this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
372 points (96.3% liked)

News

23413 readers
2347 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Gen Z is increasingly relying on “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) services for holiday shopping, with spending projected to rise 11.4% this year, totaling $18.5 billion.

These services appeal to younger consumers with limited credit histories but can lead to overextension, as they lack centralized reporting and encourage overspending.

Experts warn of accumulating fees, particularly when BNPL plans are tied to credit cards.

With inflation and rising credit card debt already burdening Gen Z, consumer advocates caution that these services may worsen financial instability despite their convenience.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ntma@lemm.ee 3 points 5 hours ago

It's easy to spend money when it's all digital. The younglings don't use physical cash.

[–] renrenPDX@lemmy.world 33 points 15 hours ago (4 children)

This is really interesting. Layaway purchases in stores used to be popular but went away in the late 90’s. It’s back now as BNPL, with much worse terms.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 21 points 13 hours ago

Layaway purchases in stores used to be popular but went away in the late 90’s. It’s back now as BNPL, with much worse terms.

Lawaway is superior. Laywaway had zero interest charges. Some places charged a flat fee, but you also didn't get your item until the full balance was paid. There's no chance of a lawaway purchase spiraling into a huge expense. The expense is fixed at the time of layaway and never gets higher. Lawaway also builds the ability to delay gratification, which is an important life skill that is sometimes not common.

BNPL has none of that consumer protection.

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 9 hours ago

https://www.retailmenot.com/blog/walmart-layaway.html

Walmart actually just stopped layaway entirely in 2021 for BNPL.

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 23 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the key difference in layaway that you didn’t have access to the item until it was paid off? I remember my mom putting holiday gifts on layaway at Walmart. They’d be kept in storage in the back of the store, and would be given over only after they were fully paid off.

Buy now/pay later plans allow the consumer access to the item now, with a payment plan to follow. It’s much more akin to credit than layaway.

[–] renrenPDX@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago

Yes. You had the honor of reserving the item from sale by paying more. BNPL is like the boss in its final form. You can have but don’t own it. Maybe it’s more akin to old furniture places with leases.

[–] d00ery@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

In the UK the Littlewoods catalogue is the one I remember. You'd end up paying well over the RRP with a year or two or monthly payments.

[–] JustAPenguin@lemmy.world 22 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I hate BNPY so much... I deleted my after pay account, which means I can no long use their services unless I get in contact with support to reopen my account. I did it to explicitly make it near impossible for me to be tempted. It worked. There were times I felt regret, but it was 100% the smartest move.

Then, PayPal introduced pay in 4... All my hard work went right down the drain. I can't afford this shit but fuck it's hard when you're clinically depressed.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 11 points 15 hours ago

Services should be required to allow you to opt out of being offered such things. I choose to live a debt minimal lifestyle because of how I was raised, and I don’t want to be tempted. The same goes for online gambling. (And alcohol advertisements, but I do drink).

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 32 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (1 children)

Stuff like this is why the headline Econ stats do not actually reflect reality.

Sure, there's lots of room for critiquing how the media and the investor class focus on stats that are not actually representative of things on the ground for fairly complex mathematical/economic reasons, but that conversation requires people to have a Masters on Econ to understand.

What does not require this is the much simpler: They do not take personal debt levels and credit scores into account.

People say things like 'inflation is going up' 'i cant afford as much as i used to' and ... the main actual reason for this is usually that they're drowning in debt, but are either unaware or don't want to admit it.

This is a country where 54% of adults read and write at below a 6th grade level. Probably a comparable amount can't actually do their own budget.

...

It doesn't matter if your wages go up 2% in a year if you had to spend that year buying groceries on credit to not starve, and those all have 16 to 36% interest rates.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/personal-finance/buy-now-pay-later-daily-essentials-groceries-young-adults-rcna141718

[–] DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world 17 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Systemic issues can only be solved with systemic changes.

No amount of shaming individuals will fix systemic debt issues, if this is such a large trend that it effects most of the generation then it can only be fixed with systemic changes.

The narrative that individuals are responsible for widespread debt is propaganda meant to shift blame off of the rich people causing wealth inequality to skyrocket

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 9 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

I don't think their comment was about shaming individuals, but rather pointing out that there are individual level factors that economists don't take into account when measuring economic health.

[–] DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Systemic issues can only be solved with systemic changes.

Blaming any individual for their outcome in a system that creates these issues distracts people from the cause of the issues, wealth inequality.

That's why choosing to obsess over individual choices is totally useless and literal propaganda keeping people from correctly focusing their frustrations

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 5 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Its not even 'individial factors' in the sense that everyone faces unique situations that are not captured by data.

These credit / debt amounts are obviously captured by credit agencies, banks, etc., sold off to data brokers, either anonymized or not.

How else would any credit check occur?

A BLS economist could easily work these in to existing top line numbers, or make a new headline index.

