i didnt go to college, have no car, 0 debt whatsoever. 15 bucks an hour. i always felt like a failure but it turns out it could be farrrrrrrrrrrr worse
I’ve never touched a buy now pay later because my parents got caught in the “get your paycheck early” scam companies when I was a kid, so I got my debt the REAL American way: chase credit card 😎
I work as a Regional Director for a LARGE retailer, one you've shopped at for sure. The crazy thing about retail financing is it's actually crazy expensive, Visa, Mastercard, AMEX, etc. charge companies anywhere from 2%-5% to process a transaction. Average retail financing costs upwards of 20% to the organization. And they're STILL pushing it, because like he said AOV goes through the roof. Our AOV literally more than doubles on financing.
This is the real value of crypto, circumventing the absurd fees charged by these organisations, processing transactions faster and making international transactions easier.
@@ayoCC 100%. I just think it’s interesting, I think a lot of consumers assumes the company profits off the financing, that must be why they’re pushing it so hard. But it’s you, the consumer, who we’re profiting from.
5:55 I can actually talk about this, I was a director at a Chinese international school for 6 years. Some of my kids were on 5 hours of sleep because besides our homework load being pretty high, they'd have to get home and do the math tutoring on an app, then English, then prep for high school entry/university entry exams. Besides all of that being on apps, which is awful for kids in general because screen time (of course some would still go to training centers) it got to the point it started affecting their performance in our school. As usual, only 10% of the news get to the Western media, so it wasn't an outright ban to everything. They banned training centers with independent curricula and age restricted enrollment of kids to certain activities. Yes, we had parents wanting their 3 year-olds to have two hours of English a day. So when you said it didn't work, it's not exactly true, because it did end a lot of what I just mentioned. Common sense had to be forcefully injected into the heads of some rich parents we had to deal with. Of course, we are people, adaptable as usual, and some of those companies did end up moving to Malaysia and now play a game of cat and mouse with the government releasing a new app every time one gets banned. But from what I hear from my former colleagues that are still there (I left last year) this has helped the kids immensely. Not sure about the effects on social disparities, but they do have more free time now, and that's just good.
Is there any way to ever convince parents using childhood pedagogy research? There's groups here in the states that try to oppose the inclusion of phonics based reading curriculum for strictly "whole language" learning and it's insane. People will do anything for their children to get ahead except listen to experts. Well those tend to be hucksters and scammers as well.
@@Modingbeli Many don't need to be convinced. I think you're not understanding the scale of things in China. Many of those insane parents I'm talking about would also worry about their kids having Montessori education, AND, all of this insanity. It's not because "they're ignorant and don't know better", but try to understand the degree of despair you might have when you think that if your kid wants to get into a top 5 university, they'll be competing with kids that are doing all of those things. Out of all applications, 0.043% of students pass the Tsinghua and Beijing uni entrance exams. Do you understand how mad that is? Tier 1 admission rates range around 0.3%. There's no invitation letter, no recommendations, no entering because you play sports well, it's exams and always exams that get harder and harder every year to account for the population increase. So as a parent, this kind of thing sometimes sounds as the last possible resource if you wanna secure the future of your kids.
@@defaulted9485 I have not seen any independent news reports with this level of detail, so if you could share your sources with me it would be greatly appreciated, since I always look for news vehicles that describe these kinds of policies extensively and in detail, and not in a header in all caps with "CHINA BANS PRIVATE EDUCATION".
2:50 It's important to know why this is wrong. Having "liquidity" only is good if you are spending it on something that you absolutely need or is going to make you more money. Like fixing your car so you can keep going to work for example. You are trading some of your future earnings to keep your income flowing. This is almost never how people use Klarna. If you are using your liquidity to buy a PS5 or something (which is mostly how people use Klarna) then that liquidity is doing nothing monetarily for you all you are doing is spending like you have more money than you actually do.
And even then, adding liquidity to necessities helps in the short term but over a longer term the price of said necessities simply adjust to whatever people are able to pay because they can't just say no if the price gets jacked up.
I have only used it for absolutely necessary things like when my computer for college comited self emulation at school I had to get a new or I don’t pass nursing school
On the other hand, money tomorrow is worth less than money today, both in potential and in actual spending power. So if you can put off paying for like, 50 years, you're totally set!
I was talking about college debt forgiveness a while back with my dad (who immigrated to the US for his masters degree) and one things he pointed out was that the reasons banks can give student loans so freely is because student loans are one of the ONLY debts not forgiven during bankruptcy. bankruptcy is the threat that forces banks to be more considerate in who they loan to and how much they loan since if a person goes bankrupt, the bank often just loses money. If banks were more reluctant to give out massive loans, we’d be seeing lower tuitions.
Biden specifically was the one to ensure a bill back in 2005 made it SUPER difficult to declare bankruptcy on private student loans. Dude is the cause of most of this issue
@@SamWilkinsonn universities set the tuition fees but if banks aren’t willing to loan for as high, then universities will not be able to fill their classrooms if they keep tuitions the same since far less people would be able to pay that amount without a loan. they would have to decrease tuitions to whatever banks are willing to loan.
The knock-on effects of removing the bankruptcy protections from student loans would be MASSIVE. Everything you described would happen, for sure, but also every degree would have to be useful (as in you can get a reasonable career with it), because banks would want to know that you're in a program that will be capable of paying the loan back. The useless degrees would see enrollment dry up. Every role in the school would have to get a lot more efficient, because general income would drop from the lack of useless programs bringing in money from suckers. I guarantee 3/4+ of school administration would disappear overnight, allowing tuition to drop further. The feedback loops would be insanely positive.
I’m glad that I was taught basic economic ideas by my parents, because that Klarna and Afterpay icon is like the Green Goblin mask to me, every purchase I make online it calls to me, beckoning me to buy now pay later, to give myself into debt.
I used affirm once and paid it off fast so i feel like if you could use the services responsibly and only take out what you can afford to pay back reasonably fast then the only thing I would recommend is a credit card because I think they actually report back and raise your credit and I’m not sure if Klarna does that.
Hi Big A! I am currently in law school in Australia and I was the ONLY person in my cohort of 300 to get a legal job in my first year. Entry-level legal jobs are disappearing rapidly here in Australia and I was very lucky to perform well during my interview process. I actually used a lot of what I have learnt from watching you and would love to tell you about it sometime!
Congratulations on securing a role so early! You must have been an impressive candidate (surely you wowed with your knowledge about the FTC and the GOAT Lina Khan). I am an Australian corporate and commercial solicitor (second year post-admission, I took my time going into practice). My friends that secured a role in first year who stuck it out are now thriving approximately five years post-admission. Enjoy the rest of your degree and I wish you all the best for PLT, your admission to the Supreme Court and for your career as a fellow lawyer. I look forward to someday addressing you as my colleague.
hey atrioc, long time viewer here (but i had to make an alt for reasons I'll get to) I'm a Canadian, living in Ontario. Part of what I do is hidden applications for universities i.e I get paid to apply to schools by a different school to assess the support and infrastructure in place after applying, and what they're doing to turn applicants into students. I''m aging out of this role, and this will probably be my last year (AHHHHHHH) but it highlights a major problem in Ontario I thought you might find interesting - our universities are going under, as in, ALL our universities. This represents 1/4 of the schools in country. We've had a tuition freeze in place since 2019 to combat rising costs, but unfortunately this has led to schools being left in a genuinely tight spot: most staff have contracts stipulating guaranteed raises, and there's no way to match this rising cost. For a time schools took as many international students as they could (Tuition is ~2.5x for int'l here) but now that's been banned as well as our country swings conservative and looks to clamp down on immigration. The University of Waterloo is one of our top schools, and they just bought out fully 5% of their professorate's contracts to try to fight costs. Every school i've worked with is in significant debt, and a few are looking at shutting their doors. maybe not as interesting and terrifying as i've been finding it, but yeah!
Can you elaborate a bit more on what your job is? I've never heard of people applying to a university on behalf of other universities. I guess this might be why you are posting under an alt though?
@@maxnaegel2126 for sure! I'm not sure if every school does it, but I've worked for three separate that do. It's run by the student recruitment office and usually called "secret shopper" or "mole applicant" program, but is not really advertised (i got cold called by an admission officer in my senior year of hs as I had a good but not too good application profile, i would get in where I applied but not warrant special attention). they send you a list of schools and programs as well as an Excel/Sheets link, you document the date of your confirmation email, acceptance email and rate your experiences with the schools UI etc. I mostly do it for the networking it provides, but it's not too much work. Generally it's only busy at the start of the year as all the confirmations roll in. You usually also have a weekly/monthly check in with your SRO to discuss how you feel about individual schools campaigns/discuss how your host school might appropriate the best parts of that campaign. I never had to sign an NDA outright, but they really emphasize that discretion is a key component of employment, which is why alt.
It is truly a weird thing to read that apparently, higher education can only be financed by people obviously not yet equipped for paying out large sums of money to institutions of learning for a skill set that is apparently and usually very much needed. Why doesn't the state Jump in? That is an area that most _obviously_ should be State-funded.
@@maxnaegel2126 typed out a fleshed out reply but either forgot to hit send or I'm spam filtered because of account age :( I was cold called as a senior in HS because I had a decent application profile, but not so much as to warrant special attention. Basically they pay you to apply to about 10-20 schools and track all correspondence with them. you have a weekly or monthly meeting with a student recruitment officer and discuss what of the other schools outreach worked, and what didn't. As others have said it's mostly opposition research, I just find it interesting that it exists in such a supplier dominated field.
2:22 Vermont is so goated for this, it's illegal to penalize or block someone from prepaying a loan at any time. Anytime I buy a vehicle I just go with financing and instantly pay it off. Lenders aren't even allowed to add the interest you would've paid over the life of the loan, there is no downside except for a hard inquisition on your credit which would happen anyways if you were to get a loan normally.
2:14 you do what my parents did. Write a personal check for whatever the maximum they could accept. Then "finance" the rest of the car. Next morning they transferred the rest except 60 cents to the loan. Their monthly payment was a penny with no interest and the dealership sold them a car for cash next time.
The only time I’ve ever used Klarna is one single time where I literally had the money to pay for the item fully (a super nice Dolby Atmos setup) but there was a 30% discount for doing it with Klarna… and then I just paid it all off immediately.
When I was at Uni, I went to a club meeting where some administrator was talking about how they’re preparing for a 10-15% drop in admissions because there were fewer children born during the recession. I wonder how that’s gonna effect tuition prices
The rant at 5:10 is the same as house pricing inflation, house prices aren't dictated by how much money people actually have, it's dictated by borrowing capacity, which is why with the interest rate rises in australia I saw multiple CEOS and bank managers buying out dozens of cheap properties, since people were being forced to sell and nobody could buy Also it's worth noting specifically in Australia, regulatory acts were implemented to ensure nobody was given a loan they couldn't repay, however this only protects people invested into the structure of loans and banks, this does nothing to answer the ethical question of whether giving someone 30 years of debt to a bank is something we should be doing to people
Technically speaking, on paper, the economist dude at 2:40 isn't wrong. Things like Klarna, and even more traditional credit cards and the like, all on paper could help poor people become less poor by helping them avoid getting trapped in the problem so elegantly described by Vimes's Boot Theory of Economics. Emphasis on could. I think statistics supports the case that in many, if not most, cases, the average consumer ends up using Klarna and credit cards to get deeper and deeper in debt, either out of necessity or due to consistent poor spending choices. So, on paper, yes. In reality, with regards to the consistent poor spending choices, human psychology at scale ends up not acting that way more often than not. I suppose another example of economists being right on paper, but missing out the evident when it comes to human behavior interfering with ideal models. That being said, I think having it available in general I think is better for people if they're willing to use them properly. At the end of the day, BNPL is just an additional line of credit extendable to a population that may be running out of lines of credit, isn't it?
