If you're new here, you may want to learn what this site is about. I encourage you to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
On Sunday, The New York Times published a series of articles on The Debt Trap, exploring the surge in consumer debt and the lenders who made it possible.
The main article profiles a Philadelphia woman who made some bad choices, bought into the myth of easy credit, and now finds herself struggling with insurmountable debt. “I regret not dealing with my emotions instead of just shopping,” she says. Through compulsive spending and an unaffordable mortgage, she set herself up for failure — an unexpected medical emergency delivered the knock-out blow.
But borrowers are just one half of the problem. The other part is a financial industry willing to grant more credit than borrowers can possibly repay. Banks know better than the consumers how much debt a person can afford. They have sophisticated statistical models that allow them to predict just how profitable these long-term relationships will be. They want to take on people with debt. It’s easy money.
Stories like this seem to provoke two conflicting responses:
- Some people argue that banks and credit card companies are predatory, doing what they can to lure people into a life of debt slavery.
- Others say that the responsibility lies solely with the borrower, that each person in debt gets that way because of personal choice.
I believe both sides are right. I also believe both sides are wrong. This isn’t a black and white issue. It’s complex. People end up deep in debt because they aren’t able to manage money and because the banks know this and are hoping to land lucrative customers. From the article:
“Today the focus for lenders is not so much on consumer loans being repaid, but on the loan as a perpetual earning asset,” said Julie L. Williams, chief counsel of the Comptroller of the Currency, in a March 2005 speech that received little notice at the time.
Lenders have been eager to expand their reach. They have honed sophisticated marketing tactics, gathering personal financial data to tailor their pitches. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising campaigns that make debt sound desirable and risk-free.
Our current credit crisis exists because everyone involved was looking for easy money. They wanted to get rich quickly. Banks see perpetual borrowers as an evergreen revenue source. Borrowers look upon credit as “free” money. This combination, as we’re seeing, is a recipe for disaster.
Yesterday at I Will Teach You to Be Rich, Ramit gave his take on the NYT article, writing:
Should we just stop spending so much? Of course we should, but that’s like saying we should all lose weight by making better choices. Easy to say, extremely difficult to do. I’m hopeful that the current environment calls for a restructuring of our priorities. I hope that we get conscious about our spending and start prioritizing saving over spending. With extended hardship, this will become more likely. We all need to be conscious of our finances, but we’re playing in a world with the deck stacked against us.
Is the deck stacked against us? Maybe. But most of us have the power to change the hands we’re dealt. Make smart choices. Spend less than you earn. Don’t buy stuff you cannot afford. Establish an emergency savings account. If you believe you have problems with compulsive spending, get rid of your credit cards. Practicing good money habits can give you a winning hand, even if the deck is stacked against you.
Though banks may be willing to issue you a new credit card or to raise your limits, you do not have to take them up on their offers. They’ll happily lead you toward a life of debt; it’s up to you to take a different path.
For more information on this topic, visit these articles from the archives:
- How to get out of debt
- A review of Maxed Out, a film about the the credit industry
- The giant pool of money: Anatomy of the subprime mortgage mess
- The secret history of the credit card
[The New York Times: Given a shovel, Americans dig deeper into debt]
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:14 am
Very back to basics, in a good way.
I think it’s easier to overspend than is realised, I can’t be the only person in the world whose response to feeling miserable is to go shopping. I don’t spend more than I can afford just more than I’d like, and I know that one idea is to stop seeing non-spending as less fun than spending. If only knowing and doing were one and the same thing. Any ideas anyone?
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:00 am
Actually I think the deck has been firmly stacked in your favour:
- Low interest rates, without the consequent inflation, because of
- Dollar Hegemony and
- Petro-dollars keeping us gas prices low
etcetra
The change is that this seems to be ending, along with the dollar’s status as world reserve currency.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:16 am
The deck has been stacked in our favor for so long that we don’t know how to live any other way. Our entire culture is based on consumption. The coming recession will not only change our spending habits, but it will also change our culture so fast that we are going to have culture confusion. We are going to see many people confused and emotions are going to run high.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 am
I completely agree with J.D. that the issue is very grey. In some ways, yes the creditors are at fault by extending credit to less than ideal candidates but at the same time credit issuers do not benefit when someone gets so over their head that they miss payments or go into foreclosure (in the case of housing). There is no money to be made off of someone who cannot make their payments.
On the other hand, it is very simple for a person to calculate how much debt they can take on, and are ultimately the ones who should shoulder the brunt of the blame for their situation. People are always worried about keeping up with their friends and neighbors so they spend. Some like in the case of the woman from Philadelphia shop compulsively as a mechanism to cope with stress and avoid dealing with emotions. Others just have no concept of the value of a dollar nor do they understand the long-term effects of their overspending.
There is not cut-and dry answer to this dilemma, however the best solution is education. Starting from a young age, the more knowledge you provide someone, the better they will be at making rational and responsible choices in the future.
I have written a couple entries in my blog that deal with both of these issues in the past:
http://letsblogmoney.com/2008/06/23/are-credit-issuers-to-blame-for-the-nations-problems/
http://letsblogmoney.com/2008/06/17/start-teaching-your-kids-early-to-build-a-strong-financial-foundation/
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 am
Yes
And the dangers is there that a populist leader will come along who will promise the impossible: “you can have your SUV’s back!”
and blame those previous leaders who, though ineffectually, did try to be constructive in solving the economic problems “It’s all Al Gore’s fault!” …
And to be honest I think this is the most likely outcome. A bit like your analogy of getting a whole nation to diet, I think to avoid some kind of internicene strife will involve asking everyone to *grin and bear it*.
fat chance.
Ed
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:25 am
JD-great post though I did have some issues with the article. And Ramit’s post sure had a strong edge to it!
I agree that both the lenders and borrowers are both responsible. The lenders are predatory and their behavior is wrong. But that doesn’t take away the borrower’s responsibility.
I firmly believe we only succeed when we take control of our lives. Doing it for them will only enable the problem and make things worse on the long run.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:42 am
Our problems run deep into our culture and I agree that there is plenty of fault to go around. One of the things I kept hearing during the big runup to the mortgage crisis that drove me crazy was the phrase “get cash out of your home.” They made it sound like you were just getting access to cash that was already lying around. When in reality you were BORROWING MONEY against your largest (and maybe only) tangible asset. It’s just an example of how marketing has contributed to the problem.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:49 am
The banks are just simply out there to get money. They are running a service, it is completely our decision how we use that service (credit cards). I don’t believe banks want to see people in debt slavery, they just want to make some money by providing a service.
People CHOOSE to step into debt slavery because they decide not to educate themselves and decide to spend more than they can afford.
But it is great that sites like yours and all the other financial blogs out there are beginning to offer ordinary people an easy way to learn about managing your finances.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 am
It is totally crazy how much credit banks and such are willing to give out. My husband and I bring in about 55K per year combined, and you should see the credit card limits we’re given. We don’t have any credit card debt, but if I wanted to, I could amass tens of thousands of dollars of debt given the credit limits on my cards.
I do agree that people need to not just blame the credit card/mortgage companies…just because you get approved for x amount of dollars doesn’t necessarily mean that you can afford to incur that amount of debt. And blaming the financial industry for your blind following of their approval amount is pretty lame, in my opinion.
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:58 am
This is not really related… but is there a budget calculator out there somewhere? It doesn’t have to be specific, more like if you make 10k you should spend 1k house and 1k elsewhere… that is a very very cheap example.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:03 am
If someone gives you a loaded gun do you have to fire it? No of course not. Same thing with credit. I don’t think the banks are too much to blame for all of this credit. You and I are.
We live in a land blessed with choices yet in a our own selfish ways we choose everything for us and for the here and now. Now that price of that choice has come due. Don’t cry about it you literally dug your credit grave you have to crawl out of.
I think the issue is behind the credit. Why do people send so much? Why can’t we stop? Because in North America we have a huge number of very unhappy people who are now just realizing all this stuff didn’t give us more than a minute or two of happiness. We focused on spending money and it gave us pain. Instead we need to focus on using money toward what really works for us. Live your life for you, not for an iphone.
