FICO to incorporate buy-now-pay-later loans into credit scores

However, instead of using it to buy or construct a machine to triple what you can produce in an hour, the average person is using it to delay having to work that hour at all, in exchange for having to work an hour and six minutes sometime later.

At some point, you run out of hours available and the house of cards collapses.

i.e., credit can buy time in the nearly literal sense, you can do an hour's work in half an hour because the money facilitates it, meaning you can now make more money. If instead of investing in work you're spending on play, then you end up with a time deficit.

or, e.g. you can buy 3 franchises in 3 months instead of 3 years (i.e. income from the 1 franchise), trading credit for time to make more money, instead of burning it. It'd have been nice had they taught me this in school.

The "average person" is told from birth to consume as many things and experiences as possible as it if was the only thing that could give their life a meaning. The entire system is based on growth and consumption, I have a hard time blaming "the average person"

Credit, in this sense, is also used to solve a cash flow problem. It’s a bad sign when that credit (or Klarna Pay-in-3 style setups) is applied to basic day to day expenses like buying groceries or other necessities.

Basically the market’s answer to increasing poverty: you’re not getting paid more, so how about we give you a payment plan to spread things out?

Why does it feel different? 1: the amount of stuff we buy has increased a lot. Anybody who owns what would be considered solidly middle class in the early 1970s will feel quite poor today. 2: financial security is way down.

In the early seventies a middle class family of 6 would own a 1200 square foot house, a single car, a single TV and a single radio would be the sum total of the entertainment electronics they owned, they'd have less than a dozen outfits apiece, they'd eat out about once a month, a vacation to a neighboring state would feel like a splurge, et cetera.

But they were relatively content. 1: they were much better off than their parents and grandparents, who experienced the depression & WW2. 2: they were "keeping up with the Joneses". 3: they had a feeling of financial security due to job security and the fact that serious health events were unlikely to financially devastating.

Maybe some of that problem is about spending too much money, but it cannot be denied that housing are unaffordable and that transportation is inefficient and is a mess.

Huh? Doesn't the average American live in a city? The whole reason for accepting being squeezed in tightly with other people is so that you don't have to worry about transportation; enabling everything you could ever want and need to be found in short walking distance.

Transportation is for people in rural areas. Yes, it is expensive, but that's exactly why most people left rural areas for the city long ago.

That's the thing, a lot of Americans really don't like this idea of being squeezed in tightly. People really don't like having a shared wall. And it's not that people like these tightly squeezed lot lines, they'd prefer 1 acre lots. These tiny lots are all they can afford while still being somewhat acceptable to them about commutes. Which Americans seem to really just not care about commute times when comparing to tradeoffs on house size and not having shared walls.

And in the end, you can only buy what the cities and towns allow to have built. Which is chosen by those who live there at the time. The cities then make single family structures a requirement, have minimum setbacks and lot sizes, have rigid separations between residential and commercial spaces, etc. So even those people who would want to own an apartment over a commercial suite in what you'd consider an urban area can't make that choice because that choice is illegal.

But people act like these zoning laws just come about on their own. The thing is, these zoning laws are popular. They get put into place because that's what the people who actually vote in local elections push for. I've seen proposal after proposal in cities around me to change zoning to allow density even in limited areas get fought tooth and nail by residents. I remember a project nearby where there was a proposal to build a mixture of 2-3 unit townhouses, some single-family narrow lots, and a tiny spot of commercial for like a coffee shop on land that was currently zoned industrial. All of this connected to the bike network, a large city park and a nature preserve nearby, and good transit connection at the end of the neighborhood. The neighborhoods around fought it tooth and nail and eventually the builder walked away after trying to negotiate for a few years. Well, the land was already zoned industrial, construction broke ground months later to build warehouses. Now instead of a nice neighborhood on my bike path there's warehouses with semi-trucks rolling through all day long. Good job, NIMBYs!

Sure, it isn't coincidence that the "American Dream" has always been portrayed the sizeable house on a large acreage out in the country surrounded by white picket fences. But we're talking about the people who are choosing to cram in beside one another, but aren't bringing the services and joy that such density normally offers to go along with it.

