Hacker News Reader

Comment by radicalbyte | Hacker News Reader

> credit checks (the credit checks were just dumb).

Credit checks are extremely smart. People who are financially vulnerable are high risk.

This is something people in security sensitive fields like to claim, but the fact is narcissism drives acts of betrayal much more often than desperation for cash. The thrill of "getting away with something" or having the sense of being smarter than peers and overseers has certainly caused much more betrayal than something as mundane as money.

Any data to backup that claim?

What you are saying maybe true for very high profile breaches - but for most firms, the "has a high degree of debt to income ratio" is a decent signal to decide if that person may have reasons to be vulnerable to bribery.

I wonder how accurate that is. There's plenty of evidence of folks who are desperate doing desperate things... but also plenty of people doing bad things simply for "more" money.

As far as financal status goes I'm not sure how good an indicator this is, for say a support role where you may or may not interact with a bank.

Take the case of this American politician:

https://mavenroundtable.io/theintellectualist/news/wsj-kushn...

The guy's family has a massive debt. He was denied security clearance because that debt makes him a big risk. His party somehow push it through (politicians, sigh) and now he has been bailed out by the Saudi regime (iirc he's foreign secretary to Saudi Arabia or something - the top politician responsible for that country).

In potentially sensitive or powerful positions it's only prudent to look at how susceptible someone is to being influenced. The news is full of stories of people committing fraud to pay for gambling debts. Treason isn't exactly far off of that..

Wouldn't think counter point be all the wealthy political folks who do the same thing?

It appears to be indeed a bias towards the poor, in favor of the rich.

Why are we acting like the two are mutually exclusive? There are two vulnerability groups here:

1) People with financial difficulties who would be more prone to take small amounts on a regular basis to "round out" their income difficulties. 2) People who, even though financially secure or well off, if given the opportunity for a large score, would be tempted to take it.

There are different approaches for dealing with both, with some overlap. Limiting the possibility for any fraud by limiting access, requiring multiple approvals, etc. helps negate both groups' potential for fraud. Credit checks help to eliminate only the first group's potential.

A credit check is basically relevant to any job. If you can't be trusted to pay back your loans on time as promised how can you be trusted to do your job as promised?

That sounds like it would produce pretty vicious cycle.

Bad credit, can't get job... can't get job, can't improve credit...

This would be hard to argue against if credit scores were accurate. They're not exactly pseudoscience, but they're still far from perfect.

When I was buying my house, I was building up and paying off ~$500 across 4 credit cards (one for Home Depot, one for Uber, etc.) I paid them down to $0 every month.

I'd consider that behavior to be financially smart. I got discounts of 5% on all those purchases because of the perks of the cards.

I was shocked by the score the bank had given me, since I do monitor my credit. They told me I had to stop using all those cards. I did, and my score went up 100 points instantly.

You didn't mention what that utilization rate was, but it makes perfect sense to me. Using those cards so much gave the impression that you "needed" the credit line, even if you paid it off by the end of the month.

If you have a $50k limit and spend $2k/month, paying off in full, it doesn't really impact your score much at all. If you have $1k limit and spend $500/month it's a big risk.

You can usually make additional payments during the cycle so it doesn't impact your utilization. Whenever I make a larger purchase I just login and pay it off in full right away so it doesn't ding me.

The utilization rate was ~1%.

Utilization rate is 0 if you pay off every month..

That’s not accurate, you can read more here: https://www.thebalance.com/understanding-credit-utilization-...

We're talking powerful and/or sensitive positions here. Well paid IT for banks, political roles, management/directorial roles in industry. A very small percentage of overall jobs.

The largest single source of bankruptcy in the US is medical debt. So you are essentially equating having a family member need serious medical care with mendacity, laziness, and general moral failure. Is that really something we want to do?

No, it isn't. While a credit check can show someone acting badly, it can also show mistakes, youth, and simple bad luck.

(they used to give away credit cards to college students working part time).

It might also show that someone has a medical condition that wound up expensive, which can happen despite medical insurance.

Many of these things do not mean that you'll not do your job as promised nor that you will steal money from the company.

And not being born into a wealthy family.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com