Tim
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:15 am
Yes, we must each accept responsibility for our choices. But marketing is designed to subvert our will. It’s good at it. Advertisers know exactly how to manipulate masses of people. On an individual level, it’s important to resist this manipulation and to develop the skills necessary to make smart financial choices. But the financial companies share some complicity for this crisis. They’re doing their damndest to get people to borrow and spend.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:21 am
I really don’t like the NYT’s graphic on how much debt you have (comparatively). For instance, my only debt is my mortgage. Is debt on a 15 year fixed mortgage bad debt? No. The problem debt isn’t mortgages/trad student loans. It’s CC’s, car payments, and other revolving debts.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:27 am
@J.D.: I do agree with your thoughts on advertising, but with television, magazines, the interenet, radio, billboards, it’s difficult to avoid it. There are many people in this country who will buy just about anything they see being marketed, especially if it is endorced by a celebrity/athlete or someone else they “respect” or want to emulate. I guess that’s why so many companies have huge marketing budgets like TD Ameritrade with Sam Waterston, Cadillac with the various actors, Nutrisystem with Dan Marino, Don Shula, et al., etc.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:30 am
I had two responses to the original Times article. First, I was insterested that the profiled woman said she started buying things from tv shopping networks while laid up sick. I also spent a lot of time in bed recovering from various aspects of my cancer treatments — and I ended up watching every episode of every version of law and order; lots of american movie classics, and doing double-crostics. Shopping channels didn’t attract me…. but I can’t tell you why one person finds them soothing and someone else doesn’t.
Secondly, it occured to me that that while I may be good at controlling major spending, I do have the same itch to spend — even if it’s only food extras or a new pair of socks. being able to “shop” seems very much ingrained, not just a response to advertising. Trolling a used book store and buying a postcard or a paperback mystery, can, fortunately, feel like shopping for me, or buying a candy bar or an iced tea — so as long as I budget some walking around money, I’m insulated from really spending…
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:33 am
Credit Cards also offer rewards and build credit. I think if someone has a problem overspending they should lock up their credit cards except for one with a low credit line, mine is 1000, but 500 will do. These cards sometimes offer as much as 5% cash back on all purchases, shop around for offers. Pay off the locked up cards and keep them, it will increase your credit score, keep raising the credit lines on the locked up cards, this will also increase your score. Never use them. One day you will want a credit line for buying a house or something of this nature. If you treat your low credit line card like a debit card and pay it off every month you will be fine and increase your credit score while potentially getting 5% cash back(almost like having a running cd on your purchases that you HAVE to make like on gas and food). If that is really too hard, enroll in bank of america’s keep the change. They do the trick that JD mentions but also match 100% for the first three months and then a percentage thereafter. After you save up a certain amount, look into opening and account with etrade or ING, both offer excellent savings rates for their savings accounts as well as strong cd’s, though at this point in time you’re better off just leaving it in the savings as the CD offers are way too low to justify locking up your money for a year…
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:38 am
There are circumstances you’re born with that often dictate your spending/saving pattern as an adult. I think a lot of people inherit bad financial behavior from their parents. On the flip side, some people inherit the tendency to take advantage of others whenever possible. This combination of greedy lenders and vulnerable consumers is what lead to the credit crisis. It is part of American culture. It will be generational unless we act to change it.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:41 am
Take a look at the movie Maxed Out to get a good idea at how predatory lenders are. I’m also in the personal resposibility camp, but I live in a very poor and ignorant city. And its not the only poor and ignorant place in this country. There are many, many people in this country who do not understand the credit and lending process - some of them are mentally incapable of it. But the banks and lenders go after these people the hardest. The ones who are most likely to default are the ones who give them their greatest profit margins through fees and extra charges. It’s a catch-22. Seriously, check out the documentary - it’s pretty good.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 am
JD wrote:
“Our current credit crisis exists because everyone involved was looking for easy money. . . . Banks see perpetual borrowers as an evergreen revenue source. Borrowers look upon credit as “free” money. This combination, as we’re seeing, is a recipe for disaster.”
Partly this is a result of poor math education in the schools. Instead of doing problems with Train A and Train B, why can’t we teach the effect of compound interest earned and paid?
When I see a car for sale with “$2000 cash back”, it drives me insane. You are borrowing money and will be paying it back at the same rate as the rest of the car for the same term.
Another dumb thing we do is feel happy when our new house has carpets, fresh appliances etc. We are going to be paying for those carpets and those appliances for 30 years, and their useful life is 15 at most. When the buyer looks at the next refrigerator, he should be thinking of the ghost of the first refrigerator, now long since in the dump.
Buy the house and buy the appliances and carpets yourself. Never put anything on a mortgage/car payment/lease that will last for less time than the length of the payment.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 am
My perfect scenario looks like this:
The banks loan money based on how much a person can afford to borrow, as they used to do long ago. The individual is completely responsible for the repayment of the loan according to the terms to which they agreed.
As for advertising, I agree with JD. It makes it hard to spend responsibly, and I don’t consider myself a weak person. I don’t buy the latest electronics or new cars, but life is easier when I limit my exposure to ads. You can’t think you need things if you don’t know they even exist.
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:59 am
I see three fundamental problems in the current system:
1. Lack of personal finance education.
2. Complexity of consumer lending arrangements.
3. Lack of individual responsibility.
There are other systemic issues such as the seperation between those who originate loans and those who end up holding the default liability but the above would solve a lot of problems.
I believe there should be a set of federal laws governing consumer lending so that any borrowing contract (including credit cards) would be a simple single page and be governed by a fair set of laws. Then you could focus on the interest rate and term of the debt. Fancy lending arrangements get people in over their heads.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:12 am
1. Personal Finance should absolutely be taught in High School for a minimum of two years before graduation to make sure the points are really driven home. One or two general classes are pretty much useless.
2. Amen to your comments regarding spending less than is earned, not buying stuff for the sake of it, etc.
3.What is the solution to lenders who prey on the young and/or financially clueless?
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:19 am
@MoneyBlogga: Unfortunately, there is no way to answer your third point. How can you legitimately establish a guide to seperate the clueless from the informed? And even then, someone who has a wealth of knowledge in one area may have none in others. Simply being young does not make someone prey. In fact, it has nothing to do with age as much as it does with economic situation & income levels, education, and location which currently defines who is prey for such lending tactics.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am
@JD
“Kris and I were talking the other day, and we both agree that the number one thing people can do to save money is to reduce their exposure to advertising.”
This I totally agree with you both. I don’t watch TV on TV. I rent the DVD copies of shows from the library. No ads and I get to watch an entire season in a week. I can not understand why anyone would waste their lives in front of that box to watch a show filled with ads.
I only have one magazine I read and I don’t get the paper (I read online instead). I also have gotten very good at not looking at ads while online.
Avoiding ads does help I will give you that. Yet in the end you are in charge of your own self. You must decide I don’t care about ads. Don’t look at them unless you have to.
Tim
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:33 am
I think there’s plenty of greed and stupidity to go around in terms of who’s to blame for the current credit crisis. (I don’t remember if JD talked about the NPR This American Life story about the mortgage crisis, but I think it’s downloadable, and I recommend it.)
JD said:
Kris and I were talking the other day, and we both agree that the number one thing people can do to save money is to reduce their exposure to advertising.
I agree that having Tivo speed past all commercials and reading mostly news and health magazines has made us less ad-driven, but that’s just one small part of the advertising we’re bombarded with every day.
This is what I’m trying to teach my kids:
If someone is trying to sell you something, it isn’t about you and isn’t about your best interests. They don’t care about you — they care most about themselves and getting you to part with your money.
It’s a game:
– If they make you buy something you didn’t want or need before you saw the ad or item, they win.
– If you ignore the ad or do research and a lot of thinking and avoid buying the product unless you really want or need it, and can comfortably afford it, you win.
I have my work cut out for me.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:42 am
Bill Moyers in his Journal series just did (7/18) an episode examining these issues that you all might find interesting. You can watch a video of it online at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
Barb
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 am
It might be a lack of education, but no one has yet drawn a relationship to addiction propensity, and it’s relationship to advertising. For some people it’s cigarettes for the new millennium. Easy to get started, very hard to quit. For others they can control, or perhaps not give into in the first place, their desire for something they can’t (yet?) afford.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:55 am
Hi. I’ve been watching ‘In Debt We Trust’ and ‘Maxed Out’ and ‘Debt Land’ off and on, as well as the Frontline piece on credit cards.
