Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 100

Thread: Credit Ratings

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    I'd assume a history of not paying bills. Maybe that and a combination of high debt and excessive credit card usage.
    What OG said. Or maybe they couldn't "pay bills" during a stint of unemployment, or used credit cards to pay the rent? Why should that disqualify someone qualified from being hired....when having that job is the first step to digging out of debt?

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    What OG said. Or maybe they couldn't "pay bills" during a stint of unemployment, or used credit cards to pay the rent? Why should that disqualify someone qualified from being hired....when having that job is the first step to digging out of debt?
    Its insane whats included with a soft credit pull. How much you owe, who you have accounts with (such as a competitors credit card), auto loans and the age of them, medical bills (insurance considerations), home loans, how long you've had credit cards, etc.

    Far more information than a business needs in order to make a hiring decision, and far to much information to trust them not to look at.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 12-29-2013 at 09:44 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  3. #33
    In other words.....a scam.

  4. #34
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    3,064
    It's Corporate Big Brother...not a fan of it either. But I'm not sure we will see any real Federal movement on it as the Fed likes to be nosy too
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  5. #35
    Depends if Senator Warren's proposal gets traction, as part of financial consumer protections, or if congress does whatever Corporate America wants. At the very least, these ratings agencies should be totally transparent about where/how they get their "information", how it's stored or secured, who underwrites them, and with whom they share/sell the data.

    I think every consumer ought to be able to access their credit report without charge, from any/every agency doing them....and more than once per year. It would also be great if people could actually submit that report when applying for loans, instead of being charged for a "new" credit report with every application.

    Some credit card companies are "offering" updated credit reports on customer billing statements, but I suspect they're also collecting a fee for that "service", and rolling it into other annual fees....that the card-holder likely isn't aware of. Fine print, fees and surcharges.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Its insane whats included with a soft credit pull. How much you owe, who you have accounts with (such as a competitors credit card), auto loans and the age of them, medical bills (insurance considerations), home loans, how long you've had credit cards, etc.

    Far more information than a business needs in order to make a hiring decision, and far to much information to trust them not to look at.
    Wow, I always imagined a credit score being basically a number or judgement, not that they'd actually hand out all that information. How's that even legal? I thought it'd be like when you need a background check for a job over here, you just apply for one, with information about why it's requested, for what kind of job, etc., and they just tell your employer if it's granted or denied, they never get any sensitive information at all.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  7. #37
    To play devil's advocate, one could argue that some of the details are more useful than just a subjective numerical score. After all, the variables and weighting that go into credit scores can be pretty opaque to most people.

    I've reviewed some of these credit reports and, in many cases, a "low" score is usually the result of large student loans or a small forgotten balance on a credit card. When I can see that the problem isn't really a systemic issue, I can move-on with reviewing a candidate -- often the candidate hasn't done a credit check on themselves and doesn't even know they had a small balance on a credit card! It doesn't exactly fill me with confidence when this happens, but it's often such a small thing that I prefer to review this myself then trust these credit rating scores.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    To play devil's advocate, one could argue that some of the details are more useful than just a subjective numerical score. After all, the variables and weighting that go into credit scores can be pretty opaque to most people.

    I've reviewed some of these credit reports and, in many cases, a "low" score is usually the result of large student loans or a small forgotten balance on a credit card. When I can see that the problem isn't really a systemic issue, I can move-on with reviewing a candidate -- often the candidate hasn't done a credit check on themselves and doesn't even know they had a small balance on a credit card! It doesn't exactly fill me with confidence when this happens, but it's often such a small thing that I prefer to review this myself then trust these credit rating scores.
    Then? Just letting you know, I do read what you write.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  9. #39
    Then...what?

    I guess, to summarize a bit: a credit score is a very subjective and opaquely-calculated number. If a credit check is being done as part of a job search (which is something I have some problems with), getting a report beyond just the score has some value given how easy it can be to knock-down someone's score.

    EG this issue of a company killing someone's credit score because they left a bad review of them: http://theworldforgotten.com/showthread.php?t=3575

  10. #40
    Just pointing out your misuse of the word.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Wow, I always imagined a credit score being basically a number or judgement, not that they'd actually hand out all that information. How's that even legal? I thought it'd be like when you need a background check for a job over here, you just apply for one, with information about why it's requested, for what kind of job, etc., and they just tell your employer if it's granted or denied, they never get any sensitive information at all.
    In the UK at least, a credit request for a job application will only receive a rating, no other information. I don't know about the rest of Europe.

    If a credit request for a job application in the US grants access to all the sensitive information from which the rating is formed, then that's rather bizarre.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I guess, to summarize a bit: a credit score is a very subjective and opaquely-calculated number. If a credit check is being done as part of a job search (which is something I have some problems with), getting a report beyond just the score has some value given how easy it can be to knock-down someone's score.
    It's not in the slightest subjective.