It's the classic really, what is best from a purely academic standpoint, vs what happens in the real world. If people were to make every single correct decision, Klarna is actually pretty great as a tool. But people just don't
I actually ran a remote tutoring business for a few years with friends, focusing on chinese students (both before and after the ban) I taught a bunch myself and there were a bunch of loopholes to get around the tuition ban lol. One example was parents in China hiring an 'agency' to help with foreign boarding school/university applications & housing (not regulated), and they'd package the cost of a certain amount of tuition into their fees. The agency would then pay the tutors directly via 'partner' offices they had abroad. Very similar to the system used in the china/mex/usa fent trade lmao.
To be honest we'll probably all have an AI lawyer once you graduate. Hopefully because lawyers are expensive and I will probably be taken to court for not paying any of my student loans. Could you make a good argument for why we should pay while rich kids have their daddy's money?
My wife’s in law school right now and all her tests are hand written in person, with tests as like 80-100% of the grade for each class. So you may want to make sure you can actually write before you start your law program.
I'm in law school (3L at top school) and ChatGPT is ass for law and we had several exams of correcting chat GPT. All of legal AI is trash including westlaw at the moment. It can only handle basic questions
Giving infinite student loans is not a flaw it’s by design it’s a greed ridden dark side of college cost goes up knowledge stays the same and even some cases goes down to save more money 5:27
Iirc the initial reason for the tuition thing was to help more students get into college, as for many years university was restricted to well off families and individuals. The loan helped the student be able to attend, while the college gets paid. The big problem is it was left unchecked, not the premise itself. The colleges kept increasing costs, therefore tuition too, and so the loans followed suit. I'm an Irish student and for my own understanding I checked what college costs in a state uni for a a general example, so the diffeence of a us state uni vs an Irish (/European) uni. I checked Washington state cause of a friend, and when I checked their calculator thing, ye americans spend (according to WSU) around 35k a year, family in-state, no financial support accounted. That's bloody mental. 13k is tuition ONLY. 19k purely financial support grants and stuff. Brings it down to 15.5k a year. In Ireland WITHOUT any financial support, my family and I spend 12k a year, including weekly personal costs, dorm rent, tuition, transport. No car, no partner, just me. That's without taking into account most of my mates are on a government scheme called SUSI which, for their first (or only) degree, pays for their tuition in full. As well, my dorm is on the higher end, when you can go for a dig (room rental), or go for cheaper accommodation usually renting a house. That can bring you down to less than 10k generally, or as low as 7-8k a year, maybe lower with minmaxing. Depending on your degree length as well, you can finish in 3 instead of 4 years. After all that, you could study here for anywhere between 21k-48k total in the degree period. Obviously higher if you spent more week to week than I on personal expenses, car payments, partying, gifts, eating out, etc.
My Afterpay limit has been $0 for 2 years because apparently the last payment for my phone case didn't go through, but they never notified me, so I owed them like $20 for 6 months lmao
I am 31. My wife is 30. When we got married this year, we had around $100,000 in combined debt to pay off. We've paid off about $64,000 of it so far and are making progress. Took a lot of sacrifices to do but I look forward to being debt free and never being in debt again.
i do not understand people who take debt (assuming they have sufficient income) i wont be able to sleep if i owe to anyone, never took debt, never owned credit cards am i some sort of anomaly? Funnily enough i considered taking a loan once for a business idea, the bank told me i have no credit score even though i travel and spend like... aaa lot apparently i need to be doing that with borrowed money (trough credit cards) or I'm not a responsible enough customer... cos i use my own money
@@evanmatthews2159so someone who makes decent income never used a creditcard, pays everything cash/debit is less reliable than people constantly using creditcards? how does it make sense? are we testing my ability to remember to press few buttons at the end of the month? lol They are still my bank, they can see how i'm spending thousands of dollars per month, why does it make a difference if its debit card or credit card. Its a moronic system, they should look at your purchase history, your income etc... not how much of a debt addict you are
@@krellin never taking debt isn’t financially literate, it’s the opposite. Managing your credit effectively is pretty much the most financially literate thing you can do. Get a credit card with good points or cash back, pay for EVERYTHING with it, and pay it off before interest kicks in. I get thousands of dollars worth of points a year and never pay a penny in interest.
@@sometimessomething4734 i'm good, i'll focus my time on thigns that matter instead of worrying which cards do what and if my bank is about to screw me with some trick... at the end of the day it makes no dent in you being financially independent. Its just further reinforces a scummy system that gets people eventually into serious trouble because they have no discipline to spend what they should.
@@sometimessomething4734 its questionable if its financially smart or not, my bet is that banks did some stats and figured out that average gambler will eventually take so much debt that they can start cashing in their ridiculous percentages... or at very least even if they are responsible people once or twice they will slip somwhere and get a hefty fee charged... I will bet that most credit card users eventually pile up debt instead of save money... otherwise i do not see the incentive for the banks to make your life easier.
I was living in the city for a while, had only a small amount of spending cash and wasn't putting away nearly enough. I experienced the addictive nature of spending too much on Paypal Pay in 4 firsthand. Every month I would spend too much but it felt fine because I wasn't spending it right away so I had some money left. Got to the point I realized it was a horrid idea, I've outlawed pay later services for myself now and it's helped a lot with budgeting.
4:16 as someone who is a 2L at a law school, chat GPT isn’t the only thing to worry about. It’s also changing job descriptions for those working under attorneys.
I know some of my friends are just spending all they can and maxing out cards through these apps and taking on CC debt cause there aint no way for the bank to collect. What is the bank gonna do? They cant garnish their minimum wage position at walmart or take their foodstamps or take the rent money back from the landlord. Their argument is that they will never own a home to begin with so might as well get what they want. All they do is open a cc that has 50% interest and max it out and then open another without making a single payment. The bank is dumb enough to keep sending the CC's so might as well.
I effin COOKED on the scholarship side and I saved juuuust enough to buy a "car". I'm legitimately terrified knowing nearly everyone I know has ongoing debt. I'm building a massive emergency fund because I'm not going to let the spiral begin. The credit card is for a 2-4% discount, fraud protection, and reservation ability, and credit score inflation.
@@adissentingopinion848same. I got really lucky so I’m leaving college with no debt and I’m saving for a car now. It’s kinda wild how much debt gets shoved in your face.
@@fuzzjunky 2-4% Cashback on whatever category the credit card is giving you. Basically incentivizing you to use credit rather than debit on the off chance that you forget to pay the statement and accrue interest. That's enough to lose the relative value of a year's worth of cashback.
Hey Atrioc! For the part you brought up in 3:45, I am currently in the process of doing a law masters and got my law degree last year. My first year of law school was the year COVID quarantines began and I can assure you, the law school my generation went is VASTLY different than our peers in the past. As for the whole "hunger games for AI" aspect, it has gotten to a point that despite currently doing a masters, I have had half of my professors 'give up' on trying to police AI. One of them even started the year by saying that he doesn't want to bother with it and that we are allowed to use it, with the stipulation that we explicitly state so on the paper so that he is aware and it doesn't count as plagiarism. I would've loved to have caught this on stream and offered some more insights on this but it's currently finals week for me and I have 70 to 80 pages worth of essays to write (without ChatGPT of course :) ).
When I use klarna/PayPal/chase and do the 2 week 4 transaction option. It mainly be for groceries, Wi-Fi, electricity, work clothes, and I’d have to continue it each month.
Current law school student (1L) here! You're mostly wrong about law schools as of right now. First, the AI is often wrong about the law, which means it can't write memos or briefs for lawyers. Judge opinions (which govern the common law) are written very particularly, and even humans struggle and argue about their meanings (hence why the Supreme Court has to interpret stuff). AI, in my experience, is wrong on almost every issue unless it is literally the most straightforward case of all time. Obviously, we're not learning about straightforward cases because we're learning how to argue the gray area that makes up most of our lawsuits. There's an Avianca Airline case in which an attorney used ChatGPT and immediately got sanctioned from the judge bc the AI was just making shit up in the brief. Also, it's impossible to cheat on exams with ChatGPT because you take exams in a test taking software like the ACT or SAT (are these still online? I was a COVID kid) or MCAT. You cannot access any AI during the exam. So even if it was correct, it is of no help to you in getting your JD. However, you're mostly right in the fact that people are trying to use AI in law. There are two main databases that legal professionals use to research the law: Lexus and Westlaw. Both (especially Lexus) have been trying to role about AI to help make case summaries for all the cases in their databases. However, AI still needs heavy oversight in both databases, and they won't give you an AI-generated summary without a human reviewing and editing it. Also, students could technically use AI to help them with legal writing assignments, but it would probably actually make it harder to write a good memo. (Maybe AI can write a good average memo, but in law school good grades are essential for good employment. Average isn't really cutting it) I think lawyers are probably one of the only white-collar jobs that will be immune to AI replacement (especially litigation). Good lawyers are meant to make personable and compelling arguments (sometimes in person) to convince real people of their position. I have never seen AI that has been able to win over a jury like a human can. However, I do think it is possible that AI could become a big tool used that could replace another positions that some law firms have, like research assistants or paralegals. If you have any questions, feel free to ask!
Nothing is immune to AI replacement, ten years ago everyone said get jobs in programming because robots will take all the minimum wage shit, and the first jobs to be cut are programmers because they're expensive and the AI can do their job quicker and 90% as good. AI doesn't need to be better as long as it is good enough because of how much quicker and cheaper it is. There are only 2 rules of AI: 1 if your job can be done by a robot then at some point it WILL be done by a robot. 2 ALL jobs can be done by robot, they just haven't built it yet.
@@TristanLane520 Yeah, I think it's true that AI could eventually replace all human jobs, but lawyers being replaced would be more on the end of walking, talking, human-like robots scale of AI rather than ChatGPT. This is what I meant by lawyers being immune to AI replacement.
@youarenotafish I don't think there's any reason it would need to be humanoid, everything could be vastly improved in defence, prosecution and sentencing by becoming fully automated, arguably even juries would be fairer. Still a long way off, but how quickly we cover that long way towards the technology (and required change of laws to enable it) is the real question...
The only AI tools I see helping people such as yourself in Law are grammarly esque tools such as quillbot to help with articulation, grammar and general wording of parts in a paper. Though it may actually have the reverse effect of making papers more readable, depending on legal definitions and how the AI interprets them in a sentence. May correctly understand from context what it means, or only know the more layman meaning and mess up a whole paragraph.
@@TristanLane520An automated jury rather misses the point of a jury. Juries don’t exist to give people jobs, they exist to allow someone to be judged by their peers. There is no lens through which an “automated” jury could fill that role. With regards to “fairness”, that’s not really a definable metric, and anything that has learnt from the human knowledge base is going to share the same biases and faults as humans in varying degrees.
As someone in law school in NZ, most of the classes have two in person tests a year where you write on a laptop but they are very cautious of people trying to use ChatGPT. Plus, ChatGPT is just constantly wrong when it comes to law espicially in New Zealand so we don't really have a problem with it. We had a bit of a problem with it in one of our essays but they pretty much just told us not to do it. In terms of jobs it does seem like it is getting a little harder but not as much as people seem to be saying.
