"What's wrong about discriminating against people with a history of making bad choices?"
Because a lot more goes into a credit rating than "Timmy can't remember to pay his credit card bill" or "Suzie is a shop-a-holic and can't stop".
1) There is a lot of "joint credit" out there. Maybe you got a card with your parents or spouse and they totally charged it up and quit paying. This happened to a friend of mine in college who had his name on his parent's account and since it was virtually the only credit he had, when they stopped paying he was totally screwed. He never even used the card.
2) You can't say Poor != Bad Credit, it's more of a probability function. Any no, it's not because poor people are poor because that's what they deserve. Because I am in the lower middle class, and therefore not poor enough to get financial aid, nor rich enough to afford school (or have my parents give me a dime, for that matter), I have a lot of student loans. Fine, right? They'll pay off later. But for the time being, I have a debt/credit ratio of about 100%. Maybe you don't know, but this number accounts for a sizeable portion of your score (30%, I think)
3) Sometimes people go through a period in their lives that affects their choices. Say, you have a manic episode and buy three houses. But a year later you are on medication and recovered, but you still have totally fucked credit. 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.
4) Lastly, yes, some people (or say, a lot of people) can't handle their finances in the best manner. Partly I would blame the total lack of education on this subject (at least that I've encountered) - and you can hardly trust parents to teach what they don't know. But I just don't think the correlation between credit rating and success as an employee can be that strong.
I can't make any judgements about the average-joe-with-bad-credit, but for myself (I have a "medium - low" score, it's not absolute trash, thankfully), I can say that while it certainly is my fault, I seriously question that it would have anything to do with how responsible or hard-working I am. The reason is that I incurred 90% of the damage to my credit while I was 18 and stupid. Yes, at that time, it might be true that I was irresponsible and would have been a bad employee (although it wasn't, really). I just had no idea how to deal with anything in the real world because it had never been a concern before. Some people might claim that if I'm a "new person" now, with my life and finances in order, I should be able to recover quickly. Since I'm in school and not making much money however, those debts are not going away soon. Nor do you find credit card companies to be quick to forgive. I think it will be at least 10 years before my credit is really on the mend, and I don't begrudge the lesson that high interest rates, etc will teach. But I think denying me a job on this account is quite out of order. In short, it presumes too much.
F*ck the record companies. I pay the artists by going to concerts and buying t-shirts, or by finding those that produce their own music. I wouldn't buy 99% of the stuff I download even if it cost a tenth of what it does, so their loss of business is all fake anyway.
Actually a recurring argument between me and my fellow nerds is 'How many people have had sex in space?"
I mean, I'd totally do it if I got up there. C'mon.
haha. For the brief and torturous time in college that I wanted to be a doctor, I took Organic Chem twice. Interestingly, the best piece of advice I recieved for passing the second time was from a post-doc in my lab who told me she aced Orgo by figuring out how to synthesize all the illegal drugs she could think of...
The parent poster was joking; you're just an idiot. You clearly have no idea how science works. A lot of science is motivated by *disproving* a competing team's results. There are limited funds available, and more often than not, scientists from different institutions/teams are adversaries. I'm not saying incorrect conclusions aren't published (they are all the time) but the point is that they are eventually debunked because there is incentive to do so. Naturally, if you suck as a scientist and keep publishing incorrect things, your funding isn't likely to stick around.
HAHAHA. right. I think you meant "dedication to promoting family values", right? And by that, you actually mean hating gays. except that's not hate-mongering, cuz they deserve it, right? all that living in sin has god hatin' 'em too, after all.
That sentiment could easily be touted by ANY political slice of the spectrum. The point is to differentiate yourself -- and no, sorry, the liberals aren't about to claim hate-mongering as objective number one. You might as well add "opposition to murder" or something as equally obvious. sheesh.
political associations are stupid. free yourself from the hive mind, and figure out what you're OWN damn core beliefs are. that's the only thing that should matter.
Except that it's well known that different coastal areas are affected differently by rising water levels -- 0.4 mm average worldwide does NOT mean the florida keys won't be underwater in 100 years even if the rate doesn't increase. I guess you don't live on the coast...
