True or false? Being in debt makes people more dishonest.

[UdoKier]

Poll question: True or false? Being in debt makes people more dishonest.

I have seen this in a number of threads now - "Employers should be able to check applicants' credit histories because indebtedness makes employees that much more likely to embezzle or steal."

Aside from being an outright unwarranted invasion of privacy, I think this is just plain old BIGOTRY. What do you think?

True or false? Being in debt makes people more dishonest.

[RPM]

1. Certain Bar Associations Believe So

I was told at school that some bar associations want to know how much debt applicants have - educational and otherwise - as it may relect on their ability to exercise independent moral judgement...

[bloom]

43. It might reflect on how wealthy a family they came from...

And if someone subsidized them.

That really stinks.

[UdoKier]

2. The bigots are winning.

May your family suffer a catastrophic illness that bankrupts you and steals away your employment opportunities. Really. To hell with you.

Was Ken Lay in debt when he looted Enron? Dennis Kozlowski? Bigots.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

6. thank you!

Those CEO bastards had millions and still wanted MORE. you just proved this is a whole load of steaming shit.

[patcox2]

42. Nothing bigoted about it.

UNEXPLAINED debt is definitely a hiring factor for me. You are referring to debts for which people have a good reason, catastrophic medical bills, of course that should not disqualify a person.

But far more people have no damn excuse other than that they are spoiled irresponsible people who feel they have the right to live above their means and think its all someone elses fault, the credit card companies that shouldn't have given them credit and the commercials that brainwashed them into buying shit they don't need.

I don't want irresponsible people working for me, and I will keep credit-checking them.

[bloom]

46. Trump

goes bankrupt every now and then.

His company anyway - and then people give him more money...

Not that that reflects on your average person. Or justifies bigotry or employment discrimination.

[unblock]

3. credit is one aspect of my business

and financial difficulties can indeed give otherwise honest an upright people a feeling that cheating the system is necessary, warranted, or even justified in their situation.

that does NOT mean that everyone who's poor and/or in debt behaves like this. nor does it mean that everyone who's rich and/or not in debt is a saint.

but the statistics, on a broad basis, do confirm this.


the REAL question is, should everyone who's in debt be punished just because SOME people who are in debt suck? THAT's where the bigotry lies.

[UdoKier]

12. Statistics say that African-Americans commit more crimes.

Does that make it okay to discriminate on that basis?

People who drive red cars statistically speed more and get into more accidents. Should there be a surcharge for red cars?

Ridiculous.

[unblock]

23. um, did you actually READ my post?

as i said, punishing all debtors for the sins of a few is exactly where the discrimination lies.

your original post didn't make it clear whether you were interested in talking about averages, correlations, and tendencies or if the point was was it ok to discriminate on that basis.

my response made this distinction clear, yet somehow this message isn't getting through to you.


as to your specific questions:

is it ok to discriminate on the basis of race? of course not. you can't change your race even if you wanted to, and people have a right to be judged on their actions, not the actions of others who happen to look like them.

is it ok to discriminate on the basis of car color? of course it is. insurance companies already discriminate on the basis of make and model, why not also on the basis of car color? note that this is 100% a matter of choice. you can buy a different car color or paint it if you don't want to be punished for this sort of thing.

as a further caveat, it's not clear that red cars speed more, only that red cars get ticketed more. the fact that it's easier for a cop to spot and track a red car than some other color that might blend into a crowd better may have something to do with this.

red cars are also correlated with sportier models, which may be more to blame than the color.

[UdoKier]

24. Your response smeared people in debt.

You said that they may feel justified in stealing. Again, what does that have to do with their credit rating? Nothing.

Then you justify bigotry by saying that statistics confirm that people with bad credit are more likely to steal. I'm pretty sure poor people are more likely to steal too. That's not a basis for discrimination, unless you've got stats that say ALL indebted people steal.

The fact is that the vast majority DO NOT and shouldn't be penalized for the actions of a few.

As for auto insurance, it should be based on the insured's driving record, and the area where the insured will be driving. Period.