ChatGPT is the most useful to the tech space, which I'm in, which makes sense cause of how it works. Even when like all my friends use it religiously all the time, even when they could just search for the answer easily, they use it for that 'timesave' and convenience. I usually use it as a last resort, which depending on what work I'm doing comes quicker than some others. Sometimes documentation of tech I have to use, such as Oracle DB, is so god awful that AI is the only way to make it understandable
@SeanSMST Same. I pretty much only using it for finding/helping with documentation. I will use it to help me figure out css issues sometimes tho cuz working with that shit sucks.
With schooling, an alternative we oughta utilize more is professional white collar apprenticeships. You can take a bar exam in certain states without law school but with a commendation from a member of the bar, usually after working as a paralegal or assistant for a period of time. Currently we have a certificate culture where we focus on academia being the sole means to that end rather than what we would historically use for training. The best solution is free college to educate the population along with the ability to democratize high level professions by ensuring the most qualified and competent individuals who either train from high school or educate themselves further to be allowed in a field.
I'm in my third year of law school and it may just be me but I'm not feeling the effects of AI in my coursework so much. I've messed around with ChatGPT and I'm not super impressed with where it's at in terms of legal argument or citation. As one kind of funny aside: I'm an editor for a law journal at my school and a professor from some other school attempted to submit a very obviously AI-generated article to our journal. We did not select that article for publication. That being said, I am scared for the future of the profession and sense massive shifts for transactional lawyers especially. AI may not be an everything tool for law right now but it's getting more sophisticated every day. The major legal research services, Westlaw and Lexis (and Bloomberg if you're a freak), have already implemented AI into their search functions and are testing new uses for AI like drafting advice letters. Some of my friends are more skeptical about it than I am but I'm certain there is and will be a fundamental shift to the way law is practiced as a result of AI.
I'm sure the mentality is probably "so what if I just wrack up the debt and declare bankruptcy? What's gonna happen? I'll ruin my credit? It's not like I can buy a house anyway."
As a college student I see all the unneeded services, inflated food prices and high price of housing. We are all broke but because of loans everyone can finance a lifestyle way above what is needed and pay inflated prices. The worst part is many of the degrees people get don’t actually increase their income much so they can’t pay off the debt. The same is also true for drop outs. I get it seems unethical to deny people college because they can’t pay. But when easy loans are causing huge debt that can’t be paid back and also devalues a college degree because of the sheer number of people that graduate, something needs to be done. My advice is removing loans for degrees that don’t have a high ROI and usually don’t increase grads incomes. Like Art or Dance majors. In the long run the people denied loans also benefit because they are not drowning in debt.
wrong direction, the best route is free higher education. Would only cost like 70 bil. Do universal healthcare and make that back plus some. Break up military contractors and boom, way up. Increase corporate taxes and raise minimum wage, and boom you would have surplas honestly at that point.
How is it unethical to deny a non-mandatory service from someone who can't afford it? College is not necessary to exist. University is not necessary to exist. That's like saying it's unethical to charge for tutoring because some people can't afford it. Why charge anything for anything? No rights are being violated when people can't afford to go to college. If anything, letting people go to college when they can't afford it IS the unethical thing because you setup the entire country for failure and you make the problem exponentially worse because the institutions are not government ones - they are private with government subsidies (which by law makes the public but the administration isn't so they can raise prices indefinitely). There is nothing unethical by denying services to people who can't afford them. If you want to help them, do it yourself. By forcing others to do it you violate their rights. Imagine I came with a gun and forced you to take out your wallet and give that money to your neighbor. It's not your decision what to do with your money, it's mine. Screw private property, eh? I really don't understand these "ethics" arguments. It's like having money is a fking sin regardless of anything and being poor is the doorway to becoming a fking angel. Services are things you pay for. They aren't rights. Higher education and arguably most primary education is not a right. Nobody owes you education outside of your parents to the minimum degree of your survival. Most jobs don't require a degree in terms of skill and knowledge. You need a trade school at best or on-set training at worst from complete zero. I don't owe you an education this me not providing you with one does not violate your rights. Rights persist regardless of technology. Cavemen and cyberpunk people from a few centuries into the future have the same rights. I don't think cavemen were owed the chance to go to fking college. I'm speaking as someone who went to both college and university, dropped from both and decided to pursue a career in freelance as a tech artist. I make way less money that I probably would've with a degree but I'm both happy and can afford a living by being frugal. And if I don't have enough customers in the future, I could find another job with the portfolio I'm accumulating. Because knowledge and experience trump almost any and all degrees (most degrees are so worthless from an employers perspective and luckily it loses more value every single day). Go build something. Go learn to be a plumber. No degree needed and the pay is good because the supply dried out with all these people rushing for higher education because they were told to do so. Education at that level is not a right. It's very ethical for someone to deny you services for not being able to afford them. Giving loans to people who can't afford them is what gets you 2008 all over again (which happened because the banks had the backing of the government this allowing them to play a much riskier game despite knowing the value and risk don't match - stop involving the government in fking everything).
@@sapiently1free higher education would just make the surplus of college degrees larger. if only 20% of jobs need a college degree you want to make it so that only 20% of people get one. I don’t have a problem with free higher education but you would need strict entrance exams to limit graduates so basically the dumb or lazy would be left behind but still very unpopular. Minimum wage should only be increased in a lopsided labor market otherwise your just going to make people lose there jobs. Corporate taxes on the other hand should definitely be raised. What you said isn’t wrong but a little more nuanced than that.
@@SiMeGamerTo clarify in my post I never said it’s unethical just that many think it is. The general argument about why it’s unethical to deny people college is that it’s basically the easiest way to a higher standard of living. If someone cut off your path to lifting you family out of generational poverty because you might not be able to pay the loans you borrowed is a difficult thing to do. Also class mobility is something that needs to be available. For government paying for college, college grads earn more money and through taxes will pay for there own education eventually so it’s not really that bad economically.
@@TOPNOTCH80 it is unethical to force people to do things against their will. The government shouldn't be in the business of loaning money. It's not a fking bank. And while I agree that mobility is important, it's, once again, not a right. Fix it in another way. Stop inheriting debt - just because your parents took on debt doesn't mean you should be the one with the burden to pay it. That's one way to fix it by actually protecting rights. The child never agreed to those terms of the loan thus they shouldn't inherit the payment for it. You can't inherit a negative - it makes no sense. It doesn't exist. And you can get out of poverty even with a terrible minimum wage job (I'm also for abolishing minimum wage because it raises prices for everything but I digress). Mobility is solved by giving people a lot more freedom of movement. Not just up but also down. When big people are allowed to fail (like banks and universities, for example) then you open a lot of doors for someone to take it. Remove all anti-trust so small companies are allowed to compete with big guys and if they want to sell themselves to them, let them. It's a choice. There are no forced monopolies until you involve the government and allow lobbying. Speaking of which, remove lobbying. Amazon a few years ago was doing deals with states or cities or whatever on where it should make its new headquarters. Literally getting benefits from the government at the expense of everyone else. That's how you kill mobility. The government exists to protect rights. Not to help you move up in life - that's your business, not everybody elses. It is known and proven endlessly that the government is the most inefficient organization that exists. Every time it gets worse and yet it is given more and more responsibility. So both in ethical and practical terms, we are fking ourselves by delegating more responsibility to the government. We still need it because it protects our rights with the police, military and judiciary (I'm not an anarchist) but we give it so much more. Why education sucks? Because of the government there is no competition on pretty much anything. All teachers get the same certificates and all schools have the same methods of teaching and curriculums and all of them are forced to do sht that has nothing to do with education and maximizing learning and thought. And they get subsidies too so they raise prices on top of everything (not to mention all this insane sht about religion being forced by the state or smth). Same goes for the financial sector - banks are so incredibly regulated that you have zero competition and an ever growing government debt. Because god forbid money worked as it should and banks competed for customers of different types with better deals, smarter financing and better banking practices and allowed to fking fail (which would also mean a bank failing erases debt from people). Mobility is a feature of a system. It's not a right. The government shouldn't care how mobile society is financially. It's not its problem. It's something for us to solve as individuals. There is nothing unfair at being born to a poor family. I was born to a poor family. I'm doing very well now because both them and I worked really hard and made good decisions (my mom did an insane job getting me to a decent school where my brain didn't rot - I didn't get any special degree, just decent people around me is all). Did I move to a super wealthy class? No. I'm barely making ends meet but soon, I hope, my business will really take off and my potential employment in the worst case scenario is all but guaranteed. You aren't given anything in life for free. If anything I'm still being taken away from like crazy because I pay so many fking taxes and using zero of the services. And that includes in my previous jobs I had to put some of my salary in a forced pension because the government thinks it's their job to make me financially responsible (I wanted that money to invest in myself but now I had no access to it so me getting pennies when I'm 70 is such a scam). Just don't involve the government. It's that simple. You want to fix mobility, look at the actual symptoms. Right now the symptom is the government. Look at all these people getting into debt for education that is worthless, inhibiting their mobility further and further. And for what? So everyone can go study in these corrupt institutions that are made for academic studies and not to get a job (trade school and boot camps is how you get a job because it's actually practical and infinitely more efficient and cheaper institution). To help people we need start by fixing the system in the exact opposite way of where it has been going. And some would say "but look at Europe". Europe is collapsing slowly. People overall are extremely unhappy and their mobility is close to zero because they are taxes to high heaven. Sure they are more equal, but last I checked that shouldn't matter. And there is a limit to how much longer that can be sustained. While countries like the US have tons of problems, it is miles better than Europe in terms of maximizing your potential at happiness. Oh yeah, never talked about it, but, healthcare is also not a right. Paying a doctor is a service. Getting a checkup is a service. One of the reasons healthcare is so I credibly expensive in the US is, again, the government. By not allowing competition because you can't compete with subsidies almost at all, you get the same sht as universities by increasing prices all the time because the government can pay for it and then you also lobby for patents outside their usual time limit and so you have an unnatural drug monopoly that can put the price of basic meds in the sky. Healthcare is a service, not a right. If you break your leg, you shouldn't be able to pull a gun to my head and tell me to fix it for you. Go into debt if you need to. Don't drag me down with you. So yeah, same sht. Get rid of the government. Way more money for all of us and we can finally get competition in these sectors of the economy and make choices rather than being forced for these less than mediocre services everywhere because we "need to provide an opportunity to everyone". Fk this. Sorry for the rant. I felt like I really needed to get that out of my system. Haven't talked to anyone about this in a very long while.
But now pay later allows for people to stretch money farther than they usually would. This means that people with bad spending will make WORSE decisions, but those with good spending habits will make make better decisions.
Im working for a listed german retail company. Companies like klarna offer monetary subsidition for companies when you reach specific amounts of revenue over their payment plans. I assume, that they want the customer to get used to payment plans and then increase the interest bit by bit.
I only use these services for items I can actually afford and only with the 0% interest option. I don't think it's ever given me the option to spread the payment out more than 4 weeks, so I feel like I'm able to stay out of trouble because my monthly budget is staying the same.
Legit the only time I used Klarna was to get a pizza during a non-payday week and after that I realised how dumb it was to use the service so I just stopped.
