one of the reasons the CIA, FBI and people required Top Secret clearance have credit checks run. People with large amounts of debt are more likely to be bribed to sell your secrets.
I knew people who weren't allowed to work for companies that contracted with the miltary specifically because their credit was bad and they were a security risk, as it was felt they could be easily compromised.
Does anyone else remember in elementary school the teachers threatening about your "permanent record"
Well, as I grew up and stopped taking teachers so seriously, the credit cabal became the permanent record. Oops! Guess there as one after all.
The argument that is really going on here is about PROPERTY, though no one is really talking about it yet. It will continue as long as we hold the societal assumptions that resources should be mapped to certain people or groups for exclusive use - as long as we promote property rights. These assumptions are based on the premise that the more stuff you have, the move value the person has - and in an information-based economy, this assumption melts away. Ones value is with the information they have, and it will turn property on it's head.
Granted, a base level of stuff is required for survival - but we have that so easily now. Food and shelter will soon (10 years) slide into the "free first" model like calendars and email today have.
There are 800M people malnourished in the world, and 1B overweight. Remeber that when someone tries to argue about getting enough to eat.
___. Try it sometime.
Because that cold might be bird flu that then mutates into an airborne form, causes a pandemic, all of which gets traced back to the poor RN who, along with her employer is then sued into oblivion?
Seems kind of far fetched, but that's always what I think right before someone comes up with a colour coded warning system to guard against it.
Because if you have healthy savings and no spending addiction you have the freedom to tell your boss to take his job and shove it when he asks you to file that box full of documents in the incinerator downstairs. Duh.
Everybody is assuming that companies are looking for people with GOOD credit ratings.....
someone with a brain in charge
For better or worse, that is statistically proveable with relative ease. In that particular case, the ability to manage debt and the ability to absorb the risk without involving your insurance company is what the better rate is for. Given that someone with a high credit score is unlikely to pass that risk on to the insurance company, an argument can be made that it is in fact correct and accurate to not force them to pay the higher premium.
I'm not sure I agree with the practice (I benefit from it, so I'm biased), but from an actuarial/statistical point of view it is accurate.
Kirby
Let me see if I get this right...
All the people who steal from me in my business have had bad credit scores - therefore, all people with bad credit scores will steal from me and my business
Sounds like a bad case of daim bramage...
You know, we could extend this logic to the auto insurance industry too..
If 75% of the people who file claims have bad credit, then all people with bad credit are likely to file a claim. Sounds like a perfectly (il)logical reason to jack up the rates on the people least likely to be able to afford insurance in the first place.
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
Fix patent laws and this problem goes away.
Not quite. Without patent laws the drug industry wouldn't have spent $500 million developing the drug which kept them alive.
Certainly, if there was nothing that could be done for the patient, the problem would go away - the patient is dead - but I don't think that's what you meant.
Would you spend $500 million of your money developing a new drug with no return on your investment?
With patent laws, there is a lot of research into new drugs, and patents expire in 20 years.
More government interference to fix problems caused by government interference is never a good thing.
Yes, and simple-minded stupid solutions aren't a good thing either.
In a country where privacy is increasingly being surrendered voluntarily (and hey, my life is all over the net - 10 points for someone who can find out where I went to secondary school), I fear we're not having the debate about APPROPRIATE USES of this data. Shouldn't credit reporting data be used for ... oh, decisions about extending credit? Codify that into law, asap.
The morality behind the use of a credit check in determining employability strikes me as Victorian at best and totally un-American at worst. I may have left America to live in another country, but I'm proud that HARD WORK regardless of past mistakes can be a viable road to financial success in the US.
See, again people have drawn presumptive anecdotes, and called it evidence. The point was that the insurance industry couldn't make a reasonably accurate correlation between credit scores and insurance worthiness/cost -- It was just yet another axis to penalize people (make enough axis and soon enough everyone can be a bad insurance risk, worthy of terrible rates. It's one of those nice industries where natural collusion means that everyone follows the same profit lines, so it pays off big). If they could convincingly demonstrate an actual (not fictitious scenarios) case, perhaps they would have a point, but they couldn't.
With the number of crooked Cxx whatevers out there and lower level managers who just go along with the bogus stuff,claiming they "didn't know", potential employees need a better way to check on *employers* before considering applying there for a job. Look at all the grunt level folks who got hosed working for Enron for instance. Heh, we also need mandated insurance for employees where if their bosses get nailed breaking the law,and that borks the company, that they automatically receive some nice chunk of change to get them through the next job search. This all the laws automatically default in favor of the already rich stuff is getting way out of hand.
This is illegal in Canada, my credit history has nothing to do with my employability, and is none of my boss-to-be's fucking business.
Bankruptcy can be brought on by other factors than health issues (thankfully here in Canada, losing one's house over an illness doesn't typically happen).
Harsh divorce judgements can also cause insolvency (and they're quite common in Canada, from what I've seen). In my case, she basically got her half, plus with some creative rationalization by the judge, got my half, too (several hundreds of thousands). I however, was left with all the debt, a whopping lawyer's bill, *and* $4000/mo in support payments. I've been living in a 20'x20' place without running water for two years now, while I struggle to get on my feet again. Bankruptcy and/or bad credit is pretty much unavoidable in such a situation. So that should hurt my chances at getting a job? Should I have stayed in a bad marriage to protect my credit?
I've little doubt that you're right, assuming you're talking about the US or other nations with similar current economic situations. I've also little desire to see the US economy tank even though I live elsewhere; I've reached the stage in my life where I've cleared my student debts and such and I now have some investments, and those investments tend to drop if major economies such as the US take a hit.
On the other hand, I think it's important to remember that it is not necessary to base an economy on credit, and it may well be better in the long run to move away from that model. It is precisely the availability of cheap credit, and the limited risks run by the big lenders, that leads to the situation where so many of the poor have to rely on taking credit they have little hope of honouring if things go wrong.
Suppose, in some perfect hypothetical world, that the law made it illegal to offer credit where there wasn't a near-100% probability that someone could repay it. What would happen? For one thing, a lot of people wouldn't be able to afford non-essential but everyday commodities any more at their current annual salaries/hourly rates. For popular commodities, that would most likely lead to cuts in prices at the expense of profit margin rather than drying up supplies. It would also mean fewer people would accept underpaid jobs, and the employee base would become more demanding. In both cases, this leads to more buying power in the long run for the less well-off, as they are forced to be self-sufficient. The big losers would be the big lenders, and the smaller losers would be those whose business investments no longer had such good returns because of the lower profit margins, i.e., those significantly further up the ladder.
So while of course we don't want a big bust and all the nasty knock-on effects, it is not in most of society's interests to perpetuate our current credit culture. Aiming for people to be as self-sufficient as possible in their finances, and realistic about borrowing for big, long-term loans like mortgages, is ultimately in everyone's best interests except those currently making a fortune out of the poor by keeping them poor through one-sided credit agreements.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This creeps me out in the same way the Bush NSA spying scandal does. Big organizations both public and private it seems are continually on the look out for ways to increase their power and control. The reason I am an anarchist and not a Libertarian is I think large private organizations can use spying powers and other coercive means to ruin peoples lives as often as governments do. Yet for Libertarians suddenly ANY level of spying becomes OK if it's to protect their first love which is not liberty but property. I say a pox on the spy mongering whores of both concentrated property power, and concentrated government power.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
You might want to look into how much money is lost to high-end, "good employee" types in major fraud cases, compared to petty thefts of the odd $10 from a cash register. You might be surprised by the results.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Fix patent laws and this problem goes away. More government interference to fix problems caused by government interference is never a good thing. I agree! After all, if the drug had never been invented in the first place, then there would be no reason to administer it to the sick individual and incur such nasty costs.
"If Mr. Smith mazes out all his credit cards because he didn't buy proper insurance for little Suzy, and had zero savings, and then can't afford the minimum payments because he bought too much home and a new car, then he doesn't get a new job."
"Seems a pretty legit factor for employment to me."
Interesting point-of-view. I know a few people whose credit histories are marred, greatly, and none of them fit that scenario. The most interesting is my best friend, battling brain cancer. She makes $23,000/year. Her yearly out-of-pocket premiums are capped at $2000 (almost 10% of her salary). Her chemo is $230/month and she's been on it for two years. Her other prescriptions (anti-stroke medication, steroids, pills for nausea, etc) are another $100/mo. She puts out another $60 - $100 in doctor co-pays every month. It's obviously a struggle for her to pay her medical bills, she's been late before and sometimes gets underwater. Now every time she comes across a windfall (tax refund, christmas money) it goes into savings to get a jump-start on her yearly $2000 out-of-pocket premiums, because she maxes it out every year. She's had four brain surgeries, one devastating round of radiation and continuous chemo. She can't get another job to earn more money because her current employer is understanding of her need to go to all the doctor's appts and weeks off for surgery, not to mention the last 2 days of chemo every month which leave her sleeping 18 hrs/day.
I know what her credit report looks like, I've seen it. No surprises there. But let's say the cancer goes back into remission and she can dream of a real life for herself, including finding a better-paying job to pay for her living expenses. She was back at work with the bandage and staples still in her head. She insists on sharing the costs of any meals we have or paying me back for theater tickets, and I make five times her salary. She's full of integrity and a dedicated worker. But according to you, it would be fair to blackmark her because her credit history is failing to report her individual story to a prospective employer.
Personally, I have no consumer debt, one mortage with a 38% Loan-To-Value ratio, a 800+ FICO score and excellent credit and income. And I would never sign a consent form for any company to check my credit score for employment purposes, unless it was required for clearance. I would explain to whomever was asking for it that though my credit is excellent, I choose not share it, and if I am not offered the job based on my refusal, well, that would be fine with me.
You can argue till everyone's blue in the face over the details (Health Ins, Credit Cards, etc) and never touch the real issue. The reason that Corporate America is doing this is because they are driven to maximize thier "personnel investment" and want a non-human way of verifing the value of a "unit" of investment. The value, or potential value, of an INDIVIDUAL to a company is a function of that individual. Not, thier SAT, FICO, IQ or any other score. As far as money goes, Where does anyone think it comes from? Its the increasing spending of the bottom 3 quintiles that supports the "consumer driven" economy. Its cell phones, ringtones, health ins. cable tv, groceries, gas and the thousands of other products that are sold to provide profit opportunity to the thousands of corporations that are not hiring people because of thier inability to spend increasing $$$ without getting in trouble. And, yes, MBA's are going the way of the DoDo. As is anything else that costs the corporations $$$....like people.
Houses can be sold.
Apparently, you think that if you run up a huge bill, you don't have to pay what you can.
It's sad when someone gets sick. It's sad when expenses are high. But people should pay their bills when they can. If it means you have to sell the house and rent a small apartment, then that's what it means.
Also, if you need charity, ask for it. Don't steal money from creditors instead.
Fix patent laws and this problem goes away.
Because the drug never gets developed and the child dies.
Me, I certainly have a bad credit rating at the moment -- mostly, leftover tax problems I've been lazy about clearing up, e.g. a state I used to live in thinks I owe them money for a year I no longer lived in the state -- but this has nothing to do with my attitude toward my job.
Also you know... companies that are having problems with employee retention might prefer hiring someone with a big debt load, they're likely to be more stable...
You raise a very good point here: Are the prospective employers getting your credit "score" or a fully detailed copy of your credit report? Also, does this employer have a policy statement which describes their use (and their future refreshing of this information along with future disposal) of this potentially valuable and error-prone information about you?
The credit check appears on the face to be more useful for corruption than almost any other employer mandated check they do (drug test, background check, etc actually have a measurable purpose: what's the credit check really provide feeding into the evaluation process--that is a fair question to ask).
Another thing I have had experience with: Ask the employer if they do this check themselves, or if they hire this function out to a third party. If it's a third party, ask who it is and find out their policies to ensure *they* will take care of your personal information. In general: I don't trust companies much, and third-party investigation firms even less (think "HP and the board" here).
Had an interview with a large corporation and they wanted me to basically sign over all my rights giving them carte-blanche to grab everything on me *before* the interview even took place. To my way of thinking this was very much over the top.
Lately I even refuse to give them my SSN until after some sort of interest has been shown on both our parts. Indeed: Almost every job offer these days is conditional on passing a drug screening/background check anyway. A credit check (if appropriate) belongs in this part of the job interview/acceptance cycle. Not before.
As for if it is appropriate: I feel that the credit check is much less useful than a background check (looking for felony convictions, for example).
You need to understand more about how credit reporting works.
First these inquiries don't hurt your credit (see the other poster)
If you give your permission why should it be illegal.
If you have bad credit, not just a few missed payments, but a longstanding history of not paying bills you might not be a financially stable or responsible person.
I wouldn't want to trust my business to someone who simply can't manage to pay their cable bill on time.
I think proper reading and interpretation of the report is important, also an understanding of the circumstances surrounding them.
Credit card companies, credit reference agencies and debt collection agencies deserve everything they get. They all live off people's missery. Would the world be a better place without them? Oh yes.
Due to redundancy, taking a new job close to family on lower wages and getting my partner pregnant, I fell into debt. For three years I learnt to play the game. Soon I will play the game again.
Note that I have no idea how to play the game in the USA nor would I want to.
1. Register with a debt charity. There are plenty. Listen to their advice but do not act on all of it.
2. Arrange low payment plans. Tell them you are registered will a debt charity. Tell creditors that you need £20 a week to spend on alcohol. £20? Oh yes. I don't drink but the game says you can claim this as a reasonable living expense. Cigarettes, no. Booze, yes. Amazing. Yearly holidays to visit family are also reasonable. They will stop the interest payments at this stage.
3. Move house if you are renting. It's easily done and will buy you another 12 months.
4. Save the money you would normally use to pay creditors monthly. Don't give them a penny.
5. Change your phone number. It's easlily done. Tell the phone company you are being harrased nightly by creditors. Everything should be done in writing.
6. Stand in front of a magistrate. It's scarey but it will buy you more time before the baliffs come knocking.
7. Demand to see the credit agreements you signed. Some creditor are so sloppy that they cannot find their own records. It will buy you a few more months anyway.
8. Finally, a few days before the baliffs come a knocking, phone your creditors. Offer them a settlement figure of 50%. You have the money because you've not been paying them for 24 months (see point 4). They ALL accept 60% but 50% is a good starting figure. Tell them you've just sold your car and if they don't take the money you'll spend it on a new car.
9. After you are debt free apply for a credit card. All greedy credit card companies will give you one. Use it the pay for the weekly shopping and no more. Pay it all off. Now you've just saved a month's worth of shopping bills.
10. Get your credit limit increased. Take out personal loans. Lather, rince and repeat and save yourself 40% on all your big purchases.
It takes brass bollocks at times but it's all part of the game.
Employ me or not. I can survive just fine without your job.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
No problem, I'm cooking up a sample right now that
I would be thrilled to give to my boss.
I'll just leave it in his in-box.