[unblock]

51. quit misrepresenting my posts

i did not smear all people in debt. i said that debt MAY make people feel certain things, and that statistics back up that fact that there is a correlatation.

you yourself "smeared" african-americans by saying that they are more likely to commit more crimes. how is your "smear" any different from mine, or are you willing to say that your statement is at least as "bigotted" as mine?

i think, perhaps, you are missing the distinction between acknowledging a statistical correlation on the one hand, and treating every member of a group the same way.

or perhaps, the problem is you aren't willing to let people be responsible for the things they CAN do something about simply because it's reprehensible to discriminate on the basis of things people CAN'T do anything about.


if you want to go around arguing that everyone should be treated as having great credit until they actually default on a debt, or should get great insurance rates until they actually get into an accident, well, knock yourself out. it's simply not gonna fly.

there's just no way you can justify that it's reasonable to force insurance companies to charge the same rate to someone driving a new, red v-12 sports car versus someone driving a late model, plain-colored boring v-4 sedan. at a minimum, please don't pretend that what's going on when they do so is unethical or unfair.

the only thing insurance companies discriminate that you may have an argument for is age, because that's not something people can do much about. that's a far more difficult issue, due to the pooled nature of risk management.

[UdoKier]

52. You made a subjective assumption about people w/debt with NO BASIS in fact

There is no basis to say that any given person in debt will fee this way or that. I could say that rich people feel a sense of entitlement that makes them more likely to steal but that would be just as nonsensical. The statistics may say that people in debt are more prone to stealing, but they also show that most of them DON'T. And the statistics say NOTHING about how they "feel".

As for African-Americans, I most certainly did not smear them. Statistically, blacks commit more of a number of kinds of crimes (and the laws they tend to break are the ones law enforcement seems most serious about enforcing - more discrimination). But again, the vast majority DO NOT, and the the majority who are honest and law-abiding shouldn't be discriminated against because of the actions of the few.

"or perhaps, the problem is you aren't willing to let people be responsible for the things they CAN do something about simply because it's reprehensible to discriminate on the basis of things people CAN'T do anything about."

It's true that race and credit history are not the same thing. But a great many people with bad credit are in that pinch due to bills from catastrophic illness, not from irresponsibility. So it could be said that these people had a choice - go into debt - or DIE.

if you want to go around arguing that everyone should be treated as having great credit until they actually default on a debt, or should get great insurance rates until they actually get into an accident, well, knock yourself out.

That's not what I'm arguing. Lenders shouldn't have to loan to people who are overextended. They have a clearly demonstrable interest in knowing the borrowing history of their borrowers. But employers are a whole different story. They are hiring a person for a job, not loaning them money. Do you ask the plumber for his credit history before you have him fix your sink? No. You make a contract. If anything, the person being hired should be checking the employer's ability to pay for services rendered.

Same with insurance. Citations are also a valid consideration for determining insurance premiums. But there is a reason why "fix-it" tickets are not counted on the driving record - THEY ARE IRRELEVANT, just as the color of a car is.

"there's just no way you can justify that it's reasonable to force insurance companies to charge the same rate to someone driving a new, red v-12 sports car versus someone driving a late model, plain-colored boring v-4 sedan."

I didn't say that either. The two vehicles are as different as a car and a motorcycle. But something as arbitrary as color should not be a factor.

Age is tough, but I personally don't think kids under 18 should be allowed to get licenses anyway. They are not legally responsible, and their neural pathways and judgment abilities are not yet fully developed at that age...

[unblock]

57. i think i see part of the problem

you apparently intended to conduct a poll to ask if employers were justified in refusing to hire based on an applicant's indebtedness, but instead asked whether or not indebtedness can make people more dishonest.

these are VERY different questions, and twisting my "true" response and posts regarding the ACTUAL poll question and interpreting them as a response to the question you MEANT to ask, but didn't, is dirty pool.

personally, i find references to be of vastly greater utility in hiring than such things as credit searches. i've never requested a credit history of any job applicant, but all i think i would ever make use of such information is possibly how seriously to follow up with the references. if the references check out, i don't see why an applicant's debt would deter me from hiring. i would, though, consider a criminal check pertinent.

we actually appear to be in agreement on most of our points. for instance, i agree that most people in debt behave honestly and wouldn't commit crimes. but, that doesn't mean that debt isn't correlated with crime.

[UdoKier]

75. Okay.

"instead asked whether or not indebtedness can make people more dishonest."