I put a $2k acoustic guitar on bnpl two years ago even tho i had the money and felt so anxious of missing a payment that i paid it in full a week later lmao
This is akin to what's happening with the Canadian housing market. The price of homes has skyrocketed because of stock being very limited, but also because people can secure considerable loans without much thought as to how much money they're spending. What's the difference between $500,000 and $600,000 for a condo? Especially when realtors are incentivized by commission to tell you its a hot market and you should overbid to ensure you get the home you want. It's how a home can be listed at $690,000 CAD, be worth $550,000, and then sell on the market for $1.1M. Because the money feels free to the desperate couple who just needs a place to live, especially when paying it back over your entire lifetime. Its all bullshit.
a very stupid question from me who doesn't really understand economics: isn't buy now pay later a good thing when the inflation is high? from my understanding, if you spiit a 1200$ payment into 12 payments of 100$, the 100$ you'll pay each month will technically cost less and less because of inflation. am I missing something crucial here?? (of course, in this case I am implying that you are responsible with the payments)
If thats a 0% intrest loan then sure, but you'll have to remember that whatever you buy will be worth less as well. The other side of that is once you start its hard to stop. Sure you might be able to afford one or two of these, but the issue is people getting 5-6 and then their montly bill gets so high, that there is no money left for an emergancy and that pushes them over the line so they can't afford to take care of everything. IE treading water only works til youre tired. Life happens, somthing breaks, someon gets hurt, or whatever else. IMO if you are responsible enough to take care of buy now pay later, you don't need it.
As Austin said, it works on a couple of investments but not few or more. Cost of living sucks now already, imagine adding a 50 dollar a month, 100 dollar, 30 dollar, etc. payment at the end of each month ON TOP of paying for rent, groceries, electricity/water/internet, transport costs, medical bills, vices (nicotine, alco, etc), motor tax, insurance, birthdays, lover gifts etc. That's fucking rough as it is, many people just about get by per month and adding on extra is stupid and life ruining. For basically all that I listed there as well you can't exactly cut it down besides gifts, vices can be cut down, but with stress ever present, vices never cease or decrease by much. That's a whole lot to worry about per month, I wouldn't wanna add more.
Joe Biden reduced inflation lol now the actual answer unless the currency is hyper inflating, which will happen pretty soon because everybody’s getting tired of yanks even the worst of Covid inflation does not equal to interest rates
@@AustinKU123 > if you are responsible enough to take care of buy now pay later, you don't need it. interesting. in my mind BNPL can actually be good exactly when you're not treading water but have savings equal to or more than your loans so you know you won't drown if anything happens. for example, if i have 2000$ in savings and need to buy something that costs 1000$, i would rather buy it with BNPL than spend half on my emergency fund. it's like when people take mortgages for houses even if then can pay the full price but on a micro scale. btw i am not trying to defend these terrible predatory companies like Klarna, i am just personally considering one purchase and need other people's opinion on whether i am being smart or stupid lol.
the work around for the car financing is to get them to get the finance price in writing then before signing the contract tell them you change your mind and want to do cash/full payment. they already have the best price infront of you so if they try to work you back up in pride you’ll know they’re scummy
On the new car with cash, paying off a loan early often has a penalty, so you're usually best off just putting all the cash in a savings account with a decent interest rate and earmarking it. Obviously it's hard psychologically to respect your earmarks and not invade it, which is what they count on, but if you're able to treat the money like you already spent it, it's the best way to take advantage of loans cheaper than cash.
Whenever you are thinking about accepting a payment plan, always ask for amortization table. This lays out every payment, with principal and interest. This is a great visualization of how much you will actually being paying in total.
Thoughts on Australian system of government regulating repayment of university loans, as in once you earn over a certain amount then a percentage of your salary is taken straight out and redirected to loan repayment. Pros & Cons, seems like a reasonable system, no interest on loans thought adjusted anually based on 'Cost Price Index' (basically like inflation adjustment, which has no served well recently and caused gov to refund everyone with student loans money based on debt cut offs and CPI). Anyway curious if you respond in that new segement would be interested to hear?
Degrees are such a sore subject because they are less valuable than they were before, cost way more, but now they're basically required if you want any standard of living without becoming a business owner. I failed to find an apprenticeship in basically all blue collar fields for about 2 years because they wanted me to have attended a 2 year tech school
5:34 EXACTLY people don't get it soon as the government started giving loans to any and everyone the cost of tuition skyrocketed. But the colleges train young people to think government is the savior to all their problems. Same with insurance and the cost of healthcare. Government started giving loans to hospitals in the 80's and the prices haven't gone down since
The amount of people who don't know that as with any credit, klarna and paypal are great choices if used responsibly. If you pay what you owe monthly, you pay no interest. These are great instruments but uneducated people can destroy their lives with that. For example, I bought a monitor for 800, but with paypal I pay 66 ish per month for a year, 0 interest. Now consider inflation, if I paid 800 upfront instead of 66 monthly instalments at 0%, I would actually lose money, since the money I have right now is worth the most it will ever be. So thanks to that I'm only paying around 750 for that monitor considering inflation over the span of that year.
I understand your point about there being a black market if college tuition was capped. But didn't you yourself say that just because we know someone will get around the law if we made it(I think this was in reference to taxing rich people) doesn't mean we shouldn't make it? Sure colleges might take bribes for admissions. Make that illegal. Prevent that. There should be more effort put into taxation and criminalization of richer people because the government stands more to gain and it sends a better message. Just because richer people can avoid these things better doesn't mean we should stop chasing them for committing crimes.
The UK has a price cap on universities, and i don't think it has lead to a huge black market of admissions. I'm sure there are a few corrupt things going on, but I'm sure that still happens in the US at the moment with their high prices.
To anyone thinking about going straight to college I would strongly suggest you take a year and really try and work in what you want to do doesn’t matter if it’s way at the bottom and if you can’t then just get a job and make some money, you can visualize life without school but the reality is a little different than the picture you might find you just like it more especially with how many filler and bs classes they make you take just to gouge on money
So back in the early days of this business model. They used to pay a lot of small businesses for every loan They created. If I remember correctly the only penalty for a bad loan was the loss of commission But they'd still pay you for the loan. They were pushing hard for physical retail for some reason but they found their success in going pure online for the most part.
Hey, just started University in UK, am studying computer science and I completely agree with Big A here cus like I have no idea what debt I’ve taken on and honestly getting a job looks so hard even after I get this degree I’m so cooked
The trick is actually to tell them you want to finance shake on a price, then tell them you changed your mind and want to pay in cash. Its a dick move but a lot of dealerships wont back out of the deal at that stage.
Im confused if a large problem is that they are allowed to just raise the price infintely due to loan guarantees, that implies they are raising the price when it is not neccessary as people would just not go, and thus not give them as much money if it was too high. How does capping the price not work then? If it is artificially high then how does artifically lowering it cause more harm? The blackmarket happens if there is scarcity with no outlet, but I thought the argument was that there isn't actually scaricty just people taking more money cause they can? This feels contradictory to me but i assume its not and just dont understand it. Second thing, if cappnig the price of collge wont work I assume capping the allowed loan amounts would. But all that is irrelavant because it is clear as a society we think everyone should be college educated to some extent, given the inflation of education expectations I think what we should really be doing is working to basically extend highschool by 2 years, make everyone go to a sort of community college for 2 years then let people sort themsevles into higher education after that like before. This should be publiclly funded like k-12 is. What we have right now is a system that is too ineffecent and thus too easy to take advantage of.
I don't understand how Klarna debt builds up. I had one Klarna pay in 4 situation that i didnt pay but I only for that one payment and can't use klarna again until it's paid.
Bought my Ford F150 this summer. Got a 20k dollar incentive to pay cash. I thought it was curious at the time. The American brands must have been struggling with free cash flow.
I can't relate this this spending without a care in the world as to whether you're gonna be able to pay the bills at all. I have savings, I don't have debt.
At least at my school most MBA students seem to have worked in consulting and are now getting their degree to move up to higher positions in consultancy firms
I want to cut back on some things so I can have money to spend on tutoring. Shouldn’t make the industry illegal because some people have different values. To play devils advocate, making tutoring illegal creates an unfair advantage for kids with unemployed parents because those parents have the time to tutor their own kids
This kind of spending from my generation make me feel like im a financial genius
I think manic depression causes this crazy spending
Literally all you have to do to win is not play. Amazing
Frugal gen zers rise up! (we are broke and feel terrible whenever we spend money)
@@TheLethargicWeirdo985amen
i didnt go to college, have no car, 0 debt whatsoever. 15 bucks an hour. i always felt like a failure but it turns out it could be farrrrrrrrrrrr worse
hey atrioc i put my college tuition on klarna and deleted the app 🔥
😂
DEBT = GONE
the new meta
😂😂😂😂
I stg this is the exact shit from the robinhood wtb bullshit lmfao😂
I’ve never touched a buy now pay later because my parents got caught in the “get your paycheck early” scam companies when I was a kid, so I got my debt the REAL American way: chase credit card 😎
Hell yeah, brother 😎
I think the American way is medical debt and college
@@RusticRonnietru
Chase credit card? Why is it running away???
@@Ankady brøther, may i have some more debt, I must sustain my livelihood by any means possible. YES, BRØTHER, help yourself >:)
I just bought 2 enron hats with Klarna
You'd need it considering it would cost you 100 dollars + shipping lol
Same
Nice
😂😂😂😂
I work as a Regional Director for a LARGE retailer, one you've shopped at for sure. The crazy thing about retail financing is it's actually crazy expensive, Visa, Mastercard, AMEX, etc. charge companies anywhere from 2%-5% to process a transaction. Average retail financing costs upwards of 20% to the organization. And they're STILL pushing it, because like he said AOV goes through the roof. Our AOV literally more than doubles on financing.
Gotta hit those key performance indicators...
so paying 20% to payment processors, so that the customers average order value grows by like 200%
This is the real value of crypto, circumventing the absurd fees charged by these organisations, processing transactions faster and making international transactions easier.
Does it rhyme with tall fart
@@ayoCC 100%. I just think it’s interesting, I think a lot of consumers assumes the company profits off the financing, that must be why they’re pushing it so hard. But it’s you, the consumer, who we’re profiting from.
5:55 I can actually talk about this, I was a director at a Chinese international school for 6 years. Some of my kids were on 5 hours of sleep because besides our homework load being pretty high, they'd have to get home and do the math tutoring on an app, then English, then prep for high school entry/university entry exams. Besides all of that being on apps, which is awful for kids in general because screen time (of course some would still go to training centers) it got to the point it started affecting their performance in our school. As usual, only 10% of the news get to the Western media, so it wasn't an outright ban to everything. They banned training centers with independent curricula and age restricted enrollment of kids to certain activities. Yes, we had parents wanting their 3 year-olds to have two hours of English a day. So when you said it didn't work, it's not exactly true, because it did end a lot of what I just mentioned. Common sense had to be forcefully injected into the heads of some rich parents we had to deal with. Of course, we are people, adaptable as usual, and some of those companies did end up moving to Malaysia and now play a game of cat and mouse with the government releasing a new app every time one gets banned. But from what I hear from my former colleagues that are still there (I left last year) this has helped the kids immensely. Not sure about the effects on social disparities, but they do have more free time now, and that's just good.
Is there any way to ever convince parents using childhood pedagogy research? There's groups here in the states that try to oppose the inclusion of phonics based reading curriculum for strictly "whole language" learning and it's insane.
People will do anything for their children to get ahead except listen to experts.
Well those tend to be hucksters and scammers as well.
