Hacker News Reader

Comment by iav | Hacker News Reader

I am an investor in equifax. Let me clear up a misconception on where the data comes from. Half the data comes from large enterprise customers, who “sell” the data in exchange for Equifax doing I-9 verification for free. The other half comes from 39 payroll companies. Every single payroll company except for Rippling and Gusto sell paystub data to Euifax. (Rippling will start next year). Those are exclusive revenue share deals. You cannot be a competitive payroll provider without the revenue share from Equifax. So before you blame your employer, they might not be selling it directly and even if they opted out, your payroll company will sell it anyway.

View on HN

Do you have a sense of why, according to you Gusto will remain the only company that doesn't sell payroll data to Equifax?

Gusto is still pre-revenue?

Gusto is not pre-revenue, it has $500M+ in arr

https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/27/gusto-remote-deal-500m-rev...

Seems like something gusto can turn into a marketing point. Surely there’s a desire for a privacy respecting payroll/hr platform.

The actual buyers of payroll software don't care and if you think people are going to evaluate their potential employer based on what payroll solution they use, you are wrong.

But it's a signal among many. If your employer purposefully goes out of their way to make these kinds of decisions consistently, it sticks with you.

Yes, this is why government regulations exist. Market forces are only as good as the walls and maze theyre forced into.

This may not be correct. My current company uses Gusto for payroll. Pulling my data, I see everything. I am confirming with Gusto support its sourced from them.

Confirmed with Gusto. They send data to WorkNumber.

"...for the purpose of automating employment and income verifications. This feature helps streamline the process for employees who may need to provide proof of employment or income for loans, credit, or public aid."

Sounds like Gusto is the only acceptable option then. Thanks for the info!

> even if they opted out, your payroll company will sell it anyway

Surely that can't be legal?

As a Gusto admin for my company and user for another (well, my wife is the user), I am happy with our choice of payroll provider.

That's good to know. The company I work for currently uses Rippling; I will mention this upcoming change and suggest that we should consider switching to Gusto.

I hate the argument of "you cannot be a competitive company without being a scumbag."

It's a bad argument through and through.

Perhaps you would find it to be more palatable if it were phrased as: "You cannot be competitive as a company if you do not serve the wants and needs of the customer."?

But, of course, that says the same thing. These companies are scumbags because that's how the customer wants them to behave. In this case, because it makes executing payroll cheaper for the customer, which is a highly desirable trait to the customer.

The customer often does not have the luxury of making perfectly rational choices.

IBM for example waits to fly you out to orientation in Armonk before they show you the binding employment contract with dubious clauses.

These businesspeople know this. Introducing pressure and a sense of inevitability of poor conditions is part of the game. And they know that it's scummy. But Ayn Randians will defend them to the grave as they eschew the responsibility to build a stable enduring economy for one that disproportionately rewards them.

Framing it as the customer wants this level of strongarming is the same as saying they want bloody revolution when it inevitably follows. What customers actually want is for scumbags to be banned from leadership roles in the economy, and for toxic business strategies to be regulated out of relevance.

Can I opt out thru the payroll company?

No, but you can opt out at the Aggregator level. Currently, The Work Number is the largest salary aggregator, you may find this link, helpful:

https://employees.theworknumber.com/employee-data-freeze

Thanks

Maybe I'm missing something... If the data doesn't come from the employer, then how does the "payroll" company get it?

It is indirect instead. The employer tells the payroll company: pay employee $x (and handle deductions, retirement contributes etc ...) The payroll company then has this data and can resell it. I would expect the contract the employer has with the payroll company explicitly allows for the data sharing.

You make an excellent argument here for tight regulation of the industry.

… and the usage?

Most highly-paid people have no idea how much privilege this affords them.

You wonder why so many businesses are nice to you? It’s because they’ve already looked you up and know you’ve got a high income and are a millionaire.

Write a personal check for your next automobile? Sure thing, you can drive it off the lot a few minutes later. They won’t even bother cashing the check for a week or two.

Try doing something like that as an hourly worker, even if you’ve got the money in the bank.

The finance companies are nice enough that it doesn't really matter.

Bought mine with cash but realized it was Sunday and I didn't have a way to get a cashier's check from a savings account.

They offered to put the down payment on a credit card and finance. Paid it off once I had access to the account.