Let me clue you in, pal... if everyone abstained from credit cards whose income was highly vulnerable, the economy would tank and your comfortable, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps universe would collapse anyway. Our economy lives and dies by consumer credit card spending: it is that huge a factor.
Ah yes, the fabled "consumer economy". Mainstream Media tells us that it's alright that the other half of the economic equation, production, has mostly moved to China in recent decades (... due to mismanagement of the economy by the Federal Reserve, but that's another post). They say this transfer of production is alright because we now have a "service economy".
The main problem, as I see it, is that China doesn't much need our "services", and the U.S. economy is now in the process of collapsing (beginning with the housing bubble). There are consequences for record budget and trade deficits, you know.
The collapse of Ford and General Motors will mark the acceleration of the trend, as hundreds of thousands of Americans depend on those two giants for their paychecks. General Watch also chronicles the decline and fall of General Motors.
Other sites whose economic analysis I've come to appreciate include The Daily Reckoning and Mish's Global Economic Analysis.
I myself am slowly running up the balance on my credit cards. Used to pay 'em off every month, but I'll need supplies for when the banking system goes, and there will be so many "bad debts" that I expect no one will come collecting. I'm not buying frivolous crap, mind you, just some bulk food items and other "stuff" I think will be useful.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
I think this is more a problem with the American health care system than credit checks for employees. Bankrupcies and repossessions due to medical problems are rarely an issue in countries with fully socialised health care, however much Americans hate it.
Whether or not we as a society are keen to admit it, the fact of the matter is that credit checks are a fairly major indicator of an employee's likelihood to steal. There are a *lot* of examples of people being put--and putting their employers--into ugly, compromising situations because of the employee's debt. Put simply: Increase the degree of that person's likelihood to need "a way out," and you WILL increase the risk of corporate theft and embezzlement.
This may not represent YOU as a person, but it does represent people generally speaking.
Doing background checks on individuals--especially those with access to your company's till--should quite often include seeing if they're in the position personally to be more likely than others to steal if given the chance.
Let me put it this way: At least at a minimum, at least *do* the credit check on the prospective new hire. That way you as the employer can have a candid discussion about it with the candidate and decide if you're at risk or not.
When someone has started a company and grown it from an idea and a seedling into something real, protecting it is rational. Heck, it's rational to want to protect a company you *didn't* start if only because you want to protect the company to protect your own place there. Let's face it: there is a LOT of trust given to employees in most companies. That trust is indeed (like it or not) room for Very Bad Things(tm) to happen.
Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
Just last week we had a guy up for promotion. A credit check was run. Instead of getting the promotion he got demoted and upper management is strongly advising we lose this guy.
Problem; more debt than income which the promotion would have solved. Now the guy will be on unemployement for christmas.
Perhaps all is not as grim as it sounds though. The guy is (was) an area manager for a chain of retail stores who was responsible in part for inventory ordering, accounting and reportage of business financials etc. While his job performance had been considered acceptable his personal financials was in shambles due to obviously poor decision making.
Subsequent to the investigation it was wondered how the guy managed to get as far as he did in the company. While excellent people and sales skills was readily ackowledged, he will no longer be allowed within a country mile of money even though this guy was never suspected of wrong doing.
As is currently stands the guy isn't considered acceptable to hold anything better than an assistant store manager position and even that isn't desireable. Better to give the oportunity of that position to a potential up and comer.
Given the guys history of divorce, bankruptcy, loan defaults and chronic lateness in addition of being perpetually behind in child support payments, the reasoning is understandable and it has now come to the point where credit checks, indeed complete background checks, can be run at minimal cost, time and effort. It is not surprising that this type of investigation will soon be applied to all possible employees across the board.
The chilling aspect to all this is that from your eighteenth birthday forward everything about you of consequence is being recorded and much of it is readily available by virtually anybody. There is no escape, errors of the past will follow you your entire life, determining your future in large regard and is a matter that cannot be denied.
As an aside; Identidy theft can destroy your life. It can also give you a new one.
Yeah, I've seen this first-hand. Girlfriend of mine (hopefully soon to be wife) has some serious issues getting jobs because of this situation. Why?
Four years back, she moved out to college. Roommates were druggies, she ends up getting raped by them while they're high on coke and left in a diabetic coma. Roommate's girlfriend finds her, gets her to the hospital, but she's out for 3 days, doesn't remember anything... no charges can be filed. Girlfriend moves out, spends the next three weeks trying to get taken off the lease, but the appt owner won't budge.
Fast forward 3 years, she gets served papers for non-payment of rent, seems the druggie roommates skipped town a few months later and my girlfriend is the only person on the lease they can find... and she has to pay it all off. Big kick in the credit there.
The vast majority of people in the world can't afford proper food or housing, let alone insurance. We've got enough systems in place to keep the poor stuck where they are, we don't need another one.
The vast majority of those people live in a third world country. You make a good sound arguement in classifying America as a soon to be third world country. Most fo the developed nations and all of the west have healthcare of some level with the US being one of the lowest levels.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
total debt load affects your credit rating as well, regardless of your ability to pay.
While your total amount of debt is a factor, it is mostly as compared to the total credit available to you. Given the same credit amount available, say $100,000, your FICA would be higher if you only have a debt of $10,000 than say $50,000. It's the ratio of your debt to available credit more than your total credit that is important.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I bet if you'd run credit checks on Jeffery Skilling or Bernie Ebbers, you would have found incredible credit scores. Unfortunately, this in no way reflected their honesty or integrity or their abillity to "organize and run a business". A credit check does nothing more than verify that the person can manage money. It doesn't even touch integrity or honesty. It's just another way for our employers to pry into our private lives and have some excuse to do it.
Unless you are applying for a sensitive job (government, banking, etc) I can't find a single use for a credit check.
It seems very likely to me that someone who screws up and/or is unreliable in one area in life, will show the same behaviour in others. I would bet that if you compare employee performance and reliability with people's credit scores at hiring, you'd find a substantial correlation. Somebody has probably already done this.
Of course, I'm just speculating, and would be happy to be corrected by facts, if anyone has some to offer.
I check credit on my applicants. It is not make or break, but given two almost equal applicants it for me breaks ties. It is a historical judgement. If there are collections, no way, but large debts I generally ask the applicant to explain if I really want to hire him/her. Medical issues I throw out. Large medical bills are hard to pay for even higher income, but late payments, especially any collections, etc....their resume gets the trash or they are not hired in the tie breaking phase. I also check facebook and myspace, and do an extensive background check.
I guess these employers wouldn't want to hire Trump then either.
--
$tar -xvf
Poor credit ratings are a sign of bad judgement and recklessness. Not poverty
Wait until you have no insurance and you have a bad accident or serious illness before you say that. As a student and working parttime but with no insurance I was riding my bike one day when I was hit by a moving van. The medical bills from when I was in the hospital were more than $100,000. On top of that I spent more than a year in therapy, I finally quit therapy because I couldn't pay for it, the last tyme I was in therapy it cost $1500 a week and it was after 6 months when I stopped, and I had moved to anothe rstate to get that therapy. You could say that I should of had insurance but I checked into getting some but I couldn't get it for less than $300 a month. Heck I was lucky if I made $150 a week, there was just no way I could of afforded insurance if I were going to stay in school.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Ironically, the credit score in insurance isn't about being a better or worse driver. It's about who is more likely to file a "$2,500" when you back into someone else's care in a parking lot. People with good credit will probably pay that themselves, where as someone with bad credit is less likely.
I only have liability, have driven for 20 years, and never filed a claim (when I DID have full-coverage). I DO have a lot of debt from getting a masters degree and from being unemployed for 6 months. Why should MY insurance go up? It's not like I can file a claim against my liability insurance - that's only there to protect other drivers.
My guess is that a lot of people with poor credit are driving paid-off cars with only liability coverage. As long as they pay their premiums, there should be no reliance on credit scores.
Of course it's a racket. The credit scoring companies secure huge profits by getting other industries to rely on their scores to make judgements. They don't care if their results are accurate or not. They just want as many industries and companies as possible to use their "services", and they'll do everything they can to make the case that their scoring is the best way to discriminate against people.
Ultimately, we, as a people, should not judged by a scoring system that we cannot see how it works - and cannot hold the scorers liable for inaccuracies and corruption.
Why do business have this much power to look into your history.
Seriously. Do we need another civil rights movement ?
...are typically just looking at the report and not giving a damn about what
caused the "problems" if there is any.
A Credit Report is NOT a good metric for "organization" or "trustworthiness"-
at best it's an indicator of the risk level for giving out credit. Nothing more.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Travoltus:
"I already told my HR department 3 months ago to never even think about this bullshit tactic"
"b) It makes it impossible for people with poor credit histories to recover from it; therefore, those who are economically down in the dumps, are forced to remain there."
Is it your, and your company's, responsibility to try and make poor people's lives happier? What about the responsibility to the owners, shareholders, to make money? Business is not a charity, if you want to do charity then volunteer or support government programs that do this kind of work.
Also, you seem to have a view of poor people as 'down in the dumps' victims who are not competent enough to realize that it's bad to spend willy nilly on credit. If indeed poor are as stupid as you make them out to be then I think the school system is not doing its job teaching the concept of savings and interest payments.
This is more likely to do with the new bankruptcy laws. Now that the credit card companies can garnish your wages post-chapter-11 it's likely to become company policy across the board.
stay tuned.
She shouldn't have to be working at all! She's probably ringing up hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills. Why make her put in what amounts to a drop in the bucket?
Or only people smarter than you.
I just left a job ( the sole reason: wanting to move up north) after 4 months, which I did enjoy while working there. They did an exasperatingly-lengthy background check on me, including credit. This huge company owns multiple succesful dotcoms, including sites that advertise apartments, cars.. and this company owns newspapers. The point I'm making: I had a bankruptcy in 2002. (before then, I judged people who did this, and then after, I relaxed that judgement) But they hired me anyway. Why? Because, I prepared for the interview, but even more, I was simply qualified for the job. I always refuse an the interview ( their personal recruiter contacted me ) unless I am sure I am qualified! If they're looking at you with your experience/knowledge and your less-than-bright credit, and someone else with a perfect credit record who buttered up their resume, (and it was thus obvious during the interview), you're going to be hired. If you leave a good enough impression through the intervew, and they thus feel nervous that they could lose money by *not* hiring you, they're going to hire you. They will look at the positives, such as *not* having a criminal record, and other problems.
Pretend that every single person you meet has a sign around his or her neck that says, "Make me feel important." -MKAsh
If you read the article provided, Novo Nordisk (the maker of the $21,500/dose NovoSeven) actually provided the drug entirely free. It's the hospital that's causing this, not drug companies.
Is this a new form of firing?
Credit history: None of your damn business!
http://outcampaign.org/
There was a case in the mid 90's. I am trying to find it on the Westlaw server where a guy was stealing blank vendor checks from a business and the vender sued the business that employed the guy for failure to properly do a check that would show a guy who had massive debts. They won because the jury said he was more likely to steal than other applicants with better credit and therefore the business put people at risk for theft....Crazy but true.
Lower income families with a credit card can score very well. A big portion of your rating is the difference between what you owe and what your limit it. Add in timely payments and they could have a stellar rating. Income is not a factor in your rating!
Anyone who uses credit without the ability to repay is stupid. There are so many ways that many people who are "stretched" can cut back and do so quickly.
No more smokes
No more booze
Store brand ONLY
No eating out
No movies out
High Speed Internet becomes cheapie dial up service.
All those cable channels - into basic cable
Cellphone - into pay by the minute plans
Any monthly not bound by contract should be terminated.
The bane of most people is store credit cards. That 18months no interest looks great.. then.
Credit is a priveledge. It also is a responsbility. Excuses don't cut it. All those fees and penalties on credit cards exist because too many people don't pay them off. So those who can pay for it are stuck with the bill.
Yeah I know the exceptions, but I have seen families crunch down hard to do it. Medical expenses... time to downsize the home... the cars... you name it. Real families will and do so. Putting it off or whining about it only makes it worse.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
This is a huge misconception. Failing to pay your credit cards does not constitute theft. When you buy stocks in a company you expect to make money on your investment but sometimes these companies do poorly or otherwise dont perform to expectation and you lose money. Same goes with people and credit card companies. Credit card companies are investing in you. It's a business arrangement and like all business arrangements, there is risk involved. Credit card companies are not entitled to guaranteed payments or profits. Shit happens and if you end up not being able to pay, then primarily its the credit card companies problem. They made a bad investment. True some people get credit cards and max them out with no intentions of paying them back from the start, but this is a small minority of people and if it results in a big loss (>5,000) for the credit card holder, than it's probably their own fault for giving them such a high-ish limit. Most people know that maintaining a good credit history is important for their long term finances and they do try to pay and keep their credit in good standing. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement for card holder and card user alike.
It becomes self-fulfilling prophesy...
smoke out those people who are dishonest and don't pay their bills (steal from others).
of ocurse, i pay my bills and i am responsible, so i don't mind getting the added advantage of those who are unable to control their purchases and are willing to steal being smoked out.
if there are extenuating circumstances, note that in your credit file.
Is it your, and your company's, responsibility to try and make poor people's lives happier? What about the responsibility to the owners, shareholders, to make money? Business is not a charity, if you want to do charity then volunteer or support government programs that do this kind of work.
Busiensses have a responsiblity to be good corporate citizens. In a long term view, this almost always results in tangible and intangible gains far higher than the slight cost of the modest ineffeciencty this introduces. Employees who feel that they can trust management to be compassionate towards them will return the favor, and customers who get that same sense from the employees will utilize the company more often.
So, yes, it is a company's job to try and make poor people's lives happier. Because in doing so, the poor people will work harder for the company and give more of their business to the same company. There is a limit to it, but not doing so at all is just bad business.
On the contrary, maybe they'll think that if you're in debt up to your eyeballs, you're desperate for work.
An executive's duty is ensure his company is as profitable as ethically possible. Every citizen also has a duty to ensure the health of his nation, and that includes allowing others a chance to work their way out of a pit.
And if the school system is not doing a good job of teaching personal finance, well, acknowledging the fact doesn't make the problem go away. People aren't good with credit, that's the situation, and accomodationsh have to be made.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
It isn't just the credit scoring companies -- Financial services companies want the ability give out massive amounts of credit loosely, to anyone with a pulse, and they want basically a mob-like ability to make damn sure you pay it back (even though they price risk in, they basically want to turn the odds even more in their favour, so to speak). Expect to see more of this (e.g. "Credit scores will now be used to determine mandatory curfew times").
Imagine a Grade 6 teacher who could put your name on a master "naughty" list for life, scaring you from talking out in class otherwise the rest of your life will be screwed. Same sort of idea.
Your company will fail if your employees don't make enough to buy your product.
Is it your, and your company's, responsibility to try and make poor people's lives happier?
Carnagie and Gates say, "yes." And both seem to know/have known a little bit about buissnesss.
What about the responsibility to the owners, shareholders, to make money?
