The point is that a credit report is probably a poor signal of risk when it comes to the kinds of things most employers care about when considering hiring someone.
If you have evidence to support the idea that a credit report actually is a good signal here, then by all means, present it. If not, then the default assumption should be that it's not useful, or at the very least not equitable. We shouldn't be adding qualifications to things based on guesswork.
And in general, we very often legally require companies assume higher risk in various things (including hiring) in the name of anti-discrimination (for one thing). We consider this to be a benefit to society. In this specific case, I want the person who has bad credit to be able to obtain steady employment (and on decent terms; not just one out of the fewer jobs they'd have to take because the others disqualified them based on their credit) because that's pretty much the only way they'll be able to improve their credit. They'll be able to become more financially stable, perhaps be able to buy a home. All of this is a benefit to the stability of society.
The thing that generally pisses me off about attitudes like yours is that it advocates for a system where when you do one thing wrong, you get further restricted in ways where you're guaranteed to do more wrong things, and every step you take -- even steps taken in good faith, in seemingly the right direction -- makes it harder to dig yourself out from under the mess.
I've found that the people with these attitudes are usually those who have either a) never experienced much in the way of hardship, or b) are one of the rare cases who managed to dig themselves out, despite all the adversity, and now have a chip on their shoulder that makes them advocate for continuing to make it hard for everyone else.
> If not, then the default assumption should be that it's not useful, or at the very least not equitable. We shouldn't be adding qualifications to things based on guesswork.
In a free country, that's for them to decide. I don't think it should be a default assumption. Neither does the government, where excessive debt tends to signal a willingness to commit treason for those who try to get security clearances.
If someone would try to sell documents to the Russians because they carry a x5 debt load of what they should for their income, is it really so ridiculous a concern that they might skim the till for the same reason?
> And in general, we very often legally require companies assume higher risk in various things
Sure, when it's morally the right thing to do, or when it would create perverse incentives if they didn't.
Here? They just won't hire anyone. Self-pay at the pumps, no convenience store at all, or some horrendous gigantic vending machine deal, no employees. That doesn't serve the community, customers, and Mr.-I-Think-Credit-Cards-Mean-Free-Money gets no job.
> The thing that generally pisses me off about attitudes like yours is that it advocates for a system where when you do one thing wrong,
It wasn't "did one thing wrong". It's always "did one thing wrong, then like a misbehaving child decided to do five other things wrong out of spite or for shits and giggles or whatever."
And that behavior's just dangerous to fucking society as a whole.
> I've found that the people with these attitudes are usually those who have either a) never experienced much in the way of hardship, o
Then I'm your counter-example. Grew up on food stamps. Remember living out of a car when I was a kid. Free school lunches. Not just for a little while, first through highschool.
> and now have a chip on their shoulder that makes them advocate for continuing to make it hard for everyone else.
The universe makes it hard on them, and everyone else. Stop expecting others to try to make it easy on screwups.