Not so much whether it "can" - of course it can, but whether it automatically does - which is the assumption behind the credit check for employment applicants.

And I agree about references. Looking at an equifax report is lazy and a poor substitute for doing the legwork to make sure that the references are legit.

[BiggJawn]

53. Sorry, but you did NOT.

First you say:
"and financial difficulties can indeed give otherwise honest an upright people a feeling that cheating the system is necessary, warranted, or even justified in their situation."

then you said:

"...I said that debt MAY make people feel certain things..."

Don't see the weasel-word "may" in thefirst quote at all.

And as someone who has, through poor choices, getting taken advantage of, getting ripped-off, and a FEW times just plain felt like having a good time on my $500 CC, been in debt most his adult life, I take offense to your blanket statement, ethereal "statistics" or not.

I'm not a THIEF. I leave that to the 6-7 figure CEO types. they don't like competition from peasants like me.

[unblock]

55. are you seriously making a distinction between "can" and "may"???

not to mention that the entire rest of my post made it clear that i'm not talking about EVERYONE in debt.

just because debt gives SOME people the idea that it's ok for them to commit crimes doesn't mean that ALL people in debt think or act that way.

my original post made this clear. you're pretending otherwise based on something other than my opinion or what i wrote.

i too, carry debt, and at times have had negative net worth, and have never committed anything remotely resembling a crime. but some people with a weaker sense of right and wrong might have, and i don't feel offended by that notion. in fact, i feel proud knowing that i can go through tough times with my ethics unimpaired.

[BiggJawn]

59. Yes I am.

When you rebut somebody by saying "I said MAY..." and you never SAID "may", you bet I'm making a distinction.

And I think people "with a weaker sense of right and wrong" will be crooks whether they're poor, or their name is Ken Lay. A poor credit score has jack-shit to do with it. I think we agree on that point.

[unblock]

61. whatever

ok, sorry, i said "CAN", not MAY.

now tell me how that makes a difference???



bottom line is, there are many people who will never commit a crime under any circumstances. there are also some people who will commit a crime despite an obvious lack of any motivating factor.

however, i'm amazed that you're denying that indebtedness, poverty, poor credit, etc., CAN (or MAY, if you prefer), be an influence in pushing someone to commit a crime that they wouldn't commit had such factors not been present.

what is so hard to believe about the concept that there exist people who will commit a crime only if a perceived need and situation arises?

note, once again, to be clear, i'm not saying that "ALL" people in debt behave like this.

[retnavyliberal]

70. Faulty logic.

Being poor may not cause people to steal, however people who steal often have other issues that, in the end show up on a credit report.

BTW, being poor and having bad credit are two different issues that you seem to combining. Good credit means that the potential employee has some level of responsibility.

[unblock]

73. good points

going from correlation to causation can be very hazardous indeed.

one caveat i would add is that good credit MAY (or CAN) indicate some level of a certain type of self-interested responsibility. however, other factors, such as considerable wealth or responsible family members can mask such things.

for instance, a very irresponsible person might have a family member take care of his/her bills (e.g., mom and dad pay the bills because they can't bear to see junior have a bad credit score). or they might just not use credit cards.

using credit cards can improve the scores, but you can get a quite good score indeed by just owning cards for a long time even if you never use them (well, use them once a year to keep them from cancelling the account).

[retnavyliberal]

76. I agree with you there.

I guess this is one of those issues that an employer can use OR abuse. I can see the benifit of an employer having access to this information and all I could do is HOPE that it would be used as one item in the determination of employment.

Also, in my experience, you have to authorize the company to look into your credit. If you do not want to let them, then that is your choice.

[unblock]

77. yes, your credit info is private, NO ONE can look at it without consent

but then again, employers can make it a condition of employment, in which case the price for retaining your privacy is no working there.

incidently, another reason that an employer might decide that good credit might be useful condition for employment is that if the job requires the employee to front expenses (typically "travel & entertainment") for later company reimbursement, the employer might want the employee to demonstrate that they can swing the expenses. in that case, either a credit card or demonstration of significant liquid assets might do.

then again, i've never heard of anyone actually making this a condition of employment, but at least it's relevant.

[etherealtruth]

44. I'm not trying to be an ass, do you have a link to statistics ...

...that show this?

