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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.retailmenot.com/blog/walmart-layaway.html
Walmart actually just stopped layaway entirely in 2021 for BNPL.
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 of monthly payments.
Or those tv rental shops.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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…
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
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.
Only systemic changes will fix systemic issues.
… 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?
If you understand that these systemic issues will only be solved by systemic changes then that’s it.
Idk why you keep replying
It’s almost like the “services” are designed just for this…
I swear on everything that I’ve read this article word for word years ago but replace gen z with millenials
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.
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.
I wish this “overdraft protection” was opt in so people at least have a chance to understand it. I turn mine off, deny my card who gives a shit
Right, that’s how they fooled people for years. Any normal person would think “overdraft protection” means, “deny the transaction so you don’t overdraft.” But nope, complete opposite.
It was so scummy.
They wouldn’t let me turn mine off. The first bank flat out said no, the credit union charged me $5 to draft $100 from my savings. If there wasnt $100 in the savings, they would charge me the $5 to take what was in my savings and the $25 overdraft to cover the rest. There were no other options.
deleted by creator
We didn’t have this new term buy now pay later to the same extent, the millenials version just called credit cards credit cards.
“Buy now pay later” has been around for at least a decade. It wasn’t ubiquitous like it is now though. I knew things were bad when I went to pay for 2 pairs of shorts and they asked me if I wanted to stagger the payments. The total cost was $40.
Buy now pay later has been a thing since at least 2006 in the UK (I can find pictorial evidence for this with a flyer with “buy now, pay 2007”). But, I am quite sure I remember seeing this in the 80s and 90s too. For sure most large stores had their own credit systems that worked this way.
It’s not a new term, and actually I’m going to say that predatory techniques were more common in the 80s and 90s. People were definitely financially illiterate then too. Store credit was very common, I remember a very common APR was 29.9% with some pretty long terms on too. And the store credit system was of course designed in a way you could keep adding purchases, so you were ALWAYS paying this 29.9% year on year.
I think the only real difference was that with payments being far more physical without the internet. You could feel when you borrowed too much and people would cut back before reaching truly unrecoverable situations.
Point being, this isn’t a new thing. The virtualisation of everything I think has just made it much easier for young people now to get into situations they cannot easily get out of.
In the 80s and 90s you could easily get multiple credit cards. But usually you needed to go out and get them, or at least fill in paper based applications. There were also definitely less institutions offering them. So there was a real hard limit. Now there’s all kinds of ways to get credit. However, there’s few real large institutions at the top and I think they really should be coordinating centralised credit limits better.
My summary is, this isn’t new. Just the modern world has made it very easy to make it scale into higher debts now than it did before. That’s the only real difference.
The average youth of the 80s and 90s were not better at this IMO. (person that grew up in the 80s and 90s speaking here). There were just less opportunities pushed into your face.
You can get now that’s what I call music for 5 easy payments of 19.99!!
But I’ve not heard it called that until recently.
You don’t have an Aaron’s or Rent-a-center in your town? I’m a millennial and half my formative years were spent on a rent-a-center couch and bed. Half my belongings in my first house were rent to own, now that i think of it. I spent a lot more because of interest and scams but i had zero financial literacy then and i needed furniture. Without a credit card your options were/are limited.
I remember payday lending being a thing, rent to own on furniture rings a bell too, but I remember most of the focus being on credit cards and bank fees
PayPal had zero interest payment plans as far back as like 2010. I’m actually a bit surprised it didn’t take off sooner.
Basically reddit 10-15 years ago. The doomsday edging gets stale when you realize things are cyclical. Millennials were supposed to implode with debt by now. An economic cycles or two later and that didn’t happen. Now it’s Gen-Zs turn to be on the brink of doom.
BNPL services are downright criminally exploitive. The fact that I find Klarna logos on restaurant m