So much of our society requires us to have debt, even irresponsible debt, in order to do simple things like rent a car, reserve a hotel room or an airline flight or obtain a mortgage.
After my credit disaster years ago as a new parent, I stopped living on credit and learned to live within my means. But that presented certain problems, too, as I attempted to pay off my debt. I was told my credit score would not improve that way, that I needed to add ‘good debt’, and that utility history (paid for years on time, etc) and rental payment history would not be considered.
I felt almost compelled to get a small credit card ($250 limit) and just charge gas only on it and pay it off at the end of the month. It’s weird, how our society works, but it’s an unfortunate fact.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:02 am
Does it bother anyone else that we, the public, are now referred to as “American consumers”? Whatever happened to being citizens?! I think this subtle propaganda keeps people thinking that they better spend, spend, spend to do their part for the economy.
We can all see where that kind of thinking has led us now.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
@Kris
We are all both: consumers as well as citizens. When it comes to business matters we are classified as consumers because that is what we do: consume products and services. It is not derogatory in context, actually quite accurate. In other senses such as politics and location we are citizens.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:24 am
@ Kris - I suspect they are referring to citizens who are consumers, vs citizens who aren’t (ie, the ones who aren’t the target audience).
Regarding the article - there was a review in Science magazine recently about a book which looks at what the authors call “libertarian paternalism”.
The gist is - we are all ultimately responsible for our choices, but what we fail to realize is that choices are influenced by choice architecture. That is to say, the same person will make different choices depending on the way the decision process is structured. Hence, instead of making easy-credit opt-out, we should make it opt-in. Make the responsible choice the default choice.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:28 am
I know people with excellent salaries who are in debt because they choose to spend-”oooh, it’s a sale”, “I need”, “I deserve”. One person with two cars or a family where everyone has a car including the teens so they can drive to school - even though there is a public school bus. People who “need” a new care very few years or keep redoing their houses with credit. People who keep buying because they are bored. I don’t have a shopping channel- no cable. Do I sound mean- ok, but I don’t want to pay for well-off people who can’t control themselves or their children.
I feel badly for people who have to have two or three poorly paid jobs to have a place to live and food and occasionally get medical care.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:35 am
Canadian Dream-I totally agree about the ads. The problem is, you have to have the self-control and wisdom to make the choices in the first place that will keep you from being exposed to ads. I hardly ever watch TV or listen to the radio and so I rarely see/hear ads. But, most Americans aren’t willing to give up those things, especially the TV.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
In response to plonkee:
It’s very easy to overspend, anyone can come up with infinite wants, there is always more, more, more to buy! Beyond the debt you will get less and less satisfaction from those additional things. You also miss out on the satisfaction of having enough!
I have a few suggestions to try: Start by being thankful for what you have. it’s human nature to take the things we have for granted, but if you take the time to look at all of the things you have I bet you will be amazed how much you really have.
If you are feeling miserable, more things are really not the answer. Those things don’t care how you feel! Instead try seeking out other people. What is more satisfying spending some time with friends/family or buying another thing? You could also volunteer at a hospital or nursing home as helping others with serious problems is a great way to help yourself too. You would be doing something worthwhile, which is a great way to build your self-esteem. Also, Seeing other people’s problems can help put your problems into perspective.
-Rick
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 am
Would you have attended a class on personal finance?
I wrote more about this here.
It’s great to call for better personal-finance education, but this is a huge problem that millions of dollars go into each year — and yet, there haven’t been any measurable results.
How about more practical solutions that we can implement today?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
I read an interesting article several months back on how the debt cycle travels with us through life.
Robert Manning, author of “Credit Card Nation,” studied the financial spending habits of Americans across generations to discover what influences the spending in their specific age groups.
People have to endure behavior modification to get on a budget and stop using credit.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 am
I’m personally a big fan of personal responsibility. I think you should have to account for your own actions. We’d rather blame the evil banks and what not. It’s silly.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 am
Before I say anything I will state that I am the posterchild of bad credit at the moment. I had to hit rock bottom before I did anything about my spending, cc’s etc. I accept responsibilty for my actions, and I am not looking to weasel out of paying the money that I owe.
That said, its really difficult to work with creditors who lump you into categories based on something you “might” do.
What other industry can enter into a contract with you and then decide they don’t like the terms so they can change them?
Is it fair for a cc co to pull your credit, and decide, based on the report and not on the business that you have conducted with them for 4, 5 or even 10 years, to decide, well we think you are going to not pay us (even tho you have Never not paid them in 5 or more years) so we are going to raise your interest rate from 9% to 26%.
Yeah, you can blame the person who was given the cc, just like you can blame smokers for getting addicted to cigarettes that were deliberately boosted with nicotine specifically TO GET YOU ADDICTED. Anyone seen the CC commercial where half a dozen people go through the line quickly with their paypass card, then one terrible person wants to pay cash or write a check and just ruins it for all the people in line behind her. Who is the real bad person here? The one going on faith that the cc co would not give you credit if they think you can’t pay it, or the person stupid enough to believe it?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
re: exposure to advertising - It’s all very well and good to say “I don’t watch TV, so I don’t get exposed to as much”, but have you taken a good look around? If you go to the movies, after paying $ for your ticket and more $ for your popcorn and drink, you then get to sit through ads for cars and soft drinks before finally seeing ads for more movies. Finally, after all that, you get to see the movie - which is full of carefully chosen placements of various products. The hero drives the new Behemoth 7, and he saves the world on his HAL computer, and then he celebrates by having a coffee from StarPeets… You come out of the movie to find ads stuck under your wipers. The buses you pass on the way home are covered in ads, the benches at the bus stops are ads, there are billboards everywhere… Heck, even some of the small local food joints have a page of ads in their menu. Every day I go home and throw out at least half of the items that arrive in my mailbox - weekly flyers for all the local grocery stores, pizza ads, other food joints, big sale at the tire store, the Walmart flyer, eyeglasses, dentists, need a lawyer? and so on.
Going to a sporting event? Staples Center, 3Com Field, Qualcomm Stadium, Heinz Field, etc. In Nuremburg, Germany, the Frankenstadion has been renamed to EasyCredit-Stadion. (How’s that for topical?) Don’t forget Houston’s Minute Maid Park, formerly known as Enron Field… Instead of the Sugar Bowl, it’s now the AllState Sugar Bowl - there is also the AT&T Cotton Bowl, AutoZone Libery Bowl, Brut Sun Bowl, Capitol One Bowl, etc. Going to the beach? Wow, it’s crowded with all the folks watching the Hawaiin Tropics surf contest. Need I go on?
I recently bought a tub of coleslaw from the deli at my grocery store - when they printed out the little weight/cost sticker to slap on the tub, it came with an ad attached to it. The grocery cart I push around has several ads on it even.
Advertising is pervasive. The only answer is to be constantly aware and vigilant, otherwise, you WILL be assimilated!
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:44 am
@Ramit
Yes, it is easy to say that many children would avoid attending a class on financial education/responsibility. On the other hand, how would you know unless you try and actually have it arranged in such a way that it related to them? Have you ever heard of the courses where the class gets to learn about investing by actually getting “seed” money and actively investing and following the market? From the people I knew who had such a class the response was overwhelming positive. Besides, isn’t it better to try and fail than to not try at all. Personally I believe it is the parent’s responsibility to start the education at home (see my response #4 for my blog entry).
@Michele:
Depending on how old you are, you simply cannot blame the tobacco companies. For the past 20 years, warnings have been posted on packs of cigarettes, educational campaigns have been wages touting the effects of smoking, and even more simply. the effects are more widely know and recognized than they were in previous generations. If you feel that you want to have credit available to you, but do not trust yourself you can always have the limit reduced to an amount you are comfortable with. As far as ignoring your past history, there are two ways to see things.
1. Yes, you may have been a loyal customer, who never paid late or missed a payment and it is unfair of them to increase your rate based on your credit report.
2. It is no secret that once a person starts slipping in one area, it will most likely start spreading, meaning that if you start mising payments on one or two cards, the trend is like to continue on until you start missing payments on that particular creditor’s card.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
@ Eric
When someone is in trouble, the answer is to charge them more? Doesn’t that just cause more trouble, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy? I’m just sayin’.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:13 am
@ Michele
I’m not sure about a prophecy, but it does make sense from a business standpoint. When people are in debt, the most common advice is “pay off the highest interest rates first”. Credit issuers know this and if they are justified in raising your rates (ie: late/missing payments or significant increase in credit risk) the chances are that they will be paid first, and they will recoup more of the money that they lent in accordance with that increase.