[unblock]

58. i'll do some digging...

i know i've seen a statistical correlation that showed a correlation between credit rating and criminal activity, and another (maybe it was the same study) that correlated poverty with criminal activity. actually, i'm pretty sure i've seen quite a few that showed the latter.

as i said in post #4, "indebtedness" is not a very well-defined term for such purposes, but i'll see what i can find....

[etherealtruth]

66. I've found stats that support correlations between...

..."drug debts" and "gambling debts" and crime ... I am truly interested in whether "poor credit scores" or a high % of indebtedness truly lead to an increase in tendency to commit a crime (theft, embezzlement ...).

I realize you clearly stated that it is not your intention to claim that people in debt are likely to be criminals. With that said, later in this thread, I rambled on about divorce destroying my credit ... I really don't think I am any less honest than when I had "great credit" (NO, you didn't say I was).

I have heard this claim (often), yet I have never seen any stats to back it up; if it is true, is the difference significant enough for employers to reap benefits from excluding people with "poor credit?"

[unblock]

69. you're asking the right questions

and thank you for clearly reading my posts.

some of the correlations involved are not overly strong, and many miss the mark. for instance, poverty is often correlated with crime, but in fact, income/wealth inequality has a much strong correlation, and poverty in and of itself may merely be a reflection of something else that's closer to an underlying "cause".

poor credit rating in turn is a statistical predictor of bankruptcy, default, and other financial difficulties, which in turn is correlated with poverty, making the connection to crime all the more distant. nonetheless it is present, albeit not necessarily the greatest indicator in the world.


the real question is not so much whether or not the correlation exists, but rather, as i pointed out, is it ethical to treat ALL people with poor credit as crime risks or, as you point out, is it even cost effective for employers to act this way.

as someone who's done a fair amount of interviewing over the years, i can attest to the practical need to grasp at straws when hiring. you see a resume, you conduct an interview or two or even three, you check up on references, but still, you have VERY little to go on.

it's often difficult to know if, say, a programmer is doing a good job after seeing them in action for 6 months! how on earth am i supposed to know if someone a basically just met, and who is going out of their way to put on their best face and hide their flaws, is going to work out?

this is why employers rely on "red flags" -- you say one word wrong or use one problematic phrase or hesitate at the wrong time or cross your legs in the wrong direction, or whatever, and you don't get the job. it's stupid, but employers use such dubious information because at the end of the day, dubious information is all the have to rely on.

personally, i try my best to have concrete reasons for my thumbs up/down verdicts, but when those toss-ups come along, it's hard to say that my decision is not influenced by something silly like that.

anyway, as i've said, i don't think *i* would get much out of an applicant's credit report.

[unblock]

64. here's one link, for starters.

http://cjonline.com/stories/112502/com_signal13.shtml

The U.S. Census Bureau uses income thresholds that vary by family size to determine who is poor.

The thresholds for Census 2000 were: $8,501 for one person; $10,869 for two people; $13,290 for three people; $17,029 for four people; $20,127 for five people; $22,727 for six people; $25,912 for seven people; $28, 967 for eight people; and $34,417 for nine or more people.

According to Census 2000 reports, more than 28 percent of the residents living in census tract four live in poverty.

However, Jeffrey McDade, assistant professor of sociology at Washburn University, said poverty alone isn't a simple explanation for why an area might produce a larger number of Signal 13 calls than another area.

"All of the research today shows that there is an extremely consistent correlation between crime and poverty. But correlation is not the same as causation," he said. "There are other factors that would have to be examined."

[unblock]

65. here's another

this one also indicates that "many studies have demonstrated that low socioeconomic status is a cause of crime", although i'd bet that they meant correlation, not causation.

http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP508/p508.htm

[etherealtruth]

68. Is there a link between "poor credit ratings" ...

and criminal activity? Not poverty, as you are aware they are different issues.

Post divorce I have horrendous credit (which may be held against me), I am not, however, technically poor.

This leads to an interesting question though, what information are employers after? Are they interested in the dollar amounts of the mortgages I've had, the credit limits that I had on accounts? This points out that an employer can actually be seeking info on my socio-economic status ...