> These tiny lots are all they can afford while still being somewhat acceptable to them about commutes.

I've lived in cities and on farms and the commute times end up being about the same if you ever have to leave your immediate community that is within walking distance. You have to drive further from the farm, sure, but the highway is surprisingly efficient. Is there some reason people are more concerned about distance than time?

The city offers a clear advantage when you are travelling short enough distances that you can walk. But, that brings us right back to wondering what you need costly transportation for? The two dangly things beneath you are right there! (Yes, I know, some people hazve disabilities, but the discussion isn't about them)

> But people act like these zoning laws just come about on their own.

Not at all. That's why we question why people are doing it. It is clearly their own choice. But why when we then hear them crying that the transportation costs are too high?

People routinely leave their community for their job all the time here. Go take a look at that map I shared earlier. Most of the people in that neighborhood probably don't work in Princeton. They probably don't even work in McKinney or Fairview. Good chance they work in North Plano, Frisco, Addison, Dallas, maybe Garland. Most people living here are probably driving about an hour to their job, each way, every day. With a lot of those people with those kinds of commutes having that take place on a tollway.

They do that because they can buy that 4-bedroom 3-bath 3-car garage ~2,400sqft with a gameroom house on its own lot for $375k. Meanwhile, a similar house within a few miles of their work (say, Frisco) is probably anywhere from $590k to $2M. Property taxes can be pretty steep here, so that $590k house gets like $14k/yr in property taxes in Frisco while that $375k house in Princeton is only $9k/yr, over $400/mo in additional taxes. They could potentially accept a smaller and thus cheaper house, but to them it's not worth the tradeoff. They need that 3-car garage, they need that gameroom.

My wife has coworkers who live in Forney and commute to jobs in Plano and Frisco. They do that commute 3-5 times a week and see nothing wrong with it. They value having a large home with tons of space, and with the kind of income they make there's little chance they could afford it anywhere near where those jobs are. Think a security guard and a building engineer (like an on-site maintenance tech for a commercial property) are going to own a $1M+ house? No. But they still want a 3 bedroom home with a pool and a spa and an outdoor kitchen, and they can get that for $300k in Forney.

Just trying to share the follow on mindset. If you're having to leave your home by car every day for work, then you're absolutely going to have a car. If you already have the car, why go to the little grocery store at the edge of the neighborhood when you just spend a little more transit time and go to the big store that has everything else you'd want to buy?

Sure, where the compensation is sufficient to cover your travel costs you would reasonably consider it. But then transportation costs aren't an issue, making the unaffordability idea that started this moot. But, if we want to move beyond the topic of cost, that just brings us right back to the point that travel time ends up being the same living in the city and living in the country, so what have you gained by living in the city?

What one normally thinks you would gain is having other amenities, like bars, restaurants, healthcare, shopping, and just an all round vibrant community right there to enjoy when you get home from work. But the particular city homes we are talking about don't even have that. They are just houses upon houses upon houses all jammed up against each other with nothing in-between.

And it is that way because people want it to be that way. They don't want the restaurants, shopping, healthcare, etc. to be anywhere nearby. Even though they cry that they afford to the transportation to get to them, funnily enough. But why? What compels one to be tripping over their neighbour, but at the same time not wanting to engage in a community with them?

Jobs, hopefully paying a good bit more than minimum wage. If not for the city they wouldn't have any kind of income. They don't move to the city because they want some Parisian lifestyle, they move to the city because there are practically no jobs in the actually rural areas.

> They don't want the restaurants, shopping, healthcare, etc. to be anywhere nearby

Correct. They see these things as unsafe for their families to be around. They don't want to live within walking distance of a nightclub.

> Even though they cry that they afford to the transportation to get to them, funnily enough.

Most of the people arguing for better walkability and better transit access are absolutely not the same people actively choosing to live in places like Forney and Princeton and what not. They're generally fine having that commute and are fine driving to the Walmart when they need something that isn't just delivered to their home. Why even bother getting in the car to go to a restaurant, Uber Eats will bring the restaurant to them, and they don't have to deal with the crowds. Which, the few places with actual stores in these areas are massively crowded, because it's just oceans of houses around a few dots of shopping areas with giant parking areas surrounding them.

