Credit score is based on financial and measurable context.

Giving people brownie points for "being nice" or "not shitting in the streets" seems like a different ball game.

Not to mention it's mostly been recently that people/companies have started using Credit Scores outside the context of applying for a loan.

And IMO they should stop using it outside that context. People shouldn't have to worry about whether they can find a job or apartment based on having poor credit. Turns it into a game that everyone is forced to play instead of a simple metric that financial institutions can use to determine your credit-worthiness.

I've never had bad credit, but when I started working office jobs I actually went out and got a credit card I didn't need just so I could use it a few times and pay it off in full at the end of each month. Completely worthless process that I had to involve myself in simply to build my credit up. What a joke.

Credit score for an apartment seems reasonable, though - you're paying a non-trivial amount of money per month, and apartments want to minimize evictions - they just want to know if you can pay. I've been in a situation where my credit score was bad, but I provided an offer letter for my new job (which indicated that my future situation won't be like my past) and it was fine.

Where I can see it failing is for people who live "outside" the system - I have a friend who refuses to uses banks and deals only in cash and ancient coins - he can't find an above-the-board place to live because of his lack of credit score. But with that said, he does have a high risk of not being able to make rent on time, so its difficult to say what the policy should be.

As for finding a job, I don't know of any instance where a poor credit score would prevent you from getting a job, other than getting a security clearance, but that also seems reasonable since the government wants to know if you have any blackmail-able "money troubles" that an enemy actor can take advantage of.

The problem I've had is that there is effectively no difference between bad credit and no credit. It is entirely possible to be a financially responsible person (who exists in the "system" with a bank account) and still be denied housing. This forces people to get credit cards.

>> "This forces people to get credit cards."

That's the point. They designed the system of incentives and constraints to make you their customer.

Yea, no one takes it too seriously for employment (which makes me wonder why they even do it most the time). I doubt I would have lost out on any jobs if I had bad credit, it probably wasn't really necessary for me to build up my credit (other than being good for getting car/home loans now).

But your second point is largely what I was getting at. People who don't want that to be a part of their life are starting to run into barriers to leading a normal life. At this point credit scores are used rather casually and don't have that high of consequences. But the trend is in the wrong direction, and I'm firmly against it continuing in the same way as the Chinese are bringing it.

If you had bad credit and a large amount of debt no bank or federal positions that deal with finances or money would be open for you.

> I have a friend who refuses to uses banks and deals only in cash and ancient coins

I don't need a credit score to tell me I probably don't want this person as a tenant. They're a huge eviction risk (no system = no fallback for short-term cashflow issues), not to mention that I don't want to be dealing with hundreds of dollars in cash rent.

I think hiring someone and leasing an apartment to someone are two different things; leasing an apartment to someone is taking on a financial risk in that you have to judge whether they can pay you or not on a monthly basis, not too different from a loan.

People with bad credit scores tend to be irresponsible in general, have unstable personal lives and are generally less reliable. They might not be someone you want as an employee especially if the position requires any significant training.

As an employer I would view it as a red flag, not disqualifiying but it would take some other evidence and good references to offset it.

> People with bad credit scores tend to be irresponsible in general

I'm gonna be that guy: [citation needed]

I 100% agree. I'm sorry, but my credit worthiness has nothing to do with my ability to perform a job, or how well I can drive my car. Auto insurance also uses credit. Again I sat, Irrelevant uses...

An apartment lease is functionally the same thing as a loan: you need to pay $x every month. The landlord has a legitimate interest in how likely you are to do so.

Well, correct my if I'm wrong, but in some states the US you can also get a criminal record from public intoxication or urination and in the later case be required to register as a sex offender?

You're correct, but I don't see how that has any relevance?

A credit score for "not shitting on the streets"?

Yes, that was essentially my point. If something goes on your record you will presumably have a harder time getting jobs or renting rooms, especially if your already have low status. Presumably the reason to make these punishments "more harsh" than the damage of the crime is to enforce social behavior. In some way that seem more harsh then the Chinese version. Even if China is worse in most ways, it's sometimes more relaxed than the US when it comes to personal freedoms.

SEE THE US IS BAD TOO.

