Tell HN: Salary data is for sale

1690 pointsby bsilvereagle 1721 days ago762 comments

Equifax is selling salary data as part of an "employment verification solution": https://theworknumber.com/ You can view a copy of your report here: https://employees.theworknumber.com/ It will contain: * Previous annual salary * Previous paycheck amounts * Previous addresses * Who has accessed the report in the past 24 months From their website, this data may be able to be removed via CCPA: > Employee data is exempt from the CCPA until January 1, 2022. https://employees.theworknumber.com/california-consumer-priv...

Discussion

Loading discussion

WatchDog · 1721 days ago
Who is selling the salary data to equifax?
- jf · 1721 days ago
  My understanding is that employers provide this data in exchange for getting access to the database
  - fisherjeff · 1721 days ago
    I’m not sure that’s quite correct. My company doesn’t directly provide this information at all, for example: We use ADP to run payroll, and they’re the ones who have provided my data. This is (I think) more intended as a replacement for the current process a, say, mortgage underwriter uses to verify employment: (1) send email to a company-wide email account (info@company.com, in our case…) saying “please verify person X is employed as a Y making $Z as soon as possible” (2) hope email is received, (3) hope email is from the borrowers actual employer.
    - sofixa · 1721 days ago
      Can't they just ask for a pay stub or a letter from the employer? That's how they do it in France ( a signed and stamped "certificate" from the employer you've worked there since X, last 3 pay stubs and last two year's last ones(which have a recap for the whole year) and it seems to work fine.
- Cerium · 1721 days ago
  Companies "share" the data with Equifax in order to get some services, such as employee verification outsourced. https://theworknumber.com/partner-with-us
- fisherjeff · 1721 days ago
  At least ADP, it would appear
  - capital_guy · 1719 days ago
    Just curious how you figured that? If my employer uses ADP, how can I verify that ADP is the one giving this data to Equifax?
- a1371 · 1721 days ago
  QuickBooks
- chrisjc · 1720 days ago
  By the sounds of it, they're not selling it... they're paying for it. :O
Victerius · 1721 days ago
If this is correct, then it would be risky for someone to lie to a new employer about their former salary in order to receive an offer for a higher pay, because the new employer could use this service to cross check the employee's claims.
- nsxwolf · 1721 days ago
  How can anyone say it’s accurate?
  - BeefySwain · 1721 days ago
    Employers provide it. Obviously they could report incorrectly, but it's not like Equifax is just guessing.
    - nsxwolf · 1721 days ago
      Would you be willing to torpedo a good candidate making a reasonable request for compensation based on a discrepancy on this site?
      - avs733 · 1721 days ago
        And if you were, I suspect you are doing the candidate a favor.
        inter_netuser · 1721 days ago
        a favor? how so
      - BeefySwain · 1721 days ago
        Would I personally? No. But then I would not ask the requisite question of "what was your prior salary" in the first place. Fact of the matter is that this tool makes it trivial for medium and large employers to suppress wages.
    - redanddead · 1721 days ago
      You could start your own co. and raise your salary to the sky, this can be gamed. But then, why would you even be an employee. However, for the average worker, this is awful
      - nkozyra · 1721 days ago
        Wouldn't you still need to be a paying Equifax customer to supply that?
        redanddead · 1721 days ago
        Say you were to increase your salary to 500k/y, you work in a lucrative industry for example, I think Equifax charges less than 5k upfront for whatever suite of services they're offering, and if I understood correctly, to gain entry into the service, you simply have to add data into the database. There's a way to break Equifax, but they're expecting people not to have the balls/time to do it, and I think they're right. You can't expect your average mom of two that works at Walmart to figure this stuff out, it's a tilted playing field.
  - btmiller · 1721 days ago
    Silver lining is that I don't see any RSU compensation listed in my report! That's the biggest chunk of my earnings anyway, so that should be fair game during negotiations.
- moneywoes · 1721 days ago
  Wouldn't this just lead to lower offers all around?
  - redanddead · 1721 days ago
    This makes sense from an employer's POV. It's a B2B co., this is how they appeal to their clients.
  - vanusa · 1721 days ago
    That's precisely the value proposition for employers.
- errantmind · 1721 days ago
  Why are you telling prospective employers your former salary? Just because someone asks, you don't have to answer. You aren't some desperate person begging for work, you are helping them achieve their goals in exchange for payment. It is a trade.
  - throwawayboise · 1721 days ago
    I guess the answer now is "I'm sure you have that information already"
- psyc · 1721 days ago
  I'm finding out just in the past two years that the days when you could count on Corp. Entity A in Tallahassee not knowing about a prior transaction with Corp. Entity B in Portland, are pretty much over. Everybody knows everything. Even knowing this, seeing the amount of per-pay-period to-the-penny detail, going back to 1998, that's in this Equifax report, was a little surreal.
- onion2k · 1721 days ago
  You don't need to lie. There's nothing wrong with saying "My current salary is $xxxxx, but I feel that my employer undervalues my skills so I want $yyyyyy. It's why I'm leaving my current role." There is no reason why your future salary has to be based on your current salary. If the employer you're negotiating with disagrees then walking away is the best option because they undervalue your skills too.
  - kmonsen · 1721 days ago
    Then they will just offer something in the middle and try to talk you into it. That being said, at least for the big companies the initial salary is not that important. In some ways you are just setting yourself up for disappointment since if you start at the top of the band there will be no significant raises without a promotion. For RSUs it has a pretty significant effect for 4 years though.
    - onion2k · 1721 days ago
      Then they will just offer something in the middle and try to talk you into it. You can always say no. In some ways you are just setting yourself up for disappointment since if you start at the top of the band there will be no significant raises without a promotion. It sounds like you're saying starting at 80% of the band so you can enjoy a 25% raise to get to the top is better than just starting at the top. That doesn't make sense though.
      - kmonsen · 1721 days ago
        Sure, of course it is in some was better to start at 100%. The problem is that we all still expect to get a raise, and that cannot happen at a big company if it would take you out of band. I don't think there are many exceptions to this. If they really like you they might throw some RSUs at you, but very likely will not go over the salary for that band. So unless you think you can get promoted right away (which requires significant luck as well), I think for long term happiness it is actually better to get salary on 80% and negotiate more on the initial RSU grant.