> What compels one to be tripping over their neighbour, but at the same time not wanting to engage in a community with them?

That they were willing to settle for the hour commute and not a two-hour commute, and that was the biggest single-family home they could afford in that hour commute radius and had a decent school district.

You're looking at it in pretty much the opposite direction from how they're looking at it. You're looking at a community you want to live in and then decide the home you can afford. They're looking for the house they want to live in, and then find the community they can afford to buy in. People didn't choose to live in Princeton or Forney or Melissa or Anna (or dozens of other "cities" around DFW) because of city amenities, outside of maybe a school district. They live there because they could buy a big single house cheap.

When I talk to friends about "if you could just move tomorrow, where would you want to live in DFW", their choices are rarely based in closeness to amenities. It is often about wanting more land, more space, more rooms. A family of four with a four-bedroom house with a dining room and two living rooms, too cramped. Need to move further out and get a bigger house. Definitely down to trade close access to the bike trails, walking distance to a large shopping area, walkable to the transit system to go all over the city, public parks with public swimming pools within walking distance, the elementary school around the corner and the middle school down the street for another few hundred square feet of land.

You haven't gained that, though. Not without travel, and once travel is in the picture then you can be located anywhere. Like was said in other comments, in practice, the time to get to a point in the city is the same if you start in the city, or if you start outside of the city. Cities build up as hubs for the surrounding area and the world at large, so getting things in and out of the city really fast is core to their design.

> no jobs in the actually rural areas.

1. The data clearly shows that rural areas, as a rule, have more available jobs. But you aren't apt to be able to work your way up to becoming a professional football player or CEO of a Fortune 500 in those jobs, so, granted, the jobs aren't appealing to the temporarily embarrassed superstar. I'll give you that.

2. I don't know where you think this walled city is that prevents anyone who doesn't live in the city from entering, but I can assure you that we're not talking about it. There is nothing that excludes you from city jobs if you live in the country, and likewise there is nothing that excludes you from working in the country if you live in the city.

In fact, those Fortune 500 CEOs and professional football players often live in the country!

This is objectively, radically untrue. It takes my wife 10-15 minutes to get to that same office where it takes the people living in Forney an hour to get in. She'll spend 20 minutes of her day commuting, they'll spend two hours. I used to ride my bicycle to the office before I mostly worked from home and have it take me maybe 15 minutes. Coworkers living in a town literally called Farmersville routinely took over an hour and a half each way. One person has to take a 30-mile trip, one person is taking a five-mile trip which is essentially the same final five miles as the 30-mile trip, how could it possibly be the same time.

> once travel is in the picture then you can be located anywhere

They'd agree with this entirely. I already have to have a car to get to work, so why wouldn't I just use that to go to whatever restaurant or shop I want across the city, why limit myself to only where I could walk? Personally, I enjoy going to the restaurants right at the edge of my neighborhood, on the days I go into the office I like strolling through the parks and to the restaurants nearby. But lots of people wouldn't want to "limit" themselves to only a mile or two, when the shop they'd prefer to shop at is a similar time distance away but by car.

> There is nothing that excludes you from city jobs if you live in the country

Time. Time excludes you from those city jobs. You're eventually having to spend more and more time driving through all those seas of neighborhoods to those decent paying jobs, its eventually just not worth it. People aren't going to be willing to drive two hours each way, it's amazing they're even willing to put up with an hour each way.

Once again, go back to that map of DFW. To really get an "affordable" truly rural place on that East side of DFW where you'd actually have dozens of acres without spending millions, you're probably looking at Josephine, Blue Rdige, maybe Westminister as a few examples. Go see what the commute time is starting at like 7:00 AM from there to Addison. Nearly two hours. Maybe you're going to work at a more industrial job in Garland. Nearly two hours. Are you willing to spend four hours of your day every day in your car?

> The data clearly shows that rural areas as a rule have more available jobs.

More available total jobs or more available comparable jobs? Please do share this data. Other than specific industries like oil and gas it's pretty much the opposite from what I can tell.