Income Sans Recurring Debt Payments (car, house, consumer debt, student loans, etc)

Average

Median

Percentiles / Buckets / Brackets

Household/Individual

By Age

By Sex

By Location

By Gross Income

By Education Level

....etc.

The data is there. The math is not that hard (for an Economist or Data Scientist).

They just don't.

It's lieing by ommission.

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 3 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I wonder if this research is done but not picked up by media.

I'm honestly not sure. I have the means to check but not the time-energy, unfortunately.

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

Maybe a few times a year a story makes it fairly mainstream in terms of internet news, but it almost never trends amongst popular streamers / youtubers / podcasts, or airs on TV.

Credit Karma or some other credit agency, or maybe some non profit or academic research will show up, as this article is...

... But the data obviously exists to be able to study and work into a new metric, which could be reported probably at a monthly pace, worst case, quarterly.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The BLS does, I think? have some very rough aggregate stats on consumer debt levels, but nobody reports on it the way business news orgasms every time the jobs print and CPI come out...

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

No clue how you read myself shaming individuals into what I wrote.

I was writing to explain why everyone feels poorer than all the headline Econ numbers say we should feel.

Why all the libs who spent the last year or two telling us 'the economy is fine actually' were just factually wrong, functionally gaslighting everyone.

If anything, I call out the media, media friendly 'economists' and business people for perpetuating bullshit.

Obviously a general explosion in personal debt levels is a general, systemic problem with systemic solutions?

...

I am all for systemic solutions:

Tax the Wealthy / Tax Corporations

Get rid of student loans, do free tuition

Do a total debt jubilee for those below I dunno 200% poverty income threshold

Cap all consumer credit instruments of all kinds at 3x the Fed Rate

Raise the threshold of income for SNAP and LIHEAP and EITC, etc

Implement universal healthcare, outlaw private insurance, lower costs

Raise the minimum wage

Rent control, automatically expunge all eviction records after 1 or 2 years, actually fund building public housing, write a law that says if a house or condo is on market, unsold, you must drop its price by 5% for every 3 months it remains unsold...

Blah blah, tons of things we could theoretically do.

[–] DeadWorldWalking@lemmy.world -2 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Only systemic changes will fix systemic issues.

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 hours ago

... Are you a bot, or do you just have extremely poor reading comprehension?

Can you explain how me stating that a whole bunch of people have a lot of debt ... implies I am blaming them individually for this?

If I told you that black men are much more likely to be sentenced heavily for the same crimes, abused or killed by cops... would you think that means I am implying that that is their fault?

If I told you that trans people have higher suicide rates... am I also implicitly saying that is their fault?

How....are you reading a causal or morally prescriptive blame into these statements that are just data, just statistics... after I have already stated that obviously these are systemic problems that require systemic solutions?

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 36 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

BNPL services are downright criminally exploitive. The fact that I find Klarna logos on restaurant menus is completely insane.

Taking on debt to pay for large purchases can make sense. Buying a car with cash is impossible for most people, but paying off a car note over several years gives you the chance to buy the car without fronting the cash first.

But this whole industry is built on the idea that you can just borrow from your future self to fulfill yourself today. Quite frankly, if you don't have the money to eat out at a restaurant, you shouldn't be taking on debt to do so.

It's one thing to have a credit card where you pay to improve your credit score, or earn rewards. Ideally you are using credit strategically, even if you're using it for most/all of your daily purchases. It's another thing to have a restaurant menu literally tell you that you can "pay for this meal in 4 easy payments". They're openly asking you to keep buying luxuries even when you're too broke to foot the bill.

[–] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 11 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

My credit card is just a proxy for my debit card, with benefits.

I thought everyone used theirs this way, I tell friends I have a credit card and they gasp.

Like wtf, it's only as dangerous as you are. Use it, pay it. In, out. Ez pz.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

Also I’ll add that there are some things that feel wrong that they just aren’t prepared for you to pay cash for. My audiologist was shocked when I asked him to put my hearing aids on a single debit payment and we had to break it up into three payments. My car was two payments one a day after the first. I was raised to save up for expenses where possible and avoid debt for anything but cars, houses, and education (and hoo boy did I get a lecture on expected income vs price of degree).

And I have to say that these issues are a combination of systemic and cultural. You don’t get this being so common with it being an individual failing, and you don’t get the situations I’ve described or the issues with debt avoiders getting screwed when we look to get a rare responsible loan without it being systemic. But also you don’t get people casually splurging with money they don’t have without it being cultural. Fiscal responsibility isn’t fun or sexy (though actually I have found a casual partner more attractive for the fact that she has retirement savings and minimal debt), but after decades of propaganda encouraging wasteful lifestyles and fiscal irresponsibility I think it’s time we engage in a multi prong approach to this problem. And that very much includes teaching the average American how to live a more frugal lifestyle while also making sure that they can get what they need (housing, transit, education, community participation, cultural enrichment, etc) at an affordable cost to their income.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 35 points 21 hours ago (7 children)

I mean, we've been telling them their entire lives that the planet is doomed, and they have no future... So why the fuck not bring on the debt?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Demdaru@lemmy.world 23 points 21 hours ago (7 children)

I'm going to be brutally honest.