  - Dave_Rosenthal · 1721 days ago
    In practice future salaries are heavily based on current ones because that is what the new employer is de facto negotiating against. Very few people, in my experience, are willing to entertain a new job with a salary much lower than their last one. And very few employers are willing to 'leave money on the table' and offer more than they think they need to close the candidate simply because the candidate thinks they have 'mad skillz'. If you want to actually get paid more, get two competing offers. Or you can try the strategy of not lying and just telling the new employer, 'I'm not going to tell you my previous salary.' The downside is that this clearly signals to the employer that you weren't making very much before and you are fishing for a big raise. This kind of goes against conventional wisdom, but I actually don't think that switching jobs is the strongest time to ask for more money. I think it's after you have gotten into a role, are killing it, and adding crazy value to the company. That's when you actually have a lot of leverage to say 'hey, I love what I'm doing here and I should be paid a lot more'.
    - doix · 1721 days ago
      > This kind of goes against conventional wisdom, but I actually don't think that switching jobs is the strongest time to ask for more money. I think it's after you have gotten into a role, are killing it, and adding crazy value to the company. That's when you actually have a lot of leverage to say 'hey, I love what I'm doing here and I should be paid a lot more'. Out of curiosity, has that worked for you? My previous employer only gave me a significant raise after I threatened to quit (with an offer waiting at another company). I ended up doing it a few times. Eventually I got tired of constantly interviewing and threatening to quit and did a sideways move to a YC backed company. Total comp is about the same, maybe slightly lower, but maybe the stocks will pay out some day :D. Being fully remote is a nice perk though.
      - Dave_Rosenthal · 1720 days ago
        Yes, it's both worked for me and I've also managed many, many people in orgs who have proven very valuable to the company and had their comp doubled or more. Most people are not bold enough in negotiation for their own good once they are entrenched at a company. You need to create a relationship with the person who can make such a thing happen. If it's not your direct boss, then find the person up the food chain who can make such a thing happen.
    - oblio · 1721 days ago
      The last part doesn't work in almost any company where you're not directly working with the owner. Middle managers can't approve any raise higher than say, 5%, and even that's after a full review cycle. It's a lot more likely to put a bullseye on your head as "money driven" or something considered negative (yes, the irony is jarring!).
      - onion2k · 1721 days ago
        Middle managers can't approve any raise higher than say, 5%, and even that's after a full review cycle. They can ask their boss to approve it though, and if necessary it could go all the way to the top.
        oblio · 1720 days ago
        Most people wouldn't stick their neck out unless it's really necessary and directly beneficial, especially since there are systems in place to prevent/block/slow down this kind of thing. Especially if you're a newcomer. The positive case is the (very rare) exception.
      - Dave_Rosenthal · 1720 days ago
        If they tell you this there is a 99% chance is it BS. As someone elsewhere in the thread points out, it's just a manager not wanting to have an unpleasant conversation and saying 'hey, it's out of my hands' with the assumption that the junior employe won't know any better. If you are truly in a company that far gone with process then all is lost (and top talent will just leave anyways.) Or you are a lawyer :)
        oblio · 1720 days ago
        I'm not a junior and I don't know anyone who got a raise higher than 5% or so without a resignation letter in their hand. In my experience this can only happen at small companies. The bigger the company the more they'll wish you good luck in future endeavors if you insist.
    - onion2k · 1721 days ago
      The downside is that this clearly signals to the employer that you weren't making very much before and you are fishing for a big raise. Calling it "fishing for a big raise" sounds like you're trying to scam a higher salary out of an employer. That just isn't true. There's no reason to think you're worth less just because your previous employer sucked. Salary negotiation is about finding an amount that the employer and employee agree a job is worth. Any previous salary has no impact on that.
      - Dave_Rosenthal · 1720 days ago
        Yes, it's a negotiation and the negotiation is bounded on one side by 'what the job/employee is worth to the employer' and the other side by 'what the employee is willing to accept.' My point is that your previous salary strongly dictates the latter and thus heavily affects the negotiation. And if you don't like the 'fishing for a raise' terminology we can instead just say that it signals that you don't think your previous salary is a strong point in your negotiation. So now the prospective employer doesn't know your salary, but suspects that the negotiation window is quite wide.
BeefySwain · 1721 days ago
I checked earlier today and yep, my employer is selling my data and future earnings potential to the company that is infamous for poor data security. A confounding factor is that as a hiring manager, and at least for all the hiring decisions I have been involved in, I know we did not use this to check candidates. So what's the upside? EDIT: ADP Workforcenow appears to do this automatically. I'm curious to find out if anyone in our company even knows it is happening. I will find out soon enough, as this is definitely a hill to die on.
- Cerium · 1721 days ago
  Ask HR how you should verify your employment and salary for a mortgage application. I know my company intentionally shares since they ask you to use the work number to send a verification to the lender.
  - BeefySwain · 1721 days ago
    Great idea!
  - cortesoft · 1721 days ago
    Yeah, I used the work number thing to verify my salary for my mortgage.
    - hypothesis · 1721 days ago
      As in you had to interact directly with work number for that? Or do you mean that lender “magically” knew and pre-populated your salary info during application process?
      - newtwilly · 1720 days ago
        Not the parent, but my lender magically knew with just my name, position, company, and SSN. FWIW
      - cortesoft · 1720 days ago
        No, I contacted my work to get my ‘work number’, and then gave that to my mortgage lender.
  - dboreham · 1721 days ago
    The whole "verify your salary with employer" process is BS. Lenders can verify income by requesting your tax returns, and N recent pay stubs (source: I own my employer and have verified income this way, since obviously they are not going to call myself up and ask me to verify my own income). This is only about reducing their verification costs. If there needs to be a giant database of everyone's income, the government should run it, and they already have the data.
    - MichaelBurge · 1721 days ago
      If you verify with tax returns, it would be easy to borrow money from a friend and count it as income every year just for loan qualification. And then borrow more money from a bank, wait 6 months for seasoning, and use it as down payment to buy real estate. And if the loan gets sold to the government, it needs to meet government underwriting criteria and the lender has no free will. Especially for residential mortgages: No private business cares about 3% interest on a loan, they sell those to the government and make money on the origination fees. If you get a hard money loan, they'll only ask for tax stubs but you'll also pay 10-12% interest. If the buy is really good sometimes they don't even care about taxes or ability to repay - they get your equity if you default so who cares if you make a dumb decision? It's mainly the government loans where they really try to avoid defaults.
