• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

A Life on the New Planatation Thread: PayDay Lending

Most people are rational and would understand the pros and cons of a payday loan.

Most people are rational and understand the pros and cons of doing heroin. Like payday loans, there are mostly cons.

Yet the payday loan industry is not trying to make money off rational people who understand the pros and cons. They are targeting desperate people who may be in a situation where they are perhaps not thinking clearly. They are the ones "looking down" on people and saying "wow, there's some people we can rip off."

Apparently it has become "paternalistic" and "do-gooder" to keep people from being ripped off. I guess we should led all those Nigerian princes set up shop and do their worst because people should just know better, huh?
 
Most people are rational and would understand the pros and cons of a payday loan.

Most people are rational and understand the pros and cons of doing heroin. Like payday loans, there are mostly cons.

Yet the payday loan industry is not trying to make money off rational people who understand the pros and cons. They are targeting desperate people who may be in a situation where they are perhaps not thinking clearly. They are the ones "looking down" on people and saying "wow, there's some people we can rip off."

Apparently it has become "paternalistic" and "do-gooder" to keep people from being ripped off. I guess we should led all those Nigerian princes set up shop and do their worst because people should just know better, huh?

What proportion of their customers take out a loan because it's the best deal they can get and feel they need the money, pay it back at their next payday, and get on with their life happy that this service was available to them?
 
Most people are rational and understand the pros and cons of doing heroin. Like payday loans, there are mostly cons.

Yet the payday loan industry is not trying to make money off rational people who understand the pros and cons. They are targeting desperate people who may be in a situation where they are perhaps not thinking clearly. They are the ones "looking down" on people and saying "wow, there's some people we can rip off."

Apparently it has become "paternalistic" and "do-gooder" to keep people from being ripped off. I guess we should led all those Nigerian princes set up shop and do their worst because people should just know better, huh?

What proportion of their customers take out a loan because it's the best deal they can get and feel they need the money, pay it back at their next payday, and get on with their life happy that this service was available to them?

I don't remember the exact statistics, but it's pretty low. Did you watch the video in the OP?
 
Most people are rational and would understand the pros and cons of a payday loan.

Most people are rational and understand the pros and cons of doing heroin. Like payday loans, there are mostly cons.

Yet the payday loan industry is not trying to make money off rational people who understand the pros and cons. They are targeting desperate people who may be in a situation where they are perhaps not thinking clearly. They are the ones "looking down" on people and saying "wow, there's some people we can rip off."

Apparently it has become "paternalistic" and "do-gooder" to keep people from being ripped off. I guess we should led all those Nigerian princes set up shop and do their worst because people should just know better, huh?

Just because you would not do something does not mean others should be prevented from making their own choice. What you see as trying to prevent someone from being ripped off, others would see as a self-righteous interloper denying them options. Who are you to say what is best for someone else? Payday loans are not new. The states allowing them have already legislated the limitations and consumer protections. I think that permitting a student to take college loans towards a degree in gender or ethnic studies is an exceptional rip off - an impecunious post-college existence awaits them. Should the option to use student loans for a major in gender or ethnic studies be prohibited? Or should students be treated as rational adults capable of making their own decisions, good or bad?
 
Question:

Why is it that when financial institutions rip off rich investors or other financial institutions, everyone on the right screams and cries about the crimes committed and people actually go to jail, but when financial institutions rip off middle class or poor people, it's the victims' fault they got scammed? What is so different about the aristocracy that they get to operate under a completely different set of rules and expectations from conservatives and libertarians?

Let me guess: we need to have a double standard so that we can be more free, right? Or do we need to have a double standard in order to avoid communism? Oh, I got it! It's because holding the aristocracy accountable in the same way we hold commoners accountable would count as persecuting rich people! That must be it!
 
Just because you would not do something does not mean others should be prevented from making their own choice. What you see as trying to prevent someone from being ripped off, others would see as a self-righteous interloper denying them options.

So what you seem to be saying is that if people get ripped off, they are responsible for falling for the scam, and the person perpetrating the scam should not be held responsible.
 
What proportion of their customers take out a loan because it's the best deal they can get and feel they need the money, pay it back at their next payday, and get on with their life happy that this service was available to them?

I don't remember the exact statistics, but it's pretty low. Did you watch the video in the OP?

It has "not been made available in my country".
 
Most people are rational and understand the pros and cons of doing heroin. Like payday loans, there are mostly cons.

