• JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    It’s pretty good for most people. There will be outliers.

    The problem is, we have massive faceless banks that cater to nearly everyone. They need some system to gauge how much of a risk an individual lendee is.

    The only real fair way to do that is based upon their reputation with other creditors over the past so many years. There’s a lot of metrics they can use ti measure that reputation, but all of them suck if you have little-to-no reputation to begin with.

    Small community banks and credit unions had some more flexibility here since the bankers knew you, personally. However, I think it’s pretty obvious how subjectively judging someone’s credit worthiness can have some serious consequences based upon any -ism or -phobia you can name.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        But we, the consumers, did. By putting all our money in them, and continuing to bank with them as they gobbled up all the local banks and became mega banks.

        It’s a consequence of the barely-regulated capitalist system that we have, sure, but it was driven by decades of consumer (mostly boomer) complacency.

    • Pogbom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is the kind of thing that seems good on paper, but in practice it alienates anyone on the outside of it. If you’re born into a low credit score (i.e. born poor) you’re automatically at a disadvantage. No one will lend you any money because you have a certain score, which in turn means you’re never given an opportunity to improve your score. When credit scores start including rent payments, I’ll be open to seeing it as equitable.