7 ms·

> Because credit companies aren't perfect, credit checks are evil and racist? Not what I said at all. The companies aren't just "not perfect", they are conside

> Because credit companies aren't perfect, credit checks are evil and racist? Not what I said at all. The companies aren't just "not perfect", they are considerably worse than that. And yes, credit checks can be used as a form of digital redlining. They are not always used that way, but they absolutely are being used like that widely across the US.

SilasX 6y ago
That sounds exactly like what I just accused you of: criticizing the use of credit checks as racist simply because they can be used that way. At the very least, you're really overstating it as being "not at all" what you said, considering the very similar argument you repeated in the next sentence. Also: >The companies aren't just "not perfect", they are considerably worse than that. The difference between "not perfect" vs "much worse" doesn't seem relevant here. As long as they're not perfect, they can be used exactly the way you describe, so it doesn't seem like a good argument to use to throw (vague) shade at credit checks. Would you mind concretely spelling out how you think landlords should operate, so I know I'm not mischaracterizing what you're criticizing? It's easy to say "X has downsides", but a substantive discussion involves weighing the pros and cons.
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Landlords should not be allowed to prohibit tenants based on credit or criminal history alone. E.g. "You must have a credit score of X00 to be considered" should be illegal. Landlords should set criteria for who can be a tenant (perhaps based on income/income assistance/demonstrated ability to pay the rent), and accept the first candidate who meets all the criteria they propose. Edit: Also, in case it is relevant, I am a property owner who rents out part of their home. I've never run a background or credit check on any of my tenants.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    Can you remind me who in the thread advocated the view you're criticizing? >Also, in case it is relevant, I am a property owner who rents out part of their home. I've never run a background or credit check on any of my tenants. So you know nothing about the tenants you rent to? They're all strangers?
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      > Can you remind me who in the thread advocated the view you're criticizing? You reduced the critique of the article to "How dare they screen tenants", which is a strawman that no one is proposing. I cited ways in which tenant screening is problematic (credit reporting and criminal background checks) in hopes of highlighting that it's not at all preposterous for someone to be critical of technology being used in this space. > So you know nothing about the tenants you rent to? They're all strangers? Sometimes. I know some people I've rented to. Others have been strangers. Ask for references, have a coffee shop conversation. I've had folks suddenly have life happen to them (and lose the ability to pay rent for a bit). It's not hard to treat folks like humans, imo.
      - SilasX 6y ago
        >You reduced the critique of the article to "How dare they screen tenants", which is a strawman that no one is proposing. The website -- and other commenters -- were citing "they do background checks" in itself, with no further commentary, as something inherently outrageous. What you're quoting was my (and several others') best effort identify what we thought was being criticized; this is really hard when no one will commit to a position, and when they do, it turns out their complaint is ultimately (see below) "oh, they didn't do my kind of background check, where I'd never make a wrongfully biased decision based on a coffee shop chat", which feels, to me, not morally superior. >Sometimes. I know some people I've rented to. Others have been strangers. Ask for references, have a coffee shop conversation. Gotcha, so you do a background check them, just not the standard, criminal/credit check, and feel like this is a morally-relevant distinction. You also base a lot of your decision about a hard-to-quantify "gut feel" from this coffee shop chat, and are sure you aren't allowing an insidious bias that you would criticize if a corporation did it (cf. "culture fit").
        Pfhreak 6y ago
        > so you do a background check them, just not the standard, criminal/credit check These things are not at all equivalent. It's a laughable false-equivalency to suggest that calling a few friends/acquaintances of someone is at all similar to investigating their personal finances, debts, criminal history, employment records, etc. > You also base a lot of your decision about a hard-to-quantify "gut feel" from this coffee shop chat. When I have a unit for rent, it goes to the first person interested. This coffee shop meeting isn't an interview. These folks are going to be living in my home, this is the most egalitarian way for both parties to understand "is this situation tenable for both of us?" It's not an assessment or gate. How else will they know they want to live with my family?

SilasX 6y ago

That sounds exactly like what I just accused you of: criticizing the use of credit checks as racist simply because they can be used that way. At the very least, you're really overstating it as being "not at all" what you said, considering the very similar argument you repeated in the next sentence. Also: >The companies aren't just "not perfect", they are considerably worse than that. The difference between "not perfect" vs "much worse" doesn't seem relevant here. As long as they're not perfect, they can be used exactly the way you describe, so it doesn't seem like a good argument to use to throw (vague) shade at credit checks. Would you mind concretely spelling out how you think landlords should operate, so I know I'm not mischaracterizing what you're criticizing? It's easy to say "X has downsides", but a substantive discussion involves weighing the pros and cons.

Pfhreak 6y ago
Landlords should not be allowed to prohibit tenants based on credit or criminal history alone. E.g. "You must have a credit score of X00 to be considered" should be illegal. Landlords should set criteria for who can be a tenant (perhaps based on income/income assistance/demonstrated ability to pay the rent), and accept the first candidate who meets all the criteria they propose. Edit: Also, in case it is relevant, I am a property owner who rents out part of their home. I've never run a background or credit check on any of my tenants.
- SilasX 6y ago
  Can you remind me who in the thread advocated the view you're criticizing? >Also, in case it is relevant, I am a property owner who rents out part of their home. I've never run a background or credit check on any of my tenants. So you know nothing about the tenants you rent to? They're all strangers?
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    > Can you remind me who in the thread advocated the view you're criticizing? You reduced the critique of the article to "How dare they screen tenants", which is a strawman that no one is proposing. I cited ways in which tenant screening is problematic (credit reporting and criminal background checks) in hopes of highlighting that it's not at all preposterous for someone to be critical of technology being used in this space. > So you know nothing about the tenants you rent to? They're all strangers? Sometimes. I know some people I've rented to. Others have been strangers. Ask for references, have a coffee shop conversation. I've had folks suddenly have life happen to them (and lose the ability to pay rent for a bit). It's not hard to treat folks like humans, imo.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      >You reduced the critique of the article to "How dare they screen tenants", which is a strawman that no one is proposing. The website -- and other commenters -- were citing "they do background checks" in itself, with no further commentary, as something inherently outrageous. What you're quoting was my (and several others') best effort identify what we thought was being criticized; this is really hard when no one will commit to a position, and when they do, it turns out their complaint is ultimately (see below) "oh, they didn't do my kind of background check, where I'd never make a wrongfully biased decision based on a coffee shop chat", which feels, to me, not morally superior. >Sometimes. I know some people I've rented to. Others have been strangers. Ask for references, have a coffee shop conversation. Gotcha, so you do a background check them, just not the standard, criminal/credit check, and feel like this is a morally-relevant distinction. You also base a lot of your decision about a hard-to-quantify "gut feel" from this coffee shop chat, and are sure you aren't allowing an insidious bias that you would criticize if a corporation did it (cf. "culture fit").
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        > so you do a background check them, just not the standard, criminal/credit check These things are not at all equivalent. It's a laughable false-equivalency to suggest that calling a few friends/acquaintances of someone is at all similar to investigating their personal finances, debts, criminal history, employment records, etc. > You also base a lot of your decision about a hard-to-quantify "gut feel" from this coffee shop chat. When I have a unit for rent, it goes to the first person interested. This coffee shop meeting isn't an interview. These folks are going to be living in my home, this is the most egalitarian way for both parties to understand "is this situation tenable for both of us?" It's not an assessment or gate. How else will they know they want to live with my family?