More actual opportunity, perhaps? Cities have lots of available jobs (assuming they aren't fake; that is a thing, apparently), and lots of people without jobs, but they never seem to align such that the people without jobs ever fill the open jobs. It's quite curious. As a result, people are much more likely to be without work in cities, as seen in the data. Yes, I'm sure you can find exceptions if you pick particular locations. We were never talking about a specific location.

> Please do share this data.

I'm sure you can look it up just as easily as I.

I was about to suggest that you can hire an assistant if you can't find the time to do it yourself, but whatever causes the above disconnect is apt to bite you too, assuming you are in a city. Oh well.

> You're eventually having to spend more and more time driving through all those seas of neighborhoods to those decent paying jobs

What kind of jobs are trapped in these seas of neighbourhoods? Most businesses need to get supplies into the city and their product out of the city, so usually the jobs are located on the fast track in and out of the city. This means that, if anything, it is easier to access the jobs when you don't live in the city.

Tech might be an exception to that. Maybe that's where your mind went, given the nature of this site. But tech doesn't require an in-person presence at all, so that one doesn't really fit our discussion.

Not any datasets that actually agree with your assertions. Most datasets showcase the hollowing out of rural job opportunities as globalization and automation has massively cut back on manufacturing job opportunities, automation has reduced farm jobs, rural depopulation leads to education closures, etc. So if you have a lot of data otherwise please do share.

And once again it completely goes against everything I've personally seen in nearly a dozen metro areas. I've got family who live in absolutely rural areas and operate farms in the Midwest. I've lived in a few metro areas. I've got close coworkers in other metro areas from me. I've got close friends who came from other rural areas, and know many people who live on these fringe of metro/rural kind of spaces. They all see the rural areas getting hollowed out economic-wise and the only real job opportunities are moving closer into cities.

I've driven through probably a dozen dead rural towns in Texas. Places that had what were probably lively town squares even in the 70s, probably had their last gasps in the 80s, and have been largely boarded up since then.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/chan...

> We were never talking about a specific location.

I've absolutely been talking specific areas. Have you not been reading my comments and actually looking at the map in question? And then, this is still pretty similar for almost all the other, I dunno, top 30 or so cities by population?

> What kind of jobs are trapped in these seas of neighbourhoods?

Not in those neighborhoods, through those neighborhoods. Decades of continuously pushing the fringe suburb line further and further out has done this. The towns that were once the edge of the city are now 30+mi into the urban area, and they've never been allowed to densify. Once again, it feels like you haven't actually looked at that map I linked once. It would be pretty obvious spending not even five minutes looking at that map to see what I'm talking about.

> Tech might be an exception to that. Maybe that's where your mind went, given the nature of this site.

No. My wife doesn't work in tech and those people in Forney I'm taking about are security guards and building engineers. That's not tech. Once again, are you reading my comments? Where are you going to get a commercial property building engineer paying nearly $100k in a rural area? Going to get a finance job with JPMorgan Chase in a rural area? Far easier finding a civil engineering job in a place where civil engineers are actually building things like skyscrapers and giant highway interchanges and what not than a place that barely has a stoplight. You're not going to have as well paid healthcare job working at a rural hospital struggling to stay open especially after this next round of Medicaid cuts compared to the giant hospital networks like Baylor, UTSouthwestern, Memorial-Hermann, etc, especially if focused on some speciality.

Hollowed out opportunity, or hollowed out available jobs? As noted earlier, there is a pretty big difference. My impression from your comment is that you are trying to say that there are fewer jobs available, which isn't what we were talking about.

> I've absolutely been talking specific areas

What part of "as a rule" made you think this was about a specific area?

> Have you not been reading my comments

Can I assume this implies that you have diligently read mine? If so, in all seriousness, I'd really like to know what part of "as a rule" you took to mean that the focus was on a specific area. My intent was very much to try and avoid focusing on a specific area as I understand full well that conditions can vary from place to place. I'd like to understand how I failed to communicate that.

But perhaps you were so busy trying to tell me your life story that you didn't actually read it after all.

As a rule that just happenes to not work in any of the large metros of the country in question. I've got a rule that a pen always rolls off on the left side of a desk, too bad it only works on my desk here that is missing a couple of legs!

