Hat trick:

It's perfectly legal for employers to use almost any method they want to make hiring decisions. Employers can use phrenology, if they want. If it were common practice, like credit reports are now, I would be up in arms over that, too.

So I guess what my real argument is is that I am explicitly equating credit scores and credit reports with phrenology.

ETA (so's not to spam the thread):

More accurately, my argument is that, regardless of their original intent and design, credit scores and credit reports are now explicitly and exclusively an asymmetric weapon of class warfare, and as such they are unfit for any use, most especially hiring decisions.

The system as it stands is too wide open for abuse, and large numbers of people are being abused by it.

Your point that it was somehow dangerously prevalent that people would be sent a different credit report is precisely what I disagree with. There's an enforced legislation in place to prevent that sort of shit. Not human goodness, or anything else. A legislation that like many others, keeps companies from being as shitty as they might otherwise, because it's just not worth the risk of being busted.

Why do you think credit companies are sending out the wrong credit report? What's that based on? Error? Malevolence? Profit-seeking?

[unnecessary snark removed]

I don't think they send out wrong reports on purpose, but they don't have a lot invested in making sure their reports are accurate and that's a problem. I had to actually go the the Experian offices and submit ID and documentation for them to remove a whole bunch of bad credit that someone ran up under my SS number. They didn't even use my name to make those charges, but it still came up on my report.

ita, maybe I'm misreading you, but your position seems to be that my position is so laughably idiotic as to be mocked off the stage. I have no response to that other than snark, so if I am mistaken in my understanding of what you are saying, please correct me.

If you're going to walk away from the house, do it before the end of 2013. That's when the law expires that eliminates the tax burden. After that, it will be considered income again and the owner is responsible for paying tax on it.

ooh, good to know. Seriously, thanks.

I don't think they send out wrong reports on purpose, but they don't have a lot invested in making sure their reports are accurate and that's a problem.

I agree.

Why do you think credit companies are sending out the wrong credit report? What's that based on? Error? Malevolence? Profit-seeking?

I think it's mostly entropy and a very imperfect appeals system. If you challenge an item on your report, then the credit reporting agency goes to the source of the bad item, asks if it is valid, and if they say yes, then it stands. Where this gets very messy is when things go into collections. I've had more than one situation on my reports where one bad debt turned up half a dozen different times. The original creditor, and then 5 different collection agencies. I resolved the debt with the original creditor but the collection agencies kept leaving bad marks. When I challenge it, the credit agency goes to the collection agencies to ask if the report is still vaild, they say yes, and then it stands. Part of the system are self policed, and it doesn't always work well.

I think part of what Sean is saying about the opacity of the system is the criteria that makes your score go up and down is not clear. Yes, you can see a complete report, and see all of the marks, but how that equates to a score of 700 or 605 isn't very clear. Also the things that will make a score move seem counterintuitive. I have a number of credit cards that have no balance on them. They have a high interest rate, and I will never use them. I'd prefer to just close the accounts so that there is a lower risk of someone getting into those accounts. The problem is that closing those accounts would actually lower my credit score.

A similar thing is shopping for a car. When I have purchased a car, the dealer sends out my information for financing offers. Multiple reports get run, then I choose one. The multiple reports have a slight downward pressure on my score, but it's all very unclear how exactly it happens.

I think consumers would like to have it clearly spelled out how the scores are calculated.

You're misreading me, Noise. I'm just asking why the credit company would send HR one credit report and then send me a different one. Nothing to do with why the credit report would be accurate in the first place. That's a whole different argument.

I'm just saying they're bound by legislation to be traceably consistent. Right? Feh. That's so...subjective.

but your position seems to be that my position is so laughably idiotic as to be mocked off the stage

Can you point to the places where I've stated or implied laughable or idiotic or mocking? Because I really wasn't feeling the level of vitriol in the response you deleted--I'm assuming that you were sniping against me not yourself.

You said the following:

how can you know you were sent the exact same report as whoever requested it. There is no guarantee in the system that this is the case

I disagree. And I don't understand the basis of your argument. I don't see either motivation or evidence here. That's all I'm asking for.

You can't get a security clearance, work in the financial sector, or pass the ethics requirements of many professional occupations (lawyer, CPA, etc.) with lousy credit and unpaid debt. Any position that carries fiduciary responsibility usually has good credit as a requirement of the job.

My personal scores have been checked by potential customers, in addition to my corporate credit. Medical practices don't want to spend a big chunk of change with a company they don't think is sound. And since we are closely held family corporation they check us too. It sucks, but there it is.