    The rules in what make up a credit score are clearly-defined parameters within rating agencies' systems, completely consistent and coldly objective.

    Though I'll agree it is certainly opaque to the general public.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

  13. #43
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
    In the UK at least, a credit request for a job application will only receive a rating, no other information. I don't know about the rest of Europe.
    In Germany, when you request a statement from the SCHUFA for your own credit rating, you receive a page with a rating that you may give to others (like a prospective landlord). And you receive more detailed information on the other pages.

    Someone demanding that detailed information is acting illegally.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post

    I guess, to summarize a bit: a credit score is a very subjective and opaquely-calculated number. If a credit check is being done as part of a job search (which is something I have some problems with), getting a report beyond just the score has some value given how easy it can be to knock-down someone's score.
    No, what's "subjective" is how potential employers view a credit score, the character assumptions made about a person -- based on the "moral value" they attach to certain debt -- and using that in the hiring process. It's a form of employment discrimination, or economic bias, that isn't connected to qualifications or abilities to perform the job.

    We're not talking about criminal background checks here. Having credit debt isn't illegal, and carrying heavy debt loads has practically been an American tradition (particularly since housing/healthcare/education costs escalated the last couple of decades). Millions of people were forced into personal or medical bankruptcies, often through no fault of their own, but as fall-out from national economic/financial failures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
    In the UK at least, a credit request for a job application will only receive a rating, no other information. I don't know about the rest of Europe.

    If a credit request for a job application in the US grants access to all the sensitive information from which the rating is formed, then that's rather bizarre.
    Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
    It's not in the slightest subjective.

    The rules in what make up a credit score are clearly-defined parameters within rating agencies' systems, completely consistent and coldly objective.

    Though I'll agree it is certainly opaque to the general public.
    The way US employers can use credit reports is bizarre! We need to reform or regulate the whole thing....but the financial sector is also a powerful lobbying group, with politicians in their pockets.

  15. #45
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    To play devil's advocate, one could argue that some of the details are more useful than just a subjective numerical score. After all, the variables and weighting that go into credit scores can be pretty opaque to most people.

    I've reviewed some of these credit reports and, in many cases, a "low" score is usually the result of large student loans or a small forgotten balance on a credit card. When I can see that the problem isn't really a systemic issue, I can move-on with reviewing a candidate -- often the candidate hasn't done a credit check on themselves and doesn't even know they had a small balance on a credit card! It doesn't exactly fill me with confidence when this happens, but it's often such a small thing that I prefer to review this myself then trust these credit rating scores.
    Sure, details are useful, wouldn't you prefer a house visit before hiring someone, too? If a credit score is, according to you, a bad measure, which I agree with, simply don't use it at all.

    @GGT, even if it was a criminal background check, over here, the employer would not see what the applicant is convicted for. You basically get a 'yes' or 'no' for the particular job, I.e. if you were convicted for fraud, you'll be rejected for, say, a bank job, if you have a sexual assault conviction you'll be rejected for, say, a teacher job, etc. In some cases criminal and other intelligence can also be used. At no point is my personal information given away (except to the NSA of course).
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    Just pointing out your misuse of the word.
    Sozy, grammar donkey.

    Quote Originally Posted by Timbuk2 View Post
    It's not in the slightest subjective.

    The rules in what make up a credit score are clearly-defined parameters within rating agencies' systems, completely consistent and coldly objective.

    Though I'll agree it is certainly opaque to the general public.
    Perhaps subjective was the wrong word, but perhaps it's also an accurate word to describe the weighting and formulation of those parameters. I think one could call a credit score an objective measure based partly on some subjective assumptions, right? Not all of them are too subjective, but an algorithm is only as good as the people and data that informs said algorithm.

    Please understand that I'm not disagreeing with you wholesale, just nitpicking a bit on the semantics.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    No, what's "subjective" is how potential employers view a credit score, the character assumptions made about a person -- based on the "moral value" they attach to certain debt -- and using that in the hiring process. It's a form of employment discrimination, or economic bias, that isn't connected to qualifications or abilities to perform the job.

    We're not talking about criminal background checks here. Having credit debt isn't illegal, and carrying heavy debt loads has practically been an American tradition (particularly since housing/healthcare/education costs escalated the last couple of decades). Millions of people were forced into personal or medical bankruptcies, often through no fault of their own, but as fall-out from national economic/financial failures.

    The way US employers can use credit reports is bizarre! We need to reform or regulate the whole thing....but the financial sector is also a powerful lobbying group, with politicians in their pockets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Sure, details are useful, wouldn't you prefer a house visit before hiring someone, too? If a credit score is, according to you, a bad measure, which I agree with, simply don't use it at all.
    Responding more to GGT here, but where it gets tricky is that hiring people and making employment decisions is an inherently subjective process that involves numerous character assumptions. The question here is if we want to keep personal financial history out of the the mix of things that can be legally considered.