Yet the payday loan industry is not trying to make money off rational people who understand the pros and cons. They are targeting desperate people who may be in a situation where they are perhaps not thinking clearly. They are the ones "looking down" on people and saying "wow, there's some people we can rip off."

Apparently it has become "paternalistic" and "do-gooder" to keep people from being ripped off. I guess we should led all those Nigerian princes set up shop and do their worst because people should just know better, huh?

What proportion of their customers take out a loan because it's the best deal they can get and feel they need the money, pay it back at their next payday, and get on with their life happy that this service was available to them?

Apparently less than 20%

According to this article:

According to a new paper from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 80 percent of loans are renewed (rolled over or reissued within 14 days), incurring new fees and interest charges each time at annualized rates exceeding 400 percent.. Half of all loans are part of a sequence at least 10 loans long, trapping borrowers in a destructive debt spiral.

Meanwhile, the Pew Charitable Trusts reports that these loans are typically not taken out to cover unexpected emergencies; fully 69 percent of new payday loans are used to meet routine expenses like rent, utilities and credit card payments.
(The article also confirms the 6% default rate).

It is only logical that these loans are preying on the poor and financially illiterate. If one does not already have money saved for an emergency, I doubt one could save for it in just one paycheck. The rationale that this catastrophe could be averted and fully paid for if it had only happened on Friday underlies a gross misunderstanding of finance and expense management. An emergency expenditure is one that will probably require a payment plan over several paychecks to manage. Payday loans are the worst vehicle for that, yet this is exactly how they are marketed.

aa
 
And we are saying that you if you can't pay cash you probably should be buying something cheaper instead.

So nobody should ever take out a mortgage, an auto loan, or any other type of credit unless they can pay cash?

That might put a dent in home ownership.

No. I'm saying that if you can't pay cash for something that costs $600 and isn't essential then you probably shouldn't be buying it in the first place.

If your income is that low you should not be borrowing for anything that's not essential. When you borrow you lower your standard of living in the long run.
 
Most people are rational and would understand the pros and cons of a payday loan.

Most people are rational and understand the pros and cons of doing heroin. Like payday loans, there are mostly cons.

Yet the payday loan industry is not trying to make money off rational people who understand the pros and cons. They are targeting desperate people who may be in a situation where they are perhaps not thinking clearly. They are the ones "looking down" on people and saying "wow, there's some people we can rip off."

Apparently it has become "paternalistic" and "do-gooder" to keep people from being ripped off. I guess we should led all those Nigerian princes set up shop and do their worst because people should just know better, huh?

The reality of a lot of payday loans:

Some years ago I was preparing to reformat a computer. As usual there was some stuff stored on it despite everyone having space on the server and instructions to store everything there. I was moving what I saw to the server and accidentally opened one document instead of dragging it--up pops a budget. Both of them had payday loans--and also a substantial amount in the budget category "entertainment". (I didn't realize I had opened it, when the screen popped up I had to look at it a bit before I figured out what had happened.)
 
Just because you would not do something does not mean others should be prevented from making their own choice. What you see as trying to prevent someone from being ripped off, others would see as a self-righteous interloper denying them options.

So what you seem to be saying is that if people get ripped off, they are responsible for falling for the scam, and the person perpetrating the scam should not be held responsible.

It's not a scam if you're aware of the terms. A bad decision in some circumstances, maybe. But not a scam.

Even though borrowers complained that they had difficulty repaying the loans, most agreed that the terms of the loans were clear. So why do they use such loans? Desperation, according to the report: “More than one-third of borrowers say they have been in such a difficult situation that they would take a payday loan on any terms offered.”

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/why-borrowers-use-payday-loans/
 
No. I'm saying that if you can't pay cash for something that costs $600 and isn't essential then you probably shouldn't be buying it in the first place.

No you're saying that for people of a certain income level, borrowing is bad. Once you get to a higher financial perch, then taking out loans is fine.

I get it, you look down your nose at someone who has to borrow a few hundred bucks. But that's the reality a lot of people face, and at a certain level it is a difference of scale. Add a couple zeroes if you like, and see if the math still works.

So I was wrong to put $600 worth of stuff on credit, even though I could afford the $50 a month payment to have that debt gone in a year.

Yet someone who makes a lot more money than I did at the time takes out a loan on a $60,000 car, pays a grand a month for five years and they're a responsible consumer?
 
Most people are rational and would understand the pros and cons of a payday loan.