I don’t take sides, because I understand that both lenders and borrowers are at fault to varying degrees. All I know is that in certain instances it is a part of doing business.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
I agree with this article up to a point. That point being the thousands of college aged “adults” that the credit card companies target right on campus. We, as a society, in our homes and our schools, do not teach our children how to handle finances in the real world. My parents were children born in the wake of the great depression. They were raised on the motto, “Waste not, want not”. I was raised with “save for it,then buy it”. My children are inundated with ads that tell them they can have it all and have it NOW. You can have it all and have it now, but you’ll have to pay for it sooner or later, one way or the other.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
@JD
check out:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
I think you’d really like these.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Yes, the deck is stacked against us, but if we Americans were willing to do the hard work necessary to reduce our debt AND change the national attitude toward debt, we could turn this country around.
But it has to be a full effort to scale back on everything from food, to house size, to college costs, to national debt and deficit.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I am a firm believer that “you” are the only thing standing between you and the life that you would like to be living. Fate will not hand you what you want - be it lower debt or a higher savings account balance - unless you help yourself.
I have asked for extensions on my credit card before, but I only asked for the amount that I needed, $200. When the lady asked me if I wanted to raise my credit limit to the full $700 that the company was willing to give me I told her, politely and firmly, no. I only wanted what I needed at the time … and it has saved me a lot of money over the long haul.
You have to be a smart consumer to avoid the predatory ways of the credit card companies and the consumerist tendencies of our society. It’s time for this country to find a method of relieving stress that doesn’t involve running up your credit card bill at the mall.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
@ Ryan, post #7:
“The banks are just simply out there to get money. They are running a service, it is completely our decision how we use that service (credit cards). I don’t believe banks want to see people in debt slavery, they just want to make some money by providing a service.
People CHOOSE to step into debt slavery because they decide not to educate themselves and decide to spend more than they can afford.”
The whole notion of Central Banks is to ensure debt slavery to them so they remain in control. The government is a slave to them because the central banks LOAN money to the Gov’t with INTEREST. The only way to pay back the interest is with more money borrowed from Central Banks at interest. They have all the power since they issue/print the money in the first place.
Repeat cycle.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
Watch this free documentary, and give it serious thought.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
For those who keep talking about a personal finance class in high school, it needs to be COLLEGES, not high schools, who push for change. I took a very basic personal finance class by default in high school due to lack of classes I needed being offered at that time. I was probably the only one in their who graduated let alone went to college. We went over how to balance a check book ect. (I had already had one for over a year - responsibly.) However, if I could have taken a class towards my college math requirements that was on investing or another version of high end personal finance it would have been a lot more beneficial. Basic personal finance should be started in elementary school, just like any other subject we expect people to be proficient in.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
@ Michelle,
Just as a clarification: Banks cannot use the length of term that you have been with the bank as a means for giving credit. Doing so would be in violation of the Fair Lending Credit Act. Fair Lending means that a financial institution must give equal consideration to all applicants on a standard that can be applied to all applicants. Because some applicants will have a longer history than others with a particular financial institution, it would give them an unfair advantage over other borrowers. Therefore, a set standard needs to be applied across the board, which entails FICO, employment history, type of employment, income history, and debt to income ratio. These can be applied equally to any applicant that comes into the financial institution for credit.
As a side note, my wife works at a financial institution, and she is amazed at how many people do not understand the basic concepts of credit and how it is given out. People need to understand that all of the aforementioned stipulations are used in giving credit, so even if your FICO is 800, it doesn’t mean much if your DTI ratio is 80%, you are unemployed, or the asset that you are borrowing against already has 125% combined loan to value (CLTV).
The ignorance, combined with the spendthrift ways of many, leads to a personal financial disaster. Is it really that hard to understand that if you have 600K in equity in your house, but have a fixed income of 1200 per month, that no lender will give you the 600K your house is worth? Is it that unimaginable to understand that if you owe 600K on a house that is worth 500K, you can’t borrow money against it, even with a 790 credit score?
People need to learn the basics, and education as early as Junior High should be considered mandatory. Without the base tools of understanding, it isn’t that hard to understand why so many people are in the financial situation they are in.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
While I believe this to be an issue of personal responsibility, it is also one of education. Knowledge is power.
If a person wants to drive a car, a motorcycle, fly a plane, practice medicine, be a police officer, etc…he must be educated about and tested on what he’s doing before he can do it. Some people are disqualified, others excel. In areas where society can be impacted (and using credit IS one of those) - at the minimum, there should be some sort of class and exam.
My personal opinion is that this is being handled like sex education and religion. The schools will give the high level overview but it’s “up to the parents.” While I can appreciate that to a certain extent, many children are not being taught this in the home. In fact, schools are probably teaching more in the area of sex education than they are financial management.
Though I cannot say that I would not be in the mess I am today if I’d taken a class, I can say with some certainty that I would at least have understood the “basics.” I was raised in a house where money was not taught and I am still learning.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:10 pm
JerichoHill @ #13 - I would prefer it if the NYT’s comparison had broken down mortgage debt vs consumer debt. However, I do not agree that mortgage debt is always “good debt”. I do find it a useful thing to realize my $220K mortgage is at the high end overall (average mortgage debt was $68K). Even for my age and income bracket it’s twice the average ($108K).
What I would have liked to see is debt compared to assets. But that’s me.
(As for why I have a $220K mortgage, my house is in Redmond - home of Microsoft & Nintendo, near Seattle - and houses average around $400K here.)
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
@JD,
“Great comments so far, but I really do think you folks are underestimating the power of advertising. Kris and I were talking the other day, and we both agree that the number one thing people can do to save money is to reduce their exposure to advertising.”
On your next vacation, please go to CHINA. That country seems to have more advertising than America does; the streets are lined with more and bigger and fancier billboards, company logos are plastered everywhere. The state-run television features zillions of ads for everything to encourage consumption, and you cannot walk one city block without 5 different people shoving some ad flier into your face.
And, yet .. the personal savings rate there is 40%-50%! Even as the economy continues to grow at double-digits. While America’s personal savings rate is 0%-1%, in some years it is negative. So I don’t buy that advertising has anything to do with debt.
Also, I would have thought a rather sizable portion of your income comes from advertising nowadays, so I’m rather surprised about your negativity on it.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Remember, the average person’s IQ is not that far from borderline mentally retarded.
Either let big brother government stop those “evil” credit cards and advertisers from forcing you to buy things you don’t need, or have a shred of discipline and take responsibility for what is 100% within your control.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:11 pm
JD -
Totally off the subject at hand…
Have you read MONEY magazines Aug. 2008 issue? There is a very interesting article ‘The Campaign To Make You Behave’ - pg. 126, talks about the psychology aspect of peoples financial decisions.
Thought it might be up your alley.
Thanks
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Credit card companies are not just lending people money, they are deliberately getting them addicted to credit. They carefully test their pitches so that they know will work.
They target people who they know can’t afford to repay the loan - which means that once they borrow a little they will continue to borrow more and more as they buy necessities on credit because their paycheck is going to make their credit card payment.
People who leave their keys in the ignition are irresponsible, that doesn’t mean a car thief is forgiven when they steal it. The credit card companies are predators looking for people who they can victimize.
And I say that as someone who thinks responsible use of credit is a good thing.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Comparing credit card debt to grand theft auto is ridiculous.
The credit card companies offer a service, and the consumers knowingly and willingly choose to use or abuse it.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm
You’re right. A better comparison would be to a heroin pusher.
I don’t understand why “personal responsibility” is a good thing when applied to consumers, but a cop-out when applied to lenders. Why, Adam, aren’t you insisting that credit-card companies take “100% responsibility” for sending credit cards to people with bad credit? Or for changing the terms of service retroactively?