Are they mutally exclusive? I mean, really. Free market is based on the idea that companies, and people act in the intrest of society, because doing so is in their intrest. That said, some companies have become corrupt because of a few bad apples; but does that capitalism is broken and doesn't work?
Hiring based on skills and talents rather than credit rating may improve the staff, build a better product, and improve the welfare of company and it's shareholders. While, at the same time, giving someone who has not had money to make payments on his debts the oppertunity to get a leg up in the world.
Business is not a charity, if you want to do charity then volunteer or support government programs that do this kind of work.
Also, you seem to have a view of poor people as 'down in the dumps' victims who are not competent enough to realize that it's bad to spend willy nilly on credit.
1. 90% of America is not cometent enough to realize it's bad to spend willy nilly on credit, and most would be in a very place if they went without one or two paychecks. How much do owe? How much do you make? What's the minimum ballences on your credit cards? What cards do you have? Do you have morgage? What's your anual income? Common, if you can tell the companies your applying at, may as well tell us.
2. If they are perpetually unemployed because they have bad credit, then how will they find jobs to correct the situation.
If indeed poor are as stupid as you make them out to be then I think the school system is not doing its job teaching the concept of savings and interest payments.
We'll see how stupid everyone else is when you answer the above questions and we can do the math on your accounts and see how long you can go without pay before being one of these "stupid poor people."
Are they also checking on the Honesty and Integrity of the creditors?
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
That's crazy talk. By that logic, they could, say, make you pee in a cup and test your urine for drugs.
Oh, wait...
Is the good credit history from rich parents or hard work.
Is the bad credit history from circumstances outside your control, or the inability to control spending.
It's an interesting question. I believe a lot of a person's money management skills come from their parents (and in this regard, wealthy parents don't necessarily give good credit to their children...spoiled children might become demanding adults who have little understanding of money management.) Undoubtedly, good money management is something that's passed down through the generations; in fact, a suprising amount of the Old Testament is devoted to money management issues.
Americans are a notoriously optimistic lot, and are often willing to go into debt with the belief that future higher pay will take care of it.
We were also a high savings low debt nation until the 1970s, when credit cards bloomed and the credit rating system developed. The parental knowledge of money and credit management was no longer as fitting in the new environment, so as time progressed, the generations became a bit lost in this regard. Optimistically, I could see a massive turn around--young people of today who have gotten burned on bad credit and buying decisions will teach their children to be extremely wary of credit and debt.
I've also heard an interesting theory regarding teenagers working. We have teenagers working not to support their families, but to soley support their own discretionary buying habits, and that creates a situation in which children grow into adults who are accustomed to having a lot of discretionary buying power, but once they are out on their own, that's not necessarily the case. The lesson here is that if children are to work, their parents have to work extra hard at making sure that their kids understand the benefits of saving and investing, and the joy of living without something that they really didn't need.
Take the example of someone who has been through a really serious divorce and then "downsized" as a typical example: Said person is saddled with half of the marital debt, yet has NO income. Unemployment runs out and payments go into arrears and his or her credit score suffers as a result - possibly a bankruptcy happens as well - or at least a judgement or two fall in, which are later settled - that credit score is still down the tubes for at least SEVEN years. That person will not get a job, based on "bad credit organization" under this model. The model is flawed. But it is a VERY common situation. Or worse, a company, with an H.R director who is some sort of "morality nut" looks at your credit record and sees that you have a charge account with Fredericks of Hollywood and with an adult video service... do I need to connect the dots? ... You won't get that job, regardless of HOW pristine your credit rating might be, nor HOW qualified you might be for that position!
An employer has NO right to look at a potential hire's credit record. They are NOT a lending institution, they are NOT a taxing authority and they are not allowed to do such a check without the new potential hire signing off on such a check.
If you are a potential new hire, anywhere, REFUSE, and state your reasons FOR refusing - which is that the company has NO LEGAL RIGHT to look at your credit history, whatsoever and, if they refuse to hire you BECAUSE of your refusal to do so, I would suggest that a talk to the EEOC would be the next logical step, because this kind of thing amounts to economic discrimination. And that's illegal.
Too many people are WAY too free to hand out their personal financial information. Keep it between your lendors and the tax people - the ONLY ones who, by law, are SUPPOSED to have access to that information!
Lee Darrow, C.H.
Chicago, IL
One place I worked even had someone in teaching this stuff, along with time management etc. The school system doesn't teach it any more and parents who should be the ones passing on the knowledge are often ignorant of the way to handle money themselves... with a large number of young employees it's a good investment for any company.
Now as a senior manager as we get bigger I'll be doing the same thing.
Here are my very simple reasons for that:
- Psychological problems
- People calling in sick
- People loosing their car (can't drive to work)
- People loosing their house (can't have bums working for McDonalds)
all reasons that make them a bad hire for McDonalds.Hiring minimum-wage workers is a different process from hiring specialist workers. Minimum-wage hiring is mostly about filtering out bad candidates. Specialist-hiring is mostly about finding the best candidate.
Our health care system is seriously screwed up
No argument there. It combines the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism with none of the benefits. The two most harmful misfeatures are the linkage between your job and your insurance (which means you're doubly screwed if you lose your job), and the attitude that insurance should pay for *everything* (which drives up costs because you don't have to care how much doctors charge). We need high-deductible catastrophic-only policies that are affordable to individuals. HSAs are a decent step in that direction, but with employer-provided insurance still the norm there's not a big incentive for people to move to them.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Hi. I have good credit. Never seen my credit report, but I never seem to have problems getting credit when I need it. Now, the following is going to seem selfish, but I think it illustrates another problem with this method.
What happens if I lose my current job? Well, I'll apply at multiple places, correct? It increases my chances of finding another job.
So I send out 30 or 40 resumes to different groups. Each one has this credit-check policy in place. So now, in the space of one month, I might have 30-40 credit checks performed against me. If my understanding is correct, *every* time you have a credit check performed, your credit rating decreases.
So essentially, even someone with good credit screws *themselves* looking for a new job. Be sure you get in quick with the first job you apply for, or else your credit will turn to garbage in a very short period of time.
What the hell kind of solution is this? Not only do applicants with poor credit histories get denied, but the applicants with good credit histories will suffer the same fate?
Brendan "Beej" Dery "Only in Canada, eh?"
The problem is that the 31 year job seeker with the crappy credit is not the 18 year old little jerk who ran up all that debt in college because some credit card company thought it was a good idea to loan him $15,000. Not that the 31 year old shouldn't pay all that money back- the point is the 31 year old is much more responsible than the 18 year old ever was. Employers should understand that at the very least. And credit card companies should encourage this thinking since the 31 yo looking for job is the one to has to pay off the debt or declare bancruptcy..
You can guess, but until there's a study, you're just guessing. It's not even an educated guess. My guess is that a) executives are more likely to embezzle from you than non-executives, and that b) executives have good credit ratings.
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is a direct result of business, rather than the people, controlling the government. (not the op)
A big part of our business is taking maths/science people into banks to become quants, and we're a well known name in this game, and I'm a director of the firm. So I do have a good perspective on this. Banks are (surprisingly enough) careful about the financial background of the people they employ, and yes they do credit checks. Reason #1 is that they are very very cheap, $10 will generally do it. They confirm that you are probably who you say you are, indicate that you don't have much of a criminal record, and yes that you don't have a flagrant contempt for money. Certain types of credit malfunction indicate chemical abuse or gambling issues. Banks aren't keen on any of the above, and I think we all can assume they are about the worst case scenario for this sort of problem. But... A good % of students had "interesting" credit histories. Banks won't knowing hire bankrupts, and there is an array of credit "issues" that means they are forbidden to hire you in any useful capacity. People do get hired by banks who have had problems, and by other types of firms. Forgetting the occasional bill, is not a big deal. Usually, I can't guarantee anything 100%. The trick is to tell your pimp. It's our job to deal with this sort or crap, and we've had more than one person with this problem. Enough that I have taken the trouble of getting specific confirmation from senior HR at household name banks that provided the courts weren't involved they simply don't care. Of course pimps need to be managed like everyone else. I can honestly say that my gang won't care, but will gently drop it into the ear of HR once they say they want you. We don't get paid if you don't get hired. That might be obvious, but always remember this in dealing with recruitment people. But I wouldn't tell you to put this on your CV, or mention it until they are positively interested. You *must* do it before they offer, and you must tell them the truth. Nothing makes an employer lose interest faster than nasty surprises. Tell him up front, and get your pimp to help spin it. They will be a bit sad you didn't tell them beforehand, but we get a lot of worse grief, and we do it for the cash.
Dominic Connor,Quant Headhunter
...what makes a good engineer. They want to use credit scores because it gives them something to narrow down the list of candidates, so that the dartboard used for the final decision is not too crowded.
Yes, houses, and everything you own can be sold.
Then what. If you have only owned your home for a few years, you'll be lucky to get ten or twenty grand out of it. Then you now have paid 1% or 5% or some small fraction of an amazingly large bill.
What if the illness debilitated you so you can't work any more? put them on the street?
You ever been in a hospital? They don't tell you what things cost, they just start shoving shit in you until they figure it out, hopefully. Then after you leave they hand you some monstrous bill. For a person making $36,000 a year a $2 million hospital bill is impossible to pay. They don't want just $50 a month. They want thousands a month. The system is broken.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I think the school system is not doing its job teaching the concept of savings and interest payments.
For starters, you'd be right. None of the standardized tests cover this. It used to be taught in civics classes, but then people had a hard time memorizing all 50 states so it got moved to home ec to make sure there was plenty of time in class for vastly more important stuff like memorizing the 18th president. Nowadays plenty of schools dont even do home economics.
spend willy nilly on credit.
If you don't have a job, you don't have to spend willy nilly to run out your credit line. I spend $1400 a month on my house, $500 a month in utilities, $50 on a cellphone, $60 on DSL. $300 a month in college loans, though I could cut back to the minimum of $55 (oh wait, paying the minimums hurts your score!). At least I don't rack up creditcard debt. Thanks to the recent double whammy of house and car insurance payments, if I were to lose my job today, I have about 4 months to find a new one before I run out of cash, and thats after ditching the DSL and cellphone. I suppose I could sell off my games and DVDs, that'd earn me probably about a month. Or I know, I could sell the house and move. Probably about time to do that anyway since the market is cooling. Probably won't make a lot of money off of it, but it would hopefully pay the bank and the movers and the first/last/security deposit on a tiny apartment somewhere for $700/mo. Assuming it sold before I ran out of money.
What about the responsibility to the owners, shareholders, to make money?
And spending money to pull credit history does that how? As someone posted "criminals have bad credit reports", of course criminals also shit, so I guess now we're going to be installing cameras in the bathrooms to make sure?
Busiensses have a responsiblity to be good corporate citizens.
Tell that to the Ford company. They were practically the founders of the American Middle class by virtue of over-paying their workers.
I'm not aware of what kind of quality control systems they had at the time, but today they are in a very tight market losing money on every car they make for the US. Is it their responsibility to double their highest expense (labor costs) for public welfare to help rebuild the middle class? The unions already are crying about pay cuts and wage freezes. Isn't Ford scrambling like a chicken with it's head cut off trying to find better operations, human-resources and over-all efficiencies (because everyone else already has)??
We're talking businesses that are in razor-thin profit margins.. Many start ups never see a penny of profit because they are squashed by competition, or worse, incompetent internal controls (bad budgeting, bad hiring, etc). Is it their responsibility to volunteer greater public welfare?
Perhaps instead you are considering corporate america.. The fortune-500 companies as those to whom public welfare should reside. These are companies with multi-million dollar salaries for the upper eschelon - to which unions constantly balk. While this may be a reasonable concern, I don't tend to like the employer / employee mentality that exists in such corporate environments, so I'm not terribly interested in that discussion. Decentralized franchises or small-to-medium-scale companies are more attrictive for me as the basis of the middle class worker.
-Michael
"The credit check has become a general measure of responsibility and organization," said industrial psychologist Carl Greenberg, senior vice president of Spherion. He then went on to say that it is also a good way to weed out black people.
Socialized medicine? Have you every been in a country that uses it, or seen the quality of care? Yes, eveyone gets free health care, but the waits for the treatment help in keeping the population under control. My grandfather had a heart problem - the hospital schedule him for surgery three months down the road. He came to our place (600 miles away), got a second opinion, and had the surgery immediately. The second Dr. indicated that it was not likely he'd have lived the three months. If he had lived in Canada or Great Britain, there would have been no choice (although NHS in Great Britain has added that, just this year). There are long lines, shortages of specialists, and even shortages of physicians. Canada has contracted in the past and recently with the US to send patients to some clinics and hospitals in the very northern US for medical care for certain conditions or tests.
There are horror stories here in the US, but there are also ways to deal with it. A 185,000 bill left over after over a million dollars of treatment. What is there to complain about? So they have to move to a smaller house. Be happy that you are alive to be upset about it. People in this country have a real problem with taking responsibility for anything. Would I be upset in their place? Yes. But, I'd be glad to work out arrangements to pay the 185K. I also question their insurance. I've never seen a health insurance policy that quit after 150,000. That's a pretty useless insurance policy. I've never seen one that didn't have a cap at AT LEAST one million (including the one I had to pay for myself when I was contracting). My current, employer provided one pays out up to two million.
Speaking as someone who just moved to the US from Canada, I'm stunned by the extent to which credit checks impact everything from renting an apt to getting a cell phone. I had my credit checked for the first time in ten years in Canada last month as I was putting together a car loan. Conversely, a month in the US has yielded two credit checks for really mundane purchases- why doesn't a credit card suffice for a cell phone? For all the places I've rented in Canada I've never had a credit check, just a reference from my previous landlord. Likewise, car insurance, renter's insurance, etc, etc just need a credit card. If you've got a credit card, which indicates that your credit history is good enough for a bank to take a risk on you, why isn't it good enough for a vendor?
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
Would you spend $500 million developing a drug that treats an irritating condition that 50 million people have, or a life-threatening condition that 5,000 people have?
...
Would you spend $500 million developing a therapy which would permanently cure a condition, or would you instead look for a drug which would treat its symptoms, thus requiring continued lifelong use?
Would you spend $500 million researching a new, highly effective use of a cheap, widely-available generic drug, or would you steer your efforts towards finding a moderately effective novel compound so you could be the only manufacturer?
Is the death of a patient always a worse outcome than a drastically reduced quality of life coupled with life-long financial hardship?
Are drugs developed in the private sector necessarily a more efficient use of resources than similar drugs developed by public-sector institutes such as hospitals, universities and the U.S. National Institute of Health? Is one or the other process likely to result in drugs that are safer, more effective and cheaper?
Is the development of life-saving medications such a great benefit to the nation and the world that it justifies the confiscation by force of private treasure? How can this confiscation ever be justified? Is it justified in the present actions of the U.S. government in, say, Iraq?
Is the withholding of life-saving medications, resulting in otherwise-curable sickness and death, a legitimate method of creating private wealth? If so, why is contract killing illegal? How are they different?
