A reasonable take if you ignore how this system reinforces existing inequality + the ways this system is used outside its original scope.
Also you have to admit it’s kind of fucked up that there’s no total opt out mechanism.
Also you have to admit it’s kind of fucked up that there’s no total opt out mechanism.
How does “checking if people are credit worthy” reinforce inequity? If you can’t repay, you shouldn’t be taking on debt. If anything it prevents people from taking on debt they can’t afford, stopping them from further inequity.
And you can opt out. Don’t use credit at all. (edit: of course a credit record will still exist, but it won't matter if you don't use credit)
This sounds like a bunch of people complaining “why can’t I just borrow whatever I want without people checking whether I can repay?”
Nope. Whether you use credit or not, the credit bureaus collect information about you and share that with all manner of other companies, including employers.
Also these systems have inherent racial biases.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/credit-cards/from-inherent-ra...
Again, this seems like people want low interest borrowing without the “icky” problem of having to answer for their past failure to pay debt.
The world doesn’t work that way.
I already mentioned that some well paying jobs (the kind that people stuck in debt traps would most benefit from) require an active credit score to obtain. So “not using credit” is not an option. As well, credit is a primary way that the people who hold generational wealth got that wealth. Oh, and they run the system.
You’ve created a straw “poor person” and insist on shadow boxing it. If you ever decide to confront the complex systems that these fellow humans face, I encourage you to read up on the modern credit system. Wikipedia has a good rundown with active sources.
Either you can pay your debt or not. If you can't, others will use that to infer other things about your suitability for various things like jobs.
The credit score isn't the issue, it's just the medium for transmitting information. Background checks can uncover the exact same issues. I can call your neighbor and ask if what kind of a person you're like and decide not to give you a job based on that answer.
That's just life - actions have consequences.
And no system is 100% accurate, so your point is moot anyways.
Anyway, your argument's been refuted more eloquently than by me, so I'll leave you to it.
Sure, it "reinforces existing inequality" but what should we do about it? I'm pretty sure punishing people for stealing stuff "reinforces existing inequality", but does that mean stop doing that? Giving high paying jobs to the most qualified candidate also "reinforces existing inequality", but does that mean we should allocate jobs via lottery? Many things "reinforces existing inequality", but they exist for a reason. "reinforces existing inequality" is just a thought terminating cliche.
> the ways this system is used outside its original scope.
What are some examples?
>Also you have to admit it’s kind of fucked up that there’s no total opt out mechanism.
I mean, you can sort of opt out by refusing to give consent for people to run credit checks on you. The problem is that if you don't they assume you must have terrible credit, so you get denied for a lot of things.