Really, you can be a good little capitalist and still not worship banks.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:22 am
@mythago
The credit card companies are offering a service, not forcing people to spend what they do not have. Bad credit can be the result of many things, not limited to irresponsibility. It may have come about due to the loss of a job or a spouse/ex-spouse who was reckless, or medical situation, etc. The point is that no one is forced to accept the offer of credit. When they do accept, use, and abuse it there is no one to blame but the borrower as those were all choices that were made by the borrower and he/she alone. In addition, if the borrower is ignorant and fails to read the terms and conditions set forth by the creditor, again, there is no one to blame but the borrower. Yes, some of the disclosures may be a bit convoluted, but the most important terms are clear as day: credit limit, interest rate, grace period, late fee, default rate. What it comes down to is the fact that in most cases everything is bright and sunny until one digs a hole from which they cannot escape, then start blaming everyone else for their problems rather than accept sole responsibility for the situation.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 am
I think the fault lies with both, but I must say that I think the credit companies work really hard to keep you there.
I have been trying to close a credit card account for about a year. I made the first mistake on it by having something online charge to that account while it was in closing. That reactivated the account. I set it up to be in closing status again. I got a notice that the account was closed and then almost immediately got a statement charging me an annual fee on the account.
I continue to make calls to try to get this account closed, have been told that I need to pay something in so that I don’t incur any finance charges, and that they will cut me a check to reimburse me later. My trust level is zilch.
It seems that this particular company makes it VERY DIFFICULT to actually close an account! The blame for this falls on them.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:27 am
“In addition, if the borrower is ignorant … there is no one to blame but the borrower.”
Actually no. We are all ignorant about some things and we have government regulation to protect us from people who would take advantage of that ignorance. Instead, government has been protecting the predators.
You aren’t providing people with a service when you sell them a product you know is inappropriate for their needs and rely on their “ignorance” to get them to buy it. People who do that are usually called con-artists and punished for fraud.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:58 am
The government ins’t supposed to protect us from our own ignorance, rather from that which we do not all have an understanding of. The laws provide us the opportunity to have all of the disclosures and information given to us up front so that we may make informed decisions when it comes to credit, and it is by choice that one decides not to familiarize himself/herself with the terms of such offers.
It is like you said, they are providing a service that can be accepted or denied. There is no force involved in the matter as there are alternative providers that may be selected, or as many choose to do, simply avoid using credit period.
Fraud is the practice of deception, and is not what credit providors do. They are required to lay out the terms and conditions, and if someone chooses not to do their due diligence in reviewing those terms and conditions that is their choice and should claim responsibility for the failure to do so.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:27 am
@Eric
To some extent, you’re correct. And yet, to some extent, you are not correct.
I have known lawyers with degrees in Finance who still could not tell you the terms of their credit cards. And they’ve read the agreements! The reason the print on those disclosures is so tiny is not just because they have a lot of terms and conditions; it’s to discourage people from actually reading and understanding them effectively.
When I took out my sole credit card, I did in fact request a copy of the agreement UP FRONT - and did my best to read it. I’m a rather well-educated woman and I struggled to read it; they don’t *want* you to know the terms. To them, our ignorance is their bliss.
You’re right, no one *has* to take out a credit card. But have you tried to live without credit in this economy? Rental cars, airline tickets, hotel rooms - they all require a credit card to reserve or use. (Now, I’ve done a LOT of legwork and figured out how to achieve these things without one - and used a debit card/cash. But believe me, it’s not encouraged.)
I disagree - I believe credit providers do engage in fraud, and I have been proven right in the past. Providian, class action lawsuits against Sears and others, have borne out the idea that these issuers are not working from a place of altruism.
To put it all on the borrower is convenient, and disingenuous at *best*.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:36 am
@xysea:
Please reference my posts #42 & 58. I clearly state that I do not take sides in the blame game, nor do I agree that the entirety of the disclosure statements are clearly represented. However, I do believe that the borrowers need to stand up and claim responsibility for their actions (ie: spending habits) and only place blame on the providers where deserved (ie:your examples for one instance).
Just to clarify, I do not in any stretch of the imagination adhere to a cash-only way of life. Actually, it is quite the opposite, I eschew cash in favor of credit for nearly everything.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:47 am
@Eric -
Terms like ‘universal default’ etc, are rarely amplified in any disclosure, yet they are applied. How money is applied to the account is often left out of the disclosure agreement, as well. These are important on many levels.
We live in a culture that already places an inordinate amount of blame on the the individual; we’ve managed to beat that idea into peoples’ heads. Even the woman in the article realizes her obligations and responsibilities to her creditors.
However, coming from a similar economic and social picture to that woman, it horrified me that anyone was willing to loan her in excess of $250,000 on a $47,000 annual salary. And then more loans and credit cards on top of that! That is simply debt that cannot be repaid - ever. The bank is just as responsible for abrogating its responsibility as the woman is signing on the dotted line. The bank took its chances that it would get its money back, and it won some/lost some.
And I understand business is business, but business are still run by people. I would hope, anyway. Apparently, though, people whose consciences, morals, scruples, are more inclined towards profit than their fellow humans.
I’m sorry, but that is intolerable.
A consumer-based economy can only run so long when the wealth isn’t trickling down. And its not. Big business will have a hard time sustaining profits when the middle class is broke from predatory lending and greedy executives.
We’re seeing that now. I encourage debt independence as a way to avoid what I see as a larger collapse over time. At least if you’re debt free, you’ll at worst break even - if not do a little better.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:28 am
If people aren’t fully in control of their actions and choices then why do I have a credit card, but no debt? They are predators, right? My free will only plays a part of the equation, right?
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 am
@Xysea
I think what you are missing is that the Banks are responsible and that is why they will get hurt by lending 250k to someone with 47k in salary. They will lose money and the investors will follow. She obviously has a spending problem, so what? A lot of people have gambling problems, drug problems and in the most cases people are aware that they are doing something wrong. Is it right that your wealth and your entire life can be wiped out due to a divorce and medical problems? No, it isn’t fair, but that is life. We, including her should be grateful for, no debtor’s prison, the fact that through prudent economy most of us can achieve financial security. Lending is as fair as any business if they lend more than the people can pay they will lose their investments, just like if people spend more than they make they will lose their assets. Life isn’t fair and our (my) US view of the world makes us think that everything should be easy and fair.
@All
To those who want to show kids how the markets work, I would advise to be extremely careful. For the difference between prudent investing and senseless speculation isn’t always apparent to a child. Do you want to be responsible for giving someone their first taste of gambling? I fully support teaching basic budging and check balances skills though.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:03 am
@Adam
Have you ever been offered a predatory loan? How did you know it was predatory? Did you trust the bank to have your best interests at heart?
Education will go a long way, and I’m not saying people *aren’t* even mostly responsible. After all, this particular woman admits she used retail therapy to feel better. That’s something I just don’t do. Consequently, I am debt free and building a savings.
Does that mean I can afford to have zero sympathy for her? Unfortunately, no. It wasn’t so long ago that I had credit problems and had to dig my way out of them. I was pretty poor, and learning to live within my means was darned difficult, when everyone around me was “shocked” I didn’t own or use credit cards anymore. I was cash/carry for a long time. I still am. I did have some control and I could and did make choices.
But there are a lot of predatory people out there, and a lot of people living at the margin. You don’t seem to be one of them, Adam, but they do exist. People for whom one illness or similar unexpected problem can completely derail them. They don’t have credit, nor very good credit, and the type of ‘loans’ and ‘credit cards’ they get can only cause them trouble.
If you’ve been more fortunate than they, congratulations. But then, your loan/lending terms will generally have started out - and will continue to be - more favorable than theirs.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:17 am
I started out with a credit card that had an annual fee, and a $200 limit. I had to use that, because I couldn’t get a card with anyone else. I certainly wish I was preyed upon a little harder then, maybe I could have had a nicer card.
I didn’t buy things that I didn’t need. I didn’t use my credit card unless I had the money to pay it off that instant.
This has very little to do with me being “fortunate” and a lot more to do with me not being short-sighted and selfish.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:42 am
“Education will go a long way”
No, it won’t. It will help the people who are educated. But the credit card companies are predators who make a conscious effort to find people who aren’t educated and can be taken advantage of.
There is a real effort here to excuse this by blaming the victims for being vulnerable.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:56 am
You keep calling them the “victims”, but they are the ones making every decision at each step along the way.
This has to be the only crime in existence where the victims are in complete control of everything the entire time.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:20 am
I’ve said it many times: money is more about mind than it is about math. That is, it is our personal psychologies that play the largest role in our ability to handle our personal finances. Advertisers know this. Marketers know this. Most consumers do not. Advertisers and marketers employ people to work full-time to circumvent the rational decision making process of the average person. The average person has no defense against this. They don’t even know they need a defense.