Etc, etc, etc
How to create a criminal:
Today on slash dot I read more and more companies are doing credit checks as a qualification to higher a candidate for a Job. I read that people have been turned down.
Because of issues such as student loans and what not.
How wrong is that? Let see. You take a person who has been the victims of identity theft or is just starting out in life and you put this kind of barrier in front of them and how far are they going to get? You have prevented that person from improving his or her situation you have effectively said to them "have to pay all your bills before we let you out " you are making them prisoners. You are rejecting their goal to get out of debt and you are in fact creating more debt as a result of your illogical decision to discriminate based on financial issues.
You (companies that support this kind of policy )and others like you wonder why there is crime? Why things are the way they are.
Well I say that putting ones credit on trial is a form of exclusion. A way to create a criminal. A person trying to get on top of his or her debt is being forced to take low paying jobs despite that they have the capacity for far greater things....Are those who disqualify people based on their credit not responsible in the least?
Who is the bigger criminal? Those who enforce this kind of policy or those who are the victim of this form of discrimination and commit crimes because they have no other recourse? Is it that we had to replace race sex and creed with yet a better way to segregate people. Credit....Which is bigotry my friends.
Example: Someone living in the ghetto that is poor might be able to rise up from their debt if you would give them a chance. Instead you choose to keep the poor where they are and only higher the middle class. And leave the poor in the ghetto. Women , blacks people and the poor are victims of this kind of policy and it puts any company that upholds this kind of policy in the ranks of similar organizations such as the KKK.
I for one have been the victim of this kind of bigotry. And I will advise any company that wants to check my credit history that this is not allowed by me. My personal finances are my concern and have nothing to do with my work habits.
If crime has increased. If there are more desperate people on the streets and if drugs and poverty are everywhere. Then stop and think about the contributing factors. One of theme is this 'credit check before higher procedure'. It is not the main reason but it is a majority reason. And is further proof that bigotry is not dead!!!.
The majority of people who are poor are in debt. They are in debt because of employment availability to them... The ghetto is full of people who if given the chance to rise up and be somebody they would do great things. Yet this is a way of creating the 'haves and the have not's'. This is a way to pick though someone's personal issues and pry. To segregate and exclude. Everything that great men such as Martin Luther And John Lennon have fought for is being rejected here and we are seeing a trickle down theory in practice...Crumbs to the poor...Keep the poor where they belong beneath the rich....Amazing at how many Doctors out there have student loans they have not paid. Yet they seem immune to this kind of bigotry. Intolerance will be the end of us all.
There are a great many wrong things in this country. We have to ask ourselves what is coming next...
What other doors does this open?
Think about it.
If your company travel reimbursement claim is denied, or the system crashes, or something else delays a payment, you'd better make the payment yourself - if you value your credit history/score.
What if you are only in the US for 3 or 4 months, a J-1 visa has an 18 month limit. However you need to have a job before you can get a J-1.
The problem I encountered with the J-1 was that I couldn't get renters insurance without a credit check. I was able to get a corporate Amex without a credit score and use that to build credit, but that's hardly an option for everyone.
Like you say, it's not hard to build credit in a few years. I was issued a SSN in 2001 and i have a 682 credit score, a 4.875% (30 yr fixed) mortgage and a 0% car loan. Still i'm a long way short of my wife's score, despite having a higher income.
For one you can ALWAYS get a credit card, you may just have to settle for a secured credit card. Happened to my cousin. He'd never had a card because between parents and scholarships, everything was taken care of. When he went to get one they wouldn't give him an unsecured one as normal (though he didn't try any shadier banks) so he got what I got a long time ago after highschool: A secured card. What happens is you put up a certain amount of money in a savings account. Whatever the amount is, that's your limit. It's frozen in there, you can't touch it. The idea is that should you default on payments, the money is taken to cover the debt. Thus anyone, even those with bad or no credit can get one. After you've had it and paid as agreed for like 6 months, they'll upgrade you to a real card.
However, even if you have no credit, you can still get a home loan. Home loans, being secured, are evaluated differently. With things like a credit card or whatnot they want to make sure your credit is good because there's nothing securing their money. You can skip out or go bankrupt and they are left holding the stick. However a house doesn't work like that. They have a lien on your house, so if you default, they get the house. They'd rather have the money, but the house will do.
Essentially what they use for evaluating a home loan is the 33% rule: Your payments can't be greater than 33% of your gross income. If they are, they figure you probably can't cover the loan. Now this is for standard 30 year fixed deals, there are some banks playing more fast and loose with interest only loans these days. However, all they really care about is that you make enough money to cover the payments, and don't have any outstanding debts that would interfere. Well, no credit means no debt so that's not a problem, so you can get your loan.
The only bad part is they use credit score as a determiner for interest rate, so you'll often get a higher rate. However you'll still get the loan provided you meet the other loan criterion (employed, have enough money, etc).
Now I fully support your recommendation to get a credit card on highschool graduation and build up credit history because it's a useful thing to have. If you don't have it, you'll find that cellphone companies will want deposits and such things. If you don't have credit, people who would loan you money have no basis for evaluating your worthiness and thus will want collateral. So it's a really good idea to get.
However don't think you are screwed without it. You can always get it at a later time in life, and it won't screw you out of a house, though you'll end up paying more interest than you should.
Hiring based on skills and talents rather than credit rating may improve the staff, build a better product, and improve the welfare of company and it's shareholders. While, at the same time, giving someone who has not had money to make payments on his debts the oppertunity to get a leg up in the world.
... that a friend/associate is hired over a more qualified person?
You speak about this as if the current norm is back-ground credit checks, and 'wouldn't a great idea be to base hiring on skills'. But the context is that companies ARE hiring based on skills as they are discovered.. But for many positions, the skillset is not apparent, and all you have is what awards you've gotten in high school or collage. Perhaps what positions you've held.. But when you're reviewing hundreds of applications, there will be a great many individuals that are comparable.. That ARE good looking on paper and in person. This whole discussion is about whether it is ethical to encorporate more personal metrics into the decision making process..
Is it any less ethical that pretty administrative assistants are hired (foremerly secretaries)?
Is it any less ethical that a confident person is hired over a nervous person?
1. 90% of America is not cometent enough to realize it's bad to spend willy nilly on credit, and most would be in a very place if they went without one or two paychecks. How much do owe? How much do you make? What's the minimum ballences on your credit cards? What cards do you have? Do you have morgage? What's your anual income? Common, if you can tell the companies your applying at, may as well tell us.
And why do you think that is? Because there are very few up-front consequences to over-spending on credit. You think.. 'We need this for the family', 'It's a long term investment'. You think, 'I know we can't afford this appartment, but we just can't live in our old neighborhood'. It's the idea that the immediate crisis is more important than the long term situation.. The situation that you won't be able to dig yourself out of. Then, of course, there's the occasional bad fortune: Medical / loss of job. When you're living razor thin, it's hard to say they should have put away more for a bad day.
Only people that want to buy a house (and occasionally a car) are concerned about their credit history.. Most everyone else is willing to make a payment two or three months late because that helps them out in the short-run. Instead, people that are genuinely concerned about their credit history.
2. If they are perpetually unemployed because they have bad credit, then how will they find jobs to correct the situation.
Again, you're assuming that skillset is not part of the hiring process. A person that works hard will eventually develop noticeable and valueable skill-sets. There is always a job low enough in stature that they can be hired and build from... Only pride prevents one from taking such a lower level of work (unless of course the economy is doing very poorly). In the mean time, you are forced to rely on family friends or strangers to reduce your monthly expenses. Spending every penny of credit available to you during a time of unemployment is no more responsible than buying a big screen TV when you earn minimum wage.
-Michael
Get a copy of your credit report from the big three. I think they have to give you a copy for free now. The write a letter challenging everything on it. By law the credit agencies have to remove and verify everything you challenge. That takes time and money. After about three months do it again. Just keep copies of the same letters and remail them.
After a while crap will start to fall off.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
You're only seeing the tip of the iceberg. There is a magic number used in credit ratings. In Canada it's called a beacon score. When you check your own credit they won't show you the beacon score, but when other people check they will see it. It's the number one thing that creditors care about, and it's based (among other things) on the ratio of your total used credit to your total credit limit. So yes - maxed out limits will reduce your credit rating even with a perfect payment history.
In fact, merely allowing people to check your credit rating causes it to go down! Each time someone runs a check on you it's interpreted as though you are applyin for credit. A lot of credit checks makes it look like you are in trouble, as though you are going all over trying to obtain credit and getting turned down. The mere fact (or appearance) that someone denied you credit makes you look bad. Keep that in mind next time you mark an X in the box that authorizes someone to check your credit.
Generally in the form of high deductible insurance. That's what a friend of mine has who does the whole small business thing. HE's got like 8 employees total so little bargaining power. The deal he has and offers them is high dedcutable insurance. You pay a monthly fee, much lower than my employer pays for my EPO, but the deductible is $5,000. So basically, you are responsible for covering all minor expenses. Generally you do it from a medical savings account, which you put money in pre tax and then can oly use form medical expenses.
The idea is that you have to pay for doctors visits, prescriptions and so on, but if something expensive happens, you are covered. Once you've paid out that $5,000 for one year, all the rest is paid for.
According to him, it's fairly easy to get as a small business/individual. The companies aren't so worried about getting people who prove to be expensive with trips to the doctor's office every time they get the sniffles.
This isn't to say out health care system doesn't have major problems, but yes you can get insured outside of a major company.
Personally, I would rather have my government spend more on medical services than its armed forces. The USA should join the first world and get a real national, socialized, medical system. Put off your next invasion for a bit and you can afford it. You socialized the road system. You socialized the primary education system.
Anarchists never rule
So this is going to put someone like me, who does not believe in the notion of credit, at a disadvantage if I ever have to apply for a job because I'm responsible enough not to spend other people's money?
I shouldn't need to borrow money and pay it back just to demonstrate that I'm fiscally responsible. It should be self-evident by the fact that I've survived on savings and income for as long as I have without accruing any debt.
They do check credit for security clearances. Why? Well two reasons:
1) They want to know if money is something someone could use to twist your arm in to giving up secrets. You are much more likely to accept a bribe if you are swimming in debt.
2) They want to know if you are responsible. If you are irresponsible with money, they probably don't want to trust you with national secrets. Contrary to the whining on Slashdot, most people with bad credit got themselves in to the situation.
When it comes to hiring people, companies always go for the low-hanging fruit even if the fruit is rotten.
Hiring people is always a crap-shoot but there's no shortage of people willing to sell you some snake oil that purports to lessen the risk.
. . . is CreditBoards, where credit scoring and other things related to credit and collections from the good guys' (i.e. not banks, credit reporting agencies, etc.) point of view are discussed. (I've no affiliation with the site except as a user.)
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Just as a point of perspective, people in 1850 also did not need to undergo credit checks in order to secure gainful employment, either.
While I think the air conditioning thing is merely a token argument I'll add this: Try making a good impression at a job interview in the south when you have no air conditioning. Trust me, it's very difficult to look presentable in a suit when you are literally drenched in sweat and humidity. And while you might think that the interviewer would make allowances for the climate, draconian attitudes prevail.
I'd actually be inclined to argue that meat (or a viable and possibly costly vegetarian substitute) is more important to (healthy) survival than air conditioning. While I'm inclined to agree, strictly speaking, that air conditioning is not nessesary to survival it does fall into the category of things that one ought to have. Take for instance, nice clothing.
Nice clothing isn't nessesary to survival, by any means, but try interviewig for a job in rags and see how quickly you are eliminated from consideration.
I feel like my argument serves to further deviate from the issue of employer credit screenings, but I couldn't resist making the comment, nonetheless.
"09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0"
I do understand why having credit checks in many cases is valid. However, there are many instances where this does more harm than good. One perfect example is my girlfriend. She's very smart, motivated, young and energetic. Alas, she hasn't been able to get any work in the last 9 months because every place she has applied to does credit checks. Does she have bad credit due to poor money management or financial skills? No. Hardly. She can save money better than anyone I know. She doesn't blow a cent, never shops for herself, and the only things she buys are for her son. Yet, due to the fact that she owes a large sum of money to an apartment complex in Florida because her ex-boyfriend fuc*ed her over on the lease, she's going to have shi* credit for the next five years. And there is nothing she can do about it. So now she can't get a decent paying job, can't finance a car, or a house if she so chose to do, and can't even put her name down to rent an apartment. So, at 24 years of age, she has to suck it up, and suffer the embarrassment of living home with her parents and son. Not because she doesn't have the skills to succeed, but because so many places of employment are determining a persons fate on a goddamned credit check. So yeah, I think this is total bullshi*. Call me biased, but I have every right to be.
This sig will self destruct in 5 seconds.
Insurance industries in the US have mounds of credible data showing that there is indeed a correlation between credit scores and your expected loss.
Tell that to the Ford company. They were practically the founders of the American Middle class by virtue of over-paying their workers.
Ford is suffering because they bet on the wrong horse, not because UAW was successful. And if Ford hasn't paid their workers enough to buy Ford cars (and no one else did, either), our economy would be in a worse shape now than it is. And we'd probably have never had the manufacturing base to win both world wars.
Decentralized franchises or small-to-medium-scale companies are more attrictive for me as the basis of the middle class worker.
Franchises and small companies suck, by and large, if you're not exactly what the company wants. Not just your skill-set and work-ethic, but your entire lifestyle had better match what the owner dreams his workers should be, or else your job is in jeopardy.
Medium and large businesses are better places for the skilled worker who doesn't want to run his own business. All that size brings a box big enough to be flexible and find a productive niche, provided the management isn't so hidebound it wants to run everything as if it were still a small business. Plus, it brings the likeihood of having competent management way up: I'd rather work for a suit at IBM, where my boss's boss has to report to someone, than a local software firm, where my boss's boss might fire me and give my job to his nephew.
I wouldn't mind this so much as long as I can also run a credit check on the company and perhaps some of its officers. Too often companies go under and employees don't get paid. If I'm going to take a job, then I need to verify that the company can meet its financial obligations to pay me.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Employers are going to use it as an overall tool for gauging your responsibility. What I mean is I don't think they'll do a "only people with FICO scores over 800 work here" kind of thing. They won't find themselves able to get employees they want. I would guess they'll actually pull a full report and see what's going on. If your report shows mad payment many years ago, and good payment now, you would hope they can draw the correct conclusion. If they can't, would you really want to work there?
At any rate I'm sure some companies will be retarded about it. The company in the article sounds like one of those. However in the long run, it will bite them in the ass because they are not going to be able to hire qualified people because of an artificially high measure. This will go even more so if word gets around about them and new graduates stop applying because of it.
Also, as with anything in the job world, you can get around it by having a recommendation. People want to hire based on personal recommendations. The reason is experience teaches us that those people work out better. When you hire someone cold you just never know, more often than you'd think they are lying their ass off to try and get some job, any job, and they just don't work out. However if one of your friends comes and says "Yo hire this guy I think he'd work well for you," well you are likely to do that because experience shows he'll probably work out.
