Was coming here specifically to say credit scores. Oh what’s that you paid off your student loans? Here have a big credit hit as a treat. Oh you’re using your credit? Here have a credit hit even tho you’ve never missed a payment. How dare you use the credit you have??
Length of credit and credit utilization, you get points* for the length that each account has been open, so when you pay off your loan the account is closed and no longer counts. Also as you get to the end of the repayment it shows as a $30k account that you owe les than $10k on, you get points for using less than half or less than a third of the credit available to you.
*You don’t actually get points, that would be too easy to understand, you get factors that affect a complex equation in your favor.
Credit scores are in part based on the oldest line of available credit, which for most people are their student loans. Pay those off, your oldest line of credit becomes something more recent, and your score goes down as a result
Loans are different from lines of credit… loans don’t have an “available credit” associated with them. The reason your score might go down when you pay off student loan is because you’re reducing the number of open accounts you have, and also possibly reducing the diversity of accounts (lines of credit vs. installment loans).
Disclaimer: I’m not saying this is a good system, just explaining how it works.
It’s more the case that if you use more than 20% it is seen as negative. 0-10% is excellent, 10-20% is good, and it gets worse from there. Every year I request a credit increase despite my spending staying the same simply because it makes my utilization go down. But it’s dumb. I don’t need the extra credit. I’ll never use it. But have to have it to max my score.
Even better if you use Experian: give us access to all your spending data or else you’ll never see a score increase again (source: been dealing with this for three years while Equifax continues to go up. I feel like they’re doing something illegal, but they probably already were and nobody cares.)
I agree with everything but voting. Not because we ever have great options, but because sometimes there are terrifyingly bad ones, and while option A might not be at all good, option B is so much worse.
You don’t seem to know what “lesser of two evils” means.
It doesn’t mean “that guy’s bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!”
It means “no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube.”
I can’t do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can’t see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I’m to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I’m fucked no matter who I pick, so I’m sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.
I’m sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.
So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I’m a gullible moron instead.
no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube
this is some scary logic if you think about it. Imagine you are a person, who doesn’t want to get fucked. Two guys are about to fuck you, even though you don’t want it, and you get the option to choose which guys fucks you even though you don’t want to get fucked?
oh but the one guy is gonna use lube. To fuck you. The person who doesn’t want to be fucked.
If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s.
Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help?
I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don’t win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others.
But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that’s 9%.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
So I’m asking: how does it help. If it helps, I’ll try. But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me.
But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way.
I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot’s (or more relevant, Gary Johnson’s since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it’s hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation.
Which brings me back to my point. If:
My vote isn’t going to help further discourse, and …
Odds are good that even a popular 3rd party option isn’t going to be remembered all that well, and…
If nobody represents my ideas all that well anyway, then…
what’s my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn’t have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too.
And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change.
So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn’t specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn’t a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one.
That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that’s not on me.
So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I’ll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit.
But that’s what I was already doing.
Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition.
If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that’s respectable. Since we can’t do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It’s a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve.
The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn’t give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn’t follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative.
Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I’m not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process.
Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy?
I don’t think it’s at all unrelated.
Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed.
It is. That’s why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can’t support the party’s platform anymore, for instance). Also, it’s got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it’s just a vocal few, but it skeeves me.
Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I’m not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process
I’m not confident either, but the free market hasn’t done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we’ve had success with regulation.
Au contrarie; sports are a fantastic way to get socioeconomic issues (like labor rights) front and center on the minds of people who wouldn’t necessarily be thinking of them the same way. And they create opportunities for people to educate themselves in other areas as well. Not every sports fan is the willfully ignorant meathead you describe, nor do willfully ignorant meatheads exist because of sports.
MLB is not only a state sponsored monopoly, but like every other American sports league a blatant cartel which is constantly squabbling with its own employees over revenue shares (at the expense of the on-field product) and lying about how much money they actually make. Same thing as most other business owners, but people are a lot more willing to listen to the perspective of, say, Shoehi Ohtani than a random McDonald’s employee. I can tell you that I am personally much more clued in on these sorts of societal problems as a result of sportswriters discussing labor issues, on top of being far more statistically savvy and generally more sceptical of oversimplified narratives than I would be if I had never gained an interest in baseball. Nor would I have anywhere near my current understanding of global politics without global football (soccer) creating both a mechanism and incentive for learning about them.
But that’s not even the point: sports are not a “scam”. Sports exist first and foremost because for many people, watching elite athletes play a game is fun. That is the intrinsic value of professional sports, and nothing about that is inherently scammy. Full stop.
Sports is a very broad term. I am aware of MLBs antitrust exemption. However, that is a unique situation that does not apply across all sports. That’s why we have seperte leagues like the NFL and XFL. My kids playing little leugue are not affected by this at all.