On edit: Thank you for looking for links to the info

[unblock]

71. so far, not finding anything online that DIRECTLY links crime and scores

specifically. there is a practical reason for this, namely that the releases needed would be prohibitive.

but there are correlations between, say, credit scores and default risk, and also gambling and default risk, and also gambling and crime. so there's probably an indirect way to show this.

when you do this sort of thing, you end up with weak (but present) correlations, and correlations that are completely devoid of any causal implications, even though there might be some intuitive rationale behind them. this sort of technique is often used to justify more direct studies.

[etherealtruth]

72. Thanks, I'll obsess about this another day n/t

[unblock]

4. you might also want to define indebtedness

as opposed to, say, credit rating or wealth.

for instance, if i have a $100,000 mortage on a $1,000,000 house (i wish!), am i "in debt"?

[Momgonepostal]

9. Good point

I don't think the average Joe with a reasonable car payment and a mortgage is anymore likely to embezzle than anyone else. I might worry about someone in massive, in way over their heads kind of debt.

[LostinVA]

29. It's also stupid re: Chapter 7

I know someone who didn't get a job because she had a bankruptcy on her credit rating (it was from credit cards which were from charging an operation). The reason this shows this is stupid is because: she had declared bankruptcy, she had NO DEBTS! None! She rented, and her car was paid for. STUPID.

Also, I was a retail manager at one point when I ran into some difficulties concerning my credit cards (again from a medical bill!). Did I EVER think of stealing one frigging cent? No! Honest people do not steal like this. Would they steal a loaf of bread, etc.? Yeah, but not money from a register. I worked with alot of poor people, and you ALWAYS catch the ones who steal, and they were never the desperate ones -- they were usually the ones living with the parents and wanting money to party with.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. I don't know about individuls, but America is deeply in debt.

And, more than a tad dishonest.

[Tim4319]

7. Actually, I would think it maybe the total opposite.

Just my opinion.

[LSdemocrat]

8. Generally no, but people can do anything when in extreme circumstances

While people under extreme financial circumstances may feel compelled to steal, I certainly don't think employers should have the right to check applicants financial history.

[Shoeempress]

10. debt does not make you dishonest, bad character and a lack of morals

make you dishonest, and has nothing to do with how much you have or how much you owe.

[Misunderestimator]

11. It's becoming like the film "Gattaca"

Pretty soon we'll have genetics testing with our drug and credit checks.

[elehhhhna]

13. What if the (failed) business debt you accrue is covered by SAUDIS? Often.

So you're clean, then, GW?

I call BS.

[CoffeeCat]

14. Being in debt says a great deal about SOME people...but I don't

think you can say that a person is "dishonest" just because he is in debt. In fact, an employer could look at a heavy debt load and assume that this person needs a job and would work hard--because they have a boatload of monthly payments to which they are obligated.

[Rainbowreflect]

15. Hell, if I were more dishonest I would not be in so much debt.

[noiretextatique]

31. isn't THAT the truth? eom

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Somebody Actually Said That?

I read part of that thread and didn't see the comment that prompted your poll. That's ridiculous. Nearly everyone has some sort of debt level, some time in their life. If the assumption that indebtedness leads to criminal behavior, EVERYONE would have committed crimes.

It's a logical fallacy apropos of nothing.
The Professor

[napi21]

17. In some circumstances, it's true.

As an example: a guy works in the meat department of a grocery store, earns $16,000/yr, and has a wife & 2 kids. He is much more likely to snag some of that product to take home, than if he was paid $25,000 or more.

[UdoKier]

19. That's an argument for living wages, not against hiring someone.

In that case, the wages are sub-poverty, and whoever gets the job will be struggling financially.

And there is no reason to assume the guy with kids would steal. I'm sure the inventory in most stores is well accounted for.

[SmokingJacket]

20. That's nuts, frankly.

Your own personal morality totally outweighs income in this case.

Shit, I went to a fancy liberal arts college, and were the poor kids the shop lifters? Nope -- it was the kids who weren't on work study or financial aid who ripped off swiss chocolates from the little local grocery. In that case, I think they had a sense of entitlement that outweighed their sense of need.

The work-study kids had a greater sense of need, but I think they empathized with the shop owners more.

It's way more complicated than you're making it out to be.