Ended up being a wash, the points were worth a little more than the percentage charge.

This is the view from a bubble I am not familiar with, and really don't care about.

Personal check? You can buy a car in full with a credit card if you pass the vibe check.

A personal check is much less secure because it’s not linked up to the network anti fraud systems.

This is also why certain homes get hit in high-end burglary crews. There are multiple crews hitting those who purchase precious metals with physical delivery (like gold American Eagle coins). It is not all positive. Considering how few victims even bother to report such crimes, it is terrifying.

From what I understand from my cousin, a career criminal, there are entire theft rings working off of databases such as these. He knew mostly of car-related theft rings, but I hear about safe-cracking burglaries quite often, usually stealing Rolex watches or precious metals.

That feels like it should be its own post. But be safe out there.

Why? They could also target wealthy neighborhoods with pretty much the same outcome.

Because they get details on items in your safe, that you thought were hidden. The second you buy precious metals with physical delivery, you get not only the criminals who break into houses in your wealthy area, but also the criminals who specialise in stealing and selling the things you just bought.

And if they dont have the data they can monitor behavior towards you from those who do have it. Those who get to drive of with their new car vs those who may not.

What? Criminal gangs have access to databases of purchasers of jewelry and precious metals? Then they B+E, safecrack, and rob them? That’s an insane claim to make without any source besides your cousin.

I can confirm, I'm a member of one of these criminal gangs. Although, we specialize in who recently purchased nvidia discrete gpus.

No thank you. I value my privacy and my negotiating ability more than I value a 'service' I didn't even ask for.

Nobody asked for it. But it’s part of the world we live in. And we’re all walking around oblivious to the advantages and disadvantages it gives us.

We shouldn't be oblivious to those advantages and disadvantages, since then we can't decide as a society whether those advantages and disadvantages should remain or be altered. That alone is a good reason to regulate this away.

Or at the very least, require Equifax to send free physical mail notifications to everyone when their data is accessed, stating when, by whom, why, and what answer was given. (Physical mail because there's no other predictable way for the general population.) Yes, I realize this would be financially unsustainable for Equifax as they currently operate, but that's their problem to solve. Even as someone who myself has excellent credit and many years of high income in my file, they're creepy and shouldn't be catered to at the expense of our privacy.

True, but when do you even have it explained. Last time I was purchasing a car for wife, the clerk simply made a crack about how my information is now all theirs ( I forgot the exact phrasing ). And those are people who are motivated to make sure you buy so thus incentivized to make sure you are not put off.

And don't even get me started on an average person. I get blank stares when I go on a privacy rant. At best, they simply do not have time to care.

That sounds like the most unappealing exchange imaginable. Yes, let me lose both bargaining power with new jobs while simultaneously painting a target on my back, all in exchange for companies being more willing to take my money.

> Write a personal check for your next automobile?

Personal check? What year is this?!? :-)

I did this for my recent automobile purchase. It's very convenient from my perspective to simply write a check and hand it to them.

But why not just pay by card, that must be even easier?

Many (most?) dealerships have a policy of not accepting more than a few thousand dollars on a credit card, they don't want to pay the fee

My regular dealership even has a card surcharge for service these days. Given the rebate I get it's pretty much a no-care for smallish bills. But when I bought the car from another dealer was a bit surprised I didn't need to run to the bank to get a certified check.

I recently bought a car and they were happy to let me put up to 100% of the purchase on a card so long as I paid the card processing fee (something like 2 or 3%).

I think they can just run it as debit. That's what they did for my down payment when I bought a new vehicle this past June.

I'm not going to pay by card for a huge purchase, and have the card company take 3% off the top. That's just a dick move when you can just write a check that does the same thing.

Why would I care if I'm not paying for the surcharge and I get a rebate from it? I've had a few large purchases recently where a credit card was the norm. If the business prefers a check that's fine too. I'm not going to push it. It's just business. A lot of businesses want my money and are happy to take a credit card number which is often simpler for them. I don't know their costs associated with handling checks and it's not really my concern.

it's a "dick move" to not give the guy who owns your local dealership a 3% tip when you buy a car??

