21–30 of 305 posts
This decision really comes down to are people better off if:(1) they have access to loans even if they are high fee or (2) they are better off if they can’t get the loans at all?
Isn't the problem less about predatory payday loans and more an existential issue around the fact that so many people can't afford to simply live ? People take these bad loans because they literally have no other choice. They are using these loans to buy groceries and cover bills, not splurge on non-essentials.
By parallel in software engineering, branch merges/integrations used to be very expensive (in cvs/subversion/perforce) and thus were done rarely, and were more expensive and difficult because changes had more time to accumulate, but with DVCSs the problem is flipped on it's head and now we merge branches routinely without fear. We need to fix payroll so that running it on a nearly continuous basis is possible.
[1] https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1093187875166797824
Big benefit for payday lending companies who charge obscene fees mostly in poor and minority areas of the country. Which consumers is the CPB protecting?
Arguably, the consumers that the CPB is protecting is those who are aware of the fees and conditions but still require payday loans, who would be excluded from consideration by the new rules [1], which do not change the interest rate requirements but exclude some customers from eligibility. If people didn't want these loans, the companies would not exist. If the loans were capable of being serviced at a lower rate, t…
I don't think this is a problem of regulation run amuck at all. It reminds me a lot of how games whose primary focus is gambling can and do extensively reach out to children in order to either earn money through advertising or by making kids into gambling consumers.
Consumers may demand it, but you have to look at what companies do to increase demand and keep repeat customers. You could argue that if people didn't want to play those games they wouldn't exist; I argue that companies create consumers through malicious policies and advertising.
Isn't the problem less about predatory payday loans and more an existential issue around the fact that so many people can't afford to simply live ? People take these bad loans because they literally have no other choice. They are using these loans to buy groceries and cover bills, not splurge on non-essentials.
I saw a tweet [1] that followed a thread on the concept that paydays are not really a requirement any more -- it is totally possible with our existing banking infrastructure to pay salaries on a more continuous basis, but we've built up a huge amount of institutional momentum around the idea that running payroll is a complex and laborious process that we want to infrequently. By parallel in software engineering, bran…
I assume these customers have less a need to take out a payday loan, but it could also be the case that expenses > pay regardless of when you receive income throughout the month.
Isn't the problem less about predatory payday loans and more an existential issue around the fact that so many people can't afford to simply live ? People take these bad loans because they literally have no other choice. They are using these loans to buy groceries and cover bills, not splurge on non-essentials.
I saw a tweet [1] that followed a thread on the concept that paydays are not really a requirement any more -- it is totally possible with our existing banking infrastructure to pay salaries on a more continuous basis, but we've built up a huge amount of institutional momentum around the idea that running payroll is a complex and laborious process that we want to infrequently. By parallel in software engineering, bran…
I'm of the mind that many of these lenders are indeed predatory, but prohibiting loans to high-risk borrowers at realistic rates (based on the risk) just leaves them unbanked rather than poorly-banked.
I'm of the mind that many of these lenders are indeed predatory, but prohibiting loans to high-risk borrowers at realistic rates (based on the risk) just leaves them unbanked rather than poorly-banked.
If they have, say, a $200 NSF charge, and your payment bounces, they can try every business day, racking up $1,000 a week in NSF fees.
Companies that do this kind of thing aren't trying to collect their original payments in good faith, they're trying to suck every last droplet of blood from those lenders who have a temporary problem but then get some money.
Limiting attempts to two would stop that.
There's a few Silicon Valley cos that enable this and they seem to have become really popular.
Could it really be that simple?
Big benefit for payday lending companies who charge obscene fees mostly in poor and minority areas of the country. Which consumers is the CPB protecting?