[SmokingJacket]

18. Credit history should be private information.

I say that as someone who has good credit... but it's no one's business but mine.

I don't think it should be treated any differently from health information.

[fishwax]

21. I agree with you

I'm quite private about financial information, credit, etc., b/c I don't think it's anyone else's business.

[LostinVA]

30. Exactly. It should be used for loans and getting a credit card. THAT'S IT

[DiverDave]

22. Nobody GETS IT!

This is the start of the "poor=criminal"

Fuck them, I am flat on my ass broke, but I never EVER thought of stealing anything.

Anybody who thinks like that is an idiot.

[Lex]

25. POOR does not equal BAD CREDIT. And . . .

being poor doesn't mean you have serious debt problems.

And just because you're rich doesn't mean you have good credit or have no debt problems.

Bad credit has little to do with being poor.

Do you think it does?

[noiretextatique]

35. some people do get it

poor=criminal

[BiggJawn]

54. I get it. it's part of "Newspeak"

Poor=criminal
Liberal=Subversive, or Insane, or Un-Patriotic
Sex Offender=Child Molester
Democrats=Communists,
Men=Violent

I get it.

[Deja Q]

26. To the 7 who said being in debt makes more people dishonest:

Speak up so the rest of us can put you on ignore.

I'm sorry, but I am in debt and I am still honest. Far moreso than any normal person, so go ahead and fuckin' shoot me so you can keep your damn stereotypes under a 01% margin of error instead of condemning me of being dishonest, which is called "presumed guilty, fuck the bastard if he truly is innocent" - you know, the motto that corporations, certain judges, and certain members of certain political parties prefer to live by.

:grr:

[patcox2]

39. Honesty and responsibility are different values.

I have found that people with big debt who have no good reason for it other than the desire to live above their means tend to be irresponsible and egotistical (they feel entitled). So I do take credit history into account when hiring.

But the part about dishonesty, thats actually onyl true with ridiculous debt, really big debt, not garden variety just out of college and I bought a BMW and ran up the cards debt.

Now put me on ignore. That'll teach me for forcing reality into your world. And if I ever get your resume, I'll be putting you on ignore, which will make it reciprocal.

[BiggJawn]

56. Don't you just LOVE these Entrepreneurs...

Who get all pissy because we call them on the Conservative way they run their businesses? What was it, last week we had the one who wanted to shit-can a new-hire because she had the gawd-damn AUDACITY to have car trouble?

I dunno, maybe I believe in gnomes or something, but I think you can run a business and not have the hired help rob you blind without having to treat them like Peons.

If some of them ran MY credit report, they wouldn't even let me in their shops as a fucking CUSTOMER.

[Lex]

27. BAD CREDIT rating doesn't mean you are rich or poor.

.
The rich can have screwed up credit too.

Missing payments or not paying debt that you owe, regardless of whether you are poor or rich . . . says something about your honesty--is that BIGOTRY?

Having debt, per se, doesn't make you dishonest.

Everyone who owns a home probably has debt--a mortgage.

[UdoKier]

28. Too much "consumer debt" can be used as a reason to deny employment

The poor rely more heavily on consumer debt to get by. And you don't need to miss any payments to be denied employment.

I have too much credit card debt, because I have a family to support, live in an expensive city and don't make enough money. I've never made a late payment.

Does that make me dishonest?

[Lex]

33. You've never made a late payment so you can't have a bad credit rating.

I don't think anyone, regardless of their debt amount, is dishonest if they are paying their loans.

For instance, how does an employer even know your financial cirumstances just by looking at your debt amount only? You might have a spouse who makes tons of money and the "consumer debt" isn't that big a deal.

How does the employer know how much is "too much" debt in any household without knowing all their income sources (spouse's pay, inheritance trust, etc.)

[LostinVA]

34. Missing payments does NOT make you dishonest!

They are often circumstances: ID theft? Divorce? Someone not paying child support? Medical bills because of no insurance? Maybe you pay every single cent you make toward your debts, but can never get your head above water. Maybe you skip a payment on something one month so you can buy insulin.

In my life, I have met alot of people from many walks of life, and I have met very, very few deadbeats.

