cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

1 in 3 consumers fear they will max out a credit card

Auto Loans for ANY Credit Situation. Immediate Response.
Advertiser disclosure
Valued Contributor

Re: 1 in 3 consumers fear they will max out a credit card

So many concenring aspects within this aticle, but a couple of them are:

 

"(average household) coughing up about $1,140 a year in interest" 

Yikes that is scary!

 

"At the same time, credit card interest rates have never been higher, setting the stage for potential problems for those at-risk consumers.

The average card interest rate is currently at a record 17.41 percent"

Not even sure that to say about this.  If 17.41 is the average interest rate, that means a lot of people are paying much higher than that.  In some case, could take decades to pay it off!  I really feel bad for people in this category, as I was right there myself prior to 2012.  

 

 

 

Year 2012: All Scores in the 520 range, during a foreclosure, CC Settlement and high UTIL. Very ugly days...
Nov 2019: EX8: 850; EQ8: 850; TU8: 850 -- Middle Mortgage Score: 824
In My Wallet: Discover $73.7K; Cap1 Venture $39.7K; Amex ED $38K; Amex Optima $2.5K; Amex Delta Gold $18K; Citi Costco $16.5K; Cap1 Plat $8.4K; Barclay $7K; BoA Plat $21.6K; Citi TY Pref $19K; US Bank $4K; Dell $5K; Care Credit $6.5K. Total Revolving CL: $270K
My UTIL: Less than 1% - Only allow about $10 a month to report, on one account. .
Message 11 of 22
Moderator Emeritus

Re: 1 in 3 consumers fear they will max out a credit card

From the associated nerdwallet article:

 

"**The credit card debt figures in this chart represent revolving credit card balances — those that are carried from month to month — rather than all credit card balances. Total U.S. credit card outstanding debt stands at $944 billion, which includes both revolving and transacting balances"

 

Curious, in references:

 

  • Revolving and transacting bank-card balances, June 2018, via email from Experian.

And that is not linked anywhere.  I'm not going to say the data is wrong, but if I can't see the source color me skeptical: why the push from lenders to distinguish revolved vs. transacted balances if this is already been available for six + months?

 




        
Message 12 of 22
Established Contributor

Re: 1 in 3 consumers fear they will max out a credit card


@Revelate wrote:

I was feeling fidgity about taking a car loan which I rationally didn't need (but F it, and honestly Tesla Autopilot may be the best thing I've ever spent 5k on living in LA and our awful traffic) and sitting with non-trivial revolving debt mostly on a HELOC but also some CC's that just came out of grace period, so when the opportunity to take a second job came up I'm simply took it.  2 months later with what amounted to a Christmas bonus I'm back on track with all CC debt back in grace period and that HELOC zeroed out.  Admittedly my income is higher than average (as was my debt) and my living expenses were already pretty cheap to begin with but could use improving.


I'm surprised your company let you take a second job so easily.  Aren't you in tech?  My employment agreement states that I would need prior approval from my company if I want to take a second job -- and I woud bet a lot of money they wouldn't approve me working for anyone in the field.  

Message 13 of 22
Frequent Contributor

Re: 1 in 3 consumers fear they will max out a credit card

With a $300 target redcard it is easy to max it out with a semi large purchase. If i know I am going to app for somthing I make sure the closing statment balance is below 28.9% 

Message 14 of 22
Moderator Emeritus

Re: 1 in 3 consumers fear they will max out a credit card

@tacpoly: California dreaming - right to work state and non-compete agreements are illegal under the C-suite level.

Also when they are directly making 180k+ off me annually they aren’t really in a spot to complain.

Ultimately my boss is aware and I have told him what it would take to keep me from working a second gig and they are able to do that and interested in doing so, so they probably will play ball on that front (hence my needing to build up a new company).

Actually the second company knows too though they probably don’t realize I am pulling 40 there too.

Ultimately nobody can tell me how I spend my free time and unless I become derelict in my dury to either one nobody cares and both are happy currently... cost of turnover is high for both companies.

Basically it is an employee’s market right now.



        
Message 15 of 22
Valued Contributor

Re: 1 in 3 consumers fear they will max out a credit card


@Saeren wrote:

I think what is even more telling is that the average person polled considered anything more than $100 to be a large purchase... I don’t know about you all but for me, that figure is about $1500 and I’m very low income (I could realistically pay off $1500 in 2 months if I tightened my budget down but it’s way over what I would normally expect to spend in a month regardless) and I don’t think twice about spending $300-400 on a whim. 