      - nixgeek · 1721 days ago
        10-12% is higher than my credit card APR is that really what hard money loans are going for now?!
        lupire · 1720 days ago
        The US average is a above 16%.
      - Thorrez · 1721 days ago
        >If you verify with tax returns, it would be easy to borrow money from a friend and count it as income every year just for loan qualification. Huh? Isn't it fraud to declare something as income that's not actually income? Also, if you declare something as income, don't you have to pay tax on it? So this scheme will mean you have to pay a bunch of taxes you wouldn't have to otherwise. This sounds like the opposite type of fraud people do. People usually under-report income, not over-report it. "Yes IRS, I made $1T last year." "Ok cool, send us $400B in taxes please."
        MichaelBurge · 1721 days ago
        > Isn't it fraud to declare something as income that's not actually income? Mortgage fraud is a thing that exists, so it's not like labeling it as a crime lets you forget about it. > don't you have to pay tax on it? If you're borrowing at 30x leverage like some government loans give, taxes on the down payment is a small increase in cost-of-leverage which is more than made up for by the reduced interest rates. Anyways, my point is, there's good reason to look at the same income viewed in multiple ways. Adding an employer into the mix is at least a separate person(which is probably why they waived the requirement in OP's case), while tax returns are filed by the potential fraudster/"entrepreneur".
      - qbasic_forever · 1721 days ago
        If you're "borrowing" money from a friend to bump up your income, you're likely going to bump yourself up into a higher tax bracket and end up paying more money in taxes.
        thedougd · 1720 days ago
        On the money you borrowed. Moving into a higher tax bracket does not mean you pay the higher rate on all earning, but rather only marginal earnings in the higher bracket. Regardless, it doesn't make sense to pay taxes on borrowed money. I'm not sure this scheme is real.
      - ouEight12 · 1721 days ago
        > If you verify with tax returns, it would be easy to borrow money from a friend and count it as income every year just for loan qualification. 1) Where do I make friends with people who have such large piles of cash laying around they're willing to front me stacks large enough so I can lie and claim it as income on my taxes to inflate the size of the loan I can get? Multiple years in a row? 2) Once I claim it as income, I owe about a third of it to the federal and state governments in the form of.. income tax. Is my friend okay with only getting about 70% of each loan back after each tax season? I mean, if my rich friend loans me $100K each year, after three years (the number of tax returns I had to show for my last mortgage), He'll have lost about $90K on the deal... wouldn't have just been easier for him to gift me the $90K the first year and I could put it towards my house and then not needed such a large loan in the first place? It'd have saved us all three years of hassle.
        MichaelBurge · 1721 days ago
        I don't want to derail the thread into discussing exact mechanics. I just think if most people underwrote loans according to their intuition, they'd lose a lot of money. And a tax return is controlled by the same person applying for the mortgage, so is less valuable than the same information split among two people.
        astura · 1720 days ago
        "Friends" might be a misnomer, these are usually fraud rings/criminal organizations.
- tomrod · 1721 days ago
  I worked in a two person company last year where I ran payroll with ADP. It's there for me too, and I don't recall opt in permission on this.
  - dboreham · 1721 days ago
    Three-person company here. We do our own payroll, using Quickbooks (not their payroll processing service, just Quickbooks the desktop application). We have employees in two states.
    - throwoutway · 1721 days ago
      But is your salary data on this equifax site?
    - getcrunk · 1721 days ago
      Is your info listed?
  - dlubarov · 1721 days ago
    Just to add another data point, our startup uses Gusto and my salary isn't in the data. My old salary from Google (which I think used ADP) is though.
  - arwhatever · 1720 days ago
    "Do you agree to allow your data to be shared with 3rd parties as necessary to provide you with the best service possible?" [races off to something much worse than you imagined with your data]
- lumost · 1721 days ago
  you know, I spoke with a company not too long ago and they gave me an offer that was 30% lower than what I currently make. The gap was entirely due to not accounting for public company RSU grants (that I had already mentioned) In hindsight I wouldn't be surprised if their department used this tool to check my current cash income and automatically generated an offer. I wouldn't trust this data for much, and I can almost guarantee that someone in HR/Finance thinks their clever for using it.
  - BeefySwain · 1721 days ago
    The report tells you in the last 24 months who has looked at this info, so you could check that.
    - notimetorelax · 1721 days ago
      OMG, those companies… They should monetize tracking the tracker. And then they can monetize that.
    - bloomburger · 1720 days ago
      what report? where?
- Traster · 1720 days ago
  I've seen how this works before, and what happens is all the companies submit their data to equifax, equifax then goes and creates a set of "profiles" for example "Junior software engineer", take all the data for employees with software engineer related titles and less than 3 years of experience, remove outliers and sell the result to employers as "salary band information". The result is that your employer gets a number saying "Junior software engineers in X location earn from 80,000 to 110,000" and that's used by your HR team to ensure that you don't drive up salaries by over offering. The role of equifax in this is to act as a level of protection, because the actual resultant behaviour is all the software companies working as a cartel to limit employee wages.
  - m_ke · 1720 days ago
    Pave ( https://www.pave.com/ ) is another startup doing this
  - mumblemumble · 1720 days ago
    We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. . . We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
- anyfactor · 1720 days ago
  Equifax is the Dow Jones Chemical of the data world. They have a tendency to mess up catastrophically yet they keep surviving by some miracle!
- ecf · 1720 days ago
  We had some schmuck HR consultant come in to a startup I was previously working for and their primary job duty was implementing ADP. Glad to know they chose a product that involuntarily sold out my HR information.
vadym909 · 1721 days ago
what is the work number? is this deliberately a confusingly made up name of company and what they do?
- toomuchtodo · 1721 days ago
  Employers use it to offload employment verification to Equifax (who owns this product and offers automated employment verification based on the data). They also get aggregated salary data in return for providing personal employee compensation information.
- cortesoft · 1721 days ago
  I used it to verify my salary with my mortgage broker to get my loan.
- xeromal · 1721 days ago
  My first company out of college used it for when you needed employment verification for buying a house. Your bank could call the number and get all the info they needed.
  - yupper32 · 1721 days ago
    Why wouldn't you just... call the company?