As for the 90% of males comment, this is rediculous. It is very possible to both follow and discuss politics while also have other interests. It’s not an either or situation. There is nothing wrong with having distractions you enjoy.
I agree that pro sports are subject to massive corruption. But that doesn’t make them a scam.
I would say the concept of liberal representative democracy is a scam, because on one hand lobbying and media control will decouple votes and decisionmakers from the actual collective good decision, and on the other hand party politics and and corruption will skew the fairness and representation even further from what is good.
And it’s not like there aren’t better concepts out there, the problem is more that almost all groups in liberal democracy, so parties, companies, the government itself are at best partially democratic and at worst authoritarian in nature. Especially companies obviously aren’t usually democratic at all. So continued or deepening democratisation isn’t actually in these groups interest because they or their leaders would lose power.
Council democracy or other direct democracy approaches are goals to work towards, or in some places just more representative and less dishonest voting would be a start.
In essence liberals like calling things democracy that on the whole make very few honest attempts at pursuing democracy, while still calling themselves democracies. I find nowadays my personal definition doesn’t include these “democracies” and is more along the lines of “a continuous process that honestly tries to provide the most value for all people and pursues contious improvement toward that end.”
Big yes to the scam that is liberal democracy. One terrible use of libs calling things democracy when they aren’t is blanketly condemning everyone in some place bc someone got elected: Russia and every red state in the USA. These places are full of people who do not support the government and had no real chance of electing real representation nor would those elected officals really be useful.
It depends on the voting system. In the US there are two parties, that’s just one party away from being like China. Scam is thinking US is fully democratic when you can only vote for two parties or throw the vote away.
So you’re just trying to write the most incorrect statements in one reply? Since when did being born in the 80s mean boomer? You can go ahead and keep assuming, you seem to like being a dumbass.
In the UK university is still wayyyy cheaper than US, but local students pay ~$10,000 a year max due to regulation, but international students have no protection and typically pay ~$30,000
deleted by creator
Was coming here specifically to say credit scores. Oh what’s that you paid off your student loans? Here have a big credit hit as a treat. Oh you’re using your credit? Here have a credit hit even tho you’ve never missed a payment. How dare you use the credit you have??
Why would paying off your student loans give you a credit hit?
Edit: lol who is downvoting this I legitimately didn’t know the answer
Length of credit and credit utilization, you get points* for the length that each account has been open, so when you pay off your loan the account is closed and no longer counts. Also as you get to the end of the repayment it shows as a $30k account that you owe les than $10k on, you get points for using less than half or less than a third of the credit available to you.
*You don’t actually get points, that would be too easy to understand, you get factors that affect a complex equation in your favor.
Credit scores are in part based on the oldest line of available credit, which for most people are their student loans. Pay those off, your oldest line of credit becomes something more recent, and your score goes down as a result
It decreases your overall available credit
Loans are different from lines of credit… loans don’t have an “available credit” associated with them. The reason your score might go down when you pay off student loan is because you’re reducing the number of open accounts you have, and also possibly reducing the diversity of accounts (lines of credit vs. installment loans).
Disclaimer: I’m not saying this is a good system, just explaining how it works.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
It’s more the case that if you use more than 20% it is seen as negative. 0-10% is excellent, 10-20% is good, and it gets worse from there. Every year I request a credit increase despite my spending staying the same simply because it makes my utilization go down. But it’s dumb. I don’t need the extra credit. I’ll never use it. But have to have it to max my score.
Even better if you use Experian: give us access to all your spending data or else you’ll never see a score increase again (source: been dealing with this for three years while Equifax continues to go up. I feel like they’re doing something illegal, but they probably already were and nobody cares.)
I agree with everything but voting. Not because we ever have great options, but because sometimes there are terrifyingly bad ones, and while option A might not be at all good, option B is so much worse.
That’s why it’s called “the lesser of two evils.”
deleted by creator
You don’t seem to know what “lesser of two evils” means.
It doesn’t mean “that guy’s bad, so the less evil guy is good, actually, and totally deserves our support!”
It means “no matter which one of these assholes wins, I’m fucked, but if I’m lucky the one guy will use lube.”
I can’t do a damn thing about the two party system. That ship sailed before I was born, and nothing I do as an individual can change it. In fact, I can’t see a solution short of possibly violent revolution. If that happens before I’m to old and feeble to help, great. Other wise, I’m fucked no matter who I pick, so I’m sure as shit going to pick the one who just wants to fuck me and not fuck me plus kill my trans neighbor.
I’m sick and tired of being called stupid, gullible, or uninformed just because I can actually see how completely fucked we are. Your shit is great for people who still have hope. My shit is just trying to survive without the Gestapo coming for my neighbors.
