4 ms·

I wonder if you actually read what I wrote. I haven't written a single word of complaint about the poor. I am complaining about payday loans, I don't think it's

I wonder if you actually read what I wrote. I haven't written a single word of complaint about the poor. I am complaining about payday loans, I don't think it's a good idea, even when they are interest free. The long term effect is likely to be mostly harmful. I haven't claimed to have a solution, what I am saying is that ideas that increase saving are better. I did not saying anything like "the solution is to not live this close to the edge." That is the intended effect, not the path there. But if I were to invest in a startup in this space it would be one that helped people save. Some random ideas that I think are all better than payday loans: gamifying micro saving, lowering food costs by selling simple staple foods in bulk, access to discounts on soon-to-perish food. Also: financial literacy education. This is a problem even in well off countries, it's just that people are doing fine anyway because the bottom tier is still quite ok here.

scrollaway 5y ago
You haven't been poor. There is nothing more obvious than that when someone's first suggestion is to turn off the heating, and their second one is to "gamify micro-saving". And you might be well-intentioned but your posts come across as incredibly arrogant because of that. This isn't a gotcha, or some gatekeepy way of saying "you can't fix poor people's problems if you haven't been poor". But your first step would be to try to understand why a better access to earned wages is so important and impactful that it is, in fact, potentially worth giving up a bit of money for. Having access to cashflow is a problem you can face at any level of income. Surely you understand it? (I mean, you're suggesting "financial literacy education"; I can't imagine you don't understand how important this can be…) For example right now, if you're poor and your situation calls for it, you might be taking a shittier job with worse pay just because it pays every two weeks instead of every four weeks. So having instant access to your wages may let you take a better job, and have a FAR GREATER IMPACT THAN SAVINGS. The above services by the way aren't payday loans. Those are extremely short term highly predatory one-time loans bound entirely to the customer. Services such as the ones Cashflow and Revolut are working on are more akin to: "you've already worked this much, so you have access to this % of your salary already", and they're bound to the employer. I'm not saying financial literacy wouldn't help, but fixing the perverse mechanisms that are happening when you're, as you said, close to the edge is what would have the most impact without requiring changes from the people themselves. Instant wages have a potential to kill the payday loan business and that's a big deal, even if it's not perfect.
- Grustaf 5y ago
  I don't think I have ever claimed to have been poor. On the contrary I grew up in a a very well to do place. But that's irrelevant. > So having instant access to your wages may let you take a better job, and have a FAR GREATER IMPACT THAN SAVINGS. This statement is completely baffling. Clearly, if you had 2 weeks worth of savings you would not need to take "a shittier job with worse pay just because it pays every two weeks instead of every four weeks". Imagine if you had two months worth, or six. These are definitely payday loans by the way, the salary is not "yours" until you've received it, which per the contract happens at the end of the month, or week or whatever. So by definition you are borrowing money, even if there is no interest. I agree that it's very positive if this can kill off traditional, predatory pay day loans, but I don't agree that this is a long term solution. And honestly, I think it will only increase the need. If people start living week to week instead of month to month, they will be MORE likely to need payday loans. If you take any poor person in Latin America, you seem to imply that their situation, where they are constantly 5 days away from starvation, is inevitable. Remember, we are not talking about people that can't work, these people can and do work, they just don't have any savings and live hand to mouth. I claim that in the vast majority of these cases, the situation is avoidable. Just consider the mathematics of it. What would it take to be 30 days away from starvation instead of 5? It's enough to lower your expenses by 8% for a year. Or 1% for 8 years. Or working 8% more for 1 year. Or starting to work a few months earlier. If you have your own family, well then clearly the situation was entirely avoidable. You could have waited a few months to start the family, that would have solved it.
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    Your comments are rooted in assumptions and an incorrect view of the low-income world, which makes a reasonable discussion impossible without preparing a whole lecture; and I don't have that patience for just a random internet commenter. All I ask is you stop presuming you know how to fix this when you're so deeply, deeply unaware of what the problem even is.
    - Grustaf 5y ago
      As constructive as this is, perhaps you could elaborate on what the problem is that keeps millions of people in a situation where they earn _exactly_ as much as they need to survive, year in and year out? Of course I can not expect a private lecture from you, being a mere random commenter, but perhaps you could point me to some of your existing lectures or writings that explain why I am so wrong? According to your profile, you are a software developer in Switzerland that likes to figure skate. Maybe it's my prejudice, but it doesn't sound like you would have much personal experience of third world poverty either.