    - xeromal · 1721 days ago
      I assume because they wanted to outsource it and relieve HR. I'm not entirely sure but I'm sure offloading any compliance with that data is a benefit too.
- crate_barre · 1721 days ago
  It’s one of the most widely used background checking services. At least three of the companies I worked for will simply tell anyone doing the background check their worknumber ID so the background check service can just check on the site. I like the system because it’s a simple way to get your dates of employment reliably without anyone having to literally call up a HR person at a previous company. But, what the fuck are they doing making this data available beyond that? This has to be illegal.
pianoben · 1721 days ago
"To log in, enter your SSN, date of birth, home address, and" <closes tab> No way, no how.
- taveras · 1721 days ago
  Regardless on if you enter it in this web form, Equifax has already lost your SSN in a data breach.
- throwawaygh · 1721 days ago
  They already have that info. In fact, they already hired a music major CISO who leaked all that data in a stunning display of executive incompetence.
  - tomrod · 1721 days ago
    When?
    - johnnyo · 1721 days ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Equifax_data_breach
      - fourtrees · 1721 days ago
        She and her co-workers did fuck up badly and were unlucky enough to be under attack from one of the most powerful countries in the world. But to attribute that failure to her having received masters in composing fourteen years before, years she spent as a successful (as far as we know) Security Officer and VP at other financials seems a bit much like scapegoating.
    - ratsmack · 1721 days ago
      It's amazing, but they did: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/equifax-ceo-hired-a-music-...
      - detaro · 1721 days ago
        That alone really doesn't mean much. Security has even more than other areas of IT many people with "odd" backgrounds.
        throwawaygh · 1721 days ago
        Yes, Equifax's ciso was clearly super competent.
        detaro · 1721 days ago
        I in no way suggested that, please don't pretend I did. We have plenty reason to assume she wasn't.
        throwawaygh · 1721 days ago
        Then I'm not sure what the point of your post was. Software security is a mess in large part because of the phenomenon you describe.
        detaro · 1721 days ago
        > Then I'm not sure what the point of your post was. That "but she has a music degree!" is the least relevant part of evaluating if someone is qualified for such a CISO role or not. Someone with the "wrong" degree but talent and relevant experience would easily beat someone with a fancy "Masters of Information Security" degree that then muddled around in less relevant areas. Focusing on people's degrees is almost always the wrong measure in IT.
        throwawaygh · 1721 days ago
        > Someone with the "wrong" degree but talent and relevant experience would easily beat someone with a fancy "Masters of Information Security" degree that then muddled around in less relevant areas. Sure, totally agreed. > Focusing on people's degrees is almost always the wrong measure in IT. Maybe 20 years ago. (I was there.) Today, asking for exceptional technical depth and a proven track-record of leadership is not a big ask.
        detaro · 1721 days ago
        And the linked article and the common references to it highlight almost exclusively "wrong degree/education" instead of "no relevant experience/track-record" (if that's the case, no clue what her experience looked like on paper. but the article also brushes it away with a sentence just to focus back on education). That's my problem with it.
        NotSammyHagar · 1721 days ago
        I'm guessing you are from non-traditional background and work in it somehow. Having a track record is pretty basic when evaluating people for high level positions who have non-traditional backgrounds. Why is this upsetting to you?
        detaro · 1720 days ago
        > I'm guessing you are from non-traditional background and work in it somehow You're guessing wrong. > Having a track record is pretty basic when evaluating people for high level positions who have non-traditional backgrounds. Not sure why you're saying that in a thread where everybody agrees that track record is important? > Why is this upsetting to you? It's not upsetting, I just think, as I've explained multiple times, that putting a spotlight on the degree alone, as the linked article does, is a bad argument, given that track record and experience matter much more than what degree someone got years ago. It's a cheap gotcha.
        throwawaygh · 1720 days ago
        >> Why is this upsetting to you? > It's not upsetting You know what's truly upsetting? Pervasive gross incompetence in the C suites of American companies. > I just think, as I've explained multiple times, that putting a spotlight on the degree alone, as the linked article does, is a bad argument Why? It would be a fucking scandal in literally any other field. "Chief Medical Officer didn't have any medical training". "Chief Accounting Officer doesn't have any accounting training and isn't a CPA." Do you not respect IT as a profession? Or do you think anyone who has read some WebMD, shadowed a bit, and muddled through a few years of physical exams at a family practice should qualify for a CMO position? > ...given that track record and experience matter much more than what degree someone got years ago. It's a cheap gotcha. No, it isn't. Insisting on a formal demonstration of knowledge -- in addition to experience -- is not unreasonable. The IT status quo doesn't exist in any other profession. Engineers must attend ABET-accredited programs and then become or work under PEs. Certification and required education is pervasive in medicine. Lawyers attend law school pass the bar. CPAs and actuaries take difficult exams. Fact: IT security is a complete cluster fuck. Incompetence is everywhere . For every competent self-taught person there are dozens of dunning-kruger idiots. The status quo does not work. At all. There are many jobs in software shouldn't require formal certification of technical knowledge. Just like there are many jobs in medicine, law, accounting, and finance that do not require formal certifications. CISO of a credit bureau isn't one of those jobs.
        dodobirdlord · 1721 days ago
        Yea, but it's Equifax, so they don't get the benefit of the doubt.
  - throwawayboise · 1721 days ago
    None of that information should be considered private any longer, if it ever really was.
    - throwawaygh · 1721 days ago
      Well, Equifax still considers it sufficient to claim your identity...
- NegativeLatency · 1721 days ago
  Might as well do it so you can freeze it, they already have the info
- teraflop · 1721 days ago
  I dutifully entered everything they asked for, because, you know, they're Equifax and they undoubtedly have it already. Then they said I needed a "verification code" and gave me the option of half a dozen phone numbers and email addresses to choose from... none of which remotely resembled anything I've ever had (the email addresses all contained my surname and appeared to be randomly generated). When I clicked the "none of these work for me" link at the bottom, I was presented with: "Sorry, We are unable to log you in. Your account is temporarily disabled. Accounts may be disabled when you attempt to log in with incorrect information or fail to complete a security challenge."
  - myself248 · 1721 days ago
    Same here. Great. I wonder what other lies they believe about me. On the one hand, I'm probably glad the data is shit? But on the other hand, folks consuming the data might not understand that.