Why do people always pull the "slippery slope" argument? It's clearly invalid here. It's already legal to abort fetuses, so "killing" something *less* developed would be a step on a slippery slope to something that... already occurs? Unless you meant more of a slippery jump whereby embryonic stem cell research leads to... genocide? random acts of murder? killing newborns? People love that phrase but I'm just not seeing how it leads to anything. Just because there's some (collectively speaking) ambiguity about where "the line" is on abortion/stem cells, doesn't mean that the line COULD be way out there, where, you know, we kill people with and IQ below 100. Not to mention that tens to hundreds of embryos are destroyed everytime a couple elects to have an in vitro fertilization. As you seem to be against the use of embryonic stem cells for research, are you then in favor of banning such a practice, as it generates hundreds of thousands of stem cells which don't even have the chance to be used for research, as they are summarily destroyed?
It's patently silly to think that a creationist can't build a perfectly good bridge. There are very few professions that are actually affected by what the professed believes in a "big picture" sense. If they are any good at their job, then they believe the equations and do the work. The could believe the equations were handed down in tablet form to Moses, for all I care.
Doctors and pharmacists, however, do trouble me. I don't want my pharmacist to deny me birth control because she thinks some invisible anthropomorphic masculine god doesn't want me to have sex for a reason other than procreation.
Oh and for the record, yes, if you believe in creationism/ID you are an idiot in the sense that your reasoning faculties are severely hindered *by choice*. By necessity you abandon reason and cling to faith, which is anti-reason.
Don't get me wrong, I consider myself religious and was raised Catholic, but large organized religions have proven difficult for me to participate in."
I found your comment informative, but...
why the disclamer? Why is it that people feel the need to fill in their personal information as if it makes the information more true or the belief more strongly held? Since this is just your opinion, the background is unecessary. There are a LOT of reasonable religionists (as I prefer to call non-rationalists) that for the most part (maybe 99%) act rationally. There are a lot of crazy athiests. The fact that there is a spectrum of attitudes and beliefs is not surprising but I feel that specifics are too often included at the bottom of statements as if to say, "look at me! i'm a christian who believes in X principle, scientific law, whatever" Great. that changes nothing about how i would evaluate your comment. In any case, this is not directed at you, just at the general population of disclamers.
Slashdot Mirror
"What's wrong about discriminating against people with a history of making bad choices?" Because a lot more goes into a credit rating than "Timmy can't remember to pay his credit card bill" or "Suzie is a shop-a-holic and can't stop". 1) There is a lot of "joint credit" out there. Maybe you got a card with your parents or spouse and they totally charged it up and quit paying. This happened to a friend of mine in college who had his name on his parent's account and since it was virtually the only credit he had, when they stopped paying he was totally screwed. He never even used the card. 2) You can't say Poor != Bad Credit, it's more of a probability function. Any no, it's not because poor people are poor because that's what they deserve. Because I am in the lower middle class, and therefore not poor enough to get financial aid, nor rich enough to afford school (or have my parents give me a dime, for that matter), I have a lot of student loans. Fine, right? They'll pay off later. But for the time being, I have a debt/credit ratio of about 100%. Maybe you don't know, but this number accounts for a sizeable portion of your score (30%, I think) 3) Sometimes people go through a period in their lives that affects their choices. Say, you have a manic episode and buy three houses. But a year later you are on medication and recovered, but you still have totally fucked credit. 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. 4) Lastly, yes, some people (or say, a lot of people) can't handle their finances in the best manner. Partly I would blame the total lack of education on this subject (at least that I've encountered) - and you can hardly trust parents to teach what they don't know. But I just don't think the correlation between credit rating and success as an employee can be that strong.
I can't make any judgements about the average-joe-with-bad-credit, but for myself (I have a "medium - low" score, it's not absolute trash, thankfully), I can say that while it certainly is my fault, I seriously question that it would have anything to do with how responsible or hard-working I am. The reason is that I incurred 90% of the damage to my credit while I was 18 and stupid. Yes, at that time, it might be true that I was irresponsible and would have been a bad employee (although it wasn't, really). I just had no idea how to deal with anything in the real world because it had never been a concern before. Some people might claim that if I'm a "new person" now, with my life and finances in order, I should be able to recover quickly. Since I'm in school and not making much money however, those debts are not going away soon. Nor do you find credit card companies to be quick to forgive. I think it will be at least 10 years before my credit is really on the mend, and I don't begrudge the lesson that high interest rates, etc will teach. But I think denying me a job on this account is quite out of order. In short, it presumes too much.
