this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
414 points (96.4% liked)

News

23440 readers
2568 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 2 years 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
[–] MoonRaven@feddit.nl 13 points 3 days ago

It's almost like the "services" are designed just for this...

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 154 points 5 days ago (5 children)

When you think there's no future, there's no need to plan for one.

Gen Z knows that they're gonna have bigger problems than debt.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 53 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What else are you going to do? Save for a house who's price rises faster than you can earn money?

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 32 points 5 days ago (1 children)

And meanwhile your bank or brokerage gets to play with that money for a real investment return

[–] Draces@lemmy.world 24 points 5 days ago (1 children)

And the wage earner's taxes will be used to bail them out when they make a bad bet

[–] seaQueue@lemmy.world 18 points 5 days ago

Yeeeup. Socialism for me, austerity for thee

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

Well when the world is about to end in multiple ways at once, why with about debt?

[–] renrenPDX@lemmy.world 42 points 4 days ago (5 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 40 points 4 days 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.

[–] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 31 points 4 days 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 8 points 4 days 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.

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 4 days ago

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

Walmart actually just stopped layaway entirely in 2021 for BNPL.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 107 points 5 days ago (3 children)

Why isn’t this framed as predatory lending?

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 65 points 5 days ago (6 children)

Because Capitalism demands exploitation

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 38 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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 22 points 4 days ago (5 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 11 points 4 days ago (4 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 39 points 4 days ago (4 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 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days 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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

If the outcome is the same whether you save up or not - you'll never be able to afford anything - why now "own" things while you can?

[–] JustAPenguin@lemmy.world 27 points 4 days 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 15 points 4 days 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).

[–] RedC@sh.itjust.works 58 points 5 days ago (9 children)

I swear on everything that I've read this article word for word years ago but replace gen z with millenials

[–] humble_pete_digger@lemm.ee 32 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Every single Millennial also had those predatory debit card overdraft fees.

Banks would allow them to purchase something even if the checking account had no money and then hits them with like 25$ for every overdraft. Practice only outlawed in 2010.

God It was this feeling of helpless anger when banks would screw you while u are down. Thanks Obama for fixing that.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 26 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Oh it was far worse than that...

They would actually change the order of your transactions in order to maximize the number of overdrafts (and each cost $30+).

For example, say you've got $80 in your account. You buy three separate meals over the course of Monday and Tuesday, and you've got $50 left in your account. But now you remember that there is that one thing they NEEDS to be paid for, but it's $75 and you only have $50 on your account.

Well, you have no choice but to make the payment that brings you to -$25, and incur the single overdraft fee. Sucks, but $30 penalty is less than not having Internet for a month or whatever, so you do it.

So to recap: You had $50 left after those 3 meals. You made one single transaction that brought your account into negative, that means one overdraft fee, right?

Nope.

They would literally re-order the transactions, put the largest one first ($75), bringing your balance down to $5, THEN they would process the meals from Monday and Tuesday giving you THREE separate overdraft fees of $30 each.

So now you owe the bank $90 on top of the $25. And that was what the banks sold as, "overdraft protection."

Shit was disgustingly egregious. Obama made it illegal I believe.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 74 points 5 days ago

Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works 36 points 4 days 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)
[–] lychee@lemmy.blahaj.zone 63 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

In this age where you can quickly spend thousands online (or even in person) without having to actually watch any of it disappear, and corporations are hiring psychologists to make their services and platforms as addicting as possible, you're gonna get a lot of this

I see everyone in the comments saying that Gen Z have checked out and are waiting for the end but I really don't think so.

I think it's never been easier to manipulate a person to separate them from their money and things are deliberately designed that way. Big shiny upgrade now buttons, services forcing you onto 7 day free trials for premium plans upon signing up, expensive yearly subscriptions for products that ten years ago would have been unthinkable as anything other than one time purchases, you name it. Capitalists have used the internet to minmax their penny pinching.

[–] jake_jake_jake_@lemmy.world 24 points 5 days ago (1 children)

to take this a step further, imagine someone who has been exposed to these services designed to be addictive their entire (digital) life, as well as being pushed further into these services by their peers who are equally addicted and the "influencers" they look up to that are paid by these services.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 38 points 4 days ago (2 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.

[–] 01011@monero.town 14 points 4 days ago (3 children)

You cannot budget your way out of poverty. "Financial literacy" is just capitalists kicking the can down the road.

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 28 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It's not, though. Financial literacy includes things like, not spending money you don't have. When you take these predatory loans to get goods, you end up more enslaved to the capitalist system and to those who have money to lend.

Financial literacy is not a cure-all, just like normal literacy doesn't make you understand Shakespeare.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 25 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And they call them predatory loans for a reason. They are coming to you and they are going to hurt you. But we don't teach kids this before they get into the adult world and this is the result.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 46 points 5 days ago

lol time to write an article vilifying young people who somehow aren’t thriving in our flawless economic system. What self-indulgent idiots they are. Where’s my Pulitzer?

[–] Demdaru@lemmy.world 28 points 4 days ago (8 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.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 54 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Does it matter. It seems that a lot of them have checked out already as they see the world burning around them.

[–] whithom@discuss.online 32 points 5 days ago

Hard to blame them.

[–] jrs100000@lemmy.world 45 points 5 days ago (4 children)

If were going to slip into a period of hyperinflation then taking on tons of consumer debt is just good financial planning.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] ntma@lemm.ee 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] ellen_musk_0x@lemm.ee 4 points 3 days ago

When is this magical time you think when everyone used cash the majority of the time?

Because I'm 45 years old and it wasn't in my adult life. I've had a debt card to my savings/checking since I was 15 years old. And I've had credit cards since I was 19.

Half my friends bought their first homes right after the 2007 crash because mortgages were cheaper than rent. I've financed 4 vehicles. I currently have a mortgage.

I've rarely used cash for anything in my life other than "vice/sin" (drugs, strip clubs) purchases in order to keep them more private.

I don't think your comment has any truth to it at all. Nobody's been relying on cash to get them through most of their purchases since cheques became universal in the early 80's.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 20 points 4 days 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago

If your outlook on life is "work until you die with nothing left over", might as well take back something first. The debt will pile up one way or another.

[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 19 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It's all well and good to blame the generation that can't afford shit to use payday loan companies to buy shit...but when these companies align with the likes of Dominos Pizza to allow you to buy a pizza and pay off in several weekly installments, maybe it's time to blame prices for being ridiculously high?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CaptDust@sh.itjust.works 23 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Is this actually worse than the five figure credit limits gen x had extended to them? Boomers had store layaway, which really seems ideal for holiday shopping, but there's no money to be made with it so of course it's fallen out of style.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 12 points 4 days ago

I thought we did the whole credit crash a century ago.
We had a pandemic, radical credit spending, nazis, the writer is remixing the previous season. Lazy.

load more comments
view more: next ›