Cutting sleep of a child to 5 hours a night so they learn more seems smart.
@@Modingbeli Many don't need to be convinced. I think you're not understanding the scale of things in China. Many of those insane parents I'm talking about would also worry about their kids having Montessori education, AND, all of this insanity. It's not because "they're ignorant and don't know better", but try to understand the degree of despair you might have when you think that if your kid wants to get into a top 5 university, they'll be competing with kids that are doing all of those things. Out of all applications, 0.043% of students pass the Tsinghua and Beijing uni entrance exams. Do you understand how mad that is? Tier 1 admission rates range around 0.3%. There's no invitation letter, no recommendations, no entering because you play sports well, it's exams and always exams that get harder and harder every year to account for the population increase. So as a parent, this kind of thing sometimes sounds as the last possible resource if you wanna secure the future of your kids.
I'm sorry your kids had to went through that, but at the same time, this corroborates the independent news reports I've heard about that country.
@@defaulted9485 I have not seen any independent news reports with this level of detail, so if you could share your sources with me it would be greatly appreciated, since I always look for news vehicles that describe these kinds of policies extensively and in detail, and not in a header in all caps with "CHINA BANS PRIVATE EDUCATION".
2:50 It's important to know why this is wrong. Having "liquidity" only is good if you are spending it on something that you absolutely need or is going to make you more money. Like fixing your car so you can keep going to work for example. You are trading some of your future earnings to keep your income flowing. This is almost never how people use Klarna.
If you are using your liquidity to buy a PS5 or something (which is mostly how people use Klarna) then that liquidity is doing nothing monetarily for you all you are doing is spending like you have more money than you actually do.
And even then, adding liquidity to necessities helps in the short term but over a longer term the price of said necessities simply adjust to whatever people are able to pay because they can't just say no if the price gets jacked up.
I have only used it for absolutely necessary things like when my computer for college comited self emulation at school I had to get a new or I don’t pass nursing school
On the other hand, money tomorrow is worth less than money today, both in potential and in actual spending power. So if you can put off paying for like, 50 years, you're totally set!
I was talking about college debt forgiveness a while back with my dad (who immigrated to the US for his masters degree) and one things he pointed out was that the reasons banks can give student loans so freely is because student loans are one of the ONLY debts not forgiven during bankruptcy. bankruptcy is the threat that forces banks to be more considerate in who they loan to and how much they loan since if a person goes bankrupt, the bank often just loses money. If banks were more reluctant to give out massive loans, we’d be seeing lower tuitions.
Biden specifically was the one to ensure a bill back in 2005 made it SUPER difficult to declare bankruptcy on private student loans. Dude is the cause of most of this issue
Universities set the tuition fees though
@@SamWilkinsonn universities set the tuition fees but if banks aren’t willing to loan for as high, then universities will not be able to fill their classrooms if they keep tuitions the same since far less people would be able to pay that amount without a loan. they would have to decrease tuitions to whatever banks are willing to loan.
The knock-on effects of removing the bankruptcy protections from student loans would be MASSIVE. Everything you described would happen, for sure, but also every degree would have to be useful (as in you can get a reasonable career with it), because banks would want to know that you're in a program that will be capable of paying the loan back. The useless degrees would see enrollment dry up. Every role in the school would have to get a lot more efficient, because general income would drop from the lack of useless programs bringing in money from suckers. I guarantee 3/4+ of school administration would disappear overnight, allowing tuition to drop further. The feedback loops would be insanely positive.
I’m glad that I was taught basic economic ideas by my parents, because that Klarna and Afterpay icon is like the Green Goblin mask to me, every purchase I make online it calls to me, beckoning me to buy now pay later, to give myself into debt.
Klarna is the eye of Sauron and I'm a slutty little ring wraith
I feel it too. A bunch but not enough to strongly resist.
I used affirm once and paid it off fast so i feel like if you could use the services responsibly and only take out what you can afford to pay back reasonably fast then the only thing I would recommend is a credit card because I think they actually report back and raise your credit and I’m not sure if Klarna does that.
Hi Big A! I am currently in law school in Australia and I was the ONLY person in my cohort of 300 to get a legal job in my first year. Entry-level legal jobs are disappearing rapidly here in Australia and I was very lucky to perform well during my interview process. I actually used a lot of what I have learnt from watching you and would love to tell you about it sometime!
As a new law graduate in Australia I would love to discuss as well… it’s so interesting the way pay scales work for law in Australia too!
Congratulations on securing a role so early! You must have been an impressive candidate (surely you wowed with your knowledge about the FTC and the GOAT Lina Khan). I am an Australian corporate and commercial solicitor (second year post-admission, I took my time going into practice). My friends that secured a role in first year who stuck it out are now thriving approximately five years post-admission. Enjoy the rest of your degree and I wish you all the best for PLT, your admission to the Supreme Court and for your career as a fellow lawyer. I look forward to someday addressing you as my colleague.
Sheesh do your job for a minute instead of begging for clout. Totally believe you're gen-z.
@@TheCencc it’s Sunday mate
@heyboxgaming funny
hey atrioc, long time viewer here (but i had to make an alt for reasons I'll get to)
I'm a Canadian, living in Ontario. Part of what I do is hidden applications for universities i.e I get paid to apply to schools by a different school to assess the support and infrastructure in place after applying, and what they're doing to turn applicants into students.
I''m aging out of this role, and this will probably be my last year (AHHHHHHH) but it highlights a major problem in Ontario I thought you might find interesting - our universities are going under, as in, ALL our universities. This represents 1/4 of the schools in country.
We've had a tuition freeze in place since 2019 to combat rising costs, but unfortunately this has led to schools being left in a genuinely tight spot: most staff have contracts stipulating guaranteed raises, and there's no way to match this rising cost. For a time schools took as many international students as they could (Tuition is ~2.5x for int'l here) but now that's been banned as well as our country swings conservative and looks to clamp down on immigration.
The University of Waterloo is one of our top schools, and they just bought out fully 5% of their professorate's contracts to try to fight costs. Every school i've worked with is in significant debt, and a few are looking at shutting their doors.
maybe not as interesting and terrifying as i've been finding it, but yeah!
Can you elaborate a bit more on what your job is? I've never heard of people applying to a university on behalf of other universities. I guess this might be why you are posting under an alt though?
@@maxnaegel2126 for sure! I'm not sure if every school does it, but I've worked for three separate that do. It's run by the student recruitment office and usually called "secret shopper" or "mole applicant" program, but is not really advertised (i got cold called by an admission officer in my senior year of hs as I had a good but not too good application profile, i would get in where I applied but not warrant special attention). they send you a list of schools and programs as well as an Excel/Sheets link, you document the date of your confirmation email, acceptance email and rate your experiences with the schools UI etc. I mostly do it for the networking it provides, but it's not too much work. Generally it's only busy at the start of the year as all the confirmations roll in. You usually also have a weekly/monthly check in with your SRO to discuss how you feel about individual schools campaigns/discuss how your host school might appropriate the best parts of that campaign.
I never had to sign an NDA outright, but they really emphasize that discretion is a key component of employment, which is why alt.
Sounds like aggressive opposition research to me
It is truly a weird thing to read that apparently, higher education can only be financed by people obviously not yet equipped for paying out large sums of money to institutions of learning for a skill set that is apparently and usually very much needed. Why doesn't the state Jump in? That is an area that most _obviously_ should be State-funded.
@@maxnaegel2126 typed out a fleshed out reply but either forgot to hit send or I'm spam filtered because of account age :(
I was cold called as a senior in HS because I had a decent application profile, but not so much as to warrant special attention. Basically they pay you to apply to about 10-20 schools and track all correspondence with them. you have a weekly or monthly meeting with a student recruitment officer and discuss what of the other schools outreach worked, and what didn't. As others have said it's mostly opposition research, I just find it interesting that it exists in such a supplier dominated field.
I love debt
-US government, 1938-present
Same
Arr you a bank
Ok goofy
I hate debt
2:22 Vermont is so goated for this, it's illegal to penalize or block someone from prepaying a loan at any time. Anytime I buy a vehicle I just go with financing and instantly pay it off. Lenders aren't even allowed to add the interest you would've paid over the life of the loan, there is no downside except for a hard inquisition on your credit which would happen anyways if you were to get a loan normally.
Crazy that this practice is legal anywhere
Is this true? Vermont only?
@@Cee-looo I'm not sure about similar laws in other states, but in Vermont where I live it's a law. 9 V.S.A. § 45 in VT statues if you're interested.
So what we're saying is, buy the car... in Vermont. LETS GOOO
2:14 you do what my parents did. Write a personal check for whatever the maximum they could accept. Then "finance" the rest of the car. Next morning they transferred the rest except 60 cents to the loan. Their monthly payment was a penny with no interest and the dealership sold them a car for cash next time.
The only time I’ve ever used Klarna is one single time where I literally had the money to pay for the item fully (a super nice Dolby Atmos setup) but there was a 30% discount for doing it with Klarna… and then I just paid it all off immediately.
When I was at Uni, I went to a club meeting where some administrator was talking about how they’re preparing for a 10-15% drop in admissions because there were fewer children born during the recession. I wonder how that’s gonna effect tuition prices
I love how at 0:43 the website thinks that the sonic the hedgehog trailer is related to genz debt 😂😂
“Lingering effects of inflation” - like it’s gonna go away
I was $15k short for my $40k car. Instead of financing I put $15k on black and won. I was being financially responsible by avoiding the loan.
The rant at 5:10 is the same as house pricing inflation, house prices aren't dictated by how much money people actually have, it's dictated by borrowing capacity, which is why with the interest rate rises in australia I saw multiple CEOS and bank managers buying out dozens of cheap properties, since people were being forced to sell and nobody could buy
Also it's worth noting specifically in Australia, regulatory acts were implemented to ensure nobody was given a loan they couldn't repay, however this only protects people invested into the structure of loans and banks, this does nothing to answer the ethical question of whether giving someone 30 years of debt to a bank is something we should be doing to people
If you ignore debt collection agencies it eventually just goes away
Technically speaking, on paper, the economist dude at 2:40 isn't wrong. Things like Klarna, and even more traditional credit cards and the like, all on paper could help poor people become less poor by helping them avoid getting trapped in the problem so elegantly described by Vimes's Boot Theory of Economics.
Emphasis on could.
I think statistics supports the case that in many, if not most, cases, the average consumer ends up using Klarna and credit cards to get deeper and deeper in debt, either out of necessity or due to consistent poor spending choices.
So, on paper, yes. In reality, with regards to the consistent poor spending choices, human psychology at scale ends up not acting that way more often than not. I suppose another example of economists being right on paper, but missing out the evident when it comes to human behavior interfering with ideal models.
That being said, I think having it available in general I think is better for people if they're willing to use them properly.
At the end of the day, BNPL is just an additional line of credit extendable to a population that may be running out of lines of credit, isn't it?
It's the classic really, what is best from a purely academic standpoint, vs what happens in the real world. If people were to make every single correct decision, Klarna is actually pretty great as a tool. But people just don't
I actually ran a remote tutoring business for a few years with friends, focusing on chinese students (both before and after the ban)
I taught a bunch myself and there were a bunch of loopholes to get around the tuition ban lol. One example was parents in China hiring an 'agency' to help with foreign boarding school/university applications & housing (not regulated), and they'd package the cost of a certain amount of tuition into their fees.
The agency would then pay the tutors directly via 'partner' offices they had abroad. Very similar to the system used in the china/mex/usa fent trade lmao.