> Hollowed out opportunity, or hollowed out available jobs? As noted earlier, there is a pretty big difference

Sure they'll go work minimum wage jobs at the highway fast food and gas stops. Buc-ees is iticing for jobs to sling BBQ sandwiches and scrub toilets! Big opportunity there. Once again, where's your data? I've linked mine, you're a foreigner going arguing against my lived experiences without even pointing to actual data, instead berating me and taking down to me about asking for you to actually give examples.

> Can I assume this implies that you have diligently read mine?

Yes, I have read yours. Have you actually read mine? I'm taking about one of the largest metro areas in the US trying to describe why people make the choices I do, showing real examples backed by federal reserve data and actual maps and housing costs and tax data. You're seemingly ignoring them and instead giving your own imagined ideas of transit times and job opportunities and property values not backed by any kind of data.

You're giving assumed ideas while ignoring actual factual linked data and multiple lived experiences in this chat while accusing me of not reading the data you refuse to share. You might want to re-evaluate who is going by gut assumptions.

Large... metro? What? Where did you see me say "large metros as a rule..."? Perhaps you need to read it again? It clearly asserted "rural areas as a rule". You even literally quoted that exact bit in your response! How do you have absolutely no awareness of what is going on now?

> I've linked mine

You certainly did for some strange reason, but I have no idea why. It was rather bizarre. If I wanted to have a discussion with the FED, I'd go talk to it directly. I don't need you to act as a pointless middleman. That is a waste of your time and mine. I suppose I should have some appreciation for your obedient dog-like behavior as you deliver your chew toy to me with glee, but I really cannot find any reason to care. That's not what discussion forums are for. They are, surprisingly, for having discussions. I want to know what you have to say. If you have to rely on someone else to feed you what to say, why bother?

> Perhaps you need to read it again? It clearly asserted "rural areas as a rule"

Yeah, it's comparing rural areas to urban areas as a rule. So comparing and talking about metro areas is absolutely relevant here. And the metro areas I've been talking about include a mix of rural and urban areas. Metro doesn't mean urban.

> You certainly did for some strange reason, but I have no idea why.

You have no idea why someone would link to data to back their assertions instead of just saying things like "as a rule" without supppying any data. As a rule US males are 12 feet tall. As a rule dogs have eight legs. Don't bother linking to any data about these things, don't bother actually engaging with real examples, I'm not talking about any specific dogs or specific people, just some imagined models in my head. It's a total waste of time to actually research the data when I've conjectured a general rule in my head!

While that is absolutely true, rural areas within metropolitan areas are not the rule. What do you find notable about exceptional rural areas to offer relevance when discussing typical rural areas?

> Yeah, it's comparing rural areas to urban areas as a rule.

At one point such comparison was made, but we also moved on from that long ago and narrowed our focus to rural areas alone. There was no reasonable sequitur that brought us back to comparison with urban areas. If you want to talk about some random thing outside of our discussion, why not start a new thread?

> Don't bother linking to any data about these things, don't bother actually engaging with real examples, I'm not talking about any specific dogs or specific people, just some imagined models in my head.

Exactly. If I want to know more about the height of US males (male what? you'd better link to something to clarify!!) and how many legs dogs have, I can consult the records. There is absolutely no reason for me to come to you for that information. I am logically, given that this is a discussion forum, not a data collection agency, here to understand that what isn't documented and only revealed through discussion — things like your inner workings.

Which, granted, is still being revealed through this diatribe. And the inner working are quite unusual, indeed. I know we're really starting to go off-topic here and I understand I am being "that guy" in perpetuating it, so I won't continue to push the issue like that curious case above any further if there isn't mutual participation, but I would love to dig into this deeper if you are game. Do you understand HN to be simply a place where you can find free secretarial labor rather than as a place for discussion?

If we're trying to understand and discuss reality, we should absolutely be referencing real data and information and build our conjectures from there. Not just making some statement that reality is a certain way, refusing to engage in any data that points otherwise, and berating people who bring evidence contrary to the conjecture. Otherwise, we're just discussing fantasy and being rude to each other. Personally, I'm wanting to talk about reality, not some urban/rural areas 9rx is envisioning in his mind entirely divorced from any real places and data in the United States.

