this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
414 points (94.2% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9721 readers
265 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 114 points 3 months ago (5 children)

"Since I got my first credit card, I used it for all my purchases but paid it in full each month, building a good score — or so I thought. When I went for a car loan, I was denied because I was a 'thin file,' meaning I never paid any interest."

My friend just got denied a mortgage because of this bullshit. Like what the actual fuck!? You're a responsible borrower but you committed the ultimate sin of NOT PAYING THEM INTEREST!

... Like what the fuck?

[–] return2ozma@lemmy.world 50 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yes, it's a real thing. When I worked at a major bank the customers that would pay in full monthly on their cards were considered the "bad" customers. Those that paid only minimum and got hit with late fees were our "good" customers.

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

From their perspective, they make nothing off of people who don't pay interest or fees. Thus, it only makes sense that the "best" customers are the ones carrying a balance, because they're the ones who generate profits.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They still make a percentage of each transaction. But it sure isn't 18% interest

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 3 months ago

18? Ha, it’s closer to 30% for lots of us. They only loads it to the teens for people who aren’t carrying balances.

[–] thrawn@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

This part is true but is separate from credit scoring. Banks don’t like unprofitable credit card customers.

But it’s actually good for your credit, and they’ll keep approving you as long as you’re not churning. Churning can look like the lead up to bust out fraud too

[–] Philippe23@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This Experian FAQ article indicates "thin file" is about number of credit accounts, not amount of interest.

https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/what-is-a-thin-credit-file-and-how-will-it-impact-your-life/

[–] thrawn@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Yes. Credit score is simply how much you borrow and how often you repay it. The thinking is that, with a thicker file (more accounts paid), there’s less risk.

This can cause some real fuckery: they want to see different types of loans, so student loans with no missed payments is good for your credit despite being bad for your life. It doesn’t care if there’s interest. The misconception may occur because with almost every type of loan, there is interest.

I’ve been fortunate enough to never need a loan and my credit did slightly suffer because of that. That said, any 18 year old can open a starter credit card and get a score of >700 within the year as long as they don’t miss a payment.

[–] criticon@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

This is weird. They probably only have 1 cc with a very low credit limit that doesn't let create a good picture of how they are managing debt

I've never paid interest but I have 7 credit cards and about $50k in credit. I was able to get 2 loans for cars and I've been offered good mortgage rates

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

The people doing the car loan see that 50k in available credit as an emergency back up too, so to a point, having credit available can get you more credit. It's also in a ratio with your income too though.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (3 children)

They want a profitable client. So yeah they basically want you to pay an invisible premium for your credit score. I routinely carry a small balance over and my credit rating is far better than people who pay everything off right away. They want a reliable profit, not a reliable payer, if it makes more sense that way. Think of it like your subscription to credit. It doesn't need to be a large amount either, literally just a couple dollars a month when you math it out.

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'd rather they choke on their own blood thanks.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Yeah, if we're going to have a credit score then we need the government to run it. That kind of cross corporation tool that facilitates commerce is what we used to call a public good.

But we're so deep down the, "must let rich people make themselves richer" hole that we can't even see it.

[–] thrawn@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This is incorrect, of course. Anyone reading this thread, please do not pay interest for nothing.

First, let me say this is not a defense of the credit score system which is unethical. I hate it too, but for the real reasons.

Credit score is not determined by the bank. Your lines of credit report to an agency which considers your utilization but not whether you pay interest. Credit agencies don’t care if banks profit, they are already making money by collecting your personal data and selling it.

I have never paid a cent of interest and do not have anything but credit cards on my file. My score is above 800. I hate to say it, but Lemmy has been consistently worse than Reddit for financial advice, and I’d suggest visiting the cRedit sub for accurate hate on the credit system.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 48 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I was curious about the adoption thing and didn't wanna just weigh in on vibes, so I took 5 seconds to search it and yall...

Some of this is bleak.

https://time.com/6051811/private-adoption-america/

Anne Moody, author of the 2018 book The Children Money Can Buy, about foster care and adoption, says the system can amount to “basically producing babies for money.”

Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy, a birth-parent advocate and birth mother who blogs extensively about adoption, says she routinely hears of women facing expense-repayment pressures. Some states, such as California and Nevada, explicitly consider birth-parent expenses an “act of charity” that birth parents don’t have to pay back. In other states, though, nothing prohibits adoption entities from trying to obligate birth parents to repay expenses when a match fails.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 41 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Doesn't pledging allegiance to a piece of colored fabric count as "worshipping a false idol?"