[noiretextatique]

37. how about this circumstance: A LOUSY ECONOMY!!!!

sorry, i'm not screaming at you :D

but a lousy economy and having to shoulder an unfair tax burden also contribute to the ability to met financial obligations.
i see more and more people getting into debt with the IRS because they need money just to make ends meet.
i believe this happened under raygun's watch as well.

[noiretextatique]

36. what if you honestly can't pay the debt?

if you have money, the new bankruptcy laws will still protect you.

[Modem Butterfly]

32. To be fair, it's not so much debt as much as history

A person with a great deal of debt who is making payments will do much better than a person with little debt who has defaulted at every turn. In my experience, it's more of a judgement issue than a moral issue (as in, will the deadbeat's "Just ignore it and it'll go away" approach carry over into their work for me?).

[patcox2]

38. Looks like political correctness, or personal interest, trumps reality.

Live life a little, people in serious debt do indeed commimt white collar crime sometimes, when they get desperate.

Not just average debt, mind you, like 'just out of college, ran up the credit cards I should never have been given" debt.

But as an employer, I have learned, people with lots of credit card debt, paying for a flashy car they can't afford, and living above their means, these are signs of irresponsibility and also of an inflated sense of welf worth that makes them bad employees.

I am a lawyer. Every lawyer I have ever known who stole from clients and got disbarred did it because of debt, most often gambling debt, not drugs or broads, gambling is the worst.

[noiretextatique]

40. joe and sally blow

can't make their monthly rent since joe lost his job. sally has the brilliant idea of claiming 9 exemptions for withholding to bring in some extra cash. at year end, joe and sally do their taxes and find they owe uncle sam $5,000.0, which they cannot pay.
they are in debt...without flashy cars or clothes, and without living above their means.

[patcox2]

45. Its really easy to tell the difference, beleive me.

Rolex wearing asshole driving BMW walks in, vs. Joe blow. the credit report, combined with the interview, makes it clear who's the asshole and who isn't.

Though your scenario actually indicates that debt does moake people more dishonest, as it is pretty dishonest to lie to the IRS about your deductions, isn't it?

[noiretextatique]

49. what choice do people have?

i think despearation can make people dishonest, especially if it's a government policy like income taxes.
i do see a difference between making a choice that saves the roof over your head (especially if the government in question is one you despise, and one that despises you), and making a choice that saves the million dollar roof over your head.
and yeah...i know the type you're talking about. a couple of folks i went to school with are in jail right now.

[etherealtruth]

48. I had a "great" credit score prior to marriage and divorce...

Here are a few details (in their most basic form) ...

Stay at home mom who relocated as husband "climbed corporate ladder"------Divorced, he was assigned most of the debt in lieu of higher spousal support, in "Family court"------Despite specific court order NOT to discharge debt in bankruptcy, ex decided to do consulting work (at lower pay) filed for and was granted bankruptcy-----with-in 2 weeks of judgment Ex was once again gainfully employed (with well "above-average" salary)-----the debt reverted to me.

Add a seriously ill child to the equation...

Credit destroyed.

Despite my extremely honest nature, my successes in the work place (prior to stay at home mommydom), ... My "poor credit" can and will be used against me ...

[noiretextatique]

50. what a heartbreaking story

and a great example of why "scores" can never tell the full story about who someone is, and what her life circumstances are.

[WI_DEM]

41. since most Americans are in debt of some kind, we must all be

a bunch of thieves and crooks.

[NervousRex]

47. Woops...

I misread and answered too quickly. When I was flat broke I took advantage of the "five-finger discount"...so...poverty is a motive for theft. But, being in debt should NOT disqualify for employment. Sheeesh who isn't in debt?

[amazona]

60. depends on why they are in debt and what risk the company can afford

When I was in a position to influence hiring and firing, we did not hire anyone who had great debt even if it was a good reason, such as medical issues. Indeed, for an honest person, being in great distress and saving the life of a family member might be the only reason they would ever consider stealing from a small business. Therefore I fully understand why small businesses try to avoid hiring debtors because I wouldn't hire them either.

Indeed, my friend just turned down an otherwise excellent candidate, because of medical debt. It seems unfair, but the position involves handling large sums of cash, and if my friend's business goes down because of one large theft, many people lose their jobs, not just one.

This is going to be reality in the U.S. until we get universal health care and take this burden off the small employer and the individual worker.