Seems to come up a lot when reminders of China being ruled by a totalitarian regime come along

The US does have a track record of being blase about its officers of the peace killing people in the streets, for example. The US has fantastic freedom of speech and expression, but it also sends SWAT teams into peoples' houses and cheers the purchase of tanks for its police departments. Similarly, police can legally just take your money if they feel like it.

Yes, the US is not as bad as China as a place to live (look at the migration flow between them for simple proof), but it's worth noting that the same way people explain away the US's flaws can be done in other countries as well.

I believe you're unfairly characterizing the US being "blase about its officers of the peace killing people in the streets" there were approximately 990 people killed by police in 2015 and 2016. In a country of 325M with the focus on highly dense urban areas. In a particular segment that constitutes less than a quarter of those deaths there has been heavy rioting and police officers hunted and murdered as a result.

You are 'explaining away the US's flaws'. Here's a per capita comparison between police killings in the US, UK, Germany, and Australia:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/07/08/us-police-shoo...

And you say riots and police being hunted? There is violent unrest in China, too. In both the US and China, the middle-class and the folks in power just hand-wave away the concerns of the victimised demographics, finding excuses for the state's poor treatment of them.

As many people are mocking and blocking #blacklivesmatter as are supporting it. What are those in power actually doing in response to the upset demographics in the US? Hot air. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Nothing with any real bite. Hence, blase.

You can, but I think that the proper punishment for such actions would be 'a mark' on your legal identification listing you as unfit for 'recreational chemicals'. You'd be on probation for N number of years, and if you were otherwise a good citizen you'd have that 'fall off' your record. Actively violating that during the probation period would mark you as an offender (dangerous to society); though 'incidental' violation (E.G. ordering a food item that happens to have some residual) wouldn't.

The 'third strike' should, irrespective, mark you as a dangerous member of society, though depending on circumstances some stronger treatment might result in a different outcome.

Pissing in public puts you on probation for years, and doing so three times in total (or once more in your years of probation) = dangerous member of society?

I'm scared to think of what your utopia looks like.

It's funny you mention that, because it seems that everytime China passes a new draconian law these days, it says "we're just updating our laws to be in line with US anti-terror/public safety/etc laws" or something along those lines.

>us type credit score is creepy Lol... I guess it is. It makes sense, to most of us on the why's, if not the how's of the credit score applications. Not all who use it agree with it. There's no choice in the matter. Unfortunately, credit scores are used for things irrelevant to debt paying history as well. So... hmm. I think I share your fear. And raise ya, in that perhaps the US could also abuse such a system after seeing how China applies it, and it's effects.

You don't get bad credit for jaywalking or whatever is suggested. It's a tool to measure your ability to repay debt. I think it's already abused, but it's nothing liek what is talked about in the article.

Playing devil's advocate here: you get bad credit for perfectly legal behavior that companies just happen to dislike, whereas stuff like jaywalking is at least an actual crime.

you get bad credit for failing to do what you voluntarily promised you'd do. you get good credit merely for following through on your promises.

This is not accurate. My credit score is quite low for a person with zero debt and great financial standing, because I don't have a credit card. I am being punished for not buying a product that I have no need for.

Simply having a credit card doesn't cost anything. You're choosing to live your life in a way that is contrary to what our society has determined is a positive financial profile. If you're trying to make some kind of point, or protest something, fine -- but then don't complain about being "punished."

When was the vote / referendum on this where "society" made this determination?

At most, a few credit ratings company made this decision and "society" tolerates it for convenience. An equally workable system would be to to default to a high score and deduct points for bad behavior, but this would be bad for business as it wouldn't force people to get credit they don't need.

I'm sure there are all kinds of legitimate reasons you can get bad credit, before we even get into all of the mistakes that could be made.

One of my credit cards gives me monthly updates on my credit score. It always lists 3 positive and 3 negative factors impacting my score, no matter how good the score.

Currently one of the 3 negatives is "highest credit card limit too low". Not debt:available. Just straight up "too low a credit limit on your highest-limit card". And yet, I could buy an entry level luxury car on several of my credit cards.

I'm not implying that a silly ding on my credit like that is as 'serious' as delinquent payments, but... well, the truth is, I have no idea. And isn't that the point?

How is it for someone with no credit history at all (say, someone who doesn't use credit cards because they have enough of their own resources)?

Better than having demonstrated bad credit. Not as good as having demonstrated good credit. Of course, in most situations actually being able to pay cash negates any of it.