We hire students where I work (as in student positions I work for a university) and there's a major difference in hiring procedure depending on how you came to us. If we can't find anyone on recommendation and do a cold hire we sit and sift through resumes, call past employers, do interviews, etc. We are trying to figure out if you'll work out since the answer is almost always "no". If you come to use with a recommendation, generally we do a quick interview and if we like you, offer you the job on the spot. This is because we don't want ot lose you and experience generally shows you will work out.
So really, the way to get jobs is to get recommended. If you do, you'll find that things like this will be irrelevant. If they check at all, it'll be cursory and you'll have a chance to explain things. The reason is if you were recommended, they WANT to hire you and just need to do a quick check to make sure there's no major reason not to. If you weren't, they are suspicious of you and are looking for possible problems. Fair? Perhaps not, but it is human nature.
It's not a legal responsibility, but this country would be a better place if business owners (who, ultimately, are *people*) practiced good citizenship. And a lot of businesses don't have shareholders as such, so their owners can choose to run them the way they wish. The OP seemed to be a business owner since he talked about giving "his" entire HR department the boot if they did certain things.
-b.
HSAs are a decent step in that direction
Not really, no. Or at least not the one my father had when he was laid off. His insurance was terminated effective that day, and since the HSA was run by the insurance company, so was his HSA, along with the roughly $1500 in his money (it was late in the year) that they did not give back. The best part was what happened next when he called the insurance company to demand his money back (less the income taxes, of course). He was told that he could access the account and spend the money on medical items if he signed up with a 6 month COBRA plan for "only $600", in the rep's words. It took several prompts to force the rep to admit that was a per-month charge.
I mean let's assume that you find bribes to be morally wrong. You aren't the kind of person who would normally take a bribe just for kicks. So take two situations:
1) You are fine, credit-wise. You don't owe any large amount of money except on things like a house and a car which you can afford the payments on. You have a little savings and just in general live in your means. There's no financial pressure on you as your job covers your obligations and a bit more.
2) You are buried in debt. You live way outside your means and it's finally catching up to you. You can't make payments on things and companies are threatening to repossess your stuff. You are under constant pressure because your job just doesn't make enough.
So someone offers you a sizable bribe. What do you do? In case 1, you probably turn them down. It's not in your nature to accept it. You've got no need for it. Sure it'd be nice to have more money, but you aren't going to compromise who you are for it. In case 2, well maybe you do. You are desperate for relief and here it is. It's not in the form you want, but you can probably rationalize a reason why it's ok for you to take it.
It's hard, but...
In NYC, there's the Freelancers' Union, which gives workers that don't work for traditional employers insurance, among other benefits. Other states have artists' and designers' groups that often get better rates for insurance for their members. It *can* be done if you look in the right places.
Personally, though, I think that we should move to a single-payer system like Britain's, where doctors are still allowed to have private practices for those that can afford to pay more. It may not be perfect, but at least it guarantees a minimum level of care for all citizens.
-b.
Then what. If you have only owned your home for a few years, you'll be lucky to get ten or twenty grand out of it.
And every month, you'll also have the difference between the mortgage payment and the rent, if any.
Do you really think that people who can't pay their bills should be entitled to a big expensive house?
What about the guy who pays his bills, lives in a smaller house, buys insurance, and saves money so he can pay his bills in case some bad things happen? He's just a sucker right? If he knew how to game the system like most people, he'd buy big luxury items with credit, live it up, and just default on his debts if anything bad happens. Responsible people are such utter fools that way.
What if the illness debilitated you so you can't work any more? put them on the street?
Charity. Family charity, charity from friends, or something more organized. (Or the government version, which is the same except you pay into it against your will.)
Very true, sadly. If you need the employer, you're more likely to stay, like a peasant that's tied to the land. On the flipside, though, if I were an employer, I wouldn't want employees just tied to me through economic exigency. Boxed-in employees make for angry people, and angry people will gank you one way or another.
Anyway, mod parent up insightful.
-b.
Got an example where that works out? So everyone can get all the care they need or want on short notice? One where new drugs are developed at a rapid pace? No? Get back to us when you do.
Federal budget legislation passed in early 2006 cut the federal financial aid budget by $12.5 billion.
Parent has no f***ing clue what he's talking about. First, Chapter 11 is for a business to reorganize. Second, debts discharged under Chapter 13 are not legally collectable (meaning they cannot legally garnish your paycheck for them).
... they aren't looking too hard. I have terrible credit and I was hired as an accountant for a large hotel. I was given the combination of a safe which contained tens of thousands of dollars in cash. It said on my application that a credit check would be done as part of the hiring process.
Who's more likely to embezzle from you, the guy with a good debt-to-income ratio who makes his payments on time, or the guy who's deeply in debt an makes only the minimum payment every month?
Obviously, the guy who makes his payments on time. Clearly the other guy doesn't embezzled money, or else he would be able to pay off those debts.
And every month, you'll also have the difference between the mortgage payment and the rent, if any.
Minus the cost of moving, of course. Obviously, if they own some McMansion out in the sticks, I can see a good case for making them move. But if they have a modest house with a morgage, what's the point?
The immigration labor laws were never meant to be enforceable to begin with. Under the guise of 'less burdensome government' a system was set up so that only the most egregious violators (e.g those employers that killed people) ever got caught.
It insure a good supply of low cost labor for management, so that wages can be kept down and unions can be broken. Sort of a 'wink wink, nudge nudge' between politicians and the corporates. The politician could say he is all for reform for the voter at homme, while insuring the legislation had no teeth to make sure he/she did not piss off campaign contributers.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
So, you are saying that those guys at Enron had really bad credit scores?
:)
Then again maybe fraud and cratering companies doesn't correlate with credit scores.
Got an example where that works out? So everyone can get all the care they need or want on short notice? One where new drugs are developed at a rapid pace? No? Get back to us when you do.
Got an example where private health care is working? Costs are spiraling, fraud is rampant, insurance companies dictate what treatments and tests you get based upon what they are willing to pay for, and millions of Americans are without even basic health care. Sure, socialized medicine has its problems, but overall more people end up with get better healthcare for less money. And besides, even if the US socialized healthcare, I'm sure there would still be private healthcare available to people willing to pay for it (much like how private schools still exist, despite the government provided K-12 education).
My credit is none, not bad ... "none" - as in no credit history at all, the report shows up as a blank page. (you should see how shocked people look when that happens) And the funny thing is that I haven't suffered a bit because of it. I havent had the "privelage" of loading up on credit cards at high interest, I haven't have the "privelage" or dealing with EZ furniture corp, and EZ fast wheelie dealer under high pressure sales pitches, and I haven't had the "pirvelage" of buying a house at outrageous prices just before the market crashes. Not using credit also forces me to do something else that is really rare now days - savings (I recommend precious metals for long term savings).
... "that's nice for you, but us folks in the real world are too poor to save for cars and homes" ... to which I respond. If you are too poor to save, then you are too poor to go into debt. In fact that's part of the problem .... people are lying to themselves. They are pretending they are rich, when they are not. They are pretending like they are middle class, or upper middle class, when they are not. They are pretending that all stop-lights on all streets will always be green, when they won't. Sure, some credit is ok when used for productive activity, but lets face it - most credit is used for ego. For getting a nicer house, nicer car, and nicer furntiure that you can afford. Of course, there is always medical bills - but in all fairness, high medical costs are not a problem in places where all care is paid for out of pocket and not by the government. In all fairness, our debt system helps hide the problems in our medical system.
.... to much debt, high prices, and no savings .... hmmmm) Moral - the gig is up. People who are smart will get out of debt no matter what, and buy precious metals with any spare pennies they can afford.
Of course, one might say
Which brings me to another point. In a normal economy, you have a near fixed amount of money (eg gold), and over time that tends to keep prices constant while limiting the amount of debt. But we don't live in a normal economy. We live in an economy where whenever money is needed for a loan, the federal reserve bank prints it up and loans it out (thru other banks). So over time, society tends to become over saturated in debt, and over time prices always go up, and over time savers get punished. (hmmmm, lookie where we are now
My credit looks like shite because I've been too busy obsessing over work and have reduced the priority of paying my personal bills on time. How does that factor into my work ethic again? Or my likelyness to betray my colleagues?
Let's not use the military as a paragon for intelligent employee management. This is the group that thinks you're unfit to be an employee if you're gay.
The ______ Agenda
Without patent laws the drug industry wouldn't have spent $500 million developing the drug which kept them alive.
"Without patent laws the drug industry wouldn't have spent $50 million developing the drug which kept them alive and $450 million marketing it."
T,FTFY!
I had a potential past employer do so a few credit checks, then background checks, criminal checks, driving record check, history of my residences, calls to all my past employers, and even pestered me to try and contact a company exec for a company that was no longer around. It was so much invasion of privacy that I flat out told them that I was not interested in their position and went elsewhere... all this for a mid level developer position in a database proxy company with no sensitive data or code, what a way to drive away employees.
Unfortunately, an individuals credit history isn't necessarily an indication of his responsibility or organization. More often than not it may be, but that excludes a whole lot of people from positions that they should otherwise be considered for. I personally believe that a persons credit history should not be available to his or her employer.
The estate does. If society deems to give more to the relatives of the deceased than itself, it has the right to do so, but certainly not the obligation.
If I remember correctly, it was Singer who introduced the $10 down, $10/month "time payment plan" to the American public. They sold a *lot* of sewing machines as a result. Large families, cost of making clothes (cloth + pattern + thread) vs buying clothes (Buy from the fashion industry? for a family with 6 kids?) made it an economically viable transaction.
Singer didn't invent debt, by a long shot -- but consumer debt, they had a hand in it. Wasn't a bad thing at first, took years for General Motors to pick up the idea.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
"Also, most insurance companies will fight hard to make sure that their insured isn't found liable (even if they were), especially for a large bill exceeding $100,000. So it's quite possible the GP just got screwed."
Let them fight. Two things. One I let my insurance fight their insurance. Two last time I had an accident, my lawyer took care of it.
You could save her, and then a couple years later her drunk boyfriend crosses the highway median and gets her killed. Maybe she goes off the fight in Syria. Who knows? In any case, she's going to die. She might as well get it over with.
People used to face this all the time. Go to an old cemetary some time and look at the ages on the little gravestones. Babies were dying left and right.
It seems that people have trouble with this now. The difference: family size. These days, the ideal is to have 1 boy and maybe 1 girl. That's it. If the boy jumps his bike into the lake and bangs his head on something under the water, you've just lose ALL of your boys and maybe ALL of your children.
It's looking like I'll end up with at least a dozen kids. If I lose a couple, so what? Not that I wouldn't be bothered of course, but it's not like losing ALL of my kids. It's not the same sort of tragedy.
Truth is, people die. The best medicine in the world won't stop that. You can't very well just lock each person in their own protective padded cell.
Here's my contribution to the discussion. If you consolidate your loans, you essentially get another 36 months.*
*Because you're effectively getting a new loan.
During the second semester of my sophomore year in college my father had a stroke that hospitalized him for several weeks and which he needed years of physical therapy in order to perform basic tasks. Obviously he lost his job, disability was shit and my mother worked her ass off paying the doctor's bills (my father was a contract worker so no health insurance), utility bills, and mortgage. I went to an expensive private school that was paid partially through scholarships, grants and loans. With both parents working they were able to pay the remainder of my tuition out of pocket. Along comes the stroke and I no longer have any money to attend school, my mother needs my help and so with only 3 weeks left in the semester I'm granted a leave of absence and go help out my mother. My school is paid in six-month increments and after my father's stroke I have an $1800 balance owed which cannot be paid asa there is zero savings left. If I can't pay I can't finish those units and get credit for those classes, so I get a credit card and pay school off and finish up over the summer. Next semester comes along and its community college for me and a part-time job to pay off this credit card debt. I apply to Apple Computer as a retail associate. I had retail experience, Mac OS experience, as well as a letter of recommendation from a pervious employer as well as from the chair of my previous school's department. After the first interview I felt confident I'd get the job, after the second interview I was sure, but what came next surprised the crap out of me. One morning FedEx delivered a letter from Apple, I thought, "Awesome, I got the job!" but what I received instead was a letter stating that I was ineligible to work for Apple, as my credit report was "unsatisfactory". I called the 800 number listed in the letter to contest the claim but was only told that this was their policy for a person with my credit score. All this for a $12 an hour part-time position. What really made me sad was the fact that I love Appl's computers, I thought that they really did "think different" and all that but when that letter arrived my only thoughts were of their obvious elitism and what felt like class prejudice.
Read "Ordinary People Extraordinary Wealth: The 8 secrets of how 5,000 ordinary Americans became successful investors-and how you can too by Ric Edelman" ISBN:0-06-273686-8
Nothing stopping everyone from paying for health insurance; seems unjust to force them to.
It's not simply a matter of everyone paying for health insurance, some can't afford insurance. I know when I was a student I checked into getting insurance and the cheapest I could find was about $300 a month. As I was only making about $150 a week working partime and wasn't getting any financial aid I couldn't afford to get it, it was either pay for classes or for insurance. I chose the option that would allow me to improve my situation, take classes. Then I had an accident through no fault of my own, I was hit by someone who had a seizer while driving.
As for socialized medicine, I don't like it and I believe it actually increases the cost of health care and can lead to rationing. At the same tyme I believe there should be a system that would allow those who can't get insurance to have a minimium level of coverage. Maybe if all the laws and regulations in medicine were either thoroughly reviewed and those not really needed stricken from the books or all of them were, then the cost of healthcare would drop.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
OK, "Matrix"-inspired elitist fantasies aside, exactly why do you want to be "outside of the credit system"? Seriously. I hear this kind of talk all the time and it just baffles me.
The credit system exists because it works. The credit card companies are not some kind of evil overlords. They are providing a service that has proven valuable to many, many people. Your gloating about how you've taken such great pains to avoid dealing with the credit companies just goes to show how useful credit is: Apparently it has been very difficult for you to stay away. In other words, avoiding credit makes your life more difficult. Why do that to yourself?
A lot of people claim they pay off their credit cards in full every month. That's fine -- but I do wonder, then, why they don't just pay cash? (Or, in this enlightened modern world, a debit card?) Repeat after me, folks: In capitalist America, credit is good.
What all counter-culture rhetoric really amounts to, as far as I can see, is fear of debt: fear that you will spend too much and not be able to pay your bills. You'll go out to the mall and be dazzled by all the shiny things in the windows and you'll think to yourself, "Oh who cares, it's only plastic!" And the bottom line is: If you do that, you're an idiot. The problem is not with the credit card companies. The problem lies with you, and you need to start acting like an adult and get a handle on your dumb, thoughtless spending habits.