Also, there is a difference between being in debt and being a habitually late or non-payer. A person can be in debt and yet keep up with their required payments. If they have debt but have good credit because they keep up their payments, they are the BEST person to hire because they can't quit their job. They have obligated themselves and they have proven they take their obligations seriously. So they are less likely to walk out after an investment in training them.

If a person habitually kites checks -- a crime -- they are already in a mindset where it is OK to bend the rules when they are in trouble. I sympathize as a human being because I've been there but, realistically, no, I'm going to hire the anal retentive prig who would rather skip meals than commit even a tiny crime.

[noiretextatique]

63. kiting checks is a crime...having debt isn't

so, essentially employers are disqualifying people for having debt, which isn't a crime. i am an accountant and i've worked with all types of businesses, large and small. the businesses that get ripped off...in general...don't have good controls in place, or they trust people too much and inadvertantly provide them with the means to carry out temptation...if it's there in the first place. i've had business owners who wanted to add me as a signer on their checking account on the first day i arrived :shrug:
if the controls aren't there, even an anal retentive prig might take advantage of that.
right now, i am working for a company that wouldn't know a control if it fell on its head. the books are completely screwed up, and no one is really interested in fixing the problem. i am sure they do drug testing and check credit reports too, however, the problem isn't the people...its their system. i won't be suprised when the next embezzlement is finally discovered.

[welshTerrier2]

62. if employers are worried indebtedness leads to theft ...

perhaps they should be required to pay all employees a LIVING WAGE !!

maybe that would ease their concerns a little ... of course, that would be unacceptable ... they want to deprive people of their right to privacy after being a part of the cause of indebtedness in the first place ...

the term "corporate pig" comes to mind, doesn't it ??

[earth mom]

67. People with bad credit have either made mistakes or have had bad luck

so why should they be punished over and over for it?! If a persons gonna steal they are gonna steal-they get a rush from it I guess. At least that's what I've learned by watching people admitting to it on shows like Oprah or Dr. Phil (ugh don't like him anymore). From what I've seen, usually these thiefs are quite well off and don't need the stuff-they just love the high. Look at Winona Ryder-she didn't need to steal but did it anyway-guess her life wasn't exciting enough. :eyes:

What really torques me about this is issue is that it is a TOTAL INVASION OF PRIVACY. Why should some schmuck at some job know your personal financial business? Or some bozo at the insurance company or some total stranger off the street for that matter? If really stinks of Nazification-yellow stars and classification of people as worthy or unworthy. This is the kind of shit any Dem here on DU should at their very core be against.

If not...answer this...what if they reject YOU because YOU don't have the right eye color or some other trumped up b.s. reason? :grr:

[amazona]

74. oh come on most thieves are not Winona Ryder

I'm tired of the idea that the average thief is an over-the-hill white woman because of a few bad apples who shoplift for sport like Ryder and Bess Myerson. Almost every time I've been robbed -- EVERY time my friend's business was robbed -- the thief was a man who had what he considered a damn good reason.

People who steal in real life don't steal because "they love the high," they steal to fund drugs or gambling or because of some personal problem that means any amount of money they earn legally cannot be enough in a society where cancer treatment can run millions of dollars. In extremis, even a good person might steal to survive. No use in saying it doesn't happen. We had a man steal around $15K to pay his medical bills. If you are sick and in pain, or if a family member is, there is no use saying that you wouldn't be tempted. Trouble was, at that time, the $15K was a substantial share of the entire business capital. My friend is too old to start again. He can no longer take the chance of hiring people who might be tempted even for the very best of reasons in the world.

You have to keep business separate from charity or very soon you won't have a business.

And before the people who don't have to operate in the real world chime in...NO, my friend's business can't provide health insurance. He can't even buy health insurance for himself. It simply isn't in the range of what a person of his income level can afford. You would be shocked at how few self-employed and small business people actually do have health insurance. They can't provide for others what they can't even afford to buy for themselves.

If we want employers not to be worried about credit history and medical history, we've got to change the entire health care system. Otherwise, we are just tearing each other apart, and it's the same old, same old "divide and conquer" b.s. While you are judging me for not hiring you, Frist and company are still cashing their dividend checks right on time, business as usual.