So come get me for the revolution. In the meantime, stop calling me stupid for being depressed and practical.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to copy and paste this in reply to some other lemming that thinks I’m a gullible moron instead.
Removed by mod
this is some scary logic if you think about it. Imagine you are a person, who doesn’t want to get fucked. Two guys are about to fuck you, even though you don’t want it, and you get the option to choose which guys fucks you even though you don’t want to get fucked?
oh but the one guy is gonna use lube. To fuck you. The person who doesn’t want to be fucked.
that’s insane.
deleted by creator
Ugh. I’m not pro establishment. People who are pro establishment think it works. People who are pro establishment have hope
Where the fuck did you get that out of what I wrote? Do I sound hopeful? Or like I think the system in any way works?
Or is that just your canned response when someone disagrees with you and you can’t think of a decent comeback?
Is that what you kids call a “cope”? It sounds like a “cope”. My generation just calls it “What the fuck are you even talking about?”
If we want better options we can vote for third party candidates. I have no faith in the system, and a third party candidate will almost never win. But if enough people vote for them it gets them more recognition, which could eventually shift the narrative. Gary Johnson got over 3% of the vote in 2016, and Ross Perot got as high as 19% in the 90s.
Okay. But if the people you vote for can only muster 3% of the vote, how does that help?
I get it in local elections, up to and including State legislature, gubernatorial races, and maybe Congress if they can get a good campaign going. That all makes sense because even if they don’t win they get enough attention to attract local media and push discussion among others.
But Senators? The President? Ross Perot was an extreme outlier. The last time a 3rd party presidential candidate got more than 50 electoral votes was 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt ran as a Progressive. In the last century, the highest total electoral votes for a 3rd part went to George Wallace in 1968 running as an American Independent. He got 46 out of 538. Rounding up, that’s 9%.
Now, without looking him up, tell me one issue George Wallace ran on in 1968.
So I’m asking: how does it help. If it helps, I’ll try. But from where I’m sitting, it’s all hopeless. I don’t want to feel this way. So please, for the love of sanity, convince me.
I feel this way too. But if we as individuals recognize that the system is going to screw us no matter who is elected, then if we vote it might as well be out of principle. Have you ever shared a fact or opinion or taught someone something, and later noticed that it changed their behavior in some small way? Someone on the internet might see Perot’s (or more relevant, Gary Johnson’s since it happened only a few years ago) vote count on Wikipedia and it could lead them down a rabbit hole that ultimately gets them motivated to take initiative in the local community. So yeah, I feel you, at the federal level it’s hopeless. I think the real change will happen within families, friends, and local communities.
I’ll guess ending the Vietnam war…
Based on the year, that was a good guess. But nope. It was pro segregation.
Which brings me back to my point. If:
what’s my choice from a moral standpoint? You mentioned Gary Johnson. You couldn’t have paid me to vote for him. The Green Party is closer to my value set, but their idiot said anti-vaxxers might have a point (among other takes, not least of which was a seemingly complete misunderstanding of how economics work), so that would have been a no-go too.
And nobody was talking about ending the punative justice system, federal bans on cash bail, demilitarization of the police and radical law enforcement reform, legal protection for LGBTQIA+, ending first past the poll elections, massive education reform, or (outside of the Green party) anywhere near the investment we need in green tech and fighting global climate change.
So I voted for the one that a.) had a chance of winning, b.) wasn’t specifically speaking out against most of that stuff and was at least paying lip service to some, and c.) wasn’t a cretinous rapist; she was just married to one.
That was voting my conscience. The cretinous rapist won, but that’s not on me.
So when you say to vote on principal, okay. I’ll do that. I will do my best to vote for people I agree with or, at least, against people who spout shit that makes me want to vomit.
But that’s what I was already doing.
Edit: changed out a word for clarity and to reduce repetition.
If you feel like you vote consistent with your principles that’s respectable. Since we can’t do anything about the shitshow that is the federal government, other than voting I try not to stress out or think about it otherwise. It’s a waste of the energy that we can direct to our local communities, which we can do something to improve.
The libertarian party aligns closer to my values, but if the Green party candidate was the only other option I would pick them without hesitation. Regardless of what any politician says, they are self serving and will change their stance when it benefits them. If the green candidate sounded like an idiot with bad policies it wouldn’t give her less credibility from the other idiots who wouldn’t follow through on their policies anyway. So at least supporting third party candidates changes it from impossible for them to win to incredibly incredibly unlikely, but possible to influence others to open their mind to the idea of something other than the official media narrative.
Somewhat unrelated: what are your issues with libertarian policy? Their general sentiment is consistent with many of the issues you listed. Regarding the green party, I am strongly pro conservation and against rampant consumerism and corporate greed, but I’m not confident that the government will solve the problems without making things worse and wasting tons of money in the process.
I don’t think it’s at all unrelated.
