Bankruptcies increase 11.9 percent

> "Become a famous pop star or sports hero." - as improbable as ever.

It's even more improbable. For both of those, your starting to see more and more of the current generation that are children/nieces/nephews of the already famous. They have the financial comfort to pursue it, and the family connections in the industries.

And for sports, the level at which you have to be competitive is getting younger and younger. So much more sports science/nutrition going in at the middle school/high school level.

Those were two fields that seemingly were still meritocratic, but that is fading fast, if it ever existed at all.

I think "huge part ... is from desperation" needs a citation. Gambling has been known to be a vice for millenia. There was an article on here not long ago where a reporter did sports gambling for a year for a story; he started off Mormon, disinterested in gambling, with $10k from the company, and after he lost it, he put himself on the state self-exclusion list because now he had a problem with gambling. The null hypothesis is that gambling is a vice, so to make it about desperation needs some evidence.

Also, "traditional wealth-producing ladders have all been pulled up" is nonsense. The stock market is available to all comers, and long investing is a traditional path. There was a story here a few years ago about a black janitor in NYC who died and left $7 million to the MoMA (or some such); he had invested $10k a year in the stock market. People in the trades still make good money. People on this site also tend to be in the making good money careers. I saw a bunch of young couples--and not the techy-looking ones, either--at the open houses this spring in the midwest. Also, one should not extrapolate one's situation at 25 to be the same at 45; if you've done reasonable savings, 45 should looking wealthier.

Spot on. Gambling is their Hail mary shot at getting the life they were promised.

> while a portion of this rise obviously consists of troubled/[...], a huge part of the rise of gambling is from desperation

Is that really so? It's a get-rich-quick scheme and absolutely no one is under any illusions otherwise, including the people gambling their rent money. They know it's a very long shot and that most people don't make bank, but they hope it'll go different for them.

WallStreetBets, just another form of gambling, is filled with posts of people losing everything but it doesn't seem to stop newbies.

The gap between troubled/problem/addicted and "desperate" has to be paper thin, if it exists at all.

yeah it seems winning the lottery is now our best chance for survival.

I'll be honest as someone who doesn't gamble my perception is the prediction markets are just people with inside information using that to con money out of people. I don't see the value in it.

Prediction markets are 90% sports gambling.

Can you explain the value you're talking about?

You can also ban 100% of gambling advertising and get 100% of the (dubious, but I'll humour the possibility) 'benefits' of gambling, while removing 90% of the downsides.

Based on how much they like gambling.

Yours is also a good theory, but there are plenty of people that find themselves in a situation where income can lag behind expenses.

When it comes to the choice of being responsible with debt or making sure your kid has calories today, there isn’t really a choice in reality.

There is a lot to be said for better financial education, but there is also a lot to be said for services like credit cards that allow someone to smooth out a cash flow issue.

It all seems so obvious until you find yourself in that situation. Most (or many at least) people in debt aren’t stupid or reckless, although they may be ignorant of their options for spending better and for borrowing better.

>Personally, I’m anti credit in general and don’t have credit cards or a credit score.

if only people could choose to have or not have a credit score. that would be cool. unfortunately, equifax/transunion/experian are some of the original data vacuums and assign one whether you want one or not.

I strictly use it to accrue points, but general advice is that credit is useful to smooth out the lumpiness of pay cycles, but if you can’t pay the debt back on necessities within the credit cycle, you shouldn’t use it at all.

Since credit is the primary means used for discretionary spending, I firmly believe that the accessibility of quick (but not necessarily cheap) interest allows inflation to go unchecked.

I was deliberately debit-only for years. Someone on a podcast explained why they used credit cards for extra protections from banks beyond debit cards. I don't know the accuracy of what was said, but the show is hosted by three smart people and neither of the other two disagreed that credit cards have more protection than debit cards so I assume it was generally accurate. I got a credit card right away and use it for most purchases and pay it off in full every month.

I sort of agree although I am for credit cards if they help me with deals since I am frugal personally but even I am thinking to just use credit cards of my close cousins/family if they already have one.

I am giving a transcription of the situation in the video[0] but buy now pay later apps have on average 300% apr (yes this is not a joke) and even ask for tips and have so many dark patterns, both these industries are really similar/the one basically.

> She had just switched to this remote job, which was a pay cut, but it let her stay home and care for her son at the time. And then after she went back to her normal job, she actually stopped using Earnin for nearly two years. She got on a stable financial footing. She even bought this house. But housing costs are expensive and for a bunch of complicated reasons, her child support payment is less this year than it was before. And that put Runeda in this really precarious position, where if one thing went wrong, it would completely throw her off financially. And about two weeks ago, that's exactly what happened. My son wakes up really early sometimes, and it was, like, 5:00 in the morning, and I went to try to, like, open an app on my phone, and it wasn't loading, and I was like did they turn my internet off? And I checked the router, and it said your service has been interrupted for nonpayment, and I'm like, what the heck are you talking about? The bill used to be on auto pay, but for some reason wasn't anymore. they told me I had to pay, like, over $200. I had like 50 bucks in my bank account. That was the first domino, and everything fell apart from there. Runeda borrowed $150 from Earnin to pay the internet bill, the $20 reconnection fee and the $6 Earnin fee.

[0]:Billionaires Found a New Way to Steal Your Paycheck:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBI_FLYfwmM

There needs to be a name for the way people think the world hasn't changed since they were a young adult. I'm not convinced it's just boomers; it's just that they had it so good the contrast is higher. Gen Xers do the same thing, I'm sure, for example assuming that kids ride their bikes to school and have textbooks and the leading cause of death isn't GSWs.

For America specifically, it is somehow worse.

It took 25% of the nation being out of work to, not revolt, but popularly elect someone willing to to spend a little government money on healthcare and welfare.

So it will get much worse before Americans finally read a book and figure out we should maybe do something different.

Bankruptcy at this point is just a way to signal to creditors not to lend more money to this individual. As you said alimony, child support, student loans, restitution are a must so the filing simply is a formal notice that "every penny this person ever earns is already earmarked, heed this warning before lending"

This claim is simply false. The cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. has been extensively studied and absolutely none of the criteria you list comes even close to the number 1 reason that people in lower or middle class declare bankruptcy: medical bills.

What restitution is the average american on the hook for these days?

That's a relatively new idea. It was fundamental to the American and French revolutions, and it was brand new at the time. (The Americans were heavily cribbing off French thinkers, though it took most of a century for the French to implement it.)

It's been the basic claim of liberal democracies for the past 250 years, and they were so successful that people thought it would become universal. But it reached a peak around 30 or 40 years ago -- right about the time that the Soviet Union fell and the "tech age" really got going.

The US in particular saw that as victory for America, and in particular victory for its wealthy class. So it has been leading everything away from liberal democracy.

So obvious I don't know why you had to say it