Originally posted by: Vic
Read closely. EVERYONE has misfortunes in life. EVERYONE. You are not special in your misery, and it does not entitle you to not pay back the money that you borrow from others. The difference in people's characters is those who have the ability to discipline and prepare themselves, and those who don't.Originally posted by: fisher
if you're living paycheck to paycheck how can you afford life insurance?
oh, and not paying your bills != stealing. now, if you buy stuff with the intention of not paying for it, then i see your point. if you find yourself not able to make a monthly payment because you had a misfortune in life then i don't think that's quite stealing.
Personally, I don't know how these people live paycheck-to-paycheck without a dime to their name and tens of thousands in debt. I guess they love their brand new SUV, their fancy house, and their Ethan Allen furniture, but of course it shouldn't be held against them that they never saved up a few months' income to get them through a brief period of uneployment or illness? :roll:
Sorry Vic, but I don't think I can agree with you here.Originally posted by: Vic
Read closely. EVERYONE has misfortunes in life. EVERYONE. You are not special in your misery, and it does not entitle you to not pay back the money that you borrow from others. The difference in people's characters is those who have the ability to discipline and prepare themselves, and those who don't.Originally posted by: fisher
if you're living paycheck to paycheck how can you afford life insurance?
oh, and not paying your bills != stealing. now, if you buy stuff with the intention of not paying for it, then i see your point. if you find yourself not able to make a monthly payment because you had a misfortune in life then i don't think that's quite stealing.
Personally, I don't know how these people live paycheck-to-paycheck without a dime to their name and tens of thousands in debt. I guess they love their brand new SUV, their fancy house, and their Ethan Allen furniture, but of course it shouldn't be held against them that they never saved up a few months' income to get them through a brief period of uneployment or illness? :roll:
Yup, my college incorrectly had on my TU Cred report that my loan payments were 30-60-90-120 days late! In the meantime, I had applied for a line of credit, and consequently denied. Fvcking pisses me off, took me 2 full months of writing letters to TranssexualUnion before it was removed. I wish they could take less than a week to remove stuff, it's a PITA.Originally posted by: Mill
My main issue with using it is that it is very HARD to dispute inaccurate information off your report. I still am fighting Transunion to remove a bank charge-off that was the fault of MY bank.
I don't think that about poor people. I already posted in another post in this thread that the biggest misconception about bad credit is that people think that only poor people have it. Not so at all. There are a lot of people with excellent incomes that have bad credit and lot of people with low incomes who have great credit. I see it everyday. I was once told by a borrower with poor credit but with a household income of $250k/yr. that they "didn't have a pot to piss in".Originally posted by: Eli
Sorry Vic, but I don't think I can agree with you here.
I don't know if you understand what it is like to be poor. If you really think that poor people have a brand new SUV, a fancy house and Ethan Allen furniture, you need to visit North Portland.
I didn't really mean to sound like I knew you.. you're right, I was just making an assumption based mostly on your post. Sorry.Originally posted by: Vic
I don't think that about poor people. I already posted in another post in this thread that the biggest misconception about bad credit is that people think that only poor people have it. Not so at all. There are a lot of people with excellent incomes that have bad credit and lot of people with low incomes who have great credit. I see it everyday. I was once told by a borrower with poor credit but with a household income of $250k/yr. that they "didn't have a pot to piss in".Originally posted by: Eli
Sorry Vic, but I don't think I can agree with you here.
I don't know if you understand what it is like to be poor. If you really think that poor people have a brand new SUV, a fancy house and Ethan Allen furniture, you need to visit North Portland.
Sure, low income people are more in danger of falling into bad credit, but the first rule of money management is that it's not what you make, it's what you spend.
Do I know what it's like to be poor? No offense, but you don't know me that well. Let's just say that as a kid, I always wore hand-me-downs and got the free lunch at school.
As for NoPo, Eli, have you been following the home values up there? Up like a rocket.
Originally posted by: Red
Yes, because a credit score has nothing to do with honest people being put in situations beyond their control. A persons FICO is a great determiner of their responsibility. LOL
It's never the sole factor, but among other factors taken as a whole. And like I also posted earlier, it depends on the job. The lady in the OP's article was applying for a job where she would have had access to the company's trade secrets and pending patent applications. This is a secure position where it has been generally accepted for years that good credit and background checks are a must.Originally posted by: Eli
I can't decide if I agree on this or not. It certainly shouldn't be a sole indicator of employment worthiness.
Exactly. Same for my job in financial services. In fact, the state government requires that my employer perform the credit and criminal background checks as a requirement of my license (and hence, my employment). But then, I already posted that in this thread, so I am now leaving the thread as I'm tired of repeating myself.Originally posted by: DorkBoy
People with bad credit are simply more likely to be dishonest or steal.