Love your videos Fads 🙏
Fancy seeing you here man.
4:00 As someone who's actually in a pre-law program (start law school next year), y'all are not ready for the ChatGPT lawyers 😭
I just hope they make for some funny UA-cam videos and don't actually screw people over too bad
With how much LLMs are hallucinating and spewing out bs, because of how they work, they're never going to replace as many jobs as people think
To be honest we'll probably all have an AI lawyer once you graduate. Hopefully because lawyers are expensive and I will probably be taken to court for not paying any of my student loans. Could you make a good argument for why we should pay while rich kids have their daddy's money?
My wife’s in law school right now and all her tests are hand written in person, with tests as like 80-100% of the grade for each class. So you may want to make sure you can actually write before you start your law program.
I'm in law school (3L at top school) and ChatGPT is ass for law and we had several exams of correcting chat GPT. All of legal AI is trash including westlaw at the moment. It can only handle basic questions
Giving infinite student loans is not a flaw it’s by design it’s a greed ridden dark side of college cost goes up knowledge stays the same and even some cases goes down to save more money 5:27
Iirc the initial reason for the tuition thing was to help more students get into college, as for many years university was restricted to well off families and individuals. The loan helped the student be able to attend, while the college gets paid. The big problem is it was left unchecked, not the premise itself. The colleges kept increasing costs, therefore tuition too, and so the loans followed suit.
I'm an Irish student and for my own understanding I checked what college costs in a state uni for a a general example, so the diffeence of a us state uni vs an Irish (/European) uni.
I checked Washington state cause of a friend, and when I checked their calculator thing, ye americans spend (according to WSU) around 35k a year, family in-state, no financial support accounted. That's bloody mental. 13k is tuition ONLY. 19k purely financial support grants and stuff. Brings it down to 15.5k a year.
In Ireland WITHOUT any financial support, my family and I spend 12k a year, including weekly personal costs, dorm rent, tuition, transport. No car, no partner, just me.
That's without taking into account most of my mates are on a government scheme called SUSI which, for their first (or only) degree, pays for their tuition in full. As well, my dorm is on the higher end, when you can go for a dig (room rental), or go for cheaper accommodation usually renting a house.
That can bring you down to less than 10k generally, or as low as 7-8k a year, maybe lower with minmaxing. Depending on your degree length as well, you can finish in 3 instead of 4 years. After all that, you could study here for anywhere between 21k-48k total in the degree period. Obviously higher if you spent more week to week than I on personal expenses, car payments, partying, gifts, eating out, etc.
As much as I like to laugh at this fact as well, we as a country are speeding towards a massive financial collapse
Maybe not massive. But i can see alot of people losing money soon
This is a global problem, the Us just has easier access to loans
Hey guys, just an observation but ive noticed that this Atrioc guy's hands kinda look like hotdogs isn't that strange?
They get a bit bigger when he's excited. Don't say it out loud though, he's a bit self conscious about it.
G
Afterpay were emailing me for months lol, They really wanted that 20 dollars
My Afterpay limit has been $0 for 2 years because apparently the last payment for my phone case didn't go through, but they never notified me, so I owed them like $20 for 6 months lmao
Soulless net walker
@@chudtungston?
This one sided rivalry is very entertaining on examination. Man's been replying for months
@@TihetrisWeathersby I think @chudtungston's callin you a bot.
I look forward to these daily uploads so much.
0:54 Big A just explained the Credit Ouroboros
I am 31. My wife is 30. When we got married this year, we had around $100,000 in combined debt to pay off. We've paid off about $64,000 of it so far and are making progress. Took a lot of sacrifices to do but I look forward to being debt free and never being in debt again.
i do not understand people who take debt (assuming they have sufficient income)
i wont be able to sleep if i owe to anyone, never took debt, never owned credit cards
am i some sort of anomaly?
Funnily enough i considered taking a loan once for a business idea, the bank told me i have no credit score even though i travel and spend like... aaa lot
apparently i need to be doing that with borrowed money (trough credit cards) or I'm not a responsible enough customer... cos i use my own money
I mean if you you were going to lend someone money you'd want to know if they'd be good at paying that money back.
@@evanmatthews2159so someone who makes decent income never used a creditcard, pays everything cash/debit is less reliable than people constantly using creditcards? how does it make sense? are we testing my ability to remember to press few buttons at the end of the month? lol
They are still my bank, they can see how i'm spending thousands of dollars per month, why does it make a difference if its debit card or credit card.
Its a moronic system, they should look at your purchase history, your income etc... not how much of a debt addict you are
@@krellin never taking debt isn’t financially literate, it’s the opposite. Managing your credit effectively is pretty much the most financially literate thing you can do.
Get a credit card with good points or cash back, pay for EVERYTHING with it, and pay it off before interest kicks in. I get thousands of dollars worth of points a year and never pay a penny in interest.
@@sometimessomething4734 i'm good, i'll focus my time on thigns that matter instead of worrying which cards do what and if my bank is about to screw me with some trick...
at the end of the day it makes no dent in you being financially independent. Its just further reinforces a scummy system that gets people eventually into serious trouble because they have no discipline to spend what they should.
@@sometimessomething4734 its questionable if its financially smart or not, my bet is that banks did some stats and figured out that average gambler will eventually take so much debt that they can start cashing in their ridiculous percentages... or at very least even if they are responsible people once or twice they will slip somwhere and get a hefty fee charged...
I will bet that most credit card users eventually pile up debt instead of save money... otherwise i do not see the incentive for the banks to make your life easier.
I was living in the city for a while, had only a small amount of spending cash and wasn't putting away nearly enough. I experienced the addictive nature of spending too much on Paypal Pay in 4 firsthand. Every month I would spend too much but it felt fine because I wasn't spending it right away so I had some money left. Got to the point I realized it was a horrid idea, I've outlawed pay later services for myself now and it's helped a lot with budgeting.
4:16 as someone who is a 2L at a law school, chat GPT isn’t the only thing to worry about. It’s also changing job descriptions for those working under attorneys.
I know some of my friends are just spending all they can and maxing out cards through these apps and taking on CC debt cause there aint no way for the bank to collect. What is the bank gonna do? They cant garnish their minimum wage position at walmart or take their foodstamps or take the rent money back from the landlord. Their argument is that they will never own a home to begin with so might as well get what they want. All they do is open a cc that has 50% interest and max it out and then open another without making a single payment. The bank is dumb enough to keep sending the CC's so might as well.
05:34 "No cap" confirmed
I feel crazy being a zoomer and having no debt
I effin COOKED on the scholarship side and I saved juuuust enough to buy a "car". I'm legitimately terrified knowing nearly everyone I know has ongoing debt. I'm building a massive emergency fund because I'm not going to let the spiral begin. The credit card is for a 2-4% discount, fraud protection, and reservation ability, and credit score inflation.
@@adissentingopinion848same. I got really lucky so I’m leaving college with no debt and I’m saving for a car now. It’s kinda wild how much debt gets shoved in your face.
@@adissentingopinion848 2-4 % discount?? what do you mean?
@@fuzzjunky 2-4% Cashback on whatever category the credit card is giving you. Basically incentivizing you to use credit rather than debit on the off chance that you forget to pay the statement and accrue interest. That's enough to lose the relative value of a year's worth of cashback.
@@fuzzjunkyI believe he’s referring to the cash back you get for credit cards
Hey Atrioc! For the part you brought up in 3:45, I am currently in the process of doing a law masters and got my law degree last year. My first year of law school was the year COVID quarantines began and I can assure you, the law school my generation went is VASTLY different than our peers in the past.
As for the whole "hunger games for AI" aspect, it has gotten to a point that despite currently doing a masters, I have had half of my professors 'give up' on trying to police AI. One of them even started the year by saying that he doesn't want to bother with it and that we are allowed to use it, with the stipulation that we explicitly state so on the paper so that he is aware and it doesn't count as plagiarism.
I would've loved to have caught this on stream and offered some more insights on this but it's currently finals week for me and I have 70 to 80 pages worth of essays to write (without ChatGPT of course :) ).
Got a Klarna ad on this video, thought that was hilariously ironic
When I use klarna/PayPal/chase and do the 2 week 4 transaction option. It mainly be for groceries, Wi-Fi, electricity, work clothes, and I’d have to continue it each month.
Current law school student (1L) here! You're mostly wrong about law schools as of right now.
First, the AI is often wrong about the law, which means it can't write memos or briefs for lawyers. Judge opinions (which govern the common law) are written very particularly, and even humans struggle and argue about their meanings (hence why the Supreme Court has to interpret stuff). AI, in my experience, is wrong on almost every issue unless it is literally the most straightforward case of all time. Obviously, we're not learning about straightforward cases because we're learning how to argue the gray area that makes up most of our lawsuits. There's an Avianca Airline case in which an attorney used ChatGPT and immediately got sanctioned from the judge bc the AI was just making shit up in the brief. Also, it's impossible to cheat on exams with ChatGPT because you take exams in a test taking software like the ACT or SAT (are these still online? I was a COVID kid) or MCAT. You cannot access any AI during the exam. So even if it was correct, it is of no help to you in getting your JD.
However, you're mostly right in the fact that people are trying to use AI in law. There are two main databases that legal professionals use to research the law: Lexus and Westlaw. Both (especially Lexus) have been trying to role about AI to help make case summaries for all the cases in their databases. However, AI still needs heavy oversight in both databases, and they won't give you an AI-generated summary without a human reviewing and editing it. Also, students could technically use AI to help them with legal writing assignments, but it would probably actually make it harder to write a good memo. (Maybe AI can write a good average memo, but in law school good grades are essential for good employment. Average isn't really cutting it)
I think lawyers are probably one of the only white-collar jobs that will be immune to AI replacement (especially litigation). Good lawyers are meant to make personable and compelling arguments (sometimes in person) to convince real people of their position. I have never seen AI that has been able to win over a jury like a human can. However, I do think it is possible that AI could become a big tool used that could replace another positions that some law firms have, like research assistants or paralegals.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask!
Nothing is immune to AI replacement, ten years ago everyone said get jobs in programming because robots will take all the minimum wage shit, and the first jobs to be cut are programmers because they're expensive and the AI can do their job quicker and 90% as good. AI doesn't need to be better as long as it is good enough because of how much quicker and cheaper it is.
There are only 2 rules of AI:
1 if your job can be done by a robot then at some point it WILL be done by a robot.
2 ALL jobs can be done by robot, they just haven't built it yet.
@@TristanLane520 Yeah, I think it's true that AI could eventually replace all human jobs, but lawyers being replaced would be more on the end of walking, talking, human-like robots scale of AI rather than ChatGPT. This is what I meant by lawyers being immune to AI replacement.
@youarenotafish I don't think there's any reason it would need to be humanoid, everything could be vastly improved in defence, prosecution and sentencing by becoming fully automated, arguably even juries would be fairer.
Still a long way off, but how quickly we cover that long way towards the technology (and required change of laws to enable it) is the real question...
The only AI tools I see helping people such as yourself in Law are grammarly esque tools such as quillbot to help with articulation, grammar and general wording of parts in a paper. Though it may actually have the reverse effect of making papers more readable, depending on legal definitions and how the AI interprets them in a sentence. May correctly understand from context what it means, or only know the more layman meaning and mess up a whole paragraph.
