6 ms·

Asserting your debt as more important than someone's housing does seem like a pretty shitbag thing to me.

t-writescode 6y ago
You say that but every debt company will say that very thing. Miss enough credit card bills, and they come for you; and, in states that don't protect the house, that's fair game.
wittyreference 6y ago
People say that like the "debt" doesn't ultimately matter - as if adopting a policy of "you only get property ownership rights if you can prove you're sorrier than the person who claimed your stuff" won't lead to calamity over the medium-long term.
golemiprague 6y ago
How do you think the people who lend the money and their employees pay their housing costs? Not saying that there shouldn't be some humanity involved if possible but it certainly not shitbag, they gave someone money and he should give it back.
arcticbull 6y ago
The reality is that this is a very difficult situation all around. 1) Lenders probably shouldn't be lending money to people they know cannot repay the debts. This is also why APRs are so high - most people simply don't. 2) People who know they can't repay the debts shouldn't be borrowing in the first place. This is also why lenders have to go to such extremes to collect their debts. This is a function of being poor in a country like America with zero social safety net. If you're desperate and on the ropes and have nothing to fall back on you'll do whatever it takes to get by including take out loans that you can't afford, from lenders who know you can't repay them. The problem isn't predatory lending, or deadbeat borrowers, it's a deeply unequal society which doesn't look after its own, with rampant wealth and income inequality and a total lack of social safety net. In an ideal world, folks would be able to rely on unemployment or UBI to get by tough stretches, and this system would disappear instantly. Half the country is busy breathlessly screaming socialism over what the rest of the world considers a "functioning government" and the other half has other things on their mind like walking back stupid bathroom laws, and in the end, nothing fundamentally changes.
- malandrew 6y ago
  How do you design an unemployment/UBI system that provides an incentive not to use it unless necessary and not to stay on it any longer than is necessary?
  - lostcolony 6y ago
    You don't have to. How many people have you met who were happy doing nothing, living with nothing, AND who made good employees doing anything at all? I've met exactly zero. The ambitious won't want to stay there; the unambitious may "unfairly" get their basic needs met, but they're hardly living the high life, and the lost -useful- labor to society is negligible. Almost certainly more than offset by the ambitious who can now take risks they otherwise couldn't, knowing that if they fail they at least aren't going to end up hungry and homeless.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      This is in line with the results of Canada's early UBI experiments; substantially nobody left the workforce except to pursue liberal arts or stay-at-home parenting, both of which have intrinsic value. People are motivated by a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, including their social group at work, finding meaning in their lives through their work, and so on. UBI and unemployment isn't provide enough for a lavish lifestyle, you can achieve that through work. > The ambitious won't want to stay there; the unambitious may "unfairly" get their basic needs met, but they're hardly living the high life, and the lost -useful- labor to society is negligible. Certainly true, and of course, automation will replace the missing labor in the pool, and the continued march of development will lead to even lower birth rates (already well below replacement rate of 2.1 is almost every developed nation), and there will be fewer and fewer of these folks in time. Canada's most recent UBI experiment, cancelled recently (2020) by Ford & co, was showing excellent results [1], and so did the earlier one in 1974 [2]. [1] https://newatlas.com/good-thinking/canada-basic-income-experiment-ontario-report-results https://newatlas.com/good-thinking/canada-basic-income-exper... [2] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200624-canadas-forgotten-universal-basic-income-experiment https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200624-canadas-forgot...
majani 6y ago
Not paying back debts as agreed is tantamount to stealing, which is even shittier IMO
- arcticbull 6y ago
  For the most part, America abolished debtors prisons in 1833, and they were found unconstitutional in 1983 (Bearden v. Georgia). I say for the most part because that offer doesn't apply to things like fines and court fees [1]. Assuming you're truthful in your application for the loan, it's not theft. It may be a poor decision on the part of the lender, but of course, that's why interest rates exist and scale with your likelihood of nonrepayment. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/08/30/federal-court-declares-new-orleans-debtors-prison-unconstitutional/?sh=195af94a221f https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/08/30/federal-...
- underwater 6y ago
  In the first scenario the borrower can't pay their rent, is evicted and possibly becomes homeless. In the second scenario the worst case is that the payday lender becomes insolvent, the company collapses, and the workers go and find other jobs because they're not the ones suffering financial stress. How is that worse.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dataexporter 6y ago
    While I agree with the comments about predatory lending, I kind of feel that it has more to do with being more financially aware before agreeing to such loans. Payday lending is closer to the predatory lending practices, but I see the same kind of attitude among borrowers at lower interest rate products as well. Borrowing when you know that you will not be able to repay the loan (or with the intention of not repaying) is also wrong. > In the second scenario the worst case is that the payday lender becomes insolvent, the company collapses, and the workers go and find other jobs because they're not the ones suffering financial stress. In this case, the employees of the so called lender are rendered jobless and they don't meet their financial obligations and might become homeless themselves.
bumby 6y ago
I understand the compassion behind your point, but to play devils advocate: doesn’t every bank that holds mortgages and every landlord assume this very thing? Fall behind far enough and your debt takes priority over staying in your home. Hell, even the government will kick you out if you fall behind far enough on property taxes
throwawayboise 6y ago
It ultimately comes down to what type of housing people have a "right" to. If I can't afford the house I bought, I'll need to sell it and downsize or rent a smaller/cheaper place. That's not because the bank is being a shitbag about my debt.
ipv6ipv4 6y ago
You’ve drawn yourself a caricature of a hard scrabble borrower who’s just trying to make ends meet and has the best of intentions with regards to their debts. In my Prosper experience that was the rare exception. The typical defaulting borrower bought themselves a shiny new toy and literally felt entitled to the money. As if their success in securing the loan was sufficient justification to have earned the money outright. The drama on the Prosper lending forums, where lenders and borrowers could directly communicate with each other, was epic and educational.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Why does Prosper encourage loans for the purchase of shiny toys? Does this service benefit their customers?
neya 6y ago
Then don't borrow what you can't afford to pay back? When you borrow money from someone, you explicitly enter a contract with a legal understanding that you will pay it off back in a stipulated time. When you go back on your word, it's not only unprofessional, it is also a breach of that contract. So, the other party should be free to get back their money in whatever means legally possible within the boundaries of the law. Getting back their money from your account when it's most likely to exist isn't a bad idea after all. Not everyone who borrows money is a "victim" and not everyone who asks for their money back is a "predator". It's not so black and white. I've lost money to worthless people who lied while borrowing only to find out they blew it all on prostitutes instead of that family emergency they claimed they had.