1. The guy who owns the dealership doesn't get the credit card fee

2. If they charge you extra for using a credit card, they're breaking even

3. If they _don't_ charge you extra for using a credit card, they're paying 3% of the purchase cost to the credit card company (so, $1,000+)

So yes, it's a dick move to pay via credit card for any purchase in the thousands of dollars, if you have the option to pay by check or debit card. I always offer to pay by check if I know the money for the CC will come out of their pocket.

Don't really care. It's not my responsibility as a customer to make assumptions about how businesses prefer to get paid. They can add surcharges or just not accept credit cards at all. As someone who has been making some large household purchases this summer, my experience is that it's perfectly ordinary and expected to pay by credit card.

I'd just add that I routinely book flights, hotels, and so forth in the thousands of dollars range on credit cards and I doubt they would want anything different as a payment type.

That's not a tip. It's a "processing fee" assessed by credit card companies (a revenue stream). The 3% charged on top of a large purchase like a vehicle goes to the payment processing provider (the credit card company). To cover the cost of professing fees, most dealerships often offer a cash discount (meaning they will quote a lower price if paid by check).

I did this 2 years ago. I write personal checks all the time (although many are actually "written" by my bank in the US).

It's USA and the context is banking, so the current year is still somewhere in the 1970s.

Last time I bought a brand new car (~8 years ago?), the dealer told me I couldn't pay more than $X amount, using credit cards, on the car, so I still needed a bank check for the rest (they wouldn't accept a personal check either).

Don't know if things have changed since.

Haven't they heard of bank transfers? In Europe you can use SEPA and if you warn the bank in advance, they're basically instant even for large amounts.

In my experience, it used to be a cashier's check for the balance (if there was a deposit). But a couple years ago at least the dealer I bought from was fine with a personal check. Don't know if it was just this dealer or if personal check verification processes have improved.

Now this is some remarkable gymnastics. Are you also an investor in Equifax or have some other financial interest in similar services? If not, I'm very curious to hear how you tied yourself into this knot.

I find that I have struck a nerve with some folks.

I have no connection with the industry at all. But that doesn’t prevent me from understanding the implications.

Equifax does this stuff because it is profitable. It is profitable because companies buy it. Companies buy it because they can put the information to use for their benefit. In doing so, some consumers are harmed and others benefit.

Also, for the record: I don’t often buy cars, but when I do I choose the best financial option. Sometimes that would be financing, other time it would be writing a check. One factor that everyone should consider it that your free time has a higher dollar-per-hour value than your work time.

Sure, consumers benefit so much that the example you were able to produce is the ability to write a personal check to purchase a car. Totally notable benefit relative to the violation of a person's expectation of privacy.

> your free time has a higher dollar-per-hour value than your work time

This doesn't seem right to me. I think it would only apply to someone who felt comfortable with the level and stability of their income.

When I was self-employed or job-hunting, I would always trade an hour of free time for an hour of employment.

If you get your personal data report, you'll see that it tells you who looked you up. It is not every business you've worked with. It is not even every background check that has been done on you.

I'm not saying that rich people do not have privilege - they do. But it isn't because your local car dealer looked up your earnings data.

You wonder why so many businesses are mean to you? It's because they've already looked you up and believe from the data that you won't be a good customer.

The dealership can also just call the bank to verify funds. Which would be reasonable and non-discriminatory all without needing a third party and wouldn't involve your salary at any level. Aside from this it's the financing company that cares, not the dealership, who only wants the car off their floor credit plan.

So what you're saying is it _shouldn't_ matter if you have money, because if you're a low income earner, you should be treated poorly, and you're happy to be personally invested in a system which creates this outcome.

It not only should be regulated but you should feel a little gross for saying any of this outloud.

I know text can be flat, nuance and tone lost that would not be lost in conversation, but I'm confused by your reply Akira. I can't read any endorsement of the system in the comment you're replying to, I read it as agreeing with you in disapproving of unequal treatment

Last time I bought a car I was surprised to learn I didn't need to go to the bank and get a cashier's check but could just write a personal one. I assume that verification processes have improved sufficiently that they had confidence the money was in my account.

Fuck that.

"Oh, aren't you happy we live in a world where the rich are explicitly treated better because they carry around a big sign saying 'I am rich' when interacting with corporations?" No. I am not.

When has that world never existed and when will it cease to exist?

This world has always existed. We can also resist it.

This is a great argument as to why we need stronger regulations to make these practices illegal.

I can almost smell the concentrated capitalism in this comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com