scrollaway 5y ago

You haven't been poor. There is nothing more obvious than that when someone's first suggestion is to turn off the heating, and their second one is to "gamify micro-saving". And you might be well-intentioned but your posts come across as incredibly arrogant because of that. This isn't a gotcha, or some gatekeepy way of saying "you can't fix poor people's problems if you haven't been poor". But your first step would be to try to understand why a better access to earned wages is so important and impactful that it is, in fact, potentially worth giving up a bit of money for. Having access to cashflow is a problem you can face at any level of income. Surely you understand it? (I mean, you're suggesting "financial literacy education"; I can't imagine you don't understand how important this can be…) For example right now, if you're poor and your situation calls for it, you might be taking a shittier job with worse pay just because it pays every two weeks instead of every four weeks. So having instant access to your wages may let you take a better job, and have a FAR GREATER IMPACT THAN SAVINGS. The above services by the way aren't payday loans. Those are extremely short term highly predatory one-time loans bound entirely to the customer. Services such as the ones Cashflow and Revolut are working on are more akin to: "you've already worked this much, so you have access to this % of your salary already", and they're bound to the employer. I'm not saying financial literacy wouldn't help, but fixing the perverse mechanisms that are happening when you're, as you said, close to the edge is what would have the most impact without requiring changes from the people themselves. Instant wages have a potential to kill the payday loan business and that's a big deal, even if it's not perfect.

Grustaf 5y ago
I don't think I have ever claimed to have been poor. On the contrary I grew up in a a very well to do place. But that's irrelevant. > So having instant access to your wages may let you take a better job, and have a FAR GREATER IMPACT THAN SAVINGS. This statement is completely baffling. Clearly, if you had 2 weeks worth of savings you would not need to take "a shittier job with worse pay just because it pays every two weeks instead of every four weeks". Imagine if you had two months worth, or six. These are definitely payday loans by the way, the salary is not "yours" until you've received it, which per the contract happens at the end of the month, or week or whatever. So by definition you are borrowing money, even if there is no interest. I agree that it's very positive if this can kill off traditional, predatory pay day loans, but I don't agree that this is a long term solution. And honestly, I think it will only increase the need. If people start living week to week instead of month to month, they will be MORE likely to need payday loans. If you take any poor person in Latin America, you seem to imply that their situation, where they are constantly 5 days away from starvation, is inevitable. Remember, we are not talking about people that can't work, these people can and do work, they just don't have any savings and live hand to mouth. I claim that in the vast majority of these cases, the situation is avoidable. Just consider the mathematics of it. What would it take to be 30 days away from starvation instead of 5? It's enough to lower your expenses by 8% for a year. Or 1% for 8 years. Or working 8% more for 1 year. Or starting to work a few months earlier. If you have your own family, well then clearly the situation was entirely avoidable. You could have waited a few months to start the family, that would have solved it.
- scrollaway 5y ago
  Your comments are rooted in assumptions and an incorrect view of the low-income world, which makes a reasonable discussion impossible without preparing a whole lecture; and I don't have that patience for just a random internet commenter. All I ask is you stop presuming you know how to fix this when you're so deeply, deeply unaware of what the problem even is.
  - Grustaf 5y ago
    As constructive as this is, perhaps you could elaborate on what the problem is that keeps millions of people in a situation where they earn _exactly_ as much as they need to survive, year in and year out? Of course I can not expect a private lecture from you, being a mere random commenter, but perhaps you could point me to some of your existing lectures or writings that explain why I am so wrong? According to your profile, you are a software developer in Switzerland that likes to figure skate. Maybe it's my prejudice, but it doesn't sound like you would have much personal experience of third world poverty either.