So, while “victim” may be a little strong, I think you’re incorrect to say that people are in complete control of their decisions the entire time. They’re not. They have been manipulated in a very real way to make actions that are not in their best interest. They’ve been told these actions are in their best interest.
Great discussion, by the way. Thanks for all of you who are participating. I’m especially pleased that everyone is staying civil.
Also, regarding education: I, too, wonder how much good it will do. Buy most measures, I’m a pretty smart guy. I had personal finance education in high school. And yet I managed to end up deep in debt. Only one data point, I know, but… Still, I cannot see how personal finance education could possibly hurt. In the back of my mind, I’m wondering if there isn’t something that Get Rich Slowly could do in the Real World to reach out and offer education to people who need it.
Off to see The Dark Knight…
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:22 am
This has to be the only crime in existence where the victims are in complete control of everything the entire time.
Really? Those senior citizens who fell “victim” to people peddling shoddy roof repairs they didn’t need made the decision and had “complete control” as well. When someone lays a trap, the person who walks into it may have had “complete control”, but they didn’t know it was a trap. And the “trapper” did everything possible to conceal their trap. Same with the credit card companies.
“This has to be the only crime”
It isn’t a crime. Its all perfectly legal.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
JD, if you are implying that advertisers have subconsciously brainwashed people into purchasing things regardless of their free will, I am going to have to respectfully disagree. Certainly a great deal of social pressure can make people feel as if they want something they otherwise would have never considered, but ultimately that person makes the conscious decision to purchase something.
This is the disconnect. Not the implanted suggestion, but the short-sighted greed of wanting something right now and ignoring consequences.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:39 am
@xysea “So much of our society requires us to have debt, even irresponsible debt, in order to do simple things like rent a car, reserve a hotel room or an airline flight or obtain a mortgage.”
None of these things require you to carry a balance on your cards. Yes having credit cards helps you build a credit score and you need a good credit score for many things, but you score is just as good, even better, if you always pay your balances in full by the end of the grace period. Part of the credit score is utilization and the lower your utilization rate i.e. your balance relative to your credit limit the better. If your balance only includes one month purchases, it is smaller than if you have more than one month’ worth of purchases. “We need a credit score” is a good reason to have a credit card, but it is not an excuse for having credit card debt. Just keeping a card locked up in your desk builds your credit score.
All of the “bad” things people mention - universal default, double cycle billing, etc. only apply if you carry a balance. Pay your bills in full always and you don’t even care about the interest rate. I sure don’t. I’ll take a very high cash back card with 99.9% rate because I’ll never pay this rate.
I am amazed that people blame banks for their own inability to grasp a simple moral principle “if you borrow money you always have to pay it back”. Have you always returned money you borrowed from friends? As to banks - most of them allow you to sign up for automatic payment of the full balance. This way, they’ll just take the full amount of your previous month purchases from you bank account on the due date - no interest, no late charges. You just have to verify the bill. Isn’t it nice of them to provide you with this easy way to avoid both interest and late fees?
@The CFO (21) Regarding “lack of personal financial education”.
How much financial education does one need to know that a) you have to repay your debts - both $2 you borrowed from a friend and money you charged on your card b) there is no “free money” with credit cards, you’ll have to pay whatever you borrowed back c) the only choice you have with credit cards is whether you’ll pay exactly what you borrowed or pay a whole lot more d) if you pay your full balance by the due date, you’ll be charged no interest; if you pay less, you’ll be charged more in interest than you can possibly earn on your bank account. My parents were able to figure this out even without knowing much English; they certainly didn’t know enough to read the fine print. Yet my parents were already in the 40s, my father in his late 40s when we came to the US from the Soviet Union. I can assure you, there was no “personal financial education” in the Soviet schools; there wasn’t even a concept of “personal finances”. You got 100-something rubles monthly salary in cash and you used the same cash to stand in line and pay your bills. Whatever little left was mostly kept in socks or under the mattress. How come refugees from a communist country could figure out what more sophisticated Americans today can’t?
I’ve lived in the US for almost 30 years, and American “it’s not my fault it’s somebody else’s; government has to protect me from my stupidity” mentality never seizes to amaze me.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
In Maxed Out, one of the cases was a mentally retarted man who had been coaxed into signing into a predatory mortgage. And by “signing”, I mean he copied his name underneath after someone printed it for him.
Then there are people who had to charge medical care for a life-threatening condition.
It’s unfortunate that the spendthrifts get most of the attention when the media discusses debt, because there are plenty of situations in which the debtor wasn’t foolish or greedy. We should be helping these people instead of arguing about the debtors who have a closet full of Manolos.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
I was a psychology major in college. I’ve continued to read about psychology as an adult. I am convinced that people can be psychologically manipulated (not brainwashed) through advertising, perhaps not subverting free will, but certainly influencing their decisions. It’s not just opinion. It’s fact. That’s why companies do it.
This goes to very subtle levels, too. Package design influences what we buy, for goodness sake. We’re manipulated by packaging. Again, this isn’t opinion. It’s a fact.
For more on this subject, read Malcolm Gladwell on the power of marketing.
I absolutely believe that individuals must take responsibility for their actions. But I also believe their actions are often influenced by forces they don’t even understand.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 am
Every month, I receive my electric bill and pay it in full. Every month, I receive my credit card bill and pay it in full. Not complicated.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:06 am
Question: If you are not going to carry a balance on cards, why bother with them? Why not just use cash?
Believe me, kitty, I get the complete understanding of ‘if you borrow it, you must pay it back.’ I learned it the hard way, by believing what I thought I understood the agreement to say - only to find out they could change the terms at any time, and for any reason they liked. And I paid back every red cent, even the unjustified ones because it was easier than landing in court, or trying to fight.
I believe I was preyed upon. As a poor single mother on one income, I too started with a small card. I’ll just put diapers on it, I said. I’ll pay it off every month, I said. And then the baby got sick, and that went on the credit card because I had no free cash. Pretty soon, with enough rope, you’ll hang yourself.
It didn’t help that the minute they figured out that money was tight for us they upped the interest rate substantially. No matter that the bills were paid on time each month. And guess what? What they did was perfectly legal to us. Upping the interest rate, cutting our limit so all of a sudden we were ‘over the limit’ with all the fees *that* entails. Oh, good heavens, I can barely stand to think about it.
So, I walked away. I paid off the debt and I lived, for some time, on a cash only basis. The only account was a credit union savings account, so I could deposit a paycheck into it. (Those check-cashing places charge a mint to do it for you.) Then, slowly, I added a checking account. And set up automatic savings deposits. And then, eventually, *one* credit card. That’s it. If I don’t have cash, I don’t buy it.
That goes for cars. The only thing I financed recently was a home purchase, and I had my aunt and uncle help me with that. They privately loaned me the money, and I’m paying *them* back monthly.
Frankly, I could care less if the banks ever give me a good FICO score ever again. I don’t trust them, their lending instruments or their terms as far as I can throw them, thanks very much.
I don’t understand people who have 13 credit cards but don’t use them. I don’t understand people who charge and pay it off at the end of the month. I just use cash and not the card at all. Why pander to a system encourages indebtedness? Even temporarily?
That goes back to my original point. Our society encourages people to have credit cards. Furthermore, it encourages their use - repeatedly. Often. With expensive advertising.
Why should a credit card be necessary to successful personal finance at all?
Personally, I’m sticking as close to cash as I can. The only reason I got any credit card at all was to make rental cars, etc, easier, and to establish positive credit. Because I have to.
Because being debt free isn’t enough.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:09 am
@cath
No, you’re right. Paying a bill is that simple.
What’s not simple are a lot of other things, like no raises for 4 years. Losing your job. Getting sick.
A lot of people I know who have experienced problems had every intention of doing just as you say, and in fact they had. Every month up until things went horribly wrong.
I dearly wish life was a simple as what you’re trying to portray, but it is not.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Some possible reasons to use credit cards even if not carrying a balance:
1. Grace persiod allows for savings in high-yield accounts an extended period of time to earn.
2. Rewards programs allow for earning of points/miles toward merchandise, flights, hotels, payments toward card balance, etc.