F*ck the record companies. I pay the artists by going to concerts and buying t-shirts, or by finding those that produce their own music. I wouldn't buy 99% of the stuff I download even if it cost a tenth of what it does, so their loss of business is all fake anyway.
Actually a recurring argument between me and my fellow nerds is 'How many people have had sex in space?" I mean, I'd totally do it if I got up there. C'mon.
haha. For the brief and torturous time in college that I wanted to be a doctor, I took Organic Chem twice. Interestingly, the best piece of advice I recieved for passing the second time was from a post-doc in my lab who told me she aced Orgo by figuring out how to synthesize all the illegal drugs she could think of...
mod parent up:)
The parent poster was joking; you're just an idiot. You clearly have no idea how science works. A lot of science is motivated by *disproving* a competing team's results. There are limited funds available, and more often than not, scientists from different institutions/teams are adversaries. I'm not saying incorrect conclusions aren't published (they are all the time) but the point is that they are eventually debunked because there is incentive to do so. Naturally, if you suck as a scientist and keep publishing incorrect things, your funding isn't likely to stick around.
HAHAHA. right. I think you meant "dedication to promoting family values", right? And by that, you actually mean hating gays. except that's not hate-mongering, cuz they deserve it, right? all that living in sin has god hatin' 'em too, after all.
That sentiment could easily be touted by ANY political slice of the spectrum. The point is to differentiate yourself -- and no, sorry, the liberals aren't about to claim hate-mongering as objective number one. You might as well add "opposition to murder" or something as equally obvious. sheesh.
political associations are stupid. free yourself from the hive mind, and figure out what you're OWN damn core beliefs are. that's the only thing that should matter.
Except that it's well known that different coastal areas are affected differently by rising water levels -- 0.4 mm average worldwide does NOT mean the florida keys won't be underwater in 100 years even if the rate doesn't increase. I guess you don't live on the coast...
Why do people always pull the "slippery slope" argument? It's clearly invalid here. It's already legal to abort fetuses, so "killing" something *less* developed would be a step on a slippery slope to something that... already occurs? Unless you meant more of a slippery jump whereby embryonic stem cell research leads to... genocide? random acts of murder? killing newborns? People love that phrase but I'm just not seeing how it leads to anything. Just because there's some (collectively speaking) ambiguity about where "the line" is on abortion/stem cells, doesn't mean that the line COULD be way out there, where, you know, we kill people with and IQ below 100. Not to mention that tens to hundreds of embryos are destroyed everytime a couple elects to have an in vitro fertilization. As you seem to be against the use of embryonic stem cells for research, are you then in favor of banning such a practice, as it generates hundreds of thousands of stem cells which don't even have the chance to be used for research, as they are summarily destroyed?
It's patently silly to think that a creationist can't build a perfectly good bridge. There are very few professions that are actually affected by what the professed believes in a "big picture" sense. If they are any good at their job, then they believe the equations and do the work. The could believe the equations were handed down in tablet form to Moses, for all I care. Doctors and pharmacists, however, do trouble me. I don't want my pharmacist to deny me birth control because she thinks some invisible anthropomorphic masculine god doesn't want me to have sex for a reason other than procreation. Oh and for the record, yes, if you believe in creationism/ID you are an idiot in the sense that your reasoning faculties are severely hindered *by choice*. By necessity you abandon reason and cling to faith, which is anti-reason.
Don't get me wrong, I consider myself religious and was raised Catholic, but large organized religions have proven difficult for me to participate in." I found your comment informative, but... why the disclamer? Why is it that people feel the need to fill in their personal information as if it makes the information more true or the belief more strongly held? Since this is just your opinion, the background is unecessary. There are a LOT of reasonable religionists (as I prefer to call non-rationalists) that for the most part (maybe 99%) act rationally. There are a lot of crazy athiests. The fact that there is a spectrum of attitudes and beliefs is not surprising but I feel that specifics are too often included at the bottom of statements as if to say, "look at me! i'm a christian who believes in X principle, scientific law, whatever" Great. that changes nothing about how i would evaluate your comment. In any case, this is not directed at you, just at the general population of disclamers.