    And there are numerous corner cases where debts might be instructive. If I'm hiring a compliance specialist who happens to have numerous massive child support debts or a clear problem with credit cards, it might not be a good sign. Though I'm very much on the fence because I've been on both sides of the fence. As someone who hires people, I want as much information as possible about them. But, as someone who has interviewed for jobs like anyone else, I understand that using that data in employment decisions can easily shove someone into a death spiral/self-fulfilling prophecy.

  17. #47
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Yes, Dread. And that's the reason you're allowed to lie in job interviews when your interviewer asks questions he's not legally allowed to ask. At least that's the way it is over here.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  18. #48

  19. #49
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Dread, you forgot that I'm a teacher and as such have to do stuff like grading people and evaluating skills.

    Let me tell you this: You won't get a very reliable picture of a person just through some papers however detailed they may be and an interview. Because those papers and stuff only paint a very broad picture of this person's abilities.

    That's what the employment probation period is for.

    Yes, there's silly stuff like those assessment centers - but that's pseudoscientific. If a newly-hired person doesn't yield the results you want - then it may be that this person didn't have the abilities you wanted. It may also very well be that your company sucks. And now amount of adjusting the hiring process will fix that particular problem.
    Another stumbling stone: Your requirements don't fit your actual needs. Happens often, as can be seen in the software world's disasters when doing big projects.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    ...an algorithm is only as good as the people and data that informs said algorithm.

    ...The question here is if we want to keep personal financial history out of the the mix of things that can be legally considered.
    Yes. The uncomfortable fact is acknowledging that "certain people" with horrible credit ratings face no consequences, but are actually given MORE credit, like Donald Trump....while lower income working folks are penalized by the same credit rating industry. That's fucked up.

    And there are numerous corner cases where debts might be instructive. If I'm hiring a compliance specialist who happens to have numerous massive child support debts or a clear problem with credit cards, it might not be a good sign. Though I'm very much on the fence because I've been on both sides of the fence. As someone who hires people, I want as much information as possible about them. But, as someone who has interviewed for jobs like anyone else, I understand that using that data in employment decisions can easily shove someone into a death spiral/self-fulfilling prophecy.
    Since you've been on "both sides" of the issue....maybe you should reconsider the "value" of using credit reports in the hiring process altogether. Seriously, how long should someone looking for work be punished for mistakes made in their past personal lives?

    Seems to me that someone supporting children, with student/educational or other credit debt, could be the motivated worker every employer wants to hire. Not the other way around.

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Dread, you forgot that I'm a teacher and as such have to do stuff like grading people and evaluating skills.

    Let me tell you this: You won't get a very reliable picture of a person just through some papers however detailed they may be and an interview. Because those papers and stuff only paint a very broad picture of this person's abilities.

    That's what the employment probation period is for.

    Yes, there's silly stuff like those assessment centers - but that's pseudoscientific. If a newly-hired person doesn't yield the results you want - then it may be that this person didn't have the abilities you wanted. It may also very well be that your company sucks. And now amount of adjusting the hiring process will fix that particular problem.
    Another stumbling stone: Your requirements don't fit your actual needs. Happens often, as can be seen in the software world's disasters when doing big projects.
    So, in other words:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    As someone who hires people, I want as much information as possible about them.

  22. #52
    Dread, "more" information doesn't automatically mean "better" information. Especially not in the hiring process. That's the principle behind EEOC and non-discrimination laws....that force employers to look beyond race/ethnicity/religion/gender/age/sexual orientation....that have no correlation to abilities and job performance.

  23. #53
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    So, in other words:
    Erm, no. You want reliable information which actually states something relevant.

    I mean, what good is information about what country they spent their last holiday in? Just one example.

    It's not about the amount of data, it's about the quality of data. And good quality stems from three aspects:
    Reliability, objectivity and validity.

    What good is that data if the correlation of said data to your actual topic is low? I'll tell you: It's absolutely worthless.

    That's why we sometimes have those seemingly non-sensical psychological studies which have some obvious result - you'd say. However, we also had several such studies which resulted in proving this common sense wrong. For instance, everyone "knows" that the number of pupils in a classroom is one determining factor in the quality of education.

    Turns out, there's no such correlation*. Well, damn.

    And that's what you're doing: Amassing "data" until you're unable to see the forest for the trees. Make your own life easier, determine the minimum amount of information you really need and which is actually relevant and stop being a Blockwart-like guy who's snooping into areas he has no place knowing about.


