Bed Bugs?

On a side note, I don't approve of the whole pre-employment credit check. I mean, I understand for something like a bank manager, where access to money could be tempting, but just because someone has bad credit, doesn't mean they're going to steal.

I pay 100% of my bills on time, I have 2 cars under my name, etc.. but if I make a mistake, and get some collections on my report, I won't be hired because I have derogatory credit? I mean, don't you need a job to be able to pay your bills?

I just don't get it. I'm sure someone will disagree with me, but I don't get it.

Bad credit isn't used as a measure of how likely you are to steal, it's more of a character reference.

Which is what's wrong with it. Temporary inability to stay caught up on one's bills due to being unemployed is not a character trait.

And has nothing to do with how well you'll fit in with a company or how well you'll do your job. Just because I may charge a lot (I don't, but bare with me), take extravagant trips, and then don't pay my bills doesn't mean I won't show up to work every day and do a darn good job.

I would actually like to see data around that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but perhaps there is some statistical correlation there and we just aren't aware of it.

I just think it's terrible, and I really feel like it should have nothing to do with how someone is able to to their job, or at least with the perception of how they are able to do their job.

Someone could be the hardest working, smartest person/best fit for the job, but terrible at managing their own finances, and that second part should be none of a prospective employer's concern.

I don't check credit scores when hiring but I can see why some would. It certainly can be an indicator of your responsibility, ability to prioritize, etc.

I have a number of friends who miss due dates and I'm sure have bad credit but who also splurge on entertainment, technology, etc. It certainly is a sign of their poor judgment.

I've always thought too much credence has been given to credit scores.

I suppose for lack of a better method it makes some sense for financial decisions, but to try to extrapolate that info to apply to other areas (job worthiness, insurance coverage, etc.) seems like a stretch.

And I'm sure there's some study or something that can prove a correlation of some kind, but I don't really care. I lump it under what I feel is a larger issue we seem to have these days - overthinking and overanalyzing everything to the point of silliness.

If you're running a credit check for a job applicant, you've already missed the boat.

I disagree. If there is a statistical correlation (and as I said, I don't know that there is), then it's another way of mitigating risk. You already participate in this scenario via auto insurance. It's the reason why men pay more than women. Does it mean someone could be overlooked who would be awesome? Of course. Is it statistically likely, if there is a correlation? No.

Again, not saying it's right or that it's moral or even that the correlation exists, but it's easy for me to not ignore the issues when it isn't my money.

There are also (very rare) instances when an otherwise good candidate has no credit score because they've never had to do anything on credit. When my wife and I applied for a mortgage, it turned out to be the first time she ever had to borrow money, so she didn't have a credit score. Therefore, the credit score was a penalty against her for getting full scholarships and saving money through her school years. Just a thought...

*edit* Though I should add that that never hindered her in job searches.

Jeff said:
You already participate in this scenario via auto insurance.

I know I do. And I file it under the 'overthinking' umbrella.

Insurance should cost X. If you have an accident, your rates go up as you are a liability. If you don't, rates go down because you're not a risk.

Any more complicated than that and it's part of the overthinking, overanalyzing nature of things.

Again, not saying it's right or that it's moral...

Interesting can of worms. At what point am I being descriminated against based on aggregate statistics?

(And yes, that very question is another example of overthinking. But it's okay because I'm trying to overthink the overthinkiners. :) )

Overthinkining is overrated.

There may be a statistical correlation that says that Mexicans are better at yard work and washing dishes, white people are better at beign CEOs, black people are better at rapping, and asians can't drive.

Yes, I went there. First off, obviously, I'm stating blatant stereotypes and not my opinions at all. But if we went on those correlations, we wouldn't have Eminem (Maybe that's a good thing?), Oprah, some funny Mexican comics, and Jin from LOST.

I don't think it's fair that you can't discriminate against someone due to race, creed, etc., when hiring but you can because of credit scores, sexual orientation, or the color of someones hat.

My credit score may be sucky, you may be gay, she may wear a blue hat. Doesn't mean I won't be good at my job.

I think I submitted to a credit check for my last 2 jobs, but when I did the same job in another state (with more responsibility), I didn't have one. Though, granted, in the other state I was fingerprinted, but I'm okay with that.

I don't need to have good credit to determine if someone is eligible for Food Stamps or Medicaid. And my credit score doesn't reflect on how well I work, what time I get here, how often I miss, etc.

There may be a correlation, but in my opinion, I don't think checking credit scores tells you anything really about how well someone will work out.

I agree, but what exactly is a Mexican comedic?

I meant comedian. :)

I hoped you did, just wanted to make sure it wasn't something I didn't know about.

Tekwardo said:
There may be a statistical correlation that says that Mexicans are better at yard work and washing dishes, white people are better at beign CEOs, black people are better at rapping, and asians can't drive.

Yes, I went there.

Well, you skipped a step and moved on to where I was potentially heading. :)

But yeah, can we correlate age, race, sexual orientation and such 'taboo' qualifiers and then penalize with a broad stroke in the same way?

Imagine getting a job based on nothing but your proven ability to do it or get a good auto insurance rate based on nothing but a spotless driving record. What novel ideas!

Your ability to use credit responsibly is in the realm of your control, and frankly it's disingenuous to compare it to race or ethnicity, which is certainly not under your control.

Insurance should absolutely not be a flat rate, where the risk is distributed equally among people. Are you seriously OK with paying with a perfect driving record versus someone with countless speeding tickets and accidents? There's no incentive to not drive like an asshole at that point (law breaking aside).

I think we're drifting toward a topic of personal responsibility and accountability here...

Jeff said:
Your ability to use credit responsibly is in the realm of your control, and frankly it's disingenuous to compare it to race or ethnicity, which is certainly not under your control.

So what if it's not under your control? It can still be a factor and if we're doing this as an atempt to mitigate risk to the best possible level then all factors should be considered.

What if we can prove without a doubt that things beyond your control affect your ability in any given situation? Why wouldn't you consider those things as well? Under the current system's logic, it'd be irresponsible not to.

Insurance should absolutely not be a flat rate, where the risk is distributed equally among people. Are you seriously OK with paying with a perfect driving record versus someone with countless speeding tickets and accidents? There's no incentive to not drive like an asshole at that point (law breaking aside).

No, I'm not ok with it and that's not what I said.

But if my credit is bad, am I paying more with my spotless driving record than someone with accidents, but good credit (and other correlating factors)?

I'm not sure why anything other than my proven ability (or lack thereof) to drive should be considered in determining my level of risk as a driver to an insurer.

"Mr. Gonchar, despite your spotless driving record of 21 years, we're gonna have to charge you a increased rate due to an unpaid medical bill from 2005."

And I'd make the same arguments about being hired for a job.

So what if it's not under your control? You suck at being a Republican. :) I can't even respond to that. You know, I can't sell my house after a year and a half, and that sucks, but it's out of my control only to the extent that a bunch of people who suck at life (combined with irrational banks and dogmatic federal deregulation) created a non-sustainable bubble situation. But at the same time I knew the risks around buying a house, however remote, so it's on me.

Are you asking why credit is affecting your insurance rate?