You say things like "as a rule", give arguments of a drive from a rural area into an urban area should take the same time as just transiting around within the urban area, and offer zero actual real examples, data sets, or proof to your conjectures and berate those who show real data pointing opposite to your statements.

Science is for understanding reality. Discussion is for understanding what someone is thinking.

> we should absolutely be referencing real data

If that's all that your limited thought is able to offer, I guess, but what, then, do you understand as the value you are bringing to the table? Data is already recorded and I can just as easily go talk to the people who had the minds capable of coming up with that data in the first place if I want to know more about the thinking behind the data. Your involvement would be absolutely pointless.

As you are actually defying your own premise here right now by sharing what you are thinking, not regurgitating someone else's thoughts and data, you remain a valuable contributor. But if you were to devolve into what you suggest you want to be, how could the discussion go anywhere?

> Otherwise, we're just discussing fantasy

If fantasy is what someone is thinking about in the moment, I suppose that is what you are going to get. But that's exactly what discussion seeks to learn. If that's not what you are actually looking for, consider that discussion isn't what you need. As hinted at earlier, there are other ways to explore the world around you. Use the right tool for the job.

For example:

> As a result, people are much more likely to be without work in cities, as seen in the data.

This is a demonstrably untrue statement. In the US, labor participation rates are lower in rural areas. Unemployment is generally higher in rural areas. Poverty rates are generally higher in rural areas. I'd link the data, but it's not like you'd bother actually reading it from what I gather.

> Data is already recorded and I can just as easily go talk to the people who had the minds capable of coming up with that data in the first place if I want to know more about the thinking behind the data. Your involvement would be absolutely pointless.

Seeing as how you're making statements not grounded in reality and data, I'd say my involvement would have a point of actually directing you to the real statistics and data. I'd hope that one would change their preconceptions when given actual data showing their statements are incorrect. If I continued to push the point that generally dogs have eight legs and you managed to provide me with sources that showcased dogs actually usually only have four, I wouldn't just say your involvement of showing real data is pointless. But pointing out your fantasies aren't based in reality and aren't backed by actual data just results in you berating me.

I agree, we're also wanting to delve into the "whys" of how the world works, which isn't always just directly looking at what the numbers say. But when our base facts we start from aren't actually grounded in reality, the whys we come up with are largely meaningless. The "general rules" we concoct from our fantasies become pretty useless if we take those rules to actually then measure reality and find reality doesn't line up with those rules.

> As hinted at earlier, there are other ways to explore the world around you.

Yes, we can look at data or we can base our ideas of the world off delusions and assumptions. But I take it you'd rather continue to live in your delusions and berate those pointing out when those statements aren't grounded in truth.

Our thoughts, ideas.

> This is a demonstrably untrue statement.

My thoughts disagree, but that was said with respect to my country, not the US, so whether or not you are right, the US data is not indicative of that. While I do understand I wasn't fully clear in expressing my thoughts there, what is fascinating is that you jumped into assuming that I meant the US instead of asking "Are you sure you are talking about the US?" or something to that effect.

That is the kind of cool thing you learn in discussion. Who gives a rat's ass about data? I mean, there is good reason to care about data, but the data is right there to look at directly if you really are more interested in the data. Use the right tool for the job.

> I'd say my involvement would have a point of actually directing you to the real statistics and data.

So can I take from this that you aren't looking for discussion, but rather you want to be a teacher? While there is definitely a place for teachers in this world, a place of discussion isn't it. Colloquially, what we call the place you are looking for is "school".

You were wondering:

> Yes, but why would anyone want to live on what is effectively a farm, but without the benefit of separation from other people or land (read: income) that a farm offers?

> I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I question why people are doing it.

I gave lots of data and analysis as to why Americans seem to make this choice. You berated me for giving an actual analysis, gave conjectures not grounded in reality for those people making these choices explaining why my analysis is wrong, and continued to wonder why people would make these choices. Your conjectures weren't valid for the people in question. They weren't based in their reality. But you seem to not want to actually engage in the reality of it.

> Colloquially, what we call the place you are looking for is "school".

People can learn new things and be corrected on their false preconceptions without necessarily being in a school building with a teacher.