3. Extended protection on purchases
4. Reduction in the number of bills to pay per month by charging as many applicable bills to a single card.
5. No reason to travel back and forth to bank to continually pull out cash (especially with gas prices at the levels they are at now)
6. Build a credit history
7. Expense tracking
8. Emergencies
These are in no particular order and I’m, sure there are tons more reasons, but this is just off the top of my head
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
I am amazed that people blame banks for their own inability to grasp a simple moral principle “if you borrow money you always have to pay it back”. Have you always returned money you borrowed from friends?
I am amazed that anyone equates a business transaction with a bank with a loan from a friend. You may feel a moral obligation to guarantee citicorp’s shareholders a profit on their investment, but I guarantee you they don’t feel any moral obligation for citicorp’s debts. They aren’t loaning you money, they are making a business deal on which they hope to get a very healthy return.
If you have a “friend” who loans you money while charging you credit card interest rates you might want to wonder how much of a “friend” they really are.
Your “friend” would have been called a loan shark 40 years ago. Only the mob offered that kind of very profitable “service”. Then we made it legal.
I also believe their actions are often influenced by forces they don’t even understand.
I think that is correct. But it does not mean credit companies don’t understand them and use them to get people to act in ways that are not in their best interest. Part of that marketing is suggesting it is somehow “immoral” for you to use your legal right to bail out when your plans go bad and you are in over your head.
If a corporation’s plans go bad and they have to bail out, well that is just the way the system works. Don’t expect those shareholders to pick up the tab. Our moral obligation then seems to end at exactly the same point as our legal obligation. That’s the way credit works too.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
kitty: right on!
Did anyone else notice that Ms McLeod is smoking a cigarette while selling trinkets on eBay to ease her debt so she could “pay her food bills”? I know, smoking is addictive, the cigarette companies use underhanded advertising techniques, blah blah blah, but still when I see people saying “I can’t afford food” or “I can’t afford my medications” and they are still smoking, my sympathy level decreases greatly.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 am
Wow, this subject is taking an uncomfortable right wing turn for me. This ‘blame the victim’ mentality is beyond my understanding.
Are there no circumstances under which someone might incur debt that might be considered ‘acceptable’, without you people examining their lives with a fine tooth comb and a microscope?
I mean, I’m pretty frugal and I still wouldn’t want you people judging whether or not I bought store brand coffee or Folgers.
Ouch.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
“when I see people saying “I can’t afford food” or “I can’t afford my medications” and they are still smoking, my sympathy level decreases greatly.”
That’s probably because you have never discovered you are addicted to something. Most people who are tobacco addicts got addicted as children. The tobacco companies don’t see anything wrong with that either. After all, it was their choice.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
The picture on the first page of the New York Times article points to some fairly irresponsible ways that Ms. McLeod is spending her money if she really is in such a dire situation.
1. She is smoking.
2. A Yoohoo bottle is on the table.
3. A Starbucks bottle is on the table.
4. Multiple cans from some sort of beverage is on the table.
5. A magazine is on the table.
All of these items cost money. A pack of cigarrettes a day for a year can easily cost $1,000. Four purchased beverages (Starbucks, Yoohoo, canned pop) per day can add another $1,000 a year. And a magazine here and there can add another $200.
Seems like cutting these unnecessary expenses would give her over $2,000 a year to put towards the retirement of some of that debt.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Again, a shred of discipline will resolve the issue. And this is coming from someone who has faced chemical addiction.
Also, your smoking analogy is not apt. As a society we assume that children lack a real understanding of consequences. This is why we don’t try 12 year olds as adults.
People with credit card debt are full grown adults with fully developed brains.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
It takes more than a shred, I’m afraid.
As a former smoker, it took 3 attempts after 15 years of cigarettes to quit and stay quit. (4 years nicotine-free now) Considerable willpower and effort, and twice I completely failed at it.
And I only got part of the way on willpower; the other half? Nicotine patches; I got help.
Actually, I think the analogy is apt. Like any addict, a debt addict cannot even have access to a little debt. And like illegal substances, and cigarettes, the product should be regulated by law.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“Like any addict, a debt addict cannot even have access to a little debt.”
Like most other things people find themselves addicted to, debt is beneficial in moderation. The all-or-nothing attitude feels like the easy way out instead of actually practicing basic self-control.
For the sake of the argument, however, let’s explore this avenue. How could the government realistically determine who should and should not have access to any form of debt?
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? The lenders are not to blame. Unless you can point to specific instances of fraud (promising one rate guaranteed then switching it or something) the onus is upon the borrower to pay off their loans, period. They can’t make you borrow anything. The lady in the main article was irresponsible and foolish–one might have expected more from a working woman in her mid-forties. Unbelievable.
As far as blaming the victim, who’s the victim? Who? The person who voluntarily took on debt they couldn’t repay? Are you serious? This is why you save for emergencies. Yeah stuff can happen that no one can predict, and if it’s really bad, seek private charity. Honestly.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Even 20 years ago when the debt to income ratio used for financing mortgages was more conservative, we looked at the numbers and said there’s no way we could comfortably afford the monthly payment for certain houses. We waited until we could build one in our price range. (During that time of looking and pondering building, I had a little amortization book I carried in my purse trying to figure out the scenarios.) And like someone else said, when you look at the credit limits we’ve been given on some of our credit cards (e.g., a department store card) it’s ridiculous. $2500 for a Belk card. Please. We keep some of these for the discounts they offer, but use them rarely and pay them off immediately.
Why do we always expect someone else to look out for us and save us from ourselves? Some of the stories that have come out with the recent mortgage crisis have been incredible. A person with a $70000 income and a $2400 mortgage payment. A person with a substantial mortgage already purchasing another house as an investment (a.k.a. get rich quick in this case) and then getting stuck with it. These folks made very bad decisions and I don’t think we should pay for bailing them out.
There are exceptions. I think the payday loan companies are absolutely horrible. Our state just put new laws in effect for those. They are not stringent enough, but they are a start. Those companies are really not much more than legalized loan sharks IMHO.
I don’t think it’s advertising per se. I think it’s that we, Americans, in general are more worried about keeping up appearances than other countries. And, we consume, consume, consume. People are shocked when I tell them the very first thing I do when I get the newspaper each day is throw away all the sales fliers, UNLESS we are in the market for a specific item. Commercials don’t appeal to me one bit. I often think it’s ludicrous how much is spent on commercials (particularly during the Super Bowl) because I don’t think they influence people’s buying enough to merit the costs … but that’s me. Often I remember the commercial, but not the product … especially since these days the two are often loosely tied.
For people who are having problems closing accounts by calling … ALWAYS follow up in writing. Yes, it is old fashioned, but it is effective and needed communication for such actions. If you read the fine print on your accounts, you’ll see that contesting charges, making changes to your account, etc. often needs to be done in writing. Document dates and people you spoke to and be relentless about it. Write a letter, then follow it with a phone call, then another letter, etc. and go up the line speaking to supervisors–be relentless about that, too. They will try to tell you the supervisor is not available, etc., but do not give up. Of course, they try to keep your account open. Just be dogmatic about closing it and don’t fall prey to any great offers they’ll give you for continuing to keep it open.
We had to ask for our credit limit on our gas card to be increased recently, not because we actually need more credit because we are not paying our bill. We live in a rural area. There are few gas stations and one that is closest to us at work and home and has the best prices offers a credit card. So we pay it off each month, but because of rising prices, the amount we owed that was scheduled for upcoming automatic payment and the amount we’d charged since then totalled more than our limit. When the pump rejected our card, we called and they happily upped our limit.
And, I do give to charity and I do think people can fall on hard times, but the majority of the “victims” are not in those situations.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Exactly. If you loan money to people who can’t afford to repay you its your own fault. Especially when its obvious? Where is the due diligence there?
The answer, of course, is that the credit card companies know that people will only give up once they are drained dry financially. By then the credit card company they will likely have collected a couple times the amount they actually lent.
Loan sharking is a very profitable business.
Just to be clear - why would the credit card company want someone to pay them back? Where are they going to come close to the 12%-30% return they are charging in interest.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I’m not stating that people are without blame in some scenarios, but when a bank tells you ‘yes you can afford this’ , works to make it happen and it knows you can’t make the payments, the bank will bear a fair share of the risk *and* the blame.
The thing is banks spread their risk by selling the debt. Debt as an asset on a balance sheet is definitely funny money. And very risky.
