Summary

Gen Z is increasingly relying on “buy now, pay later” (BNPL) services for holiday shopping, with spending projected to rise 11.4% this year, totaling $18.5 billion.

These services appeal to younger consumers with limited credit histories but can lead to overextension, as they lack centralized reporting and encourage overspending.

Experts warn of accumulating fees, particularly when BNPL plans are tied to credit cards.

With inflation and rising credit card debt already burdening Gen Z, consumer advocates caution that these services may worsen financial instability despite their convenience.

  • Randelung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

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

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

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

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

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      One big recent consequence is it destroys credit short term, like less than a decade.

      It’s recoverable, but every one counts as a new line of credit, which automatically gets closed about a year after payment.

      So unless you also have a lot of zombie credit cards, it’s going to keep debt utilization waaaay up, number of accounts waaat up, and keep average age of accounts low.

      This snowballs, especially if they ever do but a house. If they day ever comes, they’re going to lose alot of money again.

      It’s like experiencing turbulence on a place so you scream YOLO and start playing Russian roulette.

      If the plane goes down, it doesn’t matter. If it’s normal no big turbulence, then it’s just as much an increase in risk as playing on land.

      They assume they’ll have bigger problems, and they may be right. But it’s should still be concerning.

      We got a while before kids are unironically bumping this tho

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG1CuunXLsI

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        This snowballs, especially if they ever do but a house

        They know this will never happen. They’re not buying houses. They’re renting until they die on an overheated planet that no one wants to do anything about. Where one party rolls coal and the other pretends that the inflation reduction act makes up for the harm caused by the record oil production they brag about.

        They know they’re fucked, and there’s no reason not to take on as much debt that they can’t pay back as possible.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          They assume they’ll have bigger problems, and they may be right. But it’s should still be concerning.

  • RedC@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

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

    • spector@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Basically reddit 10-15 years ago. The doomsday edging gets stale when you realize things are cyclical. Millennials were supposed to implode with debt by now. An economic cycles or two later and that didn’t happen. Now it’s Gen-Zs turn to be on the brink of doom.

    • humble peat digger@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

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

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

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

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Oh it was far worse than that…

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

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

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

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

        Nope.

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

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

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

        • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          I wish this “overdraft protection” was opt in so people at least have a chance to understand it. I turn mine off, deny my card who gives a shit

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Right, that’s how they fooled people for years. Any normal person would think “overdraft protection” means, “deny the transaction so you don’t overdraft.” But nope, complete opposite.

            It was so scummy.

          • FarFarAway@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            They wouldn’t let me turn mine off. The first bank flat out said no, the credit union charged me $5 to draft $100 from my savings. If there wasnt $100 in the savings, they would charge me the $5 to take what was in my savings and the $25 overdraft to cover the rest. There were no other options.

    • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      We didn’t have this new term buy now pay later to the same extent, the millenials version just called credit cards credit cards.

      • 01011@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        “Buy now pay later” has been around for at least a decade. It wasn’t ubiquitous like it is now though. I knew things were bad when I went to pay for 2 pairs of shorts and they asked me if I wanted to stagger the payments. The total cost was $40.

        • r00ty@kbin.life
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Buy now pay later has been a thing since at least 2006 in the UK (I can find pictorial evidence for this with a flyer with “buy now, pay 2007”). But, I am quite sure I remember seeing this in the 80s and 90s too. For sure most large stores had their own credit systems that worked this way.

          It’s not a new term, and actually I’m going to say that predatory techniques were more common in the 80s and 90s. People were definitely financially illiterate then too. Store credit was very common, I remember a very common APR was 29.9% with some pretty long terms on too. And the store credit system was of course designed in a way you could keep adding purchases, so you were ALWAYS paying this 29.9% year on year.

          I think the only real difference was that with payments being far more physical without the internet. You could feel when you borrowed too much and people would cut back before reaching truly unrecoverable situations.

          Point being, this isn’t a new thing. The virtualisation of everything I think has just made it much easier for young people now to get into situations they cannot easily get out of.

          In the 80s and 90s you could easily get multiple credit cards. But usually you needed to go out and get them, or at least fill in paper based applications. There were also definitely less institutions offering them. So there was a real hard limit. Now there’s all kinds of ways to get credit. However, there’s few real large institutions at the top and I think they really should be coordinating centralised credit limits better.

          My summary is, this isn’t new. Just the modern world has made it very easy to make it scale into higher debts now than it did before. That’s the only real difference.

          The average youth of the 80s and 90s were not better at this IMO. (person that grew up in the 80s and 90s speaking here). There were just less opportunities pushed into your face.

      • teft@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        You don’t have an Aaron’s or Rent-a-center in your town? I’m a millennial and half my formative years were spent on a rent-a-center couch and bed. Half my belongings in my first house were rent to own, now that i think of it. I spent a lot more because of interest and scams but i had zero financial literacy then and i needed furniture. Without a credit card your options were/are limited.

  • magnetosphere@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

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

  • renrenPDX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is really interesting. Layaway purchases in stores used to be popular but went away in the late 90’s. It’s back now as BNPL, with much worse terms.

    • d00ery@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      In the UK the Littlewoods catalogue is the one I remember. You’d end up paying well over the RRP with a year or two of monthly payments.

    • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the key difference in layaway that you didn’t have access to the item until it was paid off? I remember my mom putting holiday gifts on layaway at Walmart. They’d be kept in storage in the back of the store, and would be given over only after they were fully paid off.

      Buy now/pay later plans allow the consumer access to the item now, with a payment plan to follow. It’s much more akin to credit than layaway.

      • renrenPDX@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes. You had the honor of reserving the item from sale by paying more. BNPL is like the boss in its final form. You can have but don’t own it. Maybe it’s more akin to old furniture places with leases.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Layaway purchases in stores used to be popular but went away in the late 90’s. It’s back now as BNPL, with much worse terms.

      Lawaway is superior. Laywaway had zero interest charges. Some places charged a flat fee, but you also didn’t get your item until the full balance was paid. There’s no chance of a lawaway purchase spiraling into a huge expense. The expense is fixed at the time of layaway and never gets higher. Lawaway also builds the ability to delay gratification, which is an important life skill that is sometimes not common.

      BNPL has none of that consumer protection.

  • JustAPenguin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I hate BNPY so much… I deleted my after pay account, which means I can no long use their services unless I get in contact with support to reopen my account. I did it to explicitly make it near impossible for me to be tempted. It worked. There were times I felt regret, but it was 100% the smartest move.

    Then, PayPal introduced pay in 4… All my hard work went right down the drain. I can’t afford this shit but fuck it’s hard when you’re clinically depressed.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Services should be required to allow you to opt out of being offered such things. I choose to live a debt minimal lifestyle because of how I was raised, and I don’t want to be tempted. The same goes for online gambling. (And alcohol advertisements, but I do drink).

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    In other news, the interest rate on unsecured pseudo-credit services is very high.

    Now over to Dave with the weather.

  • Randelung@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

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