@@TristanLane520An automated jury rather misses the point of a jury. Juries don’t exist to give people jobs, they exist to allow someone to be judged by their peers. There is no lens through which an “automated” jury could fill that role. With regards to “fairness”, that’s not really a definable metric, and anything that has learnt from the human knowledge base is going to share the same biases and faults as humans in varying degrees.
You either die as a goods and services company or life long enough to be a credit company.
As someone in law school in NZ, most of the classes have two in person tests a year where you write on a laptop but they are very cautious of people trying to use ChatGPT. Plus, ChatGPT is just constantly wrong when it comes to law espicially in New Zealand so we don't really have a problem with it. We had a bit of a problem with it in one of our essays but they pretty much just told us not to do it. In terms of jobs it does seem like it is getting a little harder but not as much as people seem to be saying.
ChatGPT is the most useful to the tech space, which I'm in, which makes sense cause of how it works. Even when like all my friends use it religiously all the time, even when they could just search for the answer easily, they use it for that 'timesave' and convenience. I usually use it as a last resort, which depending on what work I'm doing comes quicker than some others. Sometimes documentation of tech I have to use, such as Oracle DB, is so god awful that AI is the only way to make it understandable
@SeanSMST Same. I pretty much only using it for finding/helping with documentation. I will use it to help me figure out css issues sometimes tho cuz working with that shit sucks.
This either ends up in total collapse or revolution
They don't teach financial literacy well or at all in schools and there are more of these predatory marketeering around.
Yes they do. Students just don’t pay attention
With schooling, an alternative we oughta utilize more is professional white collar apprenticeships. You can take a bar exam in certain states without law school but with a commendation from a member of the bar, usually after working as a paralegal or assistant for a period of time. Currently we have a certificate culture where we focus on academia being the sole means to that end rather than what we would historically use for training. The best solution is free college to educate the population along with the ability to democratize high level professions by ensuring the most qualified and competent individuals who either train from high school or educate themselves further to be allowed in a field.
I'm in my third year of law school and it may just be me but I'm not feeling the effects of AI in my coursework so much. I've messed around with ChatGPT and I'm not super impressed with where it's at in terms of legal argument or citation. As one kind of funny aside: I'm an editor for a law journal at my school and a professor from some other school attempted to submit a very obviously AI-generated article to our journal. We did not select that article for publication.
That being said, I am scared for the future of the profession and sense massive shifts for transactional lawyers especially. AI may not be an everything tool for law right now but it's getting more sophisticated every day. The major legal research services, Westlaw and Lexis (and Bloomberg if you're a freak), have already implemented AI into their search functions and are testing new uses for AI like drafting advice letters. Some of my friends are more skeptical about it than I am but I'm certain there is and will be a fundamental shift to the way law is practiced as a result of AI.
only finance stuff when you can already buy it at least 3 times with your disposable saved money, which is just the general rule for buying stuff
It’s not debt, it's character growth.
I'm sure the mentality is probably "so what if I just wrack up the debt and declare bankruptcy? What's gonna happen? I'll ruin my credit? It's not like I can buy a house anyway."
The glizzmeister returns
On my way to use Klarna to buy a sub to my favorite streamer, Brandon "Afterpay Advocate" Ewing! Thanks for the content as always!
4:00 unless you’re going to a top 14 law school, then your entry is almost guaranteed and base pay is around $240,000 for entry level lawyers
As a college student I see all the unneeded services, inflated food prices and high price of housing. We are all broke but because of loans everyone can finance a lifestyle way above what is needed and pay inflated prices. The worst part is many of the degrees people get don’t actually increase their income much so they can’t pay off the debt. The same is also true for drop outs. I get it seems unethical to deny people college because they can’t pay. But when easy loans are causing huge debt that can’t be paid back and also devalues a college degree because of the sheer number of people that graduate, something needs to be done. My advice is removing loans for degrees that don’t have a high ROI and usually don’t increase grads incomes. Like Art or Dance majors. In the long run the people denied loans also benefit because they are not drowning in debt.
wrong direction, the best route is free higher education. Would only cost like 70 bil. Do universal healthcare and make that back plus some. Break up military contractors and boom, way up. Increase corporate taxes and raise minimum wage, and boom you would have surplas honestly at that point.
How is it unethical to deny a non-mandatory service from someone who can't afford it? College is not necessary to exist. University is not necessary to exist. That's like saying it's unethical to charge for tutoring because some people can't afford it. Why charge anything for anything? No rights are being violated when people can't afford to go to college. If anything, letting people go to college when they can't afford it IS the unethical thing because you setup the entire country for failure and you make the problem exponentially worse because the institutions are not government ones - they are private with government subsidies (which by law makes the public but the administration isn't so they can raise prices indefinitely).
There is nothing unethical by denying services to people who can't afford them. If you want to help them, do it yourself. By forcing others to do it you violate their rights. Imagine I came with a gun and forced you to take out your wallet and give that money to your neighbor. It's not your decision what to do with your money, it's mine. Screw private property, eh? I really don't understand these "ethics" arguments. It's like having money is a fking sin regardless of anything and being poor is the doorway to becoming a fking angel. Services are things you pay for. They aren't rights. Higher education and arguably most primary education is not a right. Nobody owes you education outside of your parents to the minimum degree of your survival. Most jobs don't require a degree in terms of skill and knowledge. You need a trade school at best or on-set training at worst from complete zero.
I don't owe you an education this me not providing you with one does not violate your rights. Rights persist regardless of technology. Cavemen and cyberpunk people from a few centuries into the future have the same rights. I don't think cavemen were owed the chance to go to fking college. I'm speaking as someone who went to both college and university, dropped from both and decided to pursue a career in freelance as a tech artist. I make way less money that I probably would've with a degree but I'm both happy and can afford a living by being frugal. And if I don't have enough customers in the future, I could find another job with the portfolio I'm accumulating. Because knowledge and experience trump almost any and all degrees (most degrees are so worthless from an employers perspective and luckily it loses more value every single day). Go build something. Go learn to be a plumber. No degree needed and the pay is good because the supply dried out with all these people rushing for higher education because they were told to do so.
Education at that level is not a right. It's very ethical for someone to deny you services for not being able to afford them. Giving loans to people who can't afford them is what gets you 2008 all over again (which happened because the banks had the backing of the government this allowing them to play a much riskier game despite knowing the value and risk don't match - stop involving the government in fking everything).
@@sapiently1free higher education would just make the surplus of college degrees larger. if only 20% of jobs need a college degree you want to make it so that only 20% of people get one. I don’t have a problem with free higher education but you would need strict entrance exams to limit graduates so basically the dumb or lazy would be left behind but still very unpopular. Minimum wage should only be increased in a lopsided labor market otherwise your just going to make people lose there jobs. Corporate taxes on the other hand should definitely be raised. What you said isn’t wrong but a little more nuanced than that.
@@SiMeGamerTo clarify in my post I never said it’s unethical just that many think it is. The general argument about why it’s unethical to deny people college is that it’s basically the easiest way to a higher standard of living. If someone cut off your path to lifting you family out of generational poverty because you might not be able to pay the loans you borrowed is a difficult thing to do. Also class mobility is something that needs to be available. For government paying for college, college grads earn more money and through taxes will pay for there own education eventually so it’s not really that bad economically.
@@TOPNOTCH80 it is unethical to force people to do things against their will. The government shouldn't be in the business of loaning money. It's not a fking bank. And while I agree that mobility is important, it's, once again, not a right. Fix it in another way. Stop inheriting debt - just because your parents took on debt doesn't mean you should be the one with the burden to pay it. That's one way to fix it by actually protecting rights. The child never agreed to those terms of the loan thus they shouldn't inherit the payment for it. You can't inherit a negative - it makes no sense. It doesn't exist. And you can get out of poverty even with a terrible minimum wage job (I'm also for abolishing minimum wage because it raises prices for everything but I digress).
Mobility is solved by giving people a lot more freedom of movement. Not just up but also down. When big people are allowed to fail (like banks and universities, for example) then you open a lot of doors for someone to take it. Remove all anti-trust so small companies are allowed to compete with big guys and if they want to sell themselves to them, let them. It's a choice. There are no forced monopolies until you involve the government and allow lobbying. Speaking of which, remove lobbying. Amazon a few years ago was doing deals with states or cities or whatever on where it should make its new headquarters. Literally getting benefits from the government at the expense of everyone else. That's how you kill mobility.
The government exists to protect rights. Not to help you move up in life - that's your business, not everybody elses. It is known and proven endlessly that the government is the most inefficient organization that exists. Every time it gets worse and yet it is given more and more responsibility. So both in ethical and practical terms, we are fking ourselves by delegating more responsibility to the government. We still need it because it protects our rights with the police, military and judiciary (I'm not an anarchist) but we give it so much more. Why education sucks? Because of the government there is no competition on pretty much anything. All teachers get the same certificates and all schools have the same methods of teaching and curriculums and all of them are forced to do sht that has nothing to do with education and maximizing learning and thought. And they get subsidies too so they raise prices on top of everything (not to mention all this insane sht about religion being forced by the state or smth). Same goes for the financial sector - banks are so incredibly regulated that you have zero competition and an ever growing government debt. Because god forbid money worked as it should and banks competed for customers of different types with better deals, smarter financing and better banking practices and allowed to fking fail (which would also mean a bank failing erases debt from people).
Mobility is a feature of a system. It's not a right. The government shouldn't care how mobile society is financially. It's not its problem. It's something for us to solve as individuals. There is nothing unfair at being born to a poor family. I was born to a poor family. I'm doing very well now because both them and I worked really hard and made good decisions (my mom did an insane job getting me to a decent school where my brain didn't rot - I didn't get any special degree, just decent people around me is all). Did I move to a super wealthy class? No. I'm barely making ends meet but soon, I hope, my business will really take off and my potential employment in the worst case scenario is all but guaranteed. You aren't given anything in life for free. If anything I'm still being taken away from like crazy because I pay so many fking taxes and using zero of the services. And that includes in my previous jobs I had to put some of my salary in a forced pension because the government thinks it's their job to make me financially responsible (I wanted that money to invest in myself but now I had no access to it so me getting pennies when I'm 70 is such a scam).
Just don't involve the government. It's that simple. You want to fix mobility, look at the actual symptoms. Right now the symptom is the government. Look at all these people getting into debt for education that is worthless, inhibiting their mobility further and further. And for what? So everyone can go study in these corrupt institutions that are made for academic studies and not to get a job (trade school and boot camps is how you get a job because it's actually practical and infinitely more efficient and cheaper institution). To help people we need start by fixing the system in the exact opposite way of where it has been going. And some would say "but look at Europe". Europe is collapsing slowly. People overall are extremely unhappy and their mobility is close to zero because they are taxes to high heaven. Sure they are more equal, but last I checked that shouldn't matter. And there is a limit to how much longer that can be sustained. While countries like the US have tons of problems, it is miles better than Europe in terms of maximizing your potential at happiness.
Oh yeah, never talked about it, but, healthcare is also not a right. Paying a doctor is a service. Getting a checkup is a service. One of the reasons healthcare is so I credibly expensive in the US is, again, the government. By not allowing competition because you can't compete with subsidies almost at all, you get the same sht as universities by increasing prices all the time because the government can pay for it and then you also lobby for patents outside their usual time limit and so you have an unnatural drug monopoly that can put the price of basic meds in the sky. Healthcare is a service, not a right. If you break your leg, you shouldn't be able to pull a gun to my head and tell me to fix it for you. Go into debt if you need to. Don't drag me down with you.
