There Law in the US ensures that the currenly unemployed may never again be employed.

In blaming the consumer credit protection laws located within Title 15 of the U.S. Code for “prevent[ing] the unemployed from getting employment,” Pro displays a profound ignorance of what that those laws actually do. Nothing in Title 15 authorizes employers to perform background credit checks on job applicants; employers already had the right to perform background credit checks on job applicants before anything in Title 15 was passed. Unless expressly prohibited by other laws (i.e., anti-discrimination laws), employers can ask job applicants to do anything they want.In any event, Pro failed to prove that a job applicant’s refusal to waive his “privacy rights” would actually cause the applicant to remain permanently unemployed, because not all employers require their applicants to submit to credit background checks. It isn’t even clear whether most employers require job applicants to submit to such checks. By any measure, then, Pro’s argument must be dismissed as irrational and erroneous.1. Title 15 of the U.S. Code doesn’t let employers do anything they couldn’t do alreadyUnfortunately, Pro’s Round 1 argument was riddled with mistakes about Title 15 of the U.S. Code that need to be addressed. First of all, Title 15 is an enormous compendium of all federal statutes that have anything to do with “Commerce and Trade.” [1] Pro erroneously stated that the entire Title “goes colloquially by the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act,” when in reality the FDCPA is only a tiny part of Title 15 (Chapter 41, Subchapter V). [2] Furthermore, it is unclear why Pro cited the FDCPA at all, because that law regulates the practice of third party debt collectors, and has nothing to do with credit background checks or job applications. [ 3] The provision Pro cited to support his argument actually comes from a different law entirely, the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [4]Putting aside Pro’s sloppy citation mistakes, his attempt to blame any of the consumer credit protection provisions within Title 15 for exacerbating unemployment is baseless. Those provisions do not empower or authorize employers to do anything they couldn’t do already. Consumer protection laws like the Fair Credit Reporting Act merely impose restrictions and oversight on what employers and credit agencies were doing before those laws existed.To the extent that Pro blames “U.S. law” for infringing on privacy rights or contributing to unemployment, he is lamenting the non-existence of a stronger consumer credit protection law. Until such a law actually gets enacted, Pro cannot blame Title 15 for the behavior of private employers. By that logic, Pro could blame "the law" for causing loneliness because women aren't legally obligated to accept date requests.2. Background credit checks are not a significant bar to employmentNot all employers require their job applicants to submit to background credit checks. Pro didn’t even allege (much less prove) that most employers require background credit checks. If an unemployed individual doesn’t want to divulge his credit history to employers or third party credit agencies, he can simply choose to work for an employer that doesn’t require such information.3. Prohibiting background credit checks would probably increase unemploymentLastly, it is likely that a law prohibiting employers to conduct background credit checks on job applicants would actually increase unemployment, because some employers might be less willing to hire new employees if they have no way of verifying a job applicant's financial responsibility. This would not be fair to job applicants who are willing to submit to such background checks.[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692—1692p, available at http://www.law.cornell.edu...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org... (codified at 15 USC § 1681 et seq.)