    - gfody · 1721 days ago
      we ought to be able to "correct" our own data and mislead anything seeking an advantage
    - andreyf · 1719 days ago
      Was the email they offered to send the code to f**k@corpdomain.com? I tried this with my current and former employer and got seemingly the same email username "f**k", and seemingly random phone numbers. Another long-time employer had no email at all. Definitely seems they're just making things up.
  - theanti9 · 1721 days ago
    This happened to me as well. bunch of random @yahoo addresses (I don't have one of those) and rando phone numbers, none of which were mine. Welp.... who knows wtf they have in there then, I guess.
    - divbzero · 1721 days ago
      Could this indicate past attempts by fraudsters to adopt your identity?
      - andreyf · 1718 days ago
        More likely to be a fake match so that people can't check whether records are in their database.
  - llama052 · 1721 days ago
    Same problem here, really shows how good their security and data gathering is.
  - Banditoz · 1721 days ago
    For me, the domain at the end of the email it wanted to send a verification code to seemed to belong to my company.
  - pugworthy · 1721 days ago
    Also me with this issue.
  - AareyBaba · 1721 days ago
    You entered data in a pop-up frame - how are you confident it is Equifax that you were providing your SS and birthday ?
redanddead · 1721 days ago
This can be manipulated for profit
maximente · 1721 days ago
their CDN is omicroncdn.net - cannot make this stuff up
vadym909 · 1721 days ago
if this is really that - this is clearly evidence of collusion amongst employers with indirect pressure on them to keep salalries at a certain level
- redanddead · 1721 days ago
  It's a b2b co., this is how they appeal to their clients. This is their product.
  - stainforth · 1721 days ago
    Not all commerce should exist
    - redanddead · 1715 days ago
      I agree
- heavyset_go · 1721 days ago
  Exactly this. There's a reason using past salary history in employment is illegal in California.
  - bkav · 1721 days ago
    Though you should know that doesn’t stop interviewers from asking.
    - heavyset_go · 1721 days ago
      Oh, I'm aware. I've had interviewers ask me questions that would make a lawyer wince if they overheard. It being a law should provide some incentives to not do illegal things, even if they are rarely enforced.
BeefySwain · 1721 days ago
NOTE: It is possible to freeze access to your employment data here: https://employees.theworknumber.com/employee-data-freeze That being said, it doesn't stop employers from continuing to hand Equifax your data on a gold platter, and therefore does nothing to protect you from the inevitable data breach that will result in Equifax being required to give everyone affected $0.36 or one year of free credit monitoring.
- givemeethekeys · 1721 days ago
  But, I didn't opt in for them to have this information about me to begin with.
  - vulcan01 · 1721 days ago
    You don't need to. Your employer can give this info to whoever they want, and many give this data to Equifax or one of the other credit agencies. Also, you might give your bank employment details, and your bank will most likely send that info to a credit agency as well. There's not much of an escape.
    - registeredcorn · 1721 days ago
      What exactly do employers and banks stand to gain from sharing this information? Is it an exchange of information for money?
      - ralph84 · 1721 days ago
        For employers it offloads employment and salary verification. Instead of having to pay someone to answer verification calls all day they just upload the data to The Work Number and let them handle it.
        divbzero · 1721 days ago
        Are employers obligated to provide employment and salary verification?
        ralph84 · 1721 days ago
        If they didn't their employees would be pretty pissed when they're unable to get a mortgage.
        yjftsjthsd-h · 1721 days ago
        So go to HR and say "please sign this form that says I make $X" rather than preemptively broadcasting it?
        function_seven · 1721 days ago
        Here's how I imagine this goes down: ADP Rep: "Hey, we have an exciting new feature to offer you! We partner with the worlds premiere credit and employment reporting agency to eliminate the hassle of salary and employment verification." VP, HR: "Go on..." ADP: "If you opt in to this innovative program, you'll never again have to respond to your employees' lenders or landlords. 97% of banks participate in this program. Instead of them asking their applicant—your employee—for paperwork that you have to deal with, they come direct to the source automatically. Again, this is at no additional cost. It's included with our Premium Payroll Plus offering. Interested?" HR: "Yeah, of course. One less thing I have to deal with" ADP: "And the best part is you'll then qualify for a substantial discount on our partner's Employment Data System. Rest easy with unlimited verification reports for all your prospective new hires" HR: "Anyone ever turn this down?" ADP: "Almost never."
        CalRobert · 1721 days ago
        This is exactly what happened when I applied for a mortgage here in Ireland. Seemed fine.
      - qbasic_forever · 1721 days ago
        Banks and organizations that are considering lending you credit (i.e. buying a house / car / getting a credit card) can know if you're getting in over your head with finances and might be higher risk to repay. They can set their interest rates and fees appropriately. Although all that said for any major loan the bank is going to ask you to provide detailed proof of all income, assets, etc. They likely use this service as a check to make sure you aren't trying to overstate your income.
      - giddyOnDown1 · 1721 days ago
        From what I recall at my time there, banks use it as supplemental source of creditworthiness validation. The government also pays for the data to verify eligibility for welfare and other social services. Employers...I don't think were a major revenue source although I wouldn't be surprised if some used it to inform their salary thresholds.
    - rhacker · 1721 days ago
      Opt out of the system as soon as you possibly can. No mortgage, no bank, no address, no traditional job.
      - sofixa · 1721 days ago
        Or, combine with other people to fight the ridiculous system? Even if you manage to pull off a life like this, you're limiting yourself significantly and leaving many people behind.
      - jokethrowaway · 1721 days ago
        No mortgage and no job are achievable. You kind of need a bank, if you go around with cash the police or other criminals can just seize it. You also may want an address to live somewhere, I'd rather live in a house than in a car.
        dheera · 1720 days ago
        Have a mailing address that is in the same city but not your residential address.
    - nocardium · 1721 days ago
      If I bundle my personal information together into an nft and then buy that nft, could I issue the credit agency with a DMCA takedown notice?
      - MathCodeLove · 1721 days ago
        Try it and let us know!
      - kevincox · 1720 days ago
        IANAL The NFT would be completely irrelevant here. Basically I assume you are claiming copyright over your salary and personal information. Unfortunately you can't trademark facts, so this approach isn't viable.
      - voltagedivider · 1720 days ago
        Aren't NFTs essentially just file hashes/signatures that can be associated with a public/private key pair on a blockchain? If so, the link between the NFT and the key pair might be solid (as in cryptographically secure) but the link between the NFT and its "underlying asset" (which might be copyrightable) seems flimsy. That being said, since both NFT ownership and our legal systems rely on consensus and majority opinion, it's not hard to imagine a corrupt society in which the opinion of judges is disregarded in favor of blockchain consensus. Edit: you might be joking but it's an interesting question nonetheless because it highlights how various systems compete for legitimacy :)
  - geoduck14 · 1721 days ago
    >But, I didn't opt in for them to have this information about me to begin with. Everyone is up in arms about Facebook and Google collecting our information... meanwhile credit bureaus are sitting in the shadows giggling to themselves
    - caconym_ · 1721 days ago
      The obsession with "big tech" as the biggest abuser of consumer privacy frustrates the hell out of me, and must be a real delight to credit bureaus, cell carriers, data brokers, fintech parasites, and all the rest of the slimy fuckers who do far worse things every day and aren't even on the public's radar.
      - randmeerkat · 1721 days ago
        Reporting an employee’s salary vs Zuckerberg selling your political motivations to manipulate elections are two different ballparks. It’s not that people aren’t frustrated with other abusers of customer privacy, it’s just big tech is the best at it.
        caconym_ · 1721 days ago
        The Big Techs that run on ad revenue typically keep user data to themselves, and offer advertisers a platform for targeting ads without knowledge of individual users. There have been some scandals (CA is the one I always think of, and there are more) but typically selling de-anonymized user data is not the business model of these companies. That doesn't stop people from saying it is, but AFAIK they are largely incorrect. Contrast that with e.g. the somewhat recent revelations that cell carriers have been selling individuals' granular, de-anonymized location history data to, essentially, anybody willing to pay. From a privacy standpoint, which I think is the context here, I consider the latter sort of thing to be far worse.
        fallingknife · 1721 days ago
        They are 2 very different ballparks in that I would much rather let FB sell my info which I provide willingly than a credit bureau sell my salary history, which I don't.
        cm2012 · 1720 days ago
        Also Facebook doesn't sell anyone's info!
        cm2012 · 1720 days ago
        Facebook doesn't sell your info. You cannot buy people political affiliations on fb.
      - jokethrowaway · 1721 days ago
        You forgot the worst of them all, the government!
    - sio8ohPi · 1721 days ago
      Well yeah -- did you think it was somehow about consumer rights? Democrats and Republicans alike want to use the threat of regulation and anti-trust action to force social media companies to adopt moderation policies favorable to them. They both recognize (IMO correctly) that they must make these threats; principled adherence to economic liberty leaves one without leverage and is likely to result in companies simply caving to one's opposition (c.f. the behavior of most companies with respect to China). Credit bureaus don't influence elections, ergo there is little advantage to be gained by making threats against them.
      - x86_64Ubuntu · 1721 days ago
        I don't think it's a both sides issue. Regulating social media companies for a politically favorable environment is largely a Republican adventure. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/01/texas-social-media-l... https://www.flgov.com/2021/05/24/governor-ron-desantis-signs...
  - the_arun · 1721 days ago
    So a new company you are joining can easily verify your current salary with your ssn & dob. Right? They have your history of employers from your resume already.
    - astura · 1721 days ago
      That's not legal under the FCRA unless you've given them written permission. Though some companies will do a background check on all new hires (again, with your permission) which would include employment verification.
      - joezydeco · 1720 days ago
        And that's a critical point to remember. Get the job offer and negotiate salary before agreeing to a background check. Let them make the offer be contingent on the results of those checks (and drug screen or security check or whatever else they want). But before turning in notice on your current job, wait until all checks are completed and make them reissue the offer letter with all contingencies removed. Otherwise you're still at risk of them pulling the offer while you're busy packing up your desk.
  - maratbn · 1720 days ago
    theworknumber.com is yet another symptom of a much larger problem in that it is currently impractical for a regular person to enforce their rights via the court system. According to Peter Thiel “If you’re a single-digit millionaire like Hulk Hogan, you have no effective access to our legal system...” https://theintercept.com/2016/10/31/trump-fan-peter-thiel-sa... So never-mind the non-millionaires. However it is really nice to see efforts by some regular people out there setting up services such as https://yourdigitalrights.org which is the service I just used to request my information from Equifax. It will be interesting to see what comes of it. I suppose if they do not respond in 45 days I'll file a complaint with the CA Attorney General to put yet another ping regarding Equifax on their radar. https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer-complaint-against-busine... This shows that ultimately it is the regular people who drive progress, while the powerful and the wealthy just take credit for it. Ultimately United States will transition to European-style privacy laws when it comes to private information like income and these credit agencies will be abolished, but the way to get there is for the regular non-millionaire people to exercise whatever "rights" they kinda have to ultimately get these annoyances shut down.
- varenc · 1721 days ago
  Wow placing a freeze requires filling out a PDF form, attaching a scan of your ID, and then sending it in over email, mail, or fax. The PDF lacks built in form fields you can type in. The extra friction is probably a feature: https://assets.equifax.com/wfs/theworknumber/assets/twn_Empl... (the exif data on that PDF shows the name of the employee that created it and that they used Word 2010...) The Equifax CCPA request process on the other hand is very smooth and automated. Though doesn't seem like it's including Work Number information: https://myprivacy.equifax.com/
  - staunch · 1721 days ago
    When I submit the myprivacy.equifax.com validation it hangs at "Processing..." indefinitely. #AbolishCreditAgencies
    - varenc · 1721 days ago
      Check if an ad blocker might be interfering? I finished my CCPA request in ~2 minutes and it only required that I do SMS verification. Presumably because the name, phone, address, and email all matched records they had on file for me...
      - koolba · 1721 days ago
        There’s a special caliber of crappy site that only functions when ad-blocking is enabled. My working theory is that the sites are so bad, they rely on the ads to provide their dependencies as global. Block the ads and you’ve blocked the ancient version jquery the main site needs loaded of function.
        MattGaiser · 1720 days ago
        At least some adblockers work on keywords. I once made an api call called 'track' that got blocked as a tracker. It was for the pathway you were on after choosing something on that page. I had to rename it to get it to work properly. It didn't matter that it was an api for that domain. It didn't matter that it had nothing to do with Google ads. It certainly wasn't on any list unless they were adding all newly registered domains to it.
      - adrr · 1720 days ago
        You can just send them an email as defined in the CCPA. Why even give them your cell or SSN.
    - Pixeleen · 1721 days ago
      Credit, bank checking (ChexSystems), and personal information aggregators like Lexis Nexis and Thomson Reuters Clear ought to be abolished or curbed indeed. I hate to bring trans politics into this. I'm sure that's the last thing anybody wants to hear about right now. However we are a class of people whose sexuality can be unfairly identified by these databases.
      - throwntoday · 1721 days ago
        >I hate to bring trans politics into this. I'm sure that's the last thing anybody wants to hear about right now. You're right. Too bad it didn't stop you from doing it anyway.
        dang · 1720 days ago
        You can't attack other users like that here, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't do it again. Also: it looks like your account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We also ban accounts that do that, regardless of what they're battling for, because it destroys the curious conversation this site is supposed to be for. I'm not going to ban you right now because you've also posted good things, but we need you to be aware of this rule and stop that pattern. More explanation here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... . https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        throwntoday · 1720 days ago
        I just restated what the user themselves admitted. I don't believe that qualifies as an attack. Ideological debates are more likely to get someone to login to respond anyway. And throwaway accounts exist because holding a controversial opinion gets you downvoted automatically. If your intention is to shut down any kind of debate, curious conversation just won't exist here at all.
        dang · 1719 days ago
        The intention is not to "shut down any kind of debate". This is about comment quality. Your comment was obviously below the bar—it was rude, personal, and added zero information. Please don't post like that here—we're trying for a different kind of conversation. Btw, repeating someone else's self-deprecating remark can absolutely be a form of personal attack; especially if you then pile on, as your comment did. That's not nice at all.
      - lvncelot · 1721 days ago
        > I hate to bring trans politics into this. I'm sure that's the last thing anybody wants to hear about right now. I'm glad you did, as I hadn't thought about that since it isn't part of my day-to-day experience.
      - wuschel · 1721 days ago
        Out of curiosity, what happens if you use a free credit card e.g Barclays? Does living in the EU zone protect you? Do they have access to your bank account information?
        Pixeleen · 1721 days ago
        I'm not familiar with the Barclay card. MasterCard has a service called True Name that lets you put whatever you want on your card. It's proprietary but I don't know if they keep it between the two of you. European countries have much stronger privacy protections, though they might have social security numbers which contain sex as an even/odd digit, and it's difficult to change. Checking account numbers are listed in these systems. Banks guard client account line items closely, although in the US the government has blanket access without a warrant.
        thendrill · 1720 days ago
        In Norway tax return and salary is a public information available to everyone, handled by the government.
        abujazar · 1720 days ago
        That’s not precise. Gross income after deductions and taxes paid is public information, salary is not.
        withinboredom · 1720 days ago
        As a US citizen living in the EU. They don’t give two fucks where you live and will happily tell anyone anything that has your social security number. I’ve thought about trying to complain to them about the GDPR… but anyway, if you have a non-US card, the US credit checks won’t register it because the non-US banks don’t report it, even though they know you’re a US citizen. We have a non-US Mastercard and Amex, and they aren’t on our US credit reports. In fact, we no longer have any US debt but our credit scores are less than 500 for paying it all off. It may literally be impossible to move back and have the same quality of life we did when we moved away. Might just stay here forever.
      - eloff · 1721 days ago
        > I hate to bring trans politics into this. I'm sure that's the last thing anybody wants to hear about right now. It bothers me sometimes if other people do that, it does not bother me at all if actual trans people want to talk about it. Thank you for sharing, that angle didn't occur to me.
      - lhh · 1721 days ago
        Hopefully TransUnion is more respectful of your rights.
      - rocqua · 1721 days ago
        Is the issue 'just' that they misgender trans people? That alone is already shitty of course. Or is the issue also that it makes later 'verification' by these agencies more difficult if the recorded gender does not match the apparent gender of the person?
        Pixeleen · 1721 days ago
        The issue is that they have a field for prior names/AKA/aliases, and it's typically immutable. You can watch a person's face change as they read the report.
        withinboredom · 1720 days ago
        I have a few aliases in there from when someone stole my identity. They refuse to remove them.
        rocqua · 1720 days ago
        Whose face to you mean? The person being deadnamed, or the person reading the list of names and realizing the person opposite them is trans? It seems to me that, for the purposes of understanding your legal history it makes sense to keep track of someone's deadname at such an agency. If someone accrued massive debt (or massive positive credit) under their deadname, then that still reflects on them. It sucks to have it recorded that one is trans, or to hear a deadname, but I don't see how it can be avoided.
        Pixeleen · 1720 days ago
        Like the polite banker opening a checking account for me, or please see my other reply with anecdotes. It does also hurt for me to see that deadname and my thanks for knowing that term. It is not one's legal history. It's a monster of a private industry trying to justify its own existence, which the world turned without for the longest time. There are many other ways that these reports have harmed non-trans people with false or outdated information. If someone accrues massive debt, that's the bank's problem, to recover in collections, the court or with the sheriff, and not by giving someone a virtual scarlet letter. Maybe they shouldn't play this massive game of easy, crippling credit, points and cashback rewards. As to massive positive credit, I couldn't care less whether I have their favor.
        gruez · 1720 days ago
        > Like the banker opening a checking account for me who commented "OK, we can move past that," or please see my other reply with anecdotes. It also hurts for me to see that deadname and my thanks for knowing that term. I don't see what the issue is. The fact that you previously used that name is a piece of factual information about you. Should anyone be allowed to suppress factual information about themselves because they're uncomfortable with it? eg. "10 years ago I racked up enormous amounts of debt. I'm shameful of that. Being reminded of that hurts me. I would like that information to be expunged." >There are many other ways that these reports have harmed non-transgender people with false, misleading or outdated information. This isn't really a convincing argument. You can make the same argument for the internet, ie. "there are many other ways that the internet has harmed non-transgender people with false, misleading or outdated information, we should ban it". What about the advantages? ie. banks being able to accurately assess risk, and reliable borrowers not having to pay for the credit risk of unreliable borrowers? >If someone accrues massive debt, that's the bank's problem, to recover in collections, the court or with the sheriff, and not by giving someone a virtual scarlet letter. If someone accrues massive debt and refuses to pay it, don't you think it's fair for the lender to tell other people of the experience?
