Credit score is based on financial and measurable context.
Giving people brownie points for "being nice" or "not shitting in the streets" seems like a different ball game.
Giving people brownie points for "being nice" or "not shitting in the streets" seems like a different ball game.
And IMO they should stop using it outside that context. People shouldn't have to worry about whether they can find a job or apartment based on having poor credit. Turns it into a game that everyone is forced to play instead of a simple metric that financial institutions can use to determine your credit-worthiness.
I've never had bad credit, but when I started working office jobs I actually went out and got a credit card I didn't need just so I could use it a few times and pay it off in full at the end of each month. Completely worthless process that I had to involve myself in simply to build my credit up. What a joke.
Where I can see it failing is for people who live "outside" the system - I have a friend who refuses to uses banks and deals only in cash and ancient coins - he can't find an above-the-board place to live because of his lack of credit score. But with that said, he does have a high risk of not being able to make rent on time, so its difficult to say what the policy should be.
As for finding a job, I don't know of any instance where a poor credit score would prevent you from getting a job, other than getting a security clearance, but that also seems reasonable since the government wants to know if you have any blackmail-able "money troubles" that an enemy actor can take advantage of.
But your second point is largely what I was getting at. People who don't want that to be a part of their life are starting to run into barriers to leading a normal life. At this point credit scores are used rather casually and don't have that high of consequences. But the trend is in the wrong direction, and I'm firmly against it continuing in the same way as the Chinese are bringing it.
That's the point. They designed the system of incentives and constraints to make you their customer.
I don't need a credit score to tell me I probably don't want this person as a tenant. They're a huge eviction risk (no system = no fallback for short-term cashflow issues), not to mention that I don't want to be dealing with hundreds of dollars in cash rent.
As an employer I would view it as a red flag, not disqualifiying but it would take some other evidence and good references to offset it.
I'm gonna be that guy: [citation needed]
Seems to come up a lot when reminders of China being ruled by a totalitarian regime come along
Yes, the US is not as bad as China as a place to live (look at the migration flow between them for simple proof), but it's worth noting that the same way people explain away the US's flaws can be done in other countries as well.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/07/08/us-police-shoo...
And you say riots and police being hunted? There is violent unrest in China, too. In both the US and China, the middle-class and the folks in power just hand-wave away the concerns of the victimised demographics, finding excuses for the state's poor treatment of them.
As many people are mocking and blocking #blacklivesmatter as are supporting it. What are those in power actually doing in response to the upset demographics in the US? Hot air. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Nothing with any real bite. Hence, blase.
The 'third strike' should, irrespective, mark you as a dangerous member of society, though depending on circumstances some stronger treatment might result in a different outcome.
I'm scared to think of what your utopia looks like.