Most people are rational and understand the pros and cons of doing heroin. Like payday loans, there are mostly cons.

Yet the payday loan industry is not trying to make money off rational people who understand the pros and cons. They are targeting desperate people who may be in a situation where they are perhaps not thinking clearly.

Yep :

Behind every Conservative promise to "get tough on single mothers", behind every Daily Mail story about Britain's "handout culture", or Mitt Romney's notorious comments about "the 47%", there lies an assumption: that being poor is a failure of character. Awkwardly, for those who find this obnoxious, the research sometimes makes it seem true. People who are less well-off really do appear to give in more readily to temptation, making the very purchases they can't afford; to make unwise financial decisions; to use less effective parenting techniques; or to fail to take life-saving drugs, even when they're free. Is this a deep-seated weakness of will, made worse by a "culture of dependency"? The Harvard economist Sendhil Mullainathan and the Princeton psychologist Eldar Shafir reject that idea, and some of the most familiar leftwing responses, too. Poverty, they argue, is indeed a matter of willpower and bad decisions, but the Mail has it back-to-front. It's not that foolish choices make you poor; it's that poverty's effects on the mind lead to bad choices. Living with too little imposes huge psychic costs, reducing our mental bandwidth and distorting our decisionmaking in ways that dig us deeper into a bad situation.

Of course, it's hardly news that poverty creates a vicious cycle. Not having money is expensive, thanks to credit card late fees, high interest rates on payday loans, the extra cost of buying in instalments, and so on. But the alarming conclusion of this book is how completely scarcity colonises the mind. Merely asking poorer people to contemplate a hypothetical £1,000 car repair, one study by the authors shows, impairs their performance on intelligence tests as much as missing a night's sleep – about 13 or 14 IQ points. In another study, Indian sugar cane farmers performed worse pre-harvest, when money was tight, compared to post-harvest. "Scarcity captures the mind," explain Mullainathan and Shafir. It promotes tunnel vision, helping us focus on the crisis at hand but making us "less insightful, less forward-thinking, less controlled". Wise long-term decisions and willpower require cognitive resources. Poverty leaves far less of those resources at our disposal.

Their most arresting claim is that the same effects kick in – albeit not always with such grave implications – in any conditions of scarcity, not just lack of money. Chronically busy people, suffering from a scarcity of time, also demonstrate impaired abilities and make self-defeating choices, such as unproductive multi-tasking or neglecting family for work. Lonely people, suffering from a scarcity of social contact, become hyper-focused on their loneliness, prompting behaviours that render it worse. (..) To use the authors' favourite metaphor, life under such conditions is like packing a tiny suitcase for a trip. It entails a ceaseless focus on difficult trade-offs: the umbrella or the extra sweater? The greatest freedom that money can buy is the freedom from thinking about money – or, to quote Thoreau, "a man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone".

more
 
So how does this work? A person has no credit or bad credit, but can get a payday lone. What encouragement is there for them to pay it back?
 
So how does this work? A person has no credit or bad credit, but can get a payday lone. What encouragement is there for them to pay it back?
The usual: harassment, credit checks as part of getting a job, judgments, etc... same things that happen if you don't pay back your bank loans.

And in Wisconsin and New Jersey: possible jail time.
 
No. I'm saying that if you can't pay cash for something that costs $600 and isn't essential then you probably shouldn't be buying it in the first place.

No you're saying that for people of a certain income level, borrowing is bad. Once you get to a higher financial perch, then taking out loans is fine.

I get it, you look down your nose at someone who has to borrow a few hundred bucks. But that's the reality a lot of people face, and at a certain level it is a difference of scale. Add a couple zeroes if you like, and see if the math still works.

So I was wrong to put $600 worth of stuff on credit, even though I could afford the $50 a month payment to have that debt gone in a year.

Yet someone who makes a lot more money than I did at the time takes out a loan on a $60,000 car, pays a grand a month for five years and they're a responsible consumer?

The person taking out that $60k car loan almost certainly has reserves, a blip in life isn't going to put them in a position where they can't pay the bill.

The person who has to pay $50/month on that $600 likely is in a position where any little blip pushes them over the edge.

Note, though, that I disapprove of a $60k car loan anyway. Luxury goods should be cash or not at all.
 
No you're saying that for people of a certain income level, borrowing is bad. Once you get to a higher financial perch, then taking out loans is fine.

I get it, you look down your nose at someone who has to borrow a few hundred bucks. But that's the reality a lot of people face, and at a certain level it is a difference of scale. Add a couple zeroes if you like, and see if the math still works.