You say that but every debt company will say that very thing. Miss enough credit card bills, and they come for you; and, in states that don't protect the house, that's fair game.

wittyreference 6y ago

People say that like the "debt" doesn't ultimately matter - as if adopting a policy of "you only get property ownership rights if you can prove you're sorrier than the person who claimed your stuff" won't lead to calamity over the medium-long term.

golemiprague 6y ago

How do you think the people who lend the money and their employees pay their housing costs? Not saying that there shouldn't be some humanity involved if possible but it certainly not shitbag, they gave someone money and he should give it back.

arcticbull 6y ago

The reality is that this is a very difficult situation all around. 1) Lenders probably shouldn't be lending money to people they know cannot repay the debts. This is also why APRs are so high - most people simply don't. 2) People who know they can't repay the debts shouldn't be borrowing in the first place. This is also why lenders have to go to such extremes to collect their debts. This is a function of being poor in a country like America with zero social safety net. If you're desperate and on the ropes and have nothing to fall back on you'll do whatever it takes to get by including take out loans that you can't afford, from lenders who know you can't repay them. The problem isn't predatory lending, or deadbeat borrowers, it's a deeply unequal society which doesn't look after its own, with rampant wealth and income inequality and a total lack of social safety net. In an ideal world, folks would be able to rely on unemployment or UBI to get by tough stretches, and this system would disappear instantly. Half the country is busy breathlessly screaming socialism over what the rest of the world considers a "functioning government" and the other half has other things on their mind like walking back stupid bathroom laws, and in the end, nothing fundamentally changes.