To say this is solely the province of personal responsibility is a way of shifting responsibility away from the bank and giving most of it to the customer, even when the bank knew what it was doing the whole darn time.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I think everyone understands that the banks and credit card companies are trying to make as much money as they can. But they don’t do that by only lending to people who will be able to repay, they do it by deliberately lending to people they know won’t be able to repay.
Even if they never get a dime of the principal back, they can make a tidy profit by collecting on the interest. Their risk is that people will give up and walk away before the companies have extracted their profit.
The notion that the banks and credit card companies are the victims of the people who can’t repay their debts is ludicrous.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:22 pm
@Adam
Cheap credit wasn’t such a problem for people years ago. Ever wonder why that is?
Check out this:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/credit/view/
Years ago, there were tried and true formulas for figuring out what people could pay. And if they came back asking for more?
Well, the bank declined them. Out of a sense of responsibility towards economic soundness overall, and because they also didn’t want people to get into a situation that they couldn’t handle.
It’s not a surprise what changed; banks changed their practices. They started extending credit to people who they knew needed access to cheap money, and who they knew were beyond risky. (The mortgage debacle is about this very same problem).
I do think we’re barraged by the notion of ‘consume, consume, consume’. Heck, after 9/11 our President told us to do it to be patriotic and help restore the economy. (I didn’t listen. I thought the idea was stupid. lol) From the top down, people actually live that way. Who bought an IPhone? Or the latest video game console?
Beyond instill a basic understanding of personal finance, there is little that anyone can do for individuals. But some people don’t even do that. My parents didn’t; they were coming into their own in the 80s, the last great ’spend-y’ time in recent history. I had to completely re-learn everything about personal finance, and I used the best model I could find. My grandmother lived through the Depression, was frugal, saved religiously and rarely used credit. She was a smart lady, my grandma.
I’m teaching my daughter that it isn’t about what you have; we don’t have a flat screen TV, because our others work fine. I try to teach her that there are things in life more important than money; like people. We volunteer, we give (even though we don’t have a lot ourselves) and I refuse to take her to the mall for her own good.
I think it’s important to be realistic, without being unnecessarily cruel. And while it’s good to pat yourself on the back for being one step ahead of those in debt, I’d be cautious about passing too harsh a judgment on folks.
Not everyone has the same life experiences, learning, or examples as you had. Being a teacher is more beneficial in the long run.
That’s why I came here; to learn more about saving and personal finances so that I can pass it on to the people I care about.
@ Eric
I track expenses on my bank statement. I use a Visa or Mastercard debit for a majority of my purchases. I can take cash out when I’m in the grocery store, if I need it. So, no credit cards as tracking devices are not necessary.
I always make sure to have a good savings cushion. In fact, I have a few savings accounts right now. If I’m in a pinch, I ‘loan’ money to myself, interest and penalty free, and work to pay it back.
The only thing I can see credit cards are good for is convenience, and well, imho that’s have the problem right there. It’d be a good thing if buying such things were a good bit less convenient maybe…but I’m sure people would get around that, too.
But, I found out for 6 years it is quite possible to get by with no credit card at all. I lived okay; some things were more difficult, but overall little changed. That is why I do not believe having a credit card should be used as a barometer of financial success.
My FICO score should not be lowered, for example, if I have fewer cards than they think I should have. Or if I don’t use them as often as they think I should. I have had both happen in the past, and I’ve fought both. In the end, that was the reason I felt compelled to get a card. What if I needed a bank loan? Without a positive credit history, your FICO score will not improve - debt or no debt.
That’s a scam. And a crock.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
One last thought before sleep -
Ever wonder why we have to spend so much time defending ourselves against credit lenders? Following up, phoning, etc? Why must we do this? Why aren’t we just out living our lives?
Somehow, I don’t see the banks as the wounded parties here. They have infinitely more tricks, and resources, than we have time and money.
I took my quality of life back; I rarely wrestle with the bank, or a card issuer. I don’t want to, and because I reject their product 99.9% of the time, I don’t have to.
I don’t want a department store card with a $2500, and they shouldn’t be offering me one. Or, if they do, and see my income perhaps they should suggest one with a smaller limit? Or perhaps even (shock, horror) decline to give me one, after looking at an income vs expenditure worksheet.
Will people lie? Of course, but at that point - if the bank did all they could to make the customer aware and to dissuade them from unnecessary credit - I would have a lot less sympathy for that person, myself.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Let me make it very clear here. I’m not for bailing out banks either, and if they make dumb decisions, they make dumb decisions. However, we’re talking about individuals being in debt. So, SO, there is *no* shifting of responsibility. Ultimately it is the borrower who chooses to seal the deal. Again, you have not been coerced at gunpoint to sign on the dotted line. What prevents a person from getting a 3rd party opinion? Say, that of an experienced accountant?
I used to work at a womens clothing store. We called it “making numbers”. We have to sell a certain amount daily and as long as the check clears, it’s not our problem if the money should have gone to rent or food or whatever. That’s the customer’s responsibility. The same goes for banks lending you money, it’s a service that they provide. You don’t have to take everything they offer you.
Throughout all this mortgage and credit card drama, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about business. Lenders, ice cream sellers, pharmaceuticals, and day cares do not exist for your benefit. They are trying to make as much money as they can for themselves (and there are different short & long term strategies for this of course). It’s not wrong and it’s not indecent. As long as no fraud has been committed, you must be accountable for obligations YOU assumed.
Don’t expect these entities to be your parent or your babysitter when it comes to your finances.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Actually, Harold, right now we are talkin about banks being in debt. A lot of debt. And selling that debt, and taking debtors down with them.
Has anyone here ever made a poor financial decision? From the comments I’ve been reading, one would suspect the majority is operating from a position of always having been financially savvy. If so, then you really can’t understand what it’s like to not have those skills and to be flying blind, and trusting of banks who claim to want to help you but who are really helping themselves.
Actually, the entities, Harold, you describe exist for society’s benefit. We all benefit more when the majority is doing better. Banks are nothing if most people are too broke to access their services; at one point, it has to be viewed as a symbiotic relationship. Banks can do nothing (no investments etc) with my money if I don’t use them.
What the banks failed to realize was that by going parasitic on people, they were killing the host. Now we’re seeing some of them die off, much the way the creditors they gave easy credit to are dying off financially.
I think that’s an excellent lesson for them to learn, don’t you?
It’s the same with the general economy. If you do not raise wages, but you raise cost of living, and your economy is consumer-based you’re going to end up with problems. If that economy goes top-heavy with mega-rich at the top and ultra-poor at the bottom, you’re also going to go pear-shaped. The fundamentals of a consumer-based economy is that everyone must participate, and that eventually all resources and ability to pay run out.
Now, I’m not really here to argue free markets, unfettered capitalism or whether or not we should have a consumer-based economy. I go to political sites for that.
I do not believe that banks should be able to offer credit to people outside the traditional ratios; if they do, they should bear the primary risk for that. After all, they’re speculating on debt using your money and mine - the money we put into their accounts.
There are too many factors to say it is solely the province of personal responsibility. For one, it’s a societal problem. One we will all be feeling the fall out from. To shove it away and say, ‘Not my problem’ is ridiculous and selfish. The people affected by this crisis are your friends and neighbors, people in your churches and schools. If your only response is a ‘tsk tsk’ and to turn your face away, then I find that very, very sad indeed.
I’m not saying you can save them, but instead of looking down your nose at them, why not educate them? As a good deed, to yourself and to the community?
I understand the temptation of believing the ‘I lived right so why should I care’ line of thinking, but honestly, I thought Americans were more caring people than that.
And I’m extremely grateful that the Americans I know IRL generally are. If I had had similarly judgmental people in my life, I doubt I would have had either the will or the ability to pull myself out of my own financial crisis and learn what I needed to in order to succeed.
July 24th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Wait a minute, now. The lenders avoid extending credit to risky borrowers to save THEIR OWN ass (and the lenders’ investors’ collective ass), not the borrowers’. It absolutely 100% *is* the borrower’s responsibility to understand the terms of the loan.
July 24th, 2008 at 7:00 am
They are trying to make as much money as they can for themselves (and there are different short & long term strategies for this of course). It’s not wrong and it’s not indecent.
It is if your business model is to tell people you are providing them with a service when in fact you are trapping them into an addiction that they will discover they aren’t able to escape. That reality is not even obvious to some pretty smart