It is. That’s why I used to be a (literally) card carrying member. But at the end of the day, the party has too many places where we differ (gun control, health care, and education are three places where I just can’t support the party’s platform anymore, for instance). Also, it’s got way too many creepy members calling for the abolishment of age of consent laws. I know it’s just a vocal few, but it skeeves me.
I’m not confident either, but the free market hasn’t done a great job, and other countries have had a great deal of success with regulation. Heck, we’ve had success with regulation.
How are sports a scam?
deleted by creator
Au contrarie; sports are a fantastic way to get socioeconomic issues (like labor rights) front and center on the minds of people who wouldn’t necessarily be thinking of them the same way. And they create opportunities for people to educate themselves in other areas as well. Not every sports fan is the willfully ignorant meathead you describe, nor do willfully ignorant meatheads exist because of sports.
MLB is not only a state sponsored monopoly, but like every other American sports league a blatant cartel which is constantly squabbling with its own employees over revenue shares (at the expense of the on-field product) and lying about how much money they actually make. Same thing as most other business owners, but people are a lot more willing to listen to the perspective of, say, Shoehi Ohtani than a random McDonald’s employee. I can tell you that I am personally much more clued in on these sorts of societal problems as a result of sportswriters discussing labor issues, on top of being far more statistically savvy and generally more sceptical of oversimplified narratives than I would be if I had never gained an interest in baseball. Nor would I have anywhere near my current understanding of global politics without global football (soccer) creating both a mechanism and incentive for learning about them.
But that’s not even the point: sports are not a “scam”. Sports exist first and foremost because for many people, watching elite athletes play a game is fun. That is the intrinsic value of professional sports, and nothing about that is inherently scammy. Full stop.
deleted by creator
Well said. You articulated what I was thinking much better than I did.
Sports is a very broad term. I am aware of MLBs antitrust exemption. However, that is a unique situation that does not apply across all sports. That’s why we have seperte leagues like the NFL and XFL. My kids playing little leugue are not affected by this at all.
As for the 90% of males comment, this is rediculous. It is very possible to both follow and discuss politics while also have other interests. It’s not an either or situation. There is nothing wrong with having distractions you enjoy.
I agree that pro sports are subject to massive corruption. But that doesn’t make them a scam.
deleted by creator
Gonna need you to cite some sources on that one.
Sports are a scam because it distracts people from discussing politics yet voting and democracy is a scam? Not a very compelling argument.
How is the concept of democracy a scam?
deleted by creator
I would say the concept of liberal representative democracy is a scam, because on one hand lobbying and media control will decouple votes and decisionmakers from the actual collective good decision, and on the other hand party politics and and corruption will skew the fairness and representation even further from what is good.
And it’s not like there aren’t better concepts out there, the problem is more that almost all groups in liberal democracy, so parties, companies, the government itself are at best partially democratic and at worst authoritarian in nature. Especially companies obviously aren’t usually democratic at all. So continued or deepening democratisation isn’t actually in these groups interest because they or their leaders would lose power.
Council democracy or other direct democracy approaches are goals to work towards, or in some places just more representative and less dishonest voting would be a start.
In essence liberals like calling things democracy that on the whole make very few honest attempts at pursuing democracy, while still calling themselves democracies. I find nowadays my personal definition doesn’t include these “democracies” and is more along the lines of “a continuous process that honestly tries to provide the most value for all people and pursues contious improvement toward that end.”
Big yes to the scam that is liberal democracy. One terrible use of libs calling things democracy when they aren’t is blanketly condemning everyone in some place bc someone got elected: Russia and every red state in the USA. These places are full of people who do not support the government and had no real chance of electing real representation nor would those elected officals really be useful.
It depends on the voting system. In the US there are two parties, that’s just one party away from being like China. Scam is thinking US is fully democratic when you can only vote for two parties or throw the vote away.
I see you know all the buzzwords. That just might even be a record!
deleted by creator
That’s a whole heap of bigotry you piled up right there.
deleted by creator
You don’t think ageism is a form of bigotry?
Well, you’re only X years old, so who gives a fuck what you think?
deleted by creator
So you’re just trying to write the most incorrect statements in one reply? Since when did being born in the 80s mean boomer? You can go ahead and keep assuming, you seem to like being a dumbass.
How do you get college without tuition, affordable housing, or not-for-profit healthcare without taxes?
The real scam is the widespread aversion to taxation.
deleted by creator
It is a sham. I agree with you, we shouldn’t be the world’s army. Israel, Ukraine. Way too much money and military weaponry given away.
deleted by creator
Go ahead and explain the contradiction.
At least community college is affordable though.
In the UK university is still wayyyy cheaper than US, but local students pay ~$10,000 a year max due to regulation, but international students have no protection and typically pay ~$30,000