  1. Corporations are shitstains and prey upon people's minds and wants.
  2. People today are too entitled / greedy.

No. You don't need that phone to survive, solid but low end one will easily carry you next 3-5 years. No, you do not need to go for McD for breakfast - eat a homemade sandwhich. Takes the same amount of time it'd take to get McD served to you.

But today a lot of folk take a lot of shit for granted or worse, needed, and it's pitiful.

Fuck, that also is due to corporate ads and framing. But people need to wake up and stop fueling this shit on their own. And stop blaming schools - this shit is for parents to teach ffs, like the rest of actual household chores.

Also I am not arguing for everyone to live frugally but instead to learn a mindful way of spending. If you actually have free money, money you own and not a credit, then sure, treat yourself.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 4 minutes ago)

It's something I don't understand. Writing this on a 5 year old phone that cost me 130 euros back then. I do have the money to buy any reasonable phone on the market (not some vanity ones for rich people to show off, but like the top of the line iPhone or Pixel, whatever).

But why would I when the old one still works and does everything I need? Why would I order food when I can just make something myself? If I want to treat myself, I go to a restaurant that I actually like and spend like 30 euros tops. That's once every one or two months. Why do people overspend on this?

If you have kids and actually struggle with basic goods, that is something completely different. But I get the point you're trying to make - some people just feel entitled to a standard of living that they can't afford, and corporations gladly exploit that. And honestly, they'd be stupid not to. A sucker is born every minute. It's up to the legislative to stop this predatory behavior because the market won't regulate itself in this regard.

And you're right, it's not up to school to teach this - I wanted to comment on this one as well - school is supposed to turn you into a person that can think for yourself and realize that a high interest rate is something to your disadvantage. Not to exactly tell you what to do in situation X should you ever encounter it. Because society and its problems change and then suddenly what you learned no longer applies.

In the end, I can't tell people how to spend their money. But once might make the case that with BNPL, people spend money that's not not actually theirs yet. And once these people need help, is going to be society to foot bills, not the corporations who made money off it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 38 points 23 hours ago (8 children)

Who is teaching them financial literacy in the first place? Because they aren't being taught it in schools. Meanwhile, these predatory companies do everything they can to convince people to use them.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 18 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

So, I'm going to come to their defence a bit here. Most of this is also covered in my comment I made further into the thread.

I don't think previous generations were any less financially literate on average. You've always had those careful with credit and those that didn't seem to care, or didn't understand the ramifications of their decisions.

I grew up in the 80s and 90s and most large stores had their own store credit system with 30%+ APR rates. Plenty of people that were boomers or gen X had those accounts, and would routinely buy more whenever they cleared their credit a little.

You could also get credit cards and each card in terms of spending power would have similar limits to what you have now. And there was no shortage of people that would be sitting on their credit limit all the time. I knew people in the 90s that had no idea how interest worked and would be sitting on their credit limit paying back mostly interest all the time.

I think the difference is the ease with which you can gain access to credit now.

In the 80s and 90s you generally needed to go into the store to get their credit. You needed to go to a bank or fill in paperwork in the post to get credit cards. Crucially here, generally there were less providers of credit. Credit cards were often offered by banks, there were not so many resellers of credit. To gain a line of credit you had no chance to ever repay took more effort and as such wasn't so much of a problem as it is now. It was still a problem, and companies routinely made money from the financially illiterate, even then.

What I think is different now, is that you can get credit from a few screen swipes on your phone now. There's many many more providers of credit too. As such, the ability to get into an irreversible credit position is much easier. I would put money down that the same people with £1000s in various store credit/cards all compounding interest at 30%+ in the 90s, would also be in huge debt if credit were as easy to get then, as it is now.

I am going to blame financial institutions more here (those getting into the mess are not entirely free of blame). There might be over a thousand sources of credit now, but they all funnel up to a handful of large finance institutions, and they're the ones really burying their head in the sand pretending they don't know this is happening and couldn't do anything to stop it. They most certainly could prevent it, if they wanted to. It just works better for them to have a generation that is constantly paying interest on never repayable debt. Even factoring in the few that will be written off.

Yes, ultimately we all have our own responsibility not to get into these situations. But I don't think Gen Z or any generation are or were better at this on average. It's just the conditions that allow it have changed, and continue to change.

[–] Laser@feddit.org 2 points 13 hours ago

they're the ones really burying their head in the sand pretending they don't know this is happening and couldn't do anything to stop it.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

load more comments
view more: next ›