So I was wrong to put $600 worth of stuff on credit, even though I could afford the $50 a month payment to have that debt gone in a year.

Yet someone who makes a lot more money than I did at the time takes out a loan on a $60,000 car, pays a grand a month for five years and they're a responsible consumer?

The person taking out that $60k car loan almost certainly has reserves, a blip in life isn't going to put them in a position where they can't pay the bill.

The person who has to pay $50/month on that $600 likely is in a position where any little blip pushes them over the edge.

Note, though, that I disapprove of a $60k car loan anyway. Luxury goods should be cash or not at all.


So $600 bucks for a living room set is luxury furniture? Praise the Lord I've been rich all along!!! :rolleyesa:

Again this is not a hypothetical. That was my purchase, and once again, I could have just as easily saved up the money and bought the stuff with cash, but I needed to build credit. As you suggested earlier, I could have got a secured card for the purchase, but that would have meant saving up the money, putting it on the card, then putting another 600 on the card and paying it off over time.

Both credit building options carry the risk of a "blip," but we're talking about the difference between responsibly building credit and using a payday loan.

With regards to reserves, yeah the person paying for a $60k car may have them. They may not. I've worked with people who had six figure incomes and no reserves at all. The guy who hired me for my current job made great money but lived beyond his means. He had two Land Rovers, a beautiful house, personal chef, and was one missed paycheck away from losing it all.

This notion you're pushing - that people at the low end of the income scale cannot possibly be responsible, while people with money are so because they are always responsible - is flat wrong. What we as a society need to do is not treat the former as an easily exploitable source of revenue and screwing them over the nanosecond they miss a payment on a line of credit that no self-respecting loan shark would offer.
 
Question:

Why is it that when financial institutions rip off rich investors or other financial institutions, everyone on the right screams and cries about the crimes committed and people actually go to jail, but when financial institutions rip off middle class or poor people, it's the victims' fault they got scammed? What is so different about the aristocracy that they get to operate under a completely different set of rules and expectations from conservatives and libertarians?

Let me guess: we need to have a double standard so that we can be more free, right? Or do we need to have a double standard in order to avoid communism? Oh, I got it! It's because holding the aristocracy accountable in the same way we hold commoners accountable would count as persecuting rich people! That must be it!

Seriously.

The arguments I'm reading in this thread remind me entirely too much of the arguments used to blame the victims of the predatory lending practices leading up to the mortgage crisis.

I find it extraordinarily interesting that the poorest among us, usually the least educated, are all supposed to automatically understand the legal and financial terms of documents they are not even given the opportunity to read before signing - without benefit of teams of lawyers to go through those documents with a fine-tooth comb.
 
Most people are rational and understand the pros and cons of doing heroin. Like payday loans, there are mostly cons.

Yet the payday loan industry is not trying to make money off rational people who understand the pros and cons. They are targeting desperate people who may be in a situation where they are perhaps not thinking clearly. They are the ones "looking down" on people and saying "wow, there's some people we can rip off."

Apparently it has become "paternalistic" and "do-gooder" to keep people from being ripped off. I guess we should led all those Nigerian princes set up shop and do their worst because people should just know better, huh?

The reality of a lot of payday loans:

Some years ago I was preparing to reformat a computer. As usual there was some stuff stored on it despite everyone having space on the server and instructions to store everything there. I was moving what I saw to the server and accidentally opened one document instead of dragging it--up pops a budget. Both of them had payday loans--and also a substantial amount in the budget category "entertainment". (I didn't realize I had opened it, when the screen popped up I had to look at it a bit before I figured out what had happened.)

Yes, you previously dragged out this story of you snooping through someone else's private financial documents when you had no authorization to do so. What does this one alleged incident of your bad behavior prove? You snooping through one person's records is not valid evidence for "a lot of payday loans".
 
The person taking out that $60k car loan almost certainly has reserves, a blip in life isn't going to put them in a position where they can't pay the bill.

Not necessarily. Just because someone has a high income doesn't mean they have a lot of savings. They could just as easily as a low income person choose to use up their income on their expenses. That they could gain savings by not spending their paycheck like that, buying a $30k car for example, is true. But one cannot make a judgment on whether someone is a "responsible consumer" based simply on their income level. We've seen plenty of movie stars, athletes, and musicians go broke eventually because they don't know how to handle their money.
 
Back
Top Bottom