 

Very alarming indeed. 

 

I think we are going to see a lot of tightening as the last of us who had to file chapter 7 in 2008-2010 have our BKs fall off out of fear of another round of bankruptcy filings. 


Agreed, $100 isn't quite what I call a large purchase. Unless your disposable income is only $50,.$100 can be PIF on the next paycheck, or at the very least on the next statement. And if you're worried that a $100 charge is going to max out your CC. I wonder who was surveyed, People with $1-6K limits?

Furthermore having $7K in CC debt from month to month sounds like it might be a personal choice. They choose to pay only the minimums and continue buying more unneeded stuff, instead of taking a handle on the situation. I get it if you cannot PIF every month, some of us are simply unable to do so. However, that's when a plan for paying it off comes into play. When I knew of an impending large purchase, I made  a plan of how to pay it down within the year on 0% promo APRs. 

Also, interest is not Rocket science. Everyone knows CC carry high APRs, and that only paying minimums will not pay it back in a timely manner. It even explain this on your statements now, and explains how to avoid or pay less. So why people continue this trend I just don't understand. 

 

This alone doesn't sound scary. But when you add it to the recent survey of people 90 days late on Auto loans, and Mortgage defaults etc.

Then I'd say we're definitely heading into another round. 






Message 16 of 22
Established Contributor

Re: 1 in 3 consumers fear they will max out a credit card


@Revelate wrote:
@tacpoly: California dreaming - right to work state and non-compete agreements are illegal under the C-suite level.

Also when they are directly making 180k+ off me annually they aren’t really in a spot to complain.

Ultimately my boss is aware and I have told him what it would take to keep me from working a second gig and they are able to do that and interested in doing so, so they probably will play ball on that front (hence my needing to build up a new company).

Actually the second company knows too though they probably don’t realize I am pulling 40 there too.

Ultimately nobody can tell me how I spend my free time and unless I become derelict in my dury to either one nobody cares and both are happy currently... cost of turnover is high for both companies.

Basically it is an employee’s market right now.

Is California a "right to work" state now -- when did that happen?  I don't understand what "right to work" has to do with moonlighting...I thought that was mostly a union thing.  

 

Banning non-competes doesn't mean a company cannot have a policy on moonlighting.  I used to work in California and all my previous employers were California-headquartered except one; their policy is that second jobs need to be approved first because there would just be too many possible conflicts of interest, not to mention IP risk.  It seems you're lucky with your companies -- are you an independent consultant/contractor?  

Message 17 of 22
Moderator Emeritus

Re: 1 in 3 consumers fear they will max out a credit card


@tacpoly wrote:

@Revelate wrote:
@tacpoly: California dreaming - right to work state and non-compete agreements are illegal under the C-suite level.

Also when they are directly making 180k+ off me annually they aren’t really in a spot to complain.

Ultimately my boss is aware and I have told him what it would take to keep me from working a second gig and they are able to do that and interested in doing so, so they probably will play ball on that front (hence my needing to build up a new company).

Actually the second company knows too though they probably don’t realize I am pulling 40 there too.

Ultimately nobody can tell me how I spend my free time and unless I become derelict in my dury to either one nobody cares and both are happy currently... cost of turnover is high for both companies.

Basically it is an employee’s market right now.

Is California a "right to work" state now -- when did that happen?  I don't understand what "right to work" has to do with moonlighting...I thought that was mostly a union thing.  

 

Banning non-competes doesn't mean a company cannot have a policy on moonlighting.  I used to work in California and all my previous employers were California-headquartered except one; their policy is that second jobs need to be approved first because there would just be too many possible conflicts of interest, not to mention IP risk.  It seems you're lucky with your companies -- are you an independent consultant/contractor?  


Being a contractor or employee doesn't matter even if these days most of my gigs are being employed for a body shop.  Right to work covers all labor, I can either be fired or quit for any or no reason at any time: what I was getting at is there's no protection for me beyond my professional conduct anyway, why would I grant any company special rights unless I was being compensated for it?

 

Just because a company has a policy on that doesn't make it legally binding, and conflict of interest is virtually nil in most situations (Ok working for Amazon and an Amazon client at the same time perhaps) but there is no overlap in my case and NDA's while still enforcible there's no additional IP risk working for two companies instead of just one.  Maybe if someone was trying to hide it and lied about it, that's one thing, but when both sides know and neither is complaining... fact is competent people aren't common anymore in my industry and as such you don't kick those that can scratch an itch to the curb over some corporate infidelity.