    ________________
    *) At least not in the sense of: If we reduce the number of pupils in a class the end result will automatically be better.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  24. #54
    Anyone using the Financial Industry and its monetary "tools" as a surrogate for making "good business decisions" is either a patsy or delusional. Maybe both. That might explain the divergence between monetary policy and economic policy, and historically low trust of congress by The People who elected them.


  25. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Dread, "more" information doesn't automatically mean "better" information. Especially not in the hiring process. That's the principle behind EEOC and non-discrimination laws....that force employers to look beyond race/ethnicity/religion/gender/age/sexual orientation....that have no correlation to abilities and job performance.
    Why is it that liberals automatically assume business will always use information badly? They have every incentive to get it right the first time, the cost to hire and train someone is enormous.

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Why is it that liberals automatically assume business will always use information badly? They have every incentive to get it right the first time, the cost to hire and train someone is enormous.
    Why do you automatically play the "liberal" card?

    The Insurance Industry is a good example of how business will exploit people for profits, until a law or regulation protects consumers and the public at large. I regard the discrimination against women trying to get reproductive healthcare in the 60's as example #1, and gay men trying to buy health insurance or life insurance during the HIV/AIDs crisis in the 80's as example #2.

    So don't try to defend "business" or "Freee Market" incentives that are soley based on profits....or greed....without considering the damage and blow-back that can cause for a society or nation.



    I'm amazed and perplexed at the lengths conservatives or libertarians will go to, to defend institutional corporatism....as the better alternative to laws or regulations made by teh government. That just doesn't jive with their purported principle of defending individual rights, in a nation of laws of/by/for The People.
    Last edited by GGT; 01-04-2014 at 07:35 PM.

  27. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Why is it that liberals automatically assume business will always use information badly? They have every incentive to get it right the first time, the cost to hire and train someone is enormous.

    because information is big money? because why would a company pass up looking at debts if it means lowering insurance costs? or reducing the risk of hiring someone that would be unloyal, even if such a risk is near zero?

    or you can look at dreads post and see how he places child support and credit cards in a bad light for a compliance specialist, when such hardships could very give someone the experience and know how that others haven't been through.

    You make it sound like companies hire the brightest, smartest, most over-qualified person that applies. Thats so far from the truth its ridiculous.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 01-07-2014 at 11:52 AM.

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Dread, "more" information doesn't automatically mean "better" information. Especially not in the hiring process. That's the principle behind EEOC and non-discrimination laws....that force employers to look beyond race/ethnicity/religion/gender/age/sexual orientation....that have no correlation to abilities and job performance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro View Post
    Erm, no. You want reliable information which actually states something relevant.

    I mean, what good is information about what country they spent their last holiday in? Just one example.

    It's not about the amount of data, it's about the quality of data. And good quality stems from three aspects:
    Reliability, objectivity and validity.

    What good is that data if the correlation of said data to your actual topic is low? I'll tell you: It's absolutely worthless.

    That's why we sometimes have those seemingly non-sensical psychological studies which have some obvious result - you'd say. However, we also had several such studies which resulted in proving this common sense wrong. For instance, everyone "knows" that the number of pupils in a classroom is one determining factor in the quality of education.

    Turns out, there's no such correlation*. Well, damn.

    And that's what you're doing: Amassing "data" until you're unable to see the forest for the trees. Make your own life easier, determine the minimum amount of information you really need and which is actually relevant and stop being a Blockwart-like guy who's snooping into areas he has no place knowing about.


    ________________
    *) At least not in the sense of: If we reduce the number of pupils in a class the end result will automatically be better.
    Well, that's what the debate is about, right? Is credit history a valid signal for job performance? I'm conflicted and don't usually get much value out of it, but I'm also reluctant to say it has no value. Or that credit history rises to the level of legal protection that should be afforded to race/ethnicity/religion/gender/etc.

    I'm not sure it's always reasonable to correlate job performance with credit score. But it's not unreasonable to make a correlation between someone's ability to maintain good credit and their ability to be a smart businessperson.

    Separately, reminds me of a news article I read a while ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/bu...dit-score.html

  29. #59
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Yes, great idea. You have problems with your finances - and the one thing you'd need to tackle those problems, namely a job, is denied to you due to asshats thinking like you.

    Great job. Why don't you shoot them right now?

    You're making the same moronic mistake again by thinking that it's not "unreasonable" to equate being a smart businessperson with the credit score. You're going for that gut-feeling again.

    Did those banksters who caused this multi-billion dollar debacle again have a bad credit score? Because they sure as hell weren't smart businessmen.

    Let's be frank: If you don't get much value out of it then forget it. Looking at stuff that's of little value (if you're optimistic enough that there actually is a value!) is inviting a defeat in detail.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  30. #60
    Dread's interview of prospective employee:

    1. How old are you?
    2. Are you married?...
    2.1...to a member of the opposite sex?
    3. What's your ethnicity?
    4. What's your credit score?
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •