Americans are spending billions on stuff they forget to cancel(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Americans are spending billions on stuff they forget to cancel
https://www.wsj.com/business/cancel-subscriptions-save-money-streaming-peacock-da7e6123
673 comments
https://archive.is/Kh4Zy
The blame falls also on businesses which take money for services they don't deliver. They often know, and otherwise often could know, when subscribers are not using the service. If you're a business, you should earn your revenue, otherwise you are frauds. This particular behavior is little better than taking money and simply refusing to provide service. Don't tell me it's unintentional - you know what's happening and could easily stop it.
It should be shame that also falls on them, but somehow we give businesses a pass. No matter how awful or shameful, people say 'it's business' and those magic words absolve every evil. If you took monthly payment from your elderly neighbor to shovel their walk and it never snowed, it would be shameful to keep taking it - people's opinions of you would change negatively if they heard about it. If you said 'well, they have autopay setup and didn't stop it', you would look even worse!
It should be shame that also falls on them, but somehow we give businesses a pass. No matter how awful or shameful, people say 'it's business' and those magic words absolve every evil. If you took monthly payment from your elderly neighbor to shovel their walk and it never snowed, it would be shameful to keep taking it - people's opinions of you would change negatively if they heard about it. If you said 'well, they have autopay setup and didn't stop it', you would look even worse!
"It should be shame that also falls on them, but somehow we give businesses a pass."
I have always viewed the push for "subscriptions" as a business model by so-called "tech" companies with suspicion. Looks like it was warranted.
Forgetting to cancel is part of the scheme. A friend of mine once worked briefly for a direct marketing company many, many years ago, pre-www. He said they knew a certain percentage would forget to cancel. They banked on it.
This is not something new.
I have always viewed the push for "subscriptions" as a business model by so-called "tech" companies with suspicion. Looks like it was warranted.
Forgetting to cancel is part of the scheme. A friend of mine once worked briefly for a direct marketing company many, many years ago, pre-www. He said they knew a certain percentage would forget to cancel. They banked on it.
This is not something new.
For annual services, I think they should always remind you before charging you. Even if you've selected auto-renew. I always appreciate the services that do that.
Sony and Nintendo are doing this for their online services. I had yearly subscriptions to both PSN and Switch Online and just before New Years I got emails from both reminding me about the yearly sub.
I couldn't remember using PSN once last year so I cancelled it.
I couldn't remember using PSN once last year so I cancelled it.
I'm sure there are some out there that remember 10.. 15.. 20 CDs for 1¢ mail order.
My assumption was that they would bank on guilt or forgetfulness to keep the cash flowing in.
My assumption was that they would bank on guilt or forgetfulness to keep the cash flowing in.
I've actually created a business model based on it.
The vhs rental stores were dying left and right. The one i looked into got most of its money from snacks and drinks. The subscription moddel was 75 cent, renting a movie would drop from 3-4 euro to 75 cent. (only 1 at a time) You could keep it for a week, then you would get a call if you could please return it.
The existing customers knew vhs rental was not really a thing anymore. Many visited just for a chat.
I figured one could guilt people into keeping the sub. I wasnt looking to make a profit, just curuous about the puzzle.
Im not even ashamed. haha
The vhs rental stores were dying left and right. The one i looked into got most of its money from snacks and drinks. The subscription moddel was 75 cent, renting a movie would drop from 3-4 euro to 75 cent. (only 1 at a time) You could keep it for a week, then you would get a call if you could please return it.
The existing customers knew vhs rental was not really a thing anymore. Many visited just for a chat.
I figured one could guilt people into keeping the sub. I wasnt looking to make a profit, just curuous about the puzzle.
Im not even ashamed. haha
In a sense, a social club for movie lovers. Why not switch to showing movies and serving some food?
You could call it a cinema!
Gym membership model is the power of SaaS.
Yeah I'm extremely critical of big tech in general, but calling tech companies criminal because people subscribe for stuff then don't use it sounds like a double standard to me. This is the way we are able to have nice gyms at reasonable prices. It probably contributes to making other subscriptions cheaper too.
If you want to make the world better you have to focus on the correct things. One of those is that deceptively advertised, difficult to cancel subscriptions should not be allowed. Another is that monopoly/oligopoly leads to price hikes and should also not be allowed. But people remaining in voluntary transactions which don't make sense to your personal sense of frugality? Honestly not the right bone to pick.
If you want to make the world better you have to focus on the correct things. One of those is that deceptively advertised, difficult to cancel subscriptions should not be allowed. Another is that monopoly/oligopoly leads to price hikes and should also not be allowed. But people remaining in voluntary transactions which don't make sense to your personal sense of frugality? Honestly not the right bone to pick.
With the state of the world - climate change, dictatorship, warfare, corporate power, AI, mass surveillance - none of these issues is the right bone to pick.
But I agree there's a matter of degree: If people get renewal warnings and can easily cancel ('Reply with the word 'Cancel''), that's different.
> which don't make sense to your personal sense of frugality?
Why attribute stuff to people who disagree with you, in order to dismiss them? Why is it important to dismiss them? Maybe just believe they have some reasons and try to learn what they are.
But I agree there's a matter of degree: If people get renewal warnings and can easily cancel ('Reply with the word 'Cancel''), that's different.
> which don't make sense to your personal sense of frugality?
Why attribute stuff to people who disagree with you, in order to dismiss them? Why is it important to dismiss them? Maybe just believe they have some reasons and try to learn what they are.
I wonder how many people bought a peacock subscription last weekend for the nfl wild card game then forgot to cancel it after.
> I wonder how many people bought a peacock subscription last weekend for the nfl wild card game
None. That was a slap in the face to football fans.
None. That was a slap in the face to football fans.
Not a fan so I hadn't even heard of it, but the internet tells me that it was the most streamed live event in US history. (https://news.yahoo.com/peacocks-nfl-wild-card-game-broke-str...) I'm guessing there are some who will stay on the platform.
I hope Pat Ryan makes good on his threats.
> I’m demanding the NFL and NBC stop the BS and offer fans the service they already pay for, or we’re coming for your antitrust exemption,...The NFL raked in $12 billion in 2022; NBCUniversal made almost $40 billion. They now have a choice, either fix this problem, or we’ll fix it for them.”
I hope Pat Ryan makes good on his threats.
> I’m demanding the NFL and NBC stop the BS and offer fans the service they already pay for, or we’re coming for your antitrust exemption,...The NFL raked in $12 billion in 2022; NBCUniversal made almost $40 billion. They now have a choice, either fix this problem, or we’ll fix it for them.”
> The blame falls also on businesses which take money for services they don't deliver. They often know, and otherwise often could know, when subscribers are not using the service. If you're a business, you should earn your revenue, otherwise you are frauds.
I disagree. I routinely go months in between using some of my various subscriptions - be it Netflix, Hulu, Audible, etc. I would be very upset if they cancelled on me... I maintain the subscriptions because I can afford to do so and because I enjoy the convenience of having it available when I want it without having to go through some sort of account activation ritual.
People need to have personal responsibility. Review your bank/credit accounts and cancel subscriptions if you want - it's your money so take responsibility.
This line of reasoning reminds me of the petulant discussion revolving around overdraft fees... as-if it's difficult to spend 3 seconds tapping a button in your banking app.
I disagree. I routinely go months in between using some of my various subscriptions - be it Netflix, Hulu, Audible, etc. I would be very upset if they cancelled on me... I maintain the subscriptions because I can afford to do so and because I enjoy the convenience of having it available when I want it without having to go through some sort of account activation ritual.
People need to have personal responsibility. Review your bank/credit accounts and cancel subscriptions if you want - it's your money so take responsibility.
This line of reasoning reminds me of the petulant discussion revolving around overdraft fees... as-if it's difficult to spend 3 seconds tapping a button in your banking app.
I don't really see how this follows. A perfectly reasonable option that doesn't affect your use case at all would be "don't charge a customer who didn't use the service during that period." AWS doesn't charge me for an empty S3 bucket, Netflix shouldn't charge for zero minutes of video watched that month. Simple as!
The downside, of course, is that this does mean you can't ride the Personal Responsibility bicycle and look down at a generally frazzled and overloaded population, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to have you make.
The downside, of course, is that this does mean you can't ride the Personal Responsibility bicycle and look down at a generally frazzled and overloaded population, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to have you make.
It screws over other use cases because it changes the economics of these streaming services. Monthly subscriptions for media, especially ones like Netflix, account for bingeing followed by dead periods amortized into the monthly price. Only counting active periods will break that amortization and the monthly price increases as a result.
If someone doesn't binge and their lifestyle includes watching things more consistently, they will pay a higher price to subsidize people who don't manage their own money. It is of course possible to accommodate everything by adding all kinds of choices but it costs time and effort and complexity to setup those systems, and those costs are always passed down to the consumer. As someone who manages my own financial life, I'd prefer not to pay those costs for people who don't.
I doubt the ability to look down will go away either, people who lack even this minimal amount of personal responsibility have endless ways of losing money and falling behind those who strive for personal responsibility. It's very costly and difficult for third parties to fix this kind of financial apathy.
If someone doesn't binge and their lifestyle includes watching things more consistently, they will pay a higher price to subsidize people who don't manage their own money. It is of course possible to accommodate everything by adding all kinds of choices but it costs time and effort and complexity to setup those systems, and those costs are always passed down to the consumer. As someone who manages my own financial life, I'd prefer not to pay those costs for people who don't.
I doubt the ability to look down will go away either, people who lack even this minimal amount of personal responsibility have endless ways of losing money and falling behind those who strive for personal responsibility. It's very costly and difficult for third parties to fix this kind of financial apathy.
You know, you're right, it would affect that use case. On the other hand, "I would have to pay a higher amount of money for my teevee if they stopped bleeding people for no services rendered" is a really funny thing to get on the the Personal Responsibility bicycle about. Like, you could've just said "I don't want to pay more" and I guess that'd be mildly unfortunate for you, maybe I could've found some sympathy for that viewpoint. Instead you got on that bicycle, just like the other person, and doubled down on the Fun At Parties thing. "I don't want to pay more because I practice Personal Responsibility, please bask in my my perceived moral value."
And that makes me think a little more. So after doing that thinking, here's what I realized.
It can still be about Personal Responsibility for you and the other person if you have to pay your own freight about it. In fact--it's more! You get to exercise so much more Personal Responsibility when you aren't being subsidized by other people, even. When you are standing on your own two feet in such a Personally Responsible manner.
Isn't that nice?
And that makes me think a little more. So after doing that thinking, here's what I realized.
It can still be about Personal Responsibility for you and the other person if you have to pay your own freight about it. In fact--it's more! You get to exercise so much more Personal Responsibility when you aren't being subsidized by other people, even. When you are standing on your own two feet in such a Personally Responsible manner.
Isn't that nice?
It appears like rationalization to you (edit for context: the parent comment said it was rationalizing before it was edited) because you've already made up your mind about the malicious intent of companies who use this model. The reality is that companies can't know if they're "bleeding people for no services rendered" because of bingeing behavior. Someone watching a lot then staying off for a few months is difficult to distinguish from someone who has forgotten about their subscription for a few months.
The easiest and most efficient way for a company to know that you're not providing value to them is by cancelling your subscription. I agree that companies making this difficult is bad, but many services don't make this difficult. Instead, you're asking them to read the mind of their customers which is not easy. Netflix does treat extreme periods of inactivity (IIRC more than a year I think?) as a reasonable signal that you've forgotten about it.
> You get to exercise so much more Personal Responsibility when you aren't free-riding off other people, even.
I don't think you're really understanding the point. People who don't exercise any personal responsibility over their finances are the ones who are free-riding off people who do. That's because when you don't manage your finances and you refuse to shoulder the cost for that, the time & effort and complexity it costs to accommodate that has to be paid by someone who isn't you.
Edit: I'm not sure there's anything I can say to sway your mind about this since you've really honed in on the emotional angle to this but I think it's worth pointing out that this isn't really a moralizing thing to me, I have been and know many people who fall short, I don't treat it morally. It's largely about resource allocation and behavioral incentives. Asking central organizations like a corporation to infer the correct thing for lots of consumers is very difficult and costly, it's overall much more efficient to ask consumers to signal their desires themselves, it's why markets tend to be more efficient. Making consumers pay the cost of mismanaging their finances also discourages them from doing it, increasing efficiency.
The easiest and most efficient way for a company to know that you're not providing value to them is by cancelling your subscription. I agree that companies making this difficult is bad, but many services don't make this difficult. Instead, you're asking them to read the mind of their customers which is not easy. Netflix does treat extreme periods of inactivity (IIRC more than a year I think?) as a reasonable signal that you've forgotten about it.
> You get to exercise so much more Personal Responsibility when you aren't free-riding off other people, even.
I don't think you're really understanding the point. People who don't exercise any personal responsibility over their finances are the ones who are free-riding off people who do. That's because when you don't manage your finances and you refuse to shoulder the cost for that, the time & effort and complexity it costs to accommodate that has to be paid by someone who isn't you.
Edit: I'm not sure there's anything I can say to sway your mind about this since you've really honed in on the emotional angle to this but I think it's worth pointing out that this isn't really a moralizing thing to me, I have been and know many people who fall short, I don't treat it morally. It's largely about resource allocation and behavioral incentives. Asking central organizations like a corporation to infer the correct thing for lots of consumers is very difficult and costly, it's overall much more efficient to ask consumers to signal their desires themselves, it's why markets tend to be more efficient. Making consumers pay the cost of mismanaging their finances also discourages them from doing it, increasing efficiency.
> People who don't exercise any personal responsibility over their finances are the ones who are free-riding off people who do. That's because when you don't manage your finances and you refuse to shoulder the cost for that, the time & effort and complexity it costs to accommodate that has to be paid by someone who isn't you.