 

Not sure when you were last here but ultimately I think you're overstating things in the modern economy where there's not really any such thing as loyalty between employer and worker anymore: hasn't been since '92.




        
Message 18 of 22
Highlighted
Established Contributor

Re: 1 in 3 consumers fear they will max out a credit card


@Revelate wrote:


Being a contractor or employee doesn't matter even if these days most of my gigs are being employed for a body shop.  Right to work covers all labor, I can either be fired or quit for any or no reason at any time: what I was getting at is there's no protection for me beyond my professional conduct anyway, why would I grant any company special rights unless I was being compensated for it?

 

Just because a company has a policy on that doesn't make it legally binding, and conflict of interest is virtually nil in most situations (Ok working for Amazon and an Amazon client at the same time perhaps) but there is no overlap in my case and NDA's while still enforcible there's no additional IP risk working for two companies instead of just one.  Maybe if someone was trying to hide it and lied about it, that's one thing, but when both sides know and neither is complaining... fact is competent people aren't common anymore in my industry and as such you don't kick those that can scratch an itch to the curb over some corporate infidelity.

 

Not sure when you were last here but ultimately I think you're overstating things in the modern economy where there's not really any such thing as loyalty between employer and worker anymore: hasn't been since '92.


I believe you meant "employment at will" and not "right to work".  The two are completely different, hence my confusion. 

 

Most companies' moonlighting policy are not inflexible (i.e. they don't prohibit moonlighting, you just need to seek approval).  I work in technology development so I can understand concerns re conflict of interest and IP risks with moonlighters (we were still filing patents on my project a decade after I left the company), and I know people who took cutting edge ideas, code and design developed in one company to start another company (that was a  brouhaha).  So I wasn't advocating blind loyalty, I just assumed since you are in tech, that you were in a similarly sensitive situation -- a wrong assumption.    

 

What happened in '92? 

Message 19 of 22
Moderator Emeritus

Re: 1 in 3 consumers fear they will max out a credit card


@tacpoly wrote:

@Revelate wrote:


Being a contractor or employee doesn't matter even if these days most of my gigs are being employed for a body shop.  Right to work covers all labor, I can either be fired or quit for any or no reason at any time: what I was getting at is there's no protection for me beyond my professional conduct anyway, why would I grant any company special rights unless I was being compensated for it?

 

Just because a company has a policy on that doesn't make it legally binding, and conflict of interest is virtually nil in most situations (Ok working for Amazon and an Amazon client at the same time perhaps) but there is no overlap in my case and NDA's while still enforcible there's no additional IP risk working for two companies instead of just one.  Maybe if someone was trying to hide it and lied about it, that's one thing, but when both sides know and neither is complaining... fact is competent people aren't common anymore in my industry and as such you don't kick those that can scratch an itch to the curb over some corporate infidelity.

 

Not sure when you were last here but ultimately I think you're overstating things in the modern economy where there's not really any such thing as loyalty between employer and worker anymore: hasn't been since '92.


I believe you meant "employment at will" and not "right to work".  The two are completely different, hence my confusion. 

 

Most companies' moonlighting policy are not inflexible (i.e. they don't prohibit moonlighting, you just need to seek approval).  I work in technology development so I can understand concerns re conflict of interest and IP risks with moonlighters (we were still filing patents on my project a decade after I left the company), and I know people who took cutting edge ideas, code and design developed in one company to start another company (that was a  brouhaha).  So I wasn't advocating blind loyalty, I just assumed since you are in tech, that you were in a similarly sensitive situation -- a wrong assumption.    

 

What happened in '92? 


Ah hrm, thank you for fixing my terminology.

 

I'm on the operations and architecture side, somewhat different than writing say cutting edge algorithms or what not... but ultimately we're talking people: someone not having the professional conduct to not reveal sensitive information is the same whether they work for 1 company for dozens at the same time: I would stand by my assertion there's no additional risk either way, either the employee is trustworthy or they are not and your case of someone's leaving the company to go build a competitor, that is a single individual's decision which doesn't reflect upon anyone else individually.

 

'92 was when IBM had their first layoff and it was a watershed moment in the industry: one of the last major loyalty to employees companies in America if not the last.

 

After that point as one of my buddies opined in the Austin newspaper: loyalty between company and employees is dead, now employees are loyal to each other.  Funny how the C suite wasn't too happy with that statement hahaha.




        
Message 20 of 22
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.