        michaelt · 1720 days ago
        > Should anyone be allowed to suppress factual information about themselves because they're uncomfortable with it? Just because it's factual that I caught gonorrhoea from a prostitute while on holiday in Thailand, doesn't mean Equifax has a right to tell my boss, my landlord, and half a dozen russian hackers about it.
        gruez · 1720 days ago
        >Just because it's factual that I caught gonorrhoea from a prostitute while on holiday in Thailand that seems to be an entirely different issue because the information is privileged/confidential. For the purposes of this argument I'll concede that information obtained under confidence shouldn't be able to be disseminated. That said, I can't really imagine "you didn't pay your debts" to be in the same category of secrecy as "caught gonorrhoea from a prostitute". That's even more true for something as public as your name.
        spopejoy · 1719 days ago
        Debt is created by the lender to make a profit. Saying that somebody's credit history is inherently public is the same as saying their work performance history is inherently public. Nobody is forcing lenders to make loans, quite the opposite; in fact there is a great deal of statutory law preventing predatory lenders (ie deliberately lending to those who can't repay) and the megabanks addiction to junk like car loans is also evidence of the rapacious appetite for lending. Thus, credit history is for the lenders and by the lenders, all with the purpose of maximizing revenue for the lenders. How one concludes that permanent credit history is some burden all citizenry has to bear for their lifetime is beyond me.
        nitrogen · 1720 days ago
        Should anyone be allowed to suppress factual information about themselves because they're uncomfortable with it? eg. "10 years ago I racked up enormous amounts of debt. I'm shameful of that. Being reminded of that hurts me. I would like that information to be expunged." Actually yes, given sufficient elapsed time. People change a lot over ten years.
      - stef25 · 1721 days ago
        > However we are a class of people whose sexuality can be unfairly identified by these databases. What do you mean, that you go through life as a woman but that the DB says you were born as a man (for example) ?
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 · 1720 days ago
        If this helps, me and my team use LX and some product from TR and for our purposes sex by itself is not a strong driver for anything. That said, I absolutely agree with your initial statement. There is way too much information available just from those two sources and those should be restricted as much as possible. As other users noted, I have personally zero issue when it is an individual case ( my personal misgivings start somewhere where it moves to a political wedge issue ).
      - replwoacause · 1720 days ago
        > However we are a class of people whose sexuality can be unfairly identified by these databases. Good perspective and thanks for sharing it. I am curious about your choice of words though. You said "sexuality" and not "gender identity". Is there some reason why? I've always thought of the term sexuality to be how you feel about others. Or is that what you meant here?
        Pixeleen · 1720 days ago
        Gender identity falls under the umbrella of sexuality. I use less-polite terms to remind people that it's the most excruciatingly private details of my life on some bullshit report. One time while applying for an apartment, a boomer broker sarcastically exclaimed, "Well, THAT'S a valid life choice!" to me. Last year I encountered a professional whose mind was blown by this information and asked me if I've had surgery. It's wrong that this is at the mercy of a newish industry that exists to track individuals' merit in make-believe points.
      - hluska · 1720 days ago
        Trans politics are you politics. Share you politics - they’re important and interesting. :)
      - uniacid · 1720 days ago
        I used to work at Lexis Nexis and I agree since I could see first hand how much personal data and information they have on individuals. They also used theworknumber funny enough for any "employment verification" etc, pretty sure they have a partnership.
    - ryan_j_naughton · 1720 days ago
      The current oligopoly of the big three credit bureaus is a travesty and needs substantial reform. That being said, abolishing the concept of a consumer credit report entirely is a terrible idea. It is a fact that different people simply present different risks to a lender in their likelihood of default. Having actual data about a person's previous repayment history is extremely predictive of their future default probability (with proper ML applied). If you remove the ability to use data about that actual person's previous behavior then instead lenders will simply not provide credit or financial services to large proportions of the population whom might be credit worthy as they would be unable to determine if they are creditworthy. Again, I'm not arguing for the status quo. A lot of reform is needed. But to ignore the reality of how credit underwriting works is foolish. One of the reasons that many developing countries don't have financial services for their populations to access debt is because they don't have sufficient data to do credit underwriting. And debt is a critical tool to enable investment in the present. Used wisely, debt enables a person to borrow from the future to invest in the present, e.g. buying a car so they can commute to a nearby city and earn a higher salary.
      - tomnipotent · 1720 days ago
        The U.S. financial system worked just fine before credit scores became a thing in 1989.
        bigbizisverywyz · 1720 days ago
        Yes, but probably by being much more conservative and relying on the branch managers to have a close working relationship, or long standing banking relationship with the people seeking credit. When that gets more automated - i.e. giving credit to somebody you've never met, then a centralized automated system for verifying trustworthiness is also needed to compensate. It may even have the net effect of allowing some people to get credit that never could before, so swings and roundabouts I guess.
        jaystraw · 1720 days ago
        Nothing is stopping anyone from lending, afaik, on other basises. Basees? Ba...sis.
        tough · 1720 days ago
        Biases I'd say
        sokoloff · 1720 days ago
        Credit scores were invented in the 1950s. I’d estimate that the US financial system has improved substantially since then, in both absolute and relative terms. “In 1956, engineer Bill Fair teamed up with mathematician Earl Isaac to create Fair, Isaac and Company, with the goal of creating a standardized, impartial credit scoring system. Within two years, they had begun selling their first credit scoring system.” You might recognize the names Fair and Isaac as the F and I in FICO. https://www.opploans.com/oppu/articles/a-brief-history-of-cr...
        thrwyoilarticle · 1720 days ago
        No, it didn't, it worked that WASP attendees of the bank manager's church got good rates and anyone born on the wrong side of town got turned away.
        pjlegato · 1720 days ago
        Bank of America was founded in 1904 -- well before credit scores became a thing -- to provide banking services to Italian-Americans, who could not usually obtain service from other banks due to ethnic discrimination.
        mbg721 · 1720 days ago
        It's also worth noting that banks couldn't operate across state lines until sometime in the 80s, so it wasn't unusual to see a lot of different smaller banks.
        InTheArena · 1720 days ago
        Which is a good example of why you need financial systems to eliminate ethnic and religious biases in lending.