And then the CCP looked at what the CCCP did, thought "that's cute" and optimised it until they'd invented the social credit score. It turns out digital is the way to go for scale.
I get where you're coming from, but I think it's important to keep in mind that there is no centralized score for Chinese citizens, and that such claims are often sensationalized. [1] However, I'd agree that China is a good example of high degrees of surveillance.
If the west had a creditscore, mine would be very very low. I am banned on almost every social medium. C, FB, insta, tiktok, reddit, google and more. Its pretty tough sometimes to survive on the internet without having access to all. (Although most still have read access)
> I love how every American is so ready to jump on the China hate train for their social credit score thing when it's literally the same goddamned thing as a credit score in America, with like, some added shit about public shaming
The “added shit about public shaming” is not a trivial issue, and also Americans aren't particularly fond of actual credit scores or the broader credit reporting system they are part of, either.
Like, there is nothing hypocritical about viewing extra negatively another society that has taken a disliked element of your own and made it worse.
> The “added shit about public shaming” is not a trivial issue
I think it could be considered trivial given how much of your life can be made an utter hell by a bad credit score. Things like not being able to finance a house when you already spend more per month on rent than a mortgage, being forced into predatory financial products because you lack the ability to get regular ones, refusal for companies to hire you for work based on your credit score, your credit history just being wrong and being saddled with the task of probably hundreds of hours of work and god knows how much money to fix it because none of the providers give a shit about helping you, the risks with identity theft, on and on and on.
As someone who has had to unfuck my credit due to idiocy in financial institutions that was completely, 100% not my fault and yet fell solely on my shoulders to handle, I assure you it is a special circle of bureaucratic hell that would easily stand toe-to-toe with the worst any governments have to offer.
Is it GOOD that it has mechanisms for that? No. But again, I emphasize: we add that ourselves to it all the same. And yes it's definitely worse when it's inscribed in the law's text, but I wouldn't say it's that different either.
> Like, there is nothing hypocritical about viewing extra negatively another society that has taken a disliked element of your own and made it worse.
Oh sure, 100%, but that presupposes that the commenter in question thinks credit reports are bad. And yeah, a fair number of Americans hate them, but like with a lot of things Americans hate, they'll also say shit like "well that's just how it is." But apparently such status-quo allyship doesn't cross into China.
The landlord wants to be paid every month. A credit score's entire reason for existence is to attempt to quantify that. It would be strange if a landlord didn't look at that.
My understanding of the Chinese credit score system is that, unlike the US credit model, it includes your personal social media posts.
Thus the negative press in the US was specifically about that, with fear that if you ever, say, criticize the wrong person or expressed an unpopular opinion you'd end up paying a premium on your loan or even be unable to get a mortgage.
Since there's a fairly high opacity to the US credit scores I wouldn't be surprised to find these things added to the US credit score too as an opt-in mechanism to save money similar to how we can now choose to get a key fob to prove to our insurance companies that we drive within the speed limit.
If being anti-government in the US was something you could get arrested for and therefore stop paying your debts because of, I think it'd get added to credit scores pretty quickly.
> So why does almost every US landlord use credit scores to screen renters?
Landlords are part of one of the bourgeois (petit ot haut) classes, elite minorities. Their interests are not those of the median American, and are in many ways opposed to them.
Hardly. It's more that in a large business, you know that a percentage of people will trash the apartment, requiring expensive repairs, so as a company you reduce risk.
And as a small landlord, renting a second house, hoping to pay for your retirement in old age, or maybe a good school for your kids, you're even more cautious.
The alternative is a year's rent in deposit, because first and last barely covers a damaged carpet, let alone a trashed place.
And that's just the damage side of things.
One of the landlords I spoke to, said that while he understood why renter protections had become so strong, it took forever to kick out a tenant not paying rent. So naturally, he was scared of renting to anyone with money troubles before.
You may disagree with these reasons, but people aren't reducing the market they can rent to for no reason.
Times were easier when most people lived in smaller towns. You knew who you rented to, and didn't need a credit bureau to vouch.
Every time this subject comes up all we hear about is how risky it is for the landlord. Like... no shit? It's an investment. Risk is part of investments. Sometimes investments don't pay out, and sometimes you lose money.
If you want to make money in a risk-averse manner, might I suggest a job instead of an investment property? You know, like the people who's money you want to take are required to prove to you they have, so you can take a nice chunk of it so they can not freeze to death? One of those. They're all over the place, according to the landlords.
> One of the landlords I spoke to, said that while he understood why renter protections had become so strong, it took forever to kick out a tenant not paying rent.
Did he happen to mention why the tenant stopped paying? Because that's probably pretty relevant to why renter protections were stopping him from throwing him out onto the street. Like, I'm sorry it's bit of a bureaucratic fuckabout to KICK SOMEONE OUT OF THEIR HOME but you know, the landlord in this scenario has the economic backing to, in some way, own an extra residence that they don't need, and the tenant they're trying to evict (probably) doesn't. So on the whole I'm okay with renter protections making that hard. One of these people is acutely more vulnerable to houselessness, and it isn't the dude with 2+ houses.
Again, if this is a problem, maybe said landlord should get a job.
Your entire argument is basically "how dare someone have something I don't" and "people shouldn't seek to mitigate risk".
This won't get far with me, and seems to me to be a pointless response.
Are you seriously of the thought that owning more than one home is wrong? And renting it to someone that cannot afford to buy a home is wrong? If so, why?
Do you get mad if that person just leaves the money in the bank, and the second home isn't built?
Are you mad people may make more than you? Do you believe everyone should just be given all the same stuff?
You're quite abusive, but beyond that, you're not really responding in kind.
The post you originally responded to, simply explained the risks involved in renting, and why a credit check is often used to reduce that risk.
As a response you went on a rant about, essentially, "screw landlords" inline with "because they have what I don't". This is effectively what you said, and you've doubled down here.
No matter what, you're blaming the wrong people. If you have an issue with how certain aspects of our free economy works, I'll listen. But blaming landlords is akin to blaming car dealerships because a car is expensive. It's finger pointing without cause.
A person with no credit or a low credit score is still allowed to buy train tickets and leave their hometown. A person with high credit score is not punished in any way for interacting with a person with a low credit score. Credit scores in the United States do not incentivize families cutting off contact with members who do not support the ruling party. To say that "they are essentially the same" is to run cover for the most objectionable parts because you are mad that creditors want a way to determine if someone is going to cut and run with their money.
The government is allowed to 'unbank' you, or to at least push banks to 'voluntarily' 'unbank' you. Having your bank accounts closed and credit cards all canceled summarily is going to hurt your credit score, which in turn is going to make renting a place to live very difficult.
Could you provide an example of the government pushing for someone to be unbanked? Preferably someone not guilty of some kind of finance crime (or accused and on the run).