malandrew 6y ago
How do you design an unemployment/UBI system that provides an incentive not to use it unless necessary and not to stay on it any longer than is necessary?
- lostcolony 6y ago
  You don't have to. How many people have you met who were happy doing nothing, living with nothing, AND who made good employees doing anything at all? I've met exactly zero. The ambitious won't want to stay there; the unambitious may "unfairly" get their basic needs met, but they're hardly living the high life, and the lost -useful- labor to society is negligible. Almost certainly more than offset by the ambitious who can now take risks they otherwise couldn't, knowing that if they fail they at least aren't going to end up hungry and homeless.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    This is in line with the results of Canada's early UBI experiments; substantially nobody left the workforce except to pursue liberal arts or stay-at-home parenting, both of which have intrinsic value. People are motivated by a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, including their social group at work, finding meaning in their lives through their work, and so on. UBI and unemployment isn't provide enough for a lavish lifestyle, you can achieve that through work. > The ambitious won't want to stay there; the unambitious may "unfairly" get their basic needs met, but they're hardly living the high life, and the lost -useful- labor to society is negligible. Certainly true, and of course, automation will replace the missing labor in the pool, and the continued march of development will lead to even lower birth rates (already well below replacement rate of 2.1 is almost every developed nation), and there will be fewer and fewer of these folks in time. Canada's most recent UBI experiment, cancelled recently (2020) by Ford & co, was showing excellent results [1], and so did the earlier one in 1974 [2]. [1] https://newatlas.com/good-thinking/canada-basic-income-experiment-ontario-report-results https://newatlas.com/good-thinking/canada-basic-income-exper... [2] https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200624-canadas-forgotten-universal-basic-income-experiment https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200624-canadas-forgot...

majani 6y ago

Not paying back debts as agreed is tantamount to stealing, which is even shittier IMO

arcticbull 6y ago
For the most part, America abolished debtors prisons in 1833, and they were found unconstitutional in 1983 (Bearden v. Georgia). I say for the most part because that offer doesn't apply to things like fines and court fees [1]. Assuming you're truthful in your application for the loan, it's not theft. It may be a poor decision on the part of the lender, but of course, that's why interest rates exist and scale with your likelihood of nonrepayment. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/08/30/federal-court-declares-new-orleans-debtors-prison-unconstitutional/?sh=195af94a221f https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/08/30/federal-...
underwater 6y ago
In the first scenario the borrower can't pay their rent, is evicted and possibly becomes homeless. In the second scenario the worst case is that the payday lender becomes insolvent, the company collapses, and the workers go and find other jobs because they're not the ones suffering financial stress. How is that worse.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dataexporter 6y ago
  While I agree with the comments about predatory lending, I kind of feel that it has more to do with being more financially aware before agreeing to such loans. Payday lending is closer to the predatory lending practices, but I see the same kind of attitude among borrowers at lower interest rate products as well. Borrowing when you know that you will not be able to repay the loan (or with the intention of not repaying) is also wrong. > In the second scenario the worst case is that the payday lender becomes insolvent, the company collapses, and the workers go and find other jobs because they're not the ones suffering financial stress. In this case, the employees of the so called lender are rendered jobless and they don't meet their financial obligations and might become homeless themselves.

bumby 6y ago

I understand the compassion behind your point, but to play devils advocate: doesn’t every bank that holds mortgages and every landlord assume this very thing? Fall behind far enough and your debt takes priority over staying in your home. Hell, even the government will kick you out if you fall behind far enough on property taxes

throwawayboise 6y ago

It ultimately comes down to what type of housing people have a "right" to. If I can't afford the house I bought, I'll need to sell it and downsize or rent a smaller/cheaper place. That's not because the bank is being a shitbag about my debt.

ipv6ipv4 6y ago

You’ve drawn yourself a caricature of a hard scrabble borrower who’s just trying to make ends meet and has the best of intentions with regards to their debts. In my Prosper experience that was the rare exception. The typical defaulting borrower bought themselves a shiny new toy and literally felt entitled to the money. As if their success in securing the loan was sufficient justification to have earned the money outright. The drama on the Prosper lending forums, where lenders and borrowers could directly communicate with each other, was epic and educational.

jessaustin 6y ago
Why does Prosper encourage loans for the purchase of shiny toys? Does this service benefit their customers?

neya 6y ago

Then don't borrow what you can't afford to pay back? When you borrow money from someone, you explicitly enter a contract with a legal understanding that you will pay it off back in a stipulated time. When you go back on your word, it's not only unprofessional, it is also a breach of that contract. So, the other party should be free to get back their money in whatever means legally possible within the boundaries of the law. Getting back their money from your account when it's most likely to exist isn't a bad idea after all. Not everyone who borrows money is a "victim" and not everyone who asks for their money back is a "predator". It's not so black and white. I've lost money to worthless people who lied while borrowing only to find out they blew it all on prostitutes instead of that family emergency they claimed they had.