I mean, there’s a difference between a 580 doing “fukk shyt” as you call it and a 650 of on time payments. One is not like the other regardless of length of credit. The credit profile is different.
Also there’s more to having a lower score than “doing fukk shyt”. If your utilization is over 30% your score will take a beating regardless of if you are paying your bills on time. I know because I’ve been in that position before and I had a 100% payment history for over 5 years.
Have a high utilization and you’d be hard pressed to reach over 700 and that’s regardless of paying every bill on time years.
I never said there weren't alternate means of having a low credit score, besides doing phuk shyt.
I was simply speaking to my experience and the fact that credit scores, for the most part, are an objective way of trying to determine the creditworthiness of masses of people. Is it perfect? Of course not.
And yes, if you're making on-time payments but your credit utilization is constantly exceeding that 30% mark then an institution is correct in making the assessment that you're a risker borrower than someone who has a credit utilization of 5%. Again, age of credit is also taken into account when determining a person's credit-worthiness - as is total accounts, hard inquiries and derogatory remarks.
Now, if you interpreted my remarks to indicate that people with low credit scores is only a result of irresponsibility (like in my case) then that's my fault. shyt happens and it doesn't always have to do with a person being irresponsible.
With that being said, there's no shortage of muthaphuckas charging vacations, and the like, on their credit cards or on loans.