Hacker News Reader

Comment by Cheer2171 | Hacker News Reader

So why does almost every US landlord use credit scores to screen renters?

The landlord wants to be paid every month. A credit score's entire reason for existence is to attempt to quantify that. It would be strange if a landlord didn't look at that.

> The landlord wants to be paid every month

Without working?! I thought that power was unique to project managers.

My understanding of the Chinese credit score system is that, unlike the US credit model, it includes your personal social media posts.

Thus the negative press in the US was specifically about that, with fear that if you ever, say, criticize the wrong person or expressed an unpopular opinion you'd end up paying a premium on your loan or even be unable to get a mortgage.

Since there's a fairly high opacity to the US credit scores I wouldn't be surprised to find these things added to the US credit score too as an opt-in mechanism to save money similar to how we can now choose to get a key fob to prove to our insurance companies that we drive within the speed limit.

If being anti-government in the US was something you could get arrested for and therefore stop paying your debts because of, I think it'd get added to credit scores pretty quickly.

> So why does almost every US landlord use credit scores to screen renters?

Landlords are part of one of the bourgeois (petit ot haut) classes, elite minorities. Their interests are not those of the median American, and are in many ways opposed to them.

Hardly. It's more that in a large business, you know that a percentage of people will trash the apartment, requiring expensive repairs, so as a company you reduce risk.

And as a small landlord, renting a second house, hoping to pay for your retirement in old age, or maybe a good school for your kids, you're even more cautious.

The alternative is a year's rent in deposit, because first and last barely covers a damaged carpet, let alone a trashed place.

And that's just the damage side of things.

One of the landlords I spoke to, said that while he understood why renter protections had become so strong, it took forever to kick out a tenant not paying rent. So naturally, he was scared of renting to anyone with money troubles before.

You may disagree with these reasons, but people aren't reducing the market they can rent to for no reason.

Times were easier when most people lived in smaller towns. You knew who you rented to, and didn't need a credit bureau to vouch.

Every time this subject comes up all we hear about is how risky it is for the landlord. Like... no shit? It's an investment. Risk is part of investments. Sometimes investments don't pay out, and sometimes you lose money.

If you want to make money in a risk-averse manner, might I suggest a job instead of an investment property? You know, like the people who's money you want to take are required to prove to you they have, so you can take a nice chunk of it so they can not freeze to death? One of those. They're all over the place, according to the landlords.

> One of the landlords I spoke to, said that while he understood why renter protections had become so strong, it took forever to kick out a tenant not paying rent.

Did he happen to mention why the tenant stopped paying? Because that's probably pretty relevant to why renter protections were stopping him from throwing him out onto the street. Like, I'm sorry it's bit of a bureaucratic fuckabout to KICK SOMEONE OUT OF THEIR HOME but you know, the landlord in this scenario has the economic backing to, in some way, own an extra residence that they don't need, and the tenant they're trying to evict (probably) doesn't. So on the whole I'm okay with renter protections making that hard. One of these people is acutely more vulnerable to houselessness, and it isn't the dude with 2+ houses.

Again, if this is a problem, maybe said landlord should get a job.

Your entire argument is basically "how dare someone have something I don't" and "people shouldn't seek to mitigate risk".

This won't get far with me, and seems to me to be a pointless response.

Are you seriously of the thought that owning more than one home is wrong? And renting it to someone that cannot afford to buy a home is wrong? If so, why?

Do you get mad if that person just leaves the money in the bank, and the second home isn't built?

Are you mad people may make more than you? Do you believe everyone should just be given all the same stuff?

This is essentiall your argument.

How does that function, societally? Magic?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com