Hacker News Reader

Comment by Groxx | Hacker News Reader

Main problem I see with this sort of thing:

The money to do this comes from somewhere. My location guesses: increased interest rates, and increased POS charges. All of which ultimately means less money for you, and less for everywhere you buy things.

Another interesting thing I've read somewhere, and would be interested in a link if someone knows of it: all/many of these higher-perk cards charge the merchants more when they're used. It's best for businesses if you use the most basic cards, or far better if you use cash.

But I just dislike credit card companies. And their "rating" systems. I must be cranky right now or something, because I feel like spreading the dislike :\

View on HN

This probably doesn't cost very much money. A friend of mine in India mentions that with the average programmer's salary there, you can afford to have several personal servants. For the salary of one employee in the US that manages HR compliance, you can probably have 10 people in India that Google for the nearest store that sells tubs of nacho cheese. But nobody complains about how HR compliance raises the fees you pay in the store.

Banks, like all other large corporations, already have epic overhead. A few guys in India using Google and a few people to talk to you on the phone does not make much difference to their bottom line. (But it does impress people.)

(Oh, and what is "HR compliance"? No idea, but I'm sure every bank has at least 5000 people that do it.)

As a foreigner, the US credit card and rating system puzzled me a bit.

But the most annoying thing about it is that it's difficult not to be part of it. If you have credit cards or not, you will have a credit score and that score will be used when you want to buy a house for example…

For a couple of years after moving here, I was using either cash or a debit card, but I switched to credit card for a lot of things mostly because you kind of have to play in the credit score game.

You only need to be a part of it if you ever want anyone to extend any sort of credit to you, no?

Including cell phones, satellite television, etc. in short, you ignore your fico at your own peril

I'm not sure your FICO matters too much to DirecTV.

If you don't want to participate in the credit system and you ignore your FICO, you'll notice when you (a) buy/rent your home and (b) get a cell phone. I think that may be about it.

Or buy/lease a car (unless you have cash up front). Or if you're unluckily enough to want to work for an employer who runs a background check.

Someone really needs to set up a site that names and shames knowledge work employers who run credit checks on candidates. You don't want to work for any of them.

You're right, to an extent, about the cars: you will get poorer terms for your car with a wrecked FICO score. You will not however be at any risk of not getting the car, unlike that apartment building you really like, which simply won't rent to you because of your credit.

It seems to me these days that it would be easier to run a website to keep track of employers that don't run credit checks on potential employees. Since I graduated spring of last year, the only potential employer that didn't check my credit score was Google. Granted, the rest of the employers were located in southwestern Ohio rather than CA, but it seemed to me like "standard practice" hoops you had to jump through if you didn't want to work at a restaurant or grocery store... :(

It's not unusual, people with debt problems are frequently targeted by criminals who want to get an "insider" in a company.

It happens more often than you think, corporate espionage, money laundering, theft of credit cards details, customer identities, etc. have all happened this way.

I would be fine with credit checks and criminal background checks being run on all final stage candidates, with consent. I hired a felon once and ended up losing seven figures. Not doing background checks on someone in a key position with access to customer information, etc. seems irresponsible.

A low credit score should not be a disqualifier, but should be explained. If someone had gotten divorced or medical expenses or something, that isn't a concern (and I would consider advancing money to clear it up for any clearance investigations later), but if it is due to gambling, drug, etc. addiction, I would be very dubious unless there were a way to show it was not an ongoing risk. (similarly, there are some criminal convictions I would consider benign or even slightly positive, and others which would be disqualifies)

The US Government runs credit checks as part of the clearance process. I've been pondering and give it about even odds that you considered this when you composed your response.

My aunt married a guy who paid cash for everything. DirectTV required a hefty deposit before they would hook it up. This was a few years ago, but make no mistake, they ran credit.

I worked as a customer service rep for DirecTV in high school. They DEFINITELY run a credit check when you sign up - the rep never sees the actual number, they just get back a result group (ie good, fair, poor - though I forget the actual breakdown). You can refuse to allow the check, but then you will be ineligible for any sort of promotions that might be offered. IIRC, poor credit required an immediate payment to activate service.

Granted, this was 10 years ago, so things might have changed since then. But I doubt it.

That's only true of subscription cell phone plans. Prepaid obviously requires no credit score, and can be substantially cheaper depending on your usage patterns.

Prepaid data plans are a joke. But if you own your phone, then you can get a month-to-month contract without a credit check.

You'll pay more for car liability insurance (in the US) if you have a poor credit score or a non-existent credit history.

Or rent a car, for some reason.

If the CC provider gets a little commission for booking you into a hotel or restaurant, but saves you the time of doing the research and so on yourself, then everyone's a winner. I don't have a problem with people making a profit on providing a genuinely useful service.

It's what you might call "artificial artificial intelligence", they've discovered a business model that lets you have a conversation with a search engine in plain English.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com