This is basic knowledge.
My employeer does a FBI background check with a credit check. In my job you can't be dishonest so I would agree on not hiring/firing someone.
Thanks
Originally posted by: DrPizzanever manage to get a hold of the person and refuse to sit on hold for 20 minutes.
I agree.Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Overall, I think if they're going to use credit as an indicator, it would have to not hold much weight... maybe in a pass/fail system, anything greater than, say 550, would pass. Although I don't like it, this would probably be the best way. If they fail, find out why they did and hear their side of it. If it's a misunderstanding on something you're in a dispute over, or if you've paid all of your past overdue debts but they're still on your record (but penalize your FICO), then you should pass. I could live with something like this.
Yeah, I understand.. I can agree with that.Originally posted by: Vic
It's never the sole factor, but among other factors taken as a whole. And like I also posted earlier, it depends on the job. The lady in the OP's article was applying for a job where she would have had access to the company's trade secrets and pending patent applications. This is a secure position where it has been generally accepted for years that good credit and background checks are a must.
edit: but there would have been NO problems is Sallie Mae would have correctly identified the loan on the phone rather than being ambiguous about it.
refuse to sit on hold for 20 minutes.
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: DrPizzanever manage to get a hold of the person and refuse to sit on hold for 20 minutes.
Is it really that hard to take initiative & make sure things are done correctly? At least when it comes to finances, folks, a little attention goes a LONG ways.
Yes, mistakes happen. But mistakes big enough to hit your credit report don't just happen.
Less than 30 days late doesn't even get reported to the credit bureaus. It almost requires willful negligence for something to go wrong enough to hit your credit report.
Viper GTS
Most worthwhile and level headed post in the thread.Originally posted by: tagej
While a credit score / hisory could probably represent a fairly decent indicator of personal responsibility in many cases, the fact is that in many cases it does not. For example, there are approximately 40 million people in this country with no (or insufficient) health insurance. If they get hit with an illness or injury, they could instantly be financially ruined, through no direct fault of their own. Does that mean they are not qualified to hold a job? Nonsense.
If someone is supposed to handle money or has direct repsonsibility over money or sensitive information, I can understand taking the extra step of evaluating a credit score in the hiring process. For other jobs though, using a credit score goes beyond the reasonable, especially considering that there's many many ways to get your credit messed up through no fault of your own (layoffs, illnesses, medical expenses, identity theft divorce etc).
Amused, apparently you live in a delusional black and white world where everything is cut and dried. Living from paycheck to paycheck automatically means you must be irresponsible? Puhleeze, there's a million reasons why someone could end up in a such a situation without being "irresponsible". Granted, many times it's a simple case of people living beyond their means, but not always.
Red hit the nail on the head, it's a catch-22. Lets say you screwed up and you ended up getting bad marks on your credit record. Now you can't get a decent job, so you end up defaulting on stuff and ruining you credit further, which again makes it likely not to get a job.
Bottom line, if your credit score has a direct link to your job (handling money or sensitive information etc), then it makes sense. Otherwise, it's wrong and unfairly punishes certain groups in society disproportionately.
That would be unlawful.Originally posted by: bbomb
Wrong. If your a week late they can report and it will go to 30 days late as that is the lowest indicator that the credit bureaus are willing to use.
Originally posted by: Vic
That would be unlawful.Originally posted by: bbomb
Wrong. If your a week late they can report and it will go to 30 days late as that is the lowest indicator that the credit bureaus are willing to use.
edit: http://www.myfico.com/myfico/C...ral/FactsFallacies.asp
Originally posted by: bbomb
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: DrPizzanever manage to get a hold of the person and refuse to sit on hold for 20 minutes.
Is it really that hard to take initiative & make sure things are done correctly? At least when it comes to finances, folks, a little attention goes a LONG ways.
Yes, mistakes happen. But mistakes big enough to hit your credit report don't just happen.
Less than 30 days late doesn't even get reported to the credit bureaus. It almost requires willful negligence for something to go wrong enough to hit your credit report.
Viper GTS
Wrong. If your a week late they can report and it will go to 30 days late as that is the lowest indicator that the credit bureaus are willing to use.
It's not <30 days late, it's >30 days late. One day late is not late enough to be reported on a bureau.Originally posted by: NogginBoink
Are you sure about that?
My understanding is that most creditors don't report you until you're >30 days late, but that's a courtesy, not a requirement. One day late is late and you can be reported to the credit bureaus for being late on your payment.
EDIT: The lowest that the credit bureaus report, IIRC, is <30 days late. One day late qualifies. Vic, I don't see anything in that FAQ that's relevant.