On the contrary, credit is a good thing. Particularly when I was an independent contractor, I used credit cards for just about everything, even though I had money in the bank to pay for the stuff I was buying. I did this because revolving credit allowed me to control my cash flow. If I'm waiting on checks from clients for several invoices, the pattern of my cash flow in does not necessarily match the pattern of my cash flow out. Paying for things on credit allows me to pay what I want, when I want, so I never end up in a situation where my bank balances are dipping too close to bottom. Or, to put it another way, credit allows me to still pay my bills to suppliers but only part with the cash when I'm good and damn well ready. This gives me financial security.
Also, credit helps you create wealth. Suppose you have zero dollars in the bank, and a $5,000 credit card, and you know how to make widgets. You can take that credit card, buy $5,000 worth of widget parts, and assemble 5,000 widgets out of it. Then you can turn around and sell the widgets for $2 apiece. Net profit: $5,000. So let's recap: With a credit card, you have the ability to earn $5,000. Without the credit card, you have the ability to earn nothing. Ask yourself now: What's the opportunity cost of "staying off the grid"?
For a more real-world scenario, take, for example, a new computer. A new computer might allow you to compile faster, or run 3-D models faster, or whatever -- take your pick, whatever you want to do. But you don't have enough money for a new computer right now. Without credit, you don't get the computer, so you're not as productive, so it takes you longer to earn the money to buy the computer. With credit, you buy the computer now, begin realizing increased productivity early, get more work done, bring in more money. Again, it may turn out that the opportunity cost of waiting to buy the computer is higher than the opportunity cost of buying it right now. And the thing is, you actually get to make this up-front investment using somebody else's money, which you only have to pay back once you get the cash. How terrible is that?
By comparison, all this effort it has taken you to remain "off the grid," as far as I can see, nets you exactly one benefit: You get to pat yourself on the back and tell the world how clever you are. Me, I'll take the empowerment and financial security the credit system offers, thanks.
Breakfast served all day!
It's better than "child dies because the drug's price is not attainable"
Just because they spend less cash developing drugs doesn't mean they aren't developed -- by allowing patents to exist, you eliminate more efficient competition, who could develop the drugs at a much smaller price using a much more efficient methodology.
Then you mass-market them at a more reasonable price -- once the branding is established, few people will want to risk their life to a generic knockoff of the well-known product.
Pepsi, Coca Cola, get along just fine, despite generic knockoffs existing. Why are big pharmaceutical companies so special, that they deserve so much better protection of their products against generic imitation?
They don't charge a high price because they have to get a return on their investment. They charge a high price, because patents rid them of ever having to worry about any competition for decades, and they can get away with it, because the people who need the medication will absolutely have to pay or die, they have the ultimate pricing power.
Big pharma doesn't need protection from competition -- the consumer needs protection from their ludicrous pricing: perhaps one way would be to freely allow import from other countries that provide price controls on drugs, that would be a start, to put a very little bit of pressure on drug makers, by fully allowing consumers to take advantage of any legitimate marketplace disparities.
... can only be done with your permission. Well, the legal ones.
Typically you'll be given a consent form as among the papers signed in the interview process.
Mind: the more I've got to sign just to interview, the much less interested I am in the position.
When the collection of such information was first allowed, it was intended solely for the purpose of determining the risk of loaning money to an individual. We have come a long way since then. Now, the corporations which collect this information have a financial incentive to maximize the profit of this information - and that profit comes by selling the information as frequently as possible. To the original intended recipients. To potential employers. And even to you! (just try getting a copy of "your" credit report without paying for it)
It is absolutely incredulous that most of the "pro usage of credit reports" arguments from people are that it can be a useful tool in helping a potential employer determine your reliability, financial stability, risk to company, blah blah blah. Well, so would lie detectors. Or private investigations into your personal life and history. Or even "aggressive interogation techniques".
Personally, I had this happen when I applied for my current job 6 1/2 years ago. I promptly crossed out the language authorizing such invasive measures but still got the job. I take a risk when I accept a new job at a company. They can damn well assume some risk too.
I wonder how that compares as a percentage of each countries GDP -- that would be a more telling figure.
As a percentage of GDP the Scandinavian countries give the most aid to non and under developed countries. The US ranks somewhere in the middle, not the most but not the least either. Though I don't recall in which one it is in I recently read some articles on this subject. Here's one from Foreign Policy , "FP's index, ranking the Rich".
FalconShould there be a Law?
I got laid off on 9/11, and spent several months without a job or insurance. My wife is diabetic and requires lots of doctor's visits and medication, especially when she was pregnant with our kids. Between having to make the choice between credit card debt and rent, etc, my credit score took a big hit. However, in all of the times that I've ever interviewed for a job, if the employer announced they'd like to pull my credit as part of the application process, I've been upfront about what they'd find when looking in my credit and why it's there, and I've never had an issue.
I even had one HR employee tell me: "It's not that important, the parent company just requires we pull credit."
I hope that it kind of stays that way, for the sake of other people who've had similar troubles as me.
It is not just banking. Any time you have workers in direct contact with financial data you may held liable if you did not exercise due diligence.
You are a hiring manager for Pay Pal, and you are recruiting for a web/db programmer that will have full access to the system. You need to make sure the guy you just hired is not on his second chapter 13 bankruptcy or that he is moving cash advances off half his credit cards to pay the minimum on the other half, or other crazy indicator of unstable finances. These are risk factors.
Defense jobs have had financial disclosure rules for many years, they are at least as strict as those for banking.
Now, this doesn't mean you need to do this for every stupid job.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
In my old job, I had an asshat manager. I am debt free - no house payment, no credit card debt, no car payment. I drive an old pickup truck to work. I have been denied promotions and pay increases. My manager off the record told me that since I am not a typical person - in debt (house, car), I am considered a threat to his authority. He told me if I want to advance my career, I need to buy a new car. He mentioned the truck reflected badly on the company (i.e. people think the compamy is cheaply paying their employees). He suggested that I should buy a more expensive McMansion like everyone else.
On the other hand, a couple of years ago, I got an expensive speeding ticket in Wisconsin - beyond a threshold where it must be disclosed to company ethics office. The joys of working in government contracting. He mentioned since I got the speeding ticket, it came up in my performance rating that I have no respect for authority. He also mentioned that the dark tinted windows on my truck were illegal and told me I should clear up the windows.
The common theme, He could not nail me on my job performance, he had to bring up all sorts of crap which in my opinion are none of his damn business.
All I can say, I am glad I don't work for him but unfortunately, I am still impacted by his arbitrary decisions.
ASDF
Heck, I am in a similar situation.
I was working for a contract company and paying $250/week for health insurance. I had debt, but managed it just fine. My wife got pregnaunt and no big deal we thought. Most cost around $10,000 so we thought we would have to cover $1,000...maybe $2,000.
Well, when our son was born, he decided he wanted to stay in the NICU for 2 weeks. $120,000+ later he was at home. Insurance statements started to come in needless to say we wernt pleased. After our deductable and "other expenses" that dont count towards max out of pocket, we owed around $15,000. Sure, a long way from $120,000 but nothing I could pay off in 1 month like all the billers wanted.
In the end, we are paying on what we can but most is going to collection agencies. None of the medical providers want to work with us, within reason (paying off $8,000 to one biller in 12mo is not reasonable), and its easier for them to "sell" the debt to a collector.
Oh well, if they garnish my wages, someone isnt going to get their money. I dont care if its the credit card companies or the hospitals.
I am now working for a new contract company that charges less then my previous (still $140/week) but at least has covered 95% of our medical costs and would pretty much pay for any future pregnauntcy.
Read "Ordinary People Extraordinary Wealth: The 8 secrets of how 5,000 ordinary Americans became successful investors-and how you can too by Ric Edelman" ISBN:0-06-273686-8
Thanks! I will check it out. I have read about 70 books on finance/wealth/economics to date, but I have not heard of this one!
My short list of reccomendations:
Anything by Peter Lynch or Jeremy J. Siegel
Millionare Next Door
Automatic Millionare
Rich Dad Poor Dad (Some of his later books are good, most are a tired rehash and contain fictionalized events, however, they are great for beginners)
Every report issued by Berkshire Hathaway (written by Buffett and Munger yearly, and free on the intarweb)
The Warren Buffett Way
The Intelligent Investor
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I'd rather work for a suit at IBM, where my boss's boss has to report to someone, than a local software firm, where my boss's boss might fire me and give my job to his nephew.
Do you honestly think that a small firm can afford to put someone in a position for which they are not qualified?
In any case, more power to you. I've worked at Dupont and I've worked at several start-ups.. I much prefer the start ups (even though Dupont was a almost exclusively run by engineers).. Have I been laid off several times? Sure.. But I don't fear job security because my skill set is desireable.
Larger firms have certain economies of scale, but as my original post tried to state, at a certain point, you have a diseconomy of scale.. The management pyramid becomes so overwhelming that productivity actually falls.. Beuracracy is a key ingredient...
I've worked with several major companies (contract work from a small firm) and their matrix-management structure was embarrasing to us. Constant beuracracy to where we never knew if the project was going to stay alive or not (nothing to do with us). Management often is willing to shift gears even after spending millions of dollars on a project because they have the option do (don't continue to invest money into bad money).. A small firm can't afford to constantly shift around - they have to see a project through or it dramatically cripples the company. And I like the feel of a job that has gone through to completion. I can't tell you how many projects that never saw the end at larger firms that I've been affiliated with.
But, to each his own.
-Michael
Is it surprising that more and more People hate our society and made stupid thinks? We don't need to import our terrorists, we made them at home. Disillusioned People with kick-ass education, that are able to build MacGyver-like bombs or crack critical Infrastructure.
But are you smart if you can solve Fermats Last Theorem but you can't pay your bills on time? There are different levels to intelligence, and different segments surrounding it.
I don't agree that checking someones credit rating has a correlation to ones ability to work - however as noted elsewhere in the discussion, policemen are apparently more likely to accept bribes if they have a bad credit history, hence the check on potential cops.
Also, would you want a financial advisor working for your company if this financial advisor had a bad credit rating? Might not make a difference if you are a crane operator, but if you work at a bank or financial institution I think it might...
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Who's more likely to embezzle from you, the guy with a good debt-to-income ratio who makes his payments on time, or the guy who's deeply in debt an makes only the minimum payment every month?
If you reverse this chicken and the egg problem, you'll see it's possible to be reversed: Who's more likely to have already embezzled money from the company? A guy who can barely make his credit card payments, or the guy with huge savings? I could argue this thing either way.
More seriously, though, employers just use the credit report because it's one of the few pieces of information they can get about a prospective employee that the employee didn't have a hand in giving to them. I don't know how much good it would do, but it at least makes some sense.
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
for instance, hiring on the basis of race needed government regulation because it was so widespread
You bring up an interesting point. One wonders if credit report discrimination isn't really racial discrimination in disguise. My guess (based on nothing but watching African-American comedians on Comedy Central) is that African-Americans have worse credit on average than other racial groups do. If this is true (which it mightn't be, maybe Latinos have worse credit on average, maybe it's Caucasians, I dunno, but I'd be willing to bet it correlates in one direction or another) then discriminating against bad credit is really discriminating against a race, and therefore (in California at least) probably illegal.
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
Aren't they one of those suck-hole time-waster companies that know nothing about the field that they're recruiting for, and yet are charging Big Bucks for their "screening process"?
It's an interesting question. I believe a lot of a person's money management skills come from their parents (and in this regard, wealthy parents don't necessarily give good credit to their children...spoiled children might become demanding adults who have little understanding of money management.) Undoubtedly, good money management is something that's passed down through the generations; in fact, a suprising amount of the Old Testament is devoted to money management issues.
If you are a parent, you might want to check this site out:
http://www.msgen.com/prod/assembled/home.html
The podcasts from here are great for parents to listen to. Higly recommended.
http://www.msgen.com/prod/assembled/podcasts.html
My friend just built the 4 compartment piggy bank for his daughter with some tupperware and a hot glue gun.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
Post highschool, bills started to stack up from college. I was still living at home, with a single parent who was also out of work. Bills for things like the mortgage and utilities were eating us alive, and still are to a degree. I eventually had to leave school early due to an illness of my grandparents (we only had one car and the campus was downtown so you can see how getting to and from class could be a problem without a vehicle.) So between say, 2000 and 2003 I probably maxed out my credit cards to help pay for my home, put food on the table etc Come 2003, I decide to make another run at college and enroll in a local trade school. To this day after graduating I still owe them almost $10,000 for Studen Loans, which I had a somewhat hard time obtaining a full loan setup due to credit and such.
So I finish college in the computer science field, and we all know how hard it can be to get your foot in the door of that industry. It's 2006, two years after graduating I've still yet to find a job in the field I'm either qualified for or will give me the time of day. Often every application I fill out requries the credit and background check, and I'm punished because I've been unable to find work. Sure, if I could land a job anywhere like Walmart or a gas station I might have taken the job under normal circumstances. But A, I'm not physically able to be on my feet for 8 hours a day. Just not able to stand and move around that long every day. And B, after spending over $20,000 on an education with another $10,000 owed, I couldn't justify working for minimum wage at Walmart. It's just not right, spending 30k then getting paid $5.25 an hour. I've worked minimum wage jobs in highschool, after taxes you barely bring home $100-200 every two weeks, maybe another $100 for the full 8 hour shift (minimum wage is the same now as it was basically 10 years ago).
I've had HR people from my college, who are there to help post graduates find a job, tell me my credit would be an issue. Reminds me of the scene from Farenheit 9/11 where the single mother has to ride a city bus for 5 hours every morning to go work two minium wage jobs, get home super late every night (long past when her kids are asleep) and still not make enough money to pay for rent/mortgage. It's like, no matter how hard you try or honest you go through life, even the good people get shit on. I have no health insurance, dental insurance, no car, not a dime to my name and even if the boss of any local business (retail for example) offered me a job I couldn't physically do it. I feel like a war veteran who's been injured for life but his country just bends him over once he gets home.
Aw Frell this
On the page http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs6c-CreditScores. htm, the answer to the "Does it improve my score to pay off my credit card balance every month?" question is highly misleading, if not outright wrong.
In terms of FICO scores, although you always want to pay off your entire balance each month (to avoid finance/interest charges), when you pay that balance matters.
An example:
Person A charges $2,000 on his credit card each month. When he receives his credit card statements, they always show a total balance of $2,000. Each time, he pays off the entire $2,000 balance immediately.
Person B also charges $2,000 on his credit card each month. But each month, a few days before his statement period ends, he pays whatever his total balance is at that time. When he receives his next credit card statement, the total balance will be reflect only the charges he made on the last few days of his billing period (after he paid the current balance). He immediately pays whatever that total balance is.
Neither person A nor person B will have to pay any finance or interest charges. But person B's FICO score will be anywhere from 30 to 80 points higher than person A's FICO score.
Why? Because credit card companies send balance information to the credit agencies only once per month, and the balance information they send is the statement balance.
That means from the point of view of the credit agencies, person A is always carrying a $2,000 balance on his card, and person B is always carrying a trivially small balance ($0 or something close to it). Yes, person A is paying off the total balance each month. But the credit agencies can't know that, because the only data they receive each month is the statement balance, which is a snapshot in time. Fair Isaac & Co. looks at the credit reports and sees that person A is consistently carrying a higher balance than person B, and penalizes person A accordingly. (It's no secret that they do this; they flat-out tell you if you sign up for their credit report and FICO score monitoring service.)
I expect that the credit card companies and the credit agencies will eventually address this issue by communicating not just the monthly statement balance, but also the total charges and payments made each month. But until then, here's the bottom line: not only should you pay off your entire balance each month, but you want to do so before your billing cycle ends, so that the "total balance" amount on your statement is as small as possible.
Your bank is insolvent.
Taking Money Back
If the theory behidn this works, then maybe companies will weed out irresponsible candidates and grow stronger.
On the other hand, if they weed out otherwise good candidates because they look irresponsible (but aren't really), then I guess companies are just hurting themselves and will weaken.
Yeah, well...we were wrong then too.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
When you're employed, you're selling your own Time, which gets to be converted in hard currencies. You then use those to support yourself and your close ones (food and so on). Whenever you buy a long lasting item (car, pc, you name it...) you essentially convert your 'cristalized time' from currency to item.
Now here is the fun thing: when you buy something on credit, you do exactly the same thing, but you're using future Time instead of past Time.
But here is the catch: what is the cost of currency (basically, the overhead of converting Future Time into money). That's credit's rate. Whenever they're low, that means Future Time is cheap. In that case, money tends to flows freely, with a high level of enterprise work and you can see a quick overall growth. When they're high, Future Time is expensive, everything slows down, including growth.
First case seems good, doesn't it? One thing though, it does result in inflation which is the dearth of anybody whose business is to lend money in one form or another.
You cannot improve your credit in the absence of income.
Yes, I'm going to repeat this. You _cannot_ improve your credit in the absence of income.
One source of poor credit is defaulted student loans. Very easy to do, if you happen to have an extended period of unemployment. And all kind of folks, some with skills and experience greater than my own, have endured these. Guess what? Many, many people last found decent, fair-paying tech work in 2001. Some of them were in New York. How many people reading these posts actually had to try to find a job, in New York, during the fall of 2001? Can't you envision some reason that folks might have had some...difficulty during those times?
What if you have unforseen medical expenses? If you are injured as the result of the actions of the state (a collapsed tunnel, failed elevator, no-fault injury via bus or train) your bill may go into collection why the state dodges it's duty, and you scramble for a laywer. Heaven help you if this happens during a job search.
This kind of thinking is naive at best, destructive and incompetent at worst. Vicious cycles need only fools to perpetuate it. If everyone for which you interview pulls this crap, you never find any job high enough to pay any bill of substance. If your previous employers cheat you out of pay, or reduced your hours, and you resign in anger, your credit score can't improve.
At some point, it needs to be about skills, potential, and ability to integrate into a given job setting. Nothing more, nothing less. Ever. Life is a grim struggle. Attitudes like this don't lift burdens, or help society. They are just covers and excuses for some other discrimination.
I have nothing but contempt for those who punish you for basically not being able to find work.There are so many non-merit factors that creep in. Non-merit factors...like this. There is only so much for which you can prepare or control. All we see are repeats of the same attribution errors. The same undeciplined prejudice. Gut feelings and neurotic visions of "red-flags". Little humanity. And no logic.
When today you hear the stories of courage and bravery in the country, things like *this* can drag you down, and make you remember a different America. One indolent of mind, parochial, xenophobic, and perpetually negligent of hire.
"There is despair, Mr. President, in faces you never see, in the places you never visit in your shining city."
-- Mario Cuomo (1984)
It's just mislabeled as "insightful"
Kids are a simple issue.
Put them in a foster home.
[neo con parody off]
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
If this is true then discriminating against bad credit is really discriminating against a race
There may be differences in FICO score distributions when sliced by ethinc group, but that only matters if there is some bias in the measurement. It may be that black people are on the whole poorer than average, or there may be some cultural issue (like some of the Katrina refugees that spent 6 months in a hotel in texas without looking for work). Whatever the reason, FICO doesn't appear to be racist; I don't know what inputs it uses, but it doesn't seem to have much ability to infer race, unless they keep a list of 'black' names or ding you for living in a redlined area.
Basically, all I'm saying is that discriminating against people with bad credit isn't racist just because black people have worse credit on average.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
At the moment it is by ability to pay. About 18,000 people die every year in the US because they don't have health insurance. And, of course, when someone who can't pay goes to the emergency room, you and your insurance company have to pay for it in increased prices ... so you're paying for it anyway.
Ah but it's not government mandated rationing. It's one thing if you can't afford it but totally another if the government says you can't have medical treatment. If government didn't tax so much income then more people would have more to spend which leads to more employment and higher pay. And if the fda were to stop making it so hard and expensive to get approval for new treatments or drugs then they would be cheaper.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Automatically i refused. I told them to bug off and said i never authorized an overdraft and they had every right to refuse paying the check. If they go ahead and pay it with their own money its their problem and not mine.
They refused to buy that argument stating company principles and then when i refused to pay even after repeated reminders, closed my account and sent it to a collection agency.
Now my credit history is screwed. Whom should i blame?
The Bank, or myself?
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
to punish the guilty?
Wow. I'm glad people don't apply your logic to running the country.
Oh wait a minute........
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
So, the vast majority of people who have a high debt load have that debt because they are paying for medical expenses? New cars, big homes, lots of toys, as well as plenty of services (television, internet, phone[s])) don't fill the overwhelming majority?
Maybe you missed it but I didn't say all people had high debt because of medical expenses, I said in this case his high debts was because the person put his daughter's medical expenses on his credit card(s).
FalconShould there be a Law?
What about the guy who pays his bills, lives in a smaller house, buys insurance, and saves money so he can pay his bills in case some bad things happen?
Then he eventually gets fscked too, just the the person you were speaking of. Or maybe not so aggregiously, but fscked is still fscked. See the difference? None...
You can get a copy of your credit report once a year for free (supposedly) but how can you keep an eye on it constantly?
There are ways to keep up with your credit reports, but you have to pay for them (in the US). The three major credit agencies, Experian, Equifax, and Transunion all allow you to view your credit reports online. Each even allows you to view the reports from the other two. By googling all three you can find where you can view them.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The credit bureaus collect information given to them, and have no responsibility to see that it is accurate.
In the US legally the credit agencies have to investigate when a person questions an item on their credit report and correct it if it is wrong. However one of the three major agencies, Experian, drags it's feet when investigating and they rarely change the report.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Keep only one credit card, one that has no annual fee and as low interest rate as possible.
I used to think that way too, but I learned otherwise. The more credit cards you have the more credit you have and your ratio of credit available to your debt has a big impact on your FICO score. Of course you can have too many cards but I don't know what that number is. Both my sister who's a Certified Public Accountant and runs her own accounting firm with friends who are also CPAs and my brother-in-law who is a Certified Financial Planner have several credit cards each. Everything else being equal if you have one credit card with, say a $10,000 limit your score will be lower than if you have two credit cards each with $10,000 limits, or even if the limits on each were only $7,500.
get rid of cable and cell phone, get a better job, or take the bus if you have to until your income exceeds your expenses
Again it depends on the circumstances as regards the cellphone. The only service I have is for my cellphone. I don't have a lnadline service, and it's cheaper for me. A land line costed me about $30 plus long distance charges. My cellphone on the other hand only cost about $20 and long distance is included, and half the tyme I spend on the phone is long distance. Even if I didn't make any long distance calls my phone bill would still be $10 more for a landline than my cellphone bill is. Fact is it is getting cheaper and cheaper using cell phone yet landline prices are remaining about the same.
Other than the above I pretty much agree with most of what you say.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Personally I am a proponent of Daniel Quinn's "New Tribal Revolution" which is not the best name for most people, but an accurate one when one understands what Quinn means by it - probably the most controversial word is 'Tribal' - but it is used in the sense that the most successful basic human social unit has always been the tribe - it's why they worked so well for our species for 200,000 years, and the reference has nothing to do with religious belief or physical prosperity.
The short answer to "Where do you GO?" is.. nowhere. You change the world very close to you, your neighborhood, or your town if it's very small. Some people are trying to buy up existing wild land and create small communities of like-minded people to try to build new ways of life (please keep in mind these are NOT communes as they are not ideologically based and not led by a single god-like leader; also, they are not Luddite in any way - most of them have all the modern amenities, just without the monstrous amount of waste that we tend to create), but these are as yet somewhat unstable, and very young communities and it remains to be seen whether they will be stable enough to really provide an example to the rest of the world.
If I had mode points I'd mod you up, since I don't really have that much to add other than what amounts to a simple "me too".
I've long been a fan of organizing the world into tribes of tribes. Basically the notion you're talking about: keep all the modern amenities, run the governments more or less like we do today (in terms of constitutional democracy, mixed economies, etc)... but have the size of each unit of government much smaller, "tribal" sized, on a manageable scale, with as little bureaucracy as possible at each level; but many levels. A many-layered federal system.
Individuals form households. Households form neighborhoods; a leader from each household representing their household's interests in the neighborhood council. The same rules for interpersonal relations applying as the rules for inter-household relations. Neighborhoods then form boroughs or districts, again with a leader from each neighborhood representing them at the district level, so you never have more than a manageably small number of people in one council. These groups would be self-selecting (i.e. secession is always allowable), so "manageable size" is a variable number; when it gets too big to manage the internal conflicts amicably, they can split along whatever lines. (This is basically so that you've never got a group bigger than someone's "monkeysphere"; and everyone in one of the higher-level groups represents the consensus of another small group of sub-monkeysphere size, and so on down the line). Districts then group into cities, cities into counties, counties into provinces, provinces into subcontinental-scale groups, and those in turn into the kind of vast continental-scale governments that the United States (almost) is today. Global-scale relations would naturally be handled the same way.
It's at the same time a "one world government", and a vast decentralization of power. A similar concept I've heard referred to as "panarchy", and I'm becoming rather fond of that term myself. I'm also fond of drawing parallels between the psychological concept of the "inner child", with the notion of an "inner tribe". The same way that pop psych would have people "get in touch with" their "inner child" - thinking and behaving from a more simple and innocent place, without all the complex psychological bullshit layers we've built up as adults - I think that societies could do well to get back in touch with their "inner tribe". Which isn't to say that we should eschew technology and go live in caves, but rather that we should do our best to see through and work around the layers of bureaucratic and political bullshit that we as a society have built up, and deal with each other in a straightforward interpersonal manner whenever possible.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
This happened in Australia, Spherion, the recruitment and training company from America purchased the training provider Interim, formally "Computer Power". it went well for a few years until Spherion starting "Streamlining" the company, closing campuses, and wondering why the student enrolments had fallen. so Spherion, in their wisdom, decided to sell the company, o.k. fair enough. So they prepared some finacial reports and showed them to potential buyers. then they "loaned" 1.1 million dollars from their former Australian based training, don't know why, I'm sure there is a reason though. so they sold this training group to "Easy Call" and it was renamed back to "Computer Power" and things were well again.
The company started to cut back their losses, although they were still there. in December 2005 Easy call decided that they had enough and ceased funding computer power. the staff turned up on the 3rd of January, after the chrismas break to be told that the company was in the hands of administrators and they no longer had jobs. now this has nothing to do with Spherion, obviously
So, as a staff member of "Computer Power" I got to attend the creditors meeting. Spherion never paid back that 1.1 million, and claimed that "Computer Power" OWED them about 1 million dollars. and Easy Call claimed that Spherion's finacial reports were in error, as they were not informed of the complete finacial condition of the company (which may well be posing for the court case that they were engaged in) however the 1.1 million dollar loan and 1 million dollar claim on the company are correct (according to my notes anyway, but the amount may have been as low as $900,000)
Obviously this account is tainted, but you know, Carl Greenberg may be right
manager
"hmmmmm so I see from your credit report that your ability to manage money may be in doubt"
applicant
"well, you see, I really needed a couple of thousand, so I put it on credit, and well, I needed that credit to offset this other credit I had arranged, so I had to cover that from this credit. but if you look at it my way it all makes sense"
manager
"It sure does, this is exactly the kind of fiscal incompetence we need more of in the corporate world"
Leg Godt!
For one you can ALWAYS get a credit card, you may just have to settle for a secured credit card.
You can still be denied a credit card, even if it is a secured credit card. I know this because it happened to me. I didn't have any active credit cards, the only one I had was a department store credit card but I let it expire, when I received an offer for a secured credit card. Because I wanted one I sent the application with the security deposit and about a month later I received a letter saying I wasn't accepted and my deposit would be returned, it was, about a month later.
FalconShould there be a Law?
How long before they require weekly bloodwork, complete medical records, DNA samples, weekly lie detector tests, fingerprints, bugs in your home, FBI background checks, ad nauseum, before granting people the privilege of slaving their life away plucking chickens at $7/hr?
You work for the Feds, too? You could always become a freelance hacker or Deliverator.
Vertical
72 CD D7 52 D0 7E D8 47 44 91 D5 84 D1 59 F1 A9-This is my 128bit integer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I'm not saying anyone but someone with poor or no credit should get a secured card, but it is a way that anyone can build credit. They aren't going to turn you down because there's no risk to them.
You can still be denied a credit card even if it is a secured credit card. I know because it happened to me. The only credit card I'd had until I received a secured credit card offer was a department store credit card I let expire. I sent in the application along with a check for the amount of the security deposit. About a month later I received a letter saying I was denied the card but that my deposit would be sent back, it was, about a month later. For about two months I didn't have access to the money I sent in for a security deposit.
FalconShould there be a Law?
some rental car agencies look at you like you have 3 heads when you only have a debit card tied to your bank account... just wondering
That happened to me. I was taking a trip to visit some relatives and made reservations, including a rental car, online. Then after I arrived I went to pick up the car and they ran my credit card then said I didn't have enough credit to cover the rental. I told them they had already approved it when I made the reservation and I hadn't used my credit card since I booked the car, but they said they didn't check how much was available. So I handed them my VISA debit card, which I was going to use to pay the rental to begin with, and there was more than enough in the account to pay. But they said they didn't accept debit cards. So I was stuck without a car and had to call someone to pick me up. Finally the following day I found an agency that accepted the debit card but they charged more than the one I had made the reservation with, about a third more.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Does anyone like their HR department? There has to be someone somewhere who is cool with HR in hiring and benefits handling.
Some seem to be cool with the people involved but not with the process. I certainly hope that some have found a fair balance of off-loading responsibility and keeping control over important decisions. Once HR becomes anything other than a transparent helper of the employment process, in my experience, it's generally a nuisance.
HR Gal #2: Oh, I saw that before. Someone tried to give us a fake SSN.
HR Gal #1: That makes sense. Looks like we dodges a bullet on this one. NEXT!
Don't think I'm kidding. On rental apps, if someone comes up as a "no data" without a verifiable reason why, it's automatic rejection. Usually, that means a "no data" won't get the apartment, because by the time I can verify the reason and get a cosigner with credit, I've already rented the unit.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Off the top of my head, I can think of two things that would be of particular interest to you: Address History and Judgments.
For Address History, let's say your job applicant's resume says he went to Harvard from 1995-1999. But his address history shows he lived in Oklahoma during that time. Shows you that you'd better verify that degree really exists. Ditto, if he says he worked for Google in Palo Alto, but during that time he really lived in Arkansas. Better call that former employer.
Judgments show you whether or not this guy could be a liability to your company. If this guy has been sued and lost a bunch of times, do you really want him in your office stealing computers, sexually harassing your HR department, and saying "the wrong things" to your clients? You might want to figure out what is going on there before you invite this walking liability to represent your company.
As for me, I just want to see the "story". I look at the things I just mentioned, but what I really want to know is when an applicant says, "I got divorced finalized in '04 and it totally wrecked my finances. I'm just trying to pick up the pieces, and I haven't had a single late or missed payment in the last 12 months," that he or she is telling the truth. What I want to see is pretty good history up until '04, and then a total disaster, and then no lates/missings for the last 12 months or so. His FICO will still be abyssmal, but if he's told me the truth, I won't hold the low FICO against him. Assuming the rest of his app checks out, I'll rent to him.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Do you honestly think that a small firm can afford to put someone in a position for which they are not qualified?
What does "being able to afford it" have to do with nepotism? It happens all the time. Yes, in small companies. Maybe you've been lucky enough not to run into it, but it's far more common in small companies than in large ones.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Two scenarios, both of which happened to me.
1) I've moved around quite a bit since I graduated 10yrs ago, which in itself badly affects your credit rating, and i've restructured my student debts several times - but I've never missed a single payment. EVER. At one point I moved into an address where the guy who owned it previously had done a runner, owing lots of companies lots of money. All of a sudden, I couldn't get credit, not until 3yrs after I moved out - because you always have to provide previous addresses if you haven't lived in your current place for three years.
2) Last winter my partner and I bought our first property, a 2 bed flat in London. We were in the city centre, arranging a new mobile phone for her, when I got a phone call from the estate agent. So at the same time as I was on the phone negotiating a £250,000 deal on which our mortage had already been approved, she was getting turned down for a £20-a-month mobile phone contract on the grounds that our credit rating wasn't good enough.
So if anyone can explain to me exactly how we can have a credit rating good enough to get a loan of a quarter of a million pounds, but not good enough to get a £20-a-month mobile phone, I'd love to hear it....http://instantbadger.blogspot.com
I think that credit scores are pretty color-blind, so there's nothing racist about using them per se. However, credit scores are, by definition, a form of economic discrimination - and in most parts of the U.S., race and economic condition have a strong correlation. Still, if you are an "Equal Opportunity Employer" in the U.S., then you should be able to see when your hiring practices are causing you to have poor minority representation. If you are an evil bigot, you hardly need to go to lengths such as credit checking to avoid hiring minorities.
I'd be far more concerned about the use of credit scores causing a sort of "feedback loop" in society. One of the previous posters mentioned it - a rich-get-richer sort of effect. However, I'm fairly certain that capitalism will sort this practice out. If I'm wrong, then we'll have to do something on the government level.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I can't imagine that any company would ever replace the entire interviewing and screening process with a FICO score. The four folks that you mentioned would probably have difficulties getting jobs now, good credit or bad.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
I worked at a small firm that did just that. Nepotism was rife there. And, it wasn't just familial. People hired and promoted friends instead of the best people.
At one point, I worked for a man and worked with his wife. I sent my work to his wife and she would send it back saying it was not good enough. He started asking why I was having problems getting the work done. I finally had to sit down with him with work she had sent back and have him show me where the problems were. He didn't find a single one. This was an image conversion position. They were both mathmaticians.
The (UNIX) system administrator was a friend and ex-student of the founder. So was the lead developer. The file system had each disk mounted to the root directory as though they were Widows/DOS boxes. The apps were written to use this format. They were both math majors.
I am surprised the company is still around, but it is. Of course, they are still around because ocassionally they don't pay their employees.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
So many people charge up their cards, pay the cards off with a HELOC, and then charge up the cards again. Eventually, you will have to pay the piper, and you've upped the stakes with your HELOC technique. Remember, if you don't pay your credit card bills, your credit card issuer will get mad and call you every day and demand payment. If you don't pay your Mortgage, your bank will simply take your house and kick you out onto the street.
There is a reason why Mortage interest rates are lower. The loan is secured by your means of shelter. Most people don't like to live on the street.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Cameras are fine for low scale retail jobs such as you describe or banking but not for other types. I wouldn't and couldn't do my job if I had cameras pointed at me all the time. I'd be so nervous I'd goof up that I'd never get anything done. Not only that it'd be an insult.
Thermal depolymerization - Lazy recycling.
If employers weren't getting information that they deemed to be valuable from them, they wouldn't do 'em.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
When it comes to getting a Security Clearance, Uncle Sam is the same Re: Credit records. For a Secret security clearance, a basic credit check is run on you. In so far as you don't have a bankruptcy, you'll be fine generally. However, when it comes to Top Secret clearances, you pretty much have to grab your ankles. You will be asked about every ding on your credit, and any overdue payments or defaults/foreclosures. To the investigator (and indirectly, the U.S. Government), a bad credit records means two things: One, you're susceptible to bribes (to get out of debt), and two, that you are not responsible with your finances (and thus, may not be the same way with classified information). So while it may not be the perfect item with which to measure someone's character, it's still the yardstick by which you are judged. The only brightside to a clearance is that you get a chance to explain your credit dings, with a prospective employer, you may not have that chance.
I bring nothing to the table.
We were saved by the following things:
- Medical insurance
- Sound financial planning
Don't get me wrong, it took a lot of thought on our parts regarding how to structure our finances to withstand periods of unemployment, as well as her health condition. But I just wanted to let you know that it is a gross misstatement to say that Americans are somehow "one illness away from bankruptcy."They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Potential employer. They haven't hired you yet, though whether this gives them more or less claim to such information (they shouldn't really have any) I couldn't say.
I suffered financial abuse at the hands of my (now-ex) wife during our separation. Due to a work assignment out of town I left her in charge of finances. She neglected the obligations and abused the credit. She missed mortgage payments and medical bills - now I have a collection notice on my history. She raised the limit on our cards and maxxed them out within months while she had a field day with her extramarital affairs - now my credit score suffers because we can only make minimum payments on $25,000 credit debt. Then she stole my mail and attempted to open a new credit card (with a $12,000 limit) using my personal information - had I not put a forwarding on my mail, those cards would have been in her hands without my knowing it.
I divorced that sorry ass out of my life, but the scars remain on my credit history. She has no idea of the damage she has done. Any employer who views that history will be making a serious judgement error, and that is why credit history should be off limits to employers. I can't be there to fill in the gaps when the employer views that record, and they don't want to hear of domestic problems. It's a dangerous catch-22.
If your spouse has a prior bad credit history - congratulations, you've just inherited her bad history in one fell swoop when you exchanged vows. Her problems now appear on your report! Think about that when you try to arrange a mortgage on your marriage residence.
Lose your job and miss a child support or alimony payment, and family court can throw you in jail until you pay up. That earns you a black mark on your credit history. Another reason why family court is so self-defeating. Another reason credit records should be off limits to employers. I won't open the can of worms on why the divorce system is rigged against men.
It is frightenly easy for a spouse to damage your credit. She can have a gambling addiction, be on a materialistic streak, or is just being vindictive. Credit organizations are so eager to grant credit that they don't question an application. My ex stole my mail and used my personal information to fill out a credit form, then signed her name and assigned herself authorized user. They have no record of my consent and are under no obligation to consult with me despite my signature not appearing on that application. Yet they were ready to grant the credit. I went through the roof when I uncovered that.
The credit industry has permitted an atmosphere of abuse at their profit and at the consumer's pain, and must be reigned in before things get too far out of hand. Credit debt is a dangerous trap that is too easy to fall into, and the system is becoming more rigged to keep the poor in the ranks of the poor. This is not the American dream. Take it back before it is too late.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Ohh man done even get me started on Non covered items.
As an example I had to have surgery this year.. I thought I'd checked everything..
Doc in Plan for insurance Check
Sergi Center in Plan? Check
Anasteologist in plan? Check
Docs Freaking Assistant in Plan? Umm no.. WTF? Sorry no coverage for her $609 bill.
My 1st Daughter..
OB doc in plan
Hospital in plan (the company owns it so it's covered 100%)
The on Call pediatritian they had check her over becaue it was 3am and ours was sleeing like normal people?
Nope not in plan.. not covered.. $1010 please!!
Ya know what burns me more? the amount I'm billed for and what insurance pays.
The Surgi Center billed $5900.. Insurance paied them $1300..
The $609 for the assistant has she been in plan would have been paied $169
I wish the rest of my world operated like that.. Phone bill is $90.. Umm here's $20.. have a nice day..
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
Actually, it can be done. I have friends who have private medical insurance because their employer's policy is so awful. So far, they have been happy with their coverage.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Interestingly, according to the insurance industry, it is about what kind of driver you are. The line of thought is the same as has been echoed in other places "If one is irresponsible about one's finances, then one will be irresponsible in other areas."
And, about that "more like to pay for a $2500 repair out of their own pocket" thing, um no. Most people will not pay for a repair out of their own pocket unless they perceive a benefit such as avoiding a ticket or avoiding a major increase in one's insurance. Thing to remember is that most people have deductables below $1500.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I have a low credit score, why? Because I never buy anything with credit, ever. House is paid for, and I buy cars (and everything else) that I can afford now. No credit, ever! That is why it should, if not already, be illegal. I am being discriminated against because I refuse to take part in a corrupt system.
Kirby
I know that a good credit score shows responsibility, but should it affect a job? No! Its just another way to keep the poor, poor and the rich, rich. All people make mistakes when it comes to credit and they shouldn't be punished by not being able to get a good job. If someone wants to turn their life around and pay off debt, credit should not affect job qualification.
Interesting. I had always been a person A but perhaps I should reconsider that.
However, do we know for sure that the credit card company sends the information to the credit agencies at the end of our billing cycle? The page you linked only says they do it every 30 days, but your logic seems to imply they send it at the end of the billing cycle. I wonder if there is any way to tell..
The solution to this is kind of obvious. Call Harvard and get information from them directly. Why bother getting his credit report for this?
Why not just call his former employer and bypass the BS? You can also request the last 7 years of work history for free from Uncle Sam.
If he's able to steal computers from my employer's data center I've got a lot worse problems than him to deal with. What you need there is actual onsite security. Onsite security covers all angles, including the ones with no judgements against them who could still steal your stuff.
Sexual harassment gets people fired. That shows up in an employment history check. There's no need for an invasive credit check.
As for "saying the wrong things to clients" - once again, employment history checks will discover that. How will a credit check discover any "wrong things" said by an applicant? That's where you call up coworkers and ask employers. Again, there's no need for an invasive credit check: a credit check wouldn't even deliver the relevant information here.
You've shown no examples of the "story" that actually justifies you peeking into their personal lives away from the workplace. All the examples you put before me, I have shown you how to get that information using standard existing workplace and coworker query protocols.
Work history is for employment queries. Credit history is for credit queries. All this b.s. about credit queries is employers using their "employers market" standing to voyeuristically peek into people's lives when a detailed (and less invasive) work history/coworker inquiry will yield all the same information.
Would you as an employer be willing to submit to inquiries by employees upon your personal life as an employer? How about renters being allowed to make inquiries upon the landlord's personal life? How do we know the employer or landlord isn't a convicted crook, hmmm? It's like pulling teeth from a tiger to get inquiries about the employer's company itself: imagine if you had to post your credit report for all prospective employees to view, WTF OMFG SOMEONE SET US UP TEH BOMB!
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I've never had a credit card that reported a monthly balance to the credit agencies that wasn't the statement balance.
The way to tell: simply look at your credit report. The balances reported by your credit card companies should match your statement balances.
Your bank is insolvent.
Taking Money Back
You would have still gotten money from the insurance company. In my province it would have been capped at 20,000 but with no bills to pay and workers comp kicking in 60% of your wages till you got better you'd be alright till it arrives
Well after my bills were paid there was more than $20,000 left, say more than 20 tymes as much, however it was put into a trust. Also I wouldn't of gotten any workers comp as I wasn't working, at least not full tyme, I wasn't making more than $150 a week as I only worked 2 or 3 days a week because I was in college. No if I had been living in Canada when I had my accident I would of been much worse financially. And with a cap of $20,000 it's basically saying people or businesses can do most anything even if it harms someone, "Gee I only have to pay $20,000, let's go do it again." That doesn't sound good, this sounds better: "Gee we had to pay $10,000,000. We'd better improve and make sure it doesn't happen again so we won't have to pay that again. Or say someone makes $50,000 a year and gets raises occassionally but after being hit the person can't work anymore, not only is the person badly injured but they also have to make do with only $30,000. Simply $20,000 is nowhere near enough either compensation to the injured party or much of a deterence of it happening again. At least, more than likely the company the guy who hit me worked for will be much more careful about who they hire. Their insurance would demand it.
You'd pay about 15% more tax but everythign is about 6% cheaper anyways even accoutning for the currency difference
Having been in and driven through Canada, between Sault St Marie and New York but most recently between Detroit and New London, I'd have to say I paid more for stuff there than I did in the US and that's not counting currency exchange. Several years ago I met someone online from Victoria, BC who complained because the higher prices she paid in Canada than what she'd pay in the US. She was also on disability and complained because the office through which she got disability kept as she said "harazing her". See, she was born with birth defects because her mother took Thalidomide, if I recall right for morning sickness.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Wow. I mean -- WOW. So if coke is near you, you deserve to be raped?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
My credit score is 813. I know this because the loan agent told me when I was purchasing a new Audi A6 wagon a couple years ago. He'dI was going to just pay cash, but the loan was 2.9%, and I can invest most of the $45,000 while I pay the car off over 5 years.
Honest to god, that is the truth.
Yet, you have FOED me, and my Slashdot nickname is Profane Muthafucka. And, I jizz on conservatives whenever they let me, and many times when they won't.
Credit scores are just terrific for sorting out the riff-raff, as you said.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I read the article. The pharmaceutical company didn't provide the drug free, they provided a grant that was supposed to repay the hospital for the cost of the drug, but apparently it didn't cover it all.
Pharmaceutical companies have started these "drugs for the poor" programs because, a) it costs them nothing, and it provides a fat tax write off, and b) people like you use it to defend their sleezy practices and their government granted monopoly.
They get to charge $20,000 for something that cost them probably $1 per dose to synthesize, then offer this charity "donation" to pay for it. End result? A fat tax write off ($5000+ per dose assuming 25% tax rate) that cost them $1.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
You actually got away with only paying $10,000 for the birth of your children? My wife just had our daughter and her bill alone was over $20,000. Where can you live and only pay that?