So yeah, same sht. Get rid of the government. Way more money for all of us and we can finally get competition in these sectors of the economy and make choices rather than being forced for these less than mediocre services everywhere because we "need to provide an opportunity to everyone". Fk this.
Sorry for the rant. I felt like I really needed to get that out of my system. Haven't talked to anyone about this in a very long while.
Okay Jschlatt
But now pay later allows for people to stretch money farther than they usually would.
This means that people with bad spending will make WORSE decisions, but those with good spending habits will make make better decisions.
Im working for a listed german retail company. Companies like klarna offer monetary subsidition for companies when you reach specific amounts of revenue over their payment plans.
I assume, that they want the customer to get used to payment plans and then increase the interest bit by bit.
It is very very common to pay everything in installments in Brazil. Its a very common thing in there. Would be interesting to see a analysis on that
I only use these services for items I can actually afford and only with the 0% interest option. I don't think it's ever given me the option to spread the payment out more than 4 weeks, so I feel like I'm able to stay out of trouble because my monthly budget is staying the same.
Why use it though? Are you even saving a dollar by interest gained? Doesn't seem worth the risk.
Good to see your kid has a great role model, only trap yourself in a cycle of infinite debt if you can actually afford it
If you can't buy it three times then you can't afford it. Financing expensive purchases is free liquidity if you're focused on savings.
Legit the only time I used Klarna was to get a pizza during a non-payday week and after that I realised how dumb it was to use the service so I just stopped.
I put a $2k acoustic guitar on bnpl two years ago even tho i had the money and felt so anxious of missing a payment that i paid it in full a week later lmao
This is akin to what's happening with the Canadian housing market. The price of homes has skyrocketed because of stock being very limited, but also because people can secure considerable loans without much thought as to how much money they're spending. What's the difference between $500,000 and $600,000 for a condo? Especially when realtors are incentivized by commission to tell you its a hot market and you should overbid to ensure you get the home you want. It's how a home can be listed at $690,000 CAD, be worth $550,000, and then sell on the market for $1.1M. Because the money feels free to the desperate couple who just needs a place to live, especially when paying it back over your entire lifetime. Its all bullshit.
Famous last words: "and uhhh"
a very stupid question from me who doesn't really understand economics: isn't buy now pay later a good thing when the inflation is high?
from my understanding, if you spiit a 1200$ payment into 12 payments of 100$, the 100$ you'll pay each month will technically cost less and less because of inflation. am I missing something crucial here??
(of course, in this case I am implying that you are responsible with the payments)
If thats a 0% intrest loan then sure, but you'll have to remember that whatever you buy will be worth less as well. The other side of that is once you start its hard to stop. Sure you might be able to afford one or two of these, but the issue is people getting 5-6 and then their montly bill gets so high, that there is no money left for an emergancy and that pushes them over the line so they can't afford to take care of everything.
IE treading water only works til youre tired. Life happens, somthing breaks, someon gets hurt, or whatever else. IMO if you are responsible enough to take care of buy now pay later, you don't need it.
As Austin said, it works on a couple of investments but not few or more. Cost of living sucks now already, imagine adding a 50 dollar a month, 100 dollar, 30 dollar, etc. payment at the end of each month ON TOP of paying for rent, groceries, electricity/water/internet, transport costs, medical bills, vices (nicotine, alco, etc), motor tax, insurance, birthdays, lover gifts etc. That's fucking rough as it is, many people just about get by per month and adding on extra is stupid and life ruining. For basically all that I listed there as well you can't exactly cut it down besides gifts, vices can be cut down, but with stress ever present, vices never cease or decrease by much. That's a whole lot to worry about per month, I wouldn't wanna add more.
Yea as the other guy said it has to either be low interest or extreme hyperinflation- ie what happened in venevuela
Joe Biden reduced inflation lol now the actual answer unless the currency is hyper inflating, which will happen pretty soon because everybody’s getting tired of yanks even the worst of Covid inflation does not equal to interest rates
@@AustinKU123
> if you are responsible enough to take care of buy now pay later, you don't need it.
interesting. in my mind BNPL can actually be good exactly when you're not treading water but have savings equal to or more than your loans so you know you won't drown if anything happens. for example, if i have 2000$ in savings and need to buy something that costs 1000$, i would rather buy it with BNPL than spend half on my emergency fund. it's like when people take mortgages for houses even if then can pay the full price but on a micro scale.
btw i am not trying to defend these terrible predatory companies like Klarna, i am just personally considering one purchase and need other people's opinion on whether i am being smart or stupid lol.
the work around for the car financing is to get them to get the finance price in writing then before signing the contract tell them you change your mind and want to do cash/full payment. they already have the best price infront of you so if they try to work you back up in pride you’ll know they’re scummy
On the new car with cash, paying off a loan early often has a penalty, so you're usually best off just putting all the cash in a savings account with a decent interest rate and earmarking it. Obviously it's hard psychologically to respect your earmarks and not invade it, which is what they count on, but if you're able to treat the money like you already spent it, it's the best way to take advantage of loans cheaper than cash.
Every car loan I’ve ever had I paid off early and never had a penalty. That must be a by state issue.
Whenever you are thinking about accepting a payment plan, always ask for amortization table. This lays out every payment, with principal and interest. This is a great visualization of how much you will actually being paying in total.
Like watching this from Nairobi, KE. this is just amazing, one year and counting
Thoughts on Australian system of government regulating repayment of university loans, as in once you earn over a certain amount then a percentage of your salary is taken straight out and redirected to loan repayment. Pros & Cons, seems like a reasonable system, no interest on loans thought adjusted anually based on 'Cost Price Index' (basically like inflation adjustment, which has no served well recently and caused gov to refund everyone with student loans money based on debt cut offs and CPI). Anyway curious if you respond in that new segement would be interested to hear?
it's easy to avoid debt as much as you can don't waste money if you don't use it have to The maximum amount I owed to the bank a year ago is 20 euros.
'The best costumer to us is a customer that doesnt pay'
Sebastian Siemiatkowskis the person behaind klarna
"Then can't arrest us all"
Degrees are such a sore subject because they are less valuable than they were before, cost way more, but now they're basically required if you want any standard of living without becoming a business owner. I failed to find an apprenticeship in basically all blue collar fields for about 2 years because they wanted me to have attended a 2 year tech school
Yep, if you want to work at a heavy equipment dealer as a mechanic, you need 1 of 2 things, a degree , or experience.
5:34 EXACTLY people don't get it soon as the government started giving loans to any and everyone the cost of tuition skyrocketed. But the colleges train young people to think government is the savior to all their problems. Same with insurance and the cost of healthcare. Government started giving loans to hospitals in the 80's and the prices haven't gone down since
Underground black market education adds a whole new dimension to being street smart
The amount of people who don't know that as with any credit, klarna and paypal are great choices if used responsibly. If you pay what you owe monthly, you pay no interest. These are great instruments but uneducated people can destroy their lives with that. For example, I bought a monitor for 800, but with paypal I pay 66 ish per month for a year, 0 interest. Now consider inflation, if I paid 800 upfront instead of 66 monthly instalments at 0%, I would actually lose money, since the money I have right now is worth the most it will ever be. So thanks to that I'm only paying around 750 for that monitor considering inflation over the span of that year.
Wat if ur unstable? How are they're recovery options?
"buy now let it go to collections"
I understand your point about there being a black market if college tuition was capped. But didn't you yourself say that just because we know someone will get around the law if we made it(I think this was in reference to taxing rich people) doesn't mean we shouldn't make it?
Sure colleges might take bribes for admissions. Make that illegal. Prevent that.
There should be more effort put into taxation and criminalization of richer people because the government stands more to gain and it sends a better message. Just because richer people can avoid these things better doesn't mean we should stop chasing them for committing crimes.
Caleb Hammer is going to get infinite content with the way debt in the US is going
If sweden can have around 3500 cases of people whit bad finances on there television, caleb sortenly can to.
@@ThePapaja1996 that's the best spelling of certainly I've ever seen 😂
They're suffering just to flex on each other but actually they're just keeping pace.
The UK has a price cap on universities, and i don't think it has lead to a huge black market of admissions. I'm sure there are a few corrupt things going on, but I'm sure that still happens in the US at the moment with their high prices.
To anyone thinking about going straight to college I would strongly suggest you take a year and really try and work in what you want to do doesn’t matter if it’s way at the bottom and if you can’t then just get a job and make some money, you can visualize life without school but the reality is a little different than the picture you might find you just like it more especially with how many filler and bs classes they make you take just to gouge on money
I feel like where I live, everybody is saving. Im just saving
Rich dad poor dad told me debt makes money 💰💰💰
So back in the early days of this business model. They used to pay a lot of small businesses for every loan They created. If I remember correctly the only penalty for a bad loan was the loss of commission But they'd still pay you for the loan. They were pushing hard for physical retail for some reason but they found their success in going pure online for the most part.
Hey, just started University in UK, am studying computer science and I completely agree with Big A here cus like I have no idea what debt I’ve taken on and honestly getting a job looks so hard even after I get this degree I’m so cooked
The trick is actually to tell them you want to finance shake on a price, then tell them you changed your mind and want to pay in cash. Its a dick move but a lot of dealerships wont back out of the deal at that stage.
1:50 my dealer let me wire the money for my newest porsche…
Im confused if a large problem is that they are allowed to just raise the price infintely due to loan guarantees, that implies they are raising the price when it is not neccessary as people would just not go, and thus not give them as much money if it was too high. How does capping the price not work then? If it is artificially high then how does artifically lowering it cause more harm? The blackmarket happens if there is scarcity with no outlet, but I thought the argument was that there isn't actually scaricty just people taking more money cause they can? This feels contradictory to me but i assume its not and just dont understand it.
Second thing, if cappnig the price of collge wont work I assume capping the allowed loan amounts would. But all that is irrelavant because it is clear as a society we think everyone should be college educated to some extent, given the inflation of education expectations I think what we should really be doing is working to basically extend highschool by 2 years, make everyone go to a sort of community college for 2 years then let people sort themsevles into higher education after that like before. This should be publiclly funded like k-12 is.
What we have right now is a system that is too ineffecent and thus too easy to take advantage of.
I don't understand how Klarna debt builds up. I had one Klarna pay in 4 situation that i didnt pay but I only for that one payment and can't use klarna again until it's paid.
Bought my Ford F150 this summer. Got a 20k dollar incentive to pay cash. I thought it was curious at the time. The American brands must have been struggling with free cash flow.
I always feel good that I have no debt and then I remember my student loan 😂😅
There was literally a credit union inside the food court of my college trying to get me to sign up
Does anyone remember in which video did he talk about the tutor ban in china?
I can't relate this this spending without a care in the world as to whether you're gonna be able to pay the bills at all.
I have savings, I don't have debt.
9:06 Unless you have the interest... or commections. I think MBAs is one of the more rubbish degrees to get.
At least at my school most MBA students seem to have worked in consulting and are now getting their degree to move up to higher positions in consultancy firms
Bro got if we got in so much debt that we are too indebted to fail
The ending talking about how bad getting into esports is, meanwhile I just started working my first job in esports 💀
I’m in law school and I’d love to touch on the rise of ai in law school
I want to cut back on some things so I can have money to spend on tutoring. Shouldn’t make the industry illegal because some people have different values.
To play devils advocate, making tutoring illegal creates an unfair advantage for kids with unemployed parents because those parents have the time to tutor their own kids