You know... considering they've got that whole ten commandment thing coming and all.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 40 points 3 months ago (1 children)

13."The working class being gaslit by the 1% to blame the rest of the working class for all of their problems. The amount of people I see thinking their tax dollars are paying for student loan forgiveness, social security, WIC, Medicaid, or welfare is just so ridiculous. You can literally look up exactly where your tax dollars are going. It's not 'fake news;' it's readily available.

This one drives so many of the other problems. I constantly hear (mostly from my conservative neighbors) about how we shouldn't be spending so much of our tax dollars on various programs. One of my neighbors was recently complaining about paying for school bus drivers.

Here's a chart showing where your taxes go.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wanna know what's the most ridiculous about it? That chunk going towards healthcare is for a minority of the population. The US ends up paying more per capita than any other country to cover a minority!

[–] sunzu@kbin.run 10 points 3 months ago

Only boomers deserve health care and we are paying for it for them lol

Clown system where poors are directly paying for older rich

[–] wavebeam@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This is some garbage. Adoption is NOT buying and selling children. I mean, I guess that happens under the guise of adoption. But tons of kids in foster care need permanent homes and loving families, and their biological family is not an option for any number of reasons. It is a tragedy that this happens, but fuck off with this narrative that adoption is buying and selling kids. Tons of other shit in there was bogus too. Fuck this article.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 3 months ago

Women's circles, usually connected to lesbian and witchy communities will keep track of doctors who will perform tubal ligations or other sterilization techniques on demand, because it is so common for doctors to refuse women's personal choices about fertility.

And every time there's a big policy event that threatens family planning and reproductive rights, another bloc of women go for appointments to seek long-term and permanent contraception, because pregnancy is too much of a liability to leave up to chance, especially in anti-abortion states which have little to no maternity services either (all the OBGYNs closed shop and left).

[–] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

5."Buying and selling children — aka adoption."

I mean...Then what should we be doing? Just leave those kids to the streets/Foster homes? And I'm pretty sure other countries have adoption. I'm probably just uninformed, but I have no idea what the alternative should be.

(I understand if our current procedure needs refining, but I don't see why adoption is inherently bad)

Edit: I had no idea other countries didn't have to pay for adoption, I thought was was the norm and thought they were talking about process. Guess I'm the example of what the article was talking about.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 months ago (4 children)

not a lawyer or an expert but a quick Google seems to indicate in the US you have to pay to adopt a child, whereas I believe it's free / you get paid in European countries.

[–] wreel@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Adopting children from US Foster Care systems actually come with perks (guaranteed Medicaid) and a stipend of sorts. Adopting newborns can cost $50k. It's wild.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

I'm in Canada, but much of the cost of adoption is the same.

  • Legal fees to change the parentage (and sometimes the name) of anchild.
  • Counselling for the birth parents.
  • Travel costs for the birth parents.
  • Background checks for the adoptive parents (legal, medical, and financial).
  • Counselling/social work for the adoptive parents.
  • Payment to the adoption agency for facilitating the whole process.

The only significant difference I know of in the US is that some ahencies are for-profit, and medical costs aren't covered by unicersal healthcare, so have to be added on.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I'm not super familiar with adoption but I'm pretty sure there's no buying/selling going on. There are costs with adopting a child but those are costs for the process, not the child itself.

And the credit rating one I can certainly get behind but some of it sounds like BS. I've never paid interest on credit cards and my rating was good enough to get the best possible rate when I purchased my home. There was quite a significant time between the start of my credit history and the purchasing of my home. At least 15 years. My credit rating hasn't changed significantly in years though.

[–] Bongles@lemm.ee 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

And the credit rating one I can certainly get behind but some of it sounds like BS

It is. There's no change to your credit rating or report over whether or not you paid interest. It's not even a reported statistic. At best, you could argue that if they see the credit utilization is low and your payments are always on time that you probably don't pay a lot of interest, but that is a typical indication of good credit.

It's more likely that they had one credit card and not that long of a credit history with it.

[–] Speculater@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

One credit card. Low credit limit. No loans ever. All the lender sees is a responsible poor person.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›