People who fail to cancel their subscriptions are not free-riding off anyone, they're paying $X per billing period.
> Asking central organizations like a corporation to infer the correct thing for lots of consumers is very difficult and costly
Usage based billing isn't that hard. It's just less profitable.
People who fail to cancel their subscriptions are not free-riding off anyone, they're paying $X per billing period.
> Asking central organizations like a corporation to infer the correct thing for lots of consumers is very difficult and costly
Usage based billing isn't that hard. It's just less profitable.
> People who fail to cancel their subscriptions are not free-riding off anyone, they're paying $X per billing period.
They're not free-riding currently, but what the parent is suggesting is that streaming subscriptions don't charge for months without activity.
> Usage based billing isn't that hard. It's just less profitable.
Creating alternative usage-based billing models when most customers are happy with a monthly model is hard and has real costs. There are already storefronts with a more usage-based model: stuff like iTunes and Google Play Store let you pay per movie & episode, that's typically what consumers use when they don't like a monthly billing model.
They're not free-riding currently, but what the parent is suggesting is that streaming subscriptions don't charge for months without activity.
> Usage based billing isn't that hard. It's just less profitable.
Creating alternative usage-based billing models when most customers are happy with a monthly model is hard and has real costs. There are already storefronts with a more usage-based model: stuff like iTunes and Google Play Store let you pay per movie & episode, that's typically what consumers use when they don't like a monthly billing model.
> Usage based billing isn't that hard. It's just less profitable.
But, by that same logic, they should just be charging you by how much you watch. So it's no longer "don't charge them for the month they didn't view" but, instead, "charge them $X/minute watched". If you're going to go with usage based billing, go with usage based billing.
But, by that same logic, they should just be charging you by how much you watch. So it's no longer "don't charge them for the month they didn't view" but, instead, "charge them $X/minute watched". If you're going to go with usage based billing, go with usage based billing.
Not signing in to a service you have a subscription to is a pretty clear signal that it is not being used. I'm not aware of any streaming service that automatically pauses a subscription if you don't sign in for a full month.
I strongly disagree, I have media subscriptions right now that I won't sign into for a month or even multiple months but I don't intend on giving it up. This is especially true for niche streaming content where production costs aren't exactly cheap but their niche nature means not everyone is consistently in the mood for that content.
Ok so why do you want to pay for that time? Why not have payments paused during the period of inactivity, and resume when you want to use it?
The point is that this is a choice by content businesses. Pausing and resuming payments could easily be frictionless, but it isn’t.
The point is that this is a choice by content businesses. Pausing and resuming payments could easily be frictionless, but it isn’t.
I described the reason in more detail in my previous comments up-thread: because I understand the cost is amortized and it's an intuitive billing system that supports two different watching habits: consistent watching as well as bingeing. Refusing to pay because I binge means prices increase for people who don't binge. Pricing issues like this are really killer for niche streaming sites that I want to support.
I generally disagree with dark patterns that make it onerously difficult to cancel, but many streaming services (like Netflix) don't make it that difficult and pausing and resuming payments is already easy enough. I just have to actually do it, not ask them to read my mind.
I generally disagree with dark patterns that make it onerously difficult to cancel, but many streaming services (like Netflix) don't make it that difficult and pausing and resuming payments is already easy enough. I just have to actually do it, not ask them to read my mind.
I mean, for starters this whole conversation is fantasy because streamers, or really, businesses in general, will never on their own initiative stop taking taking money from customers.
Auto-cancellation or whatever is never ever going to happen. Unless forced by regulation I suppose, which I don’t see a reason for. We’re not talking about fraud or deception, just the general day-to-day scumminess of capitalism.
All that said, I don’t think your argument carries the weight you think it does. “I’m happy my underutilization of a service subsidizes other users” isn’t a compelling story to me and doesn’t seem like a net benefit. To each their own.
(Anyway, a binger whose usage is equivalent to a non-binge watcher, except concentrated rather than diffuse, is not actually underutilizing the service and isn’t really who we’re talking about here. I think.)
Auto-cancellation or whatever is never ever going to happen. Unless forced by regulation I suppose, which I don’t see a reason for. We’re not talking about fraud or deception, just the general day-to-day scumminess of capitalism.
All that said, I don’t think your argument carries the weight you think it does. “I’m happy my underutilization of a service subsidizes other users” isn’t a compelling story to me and doesn’t seem like a net benefit. To each their own.
(Anyway, a binger whose usage is equivalent to a non-binge watcher, except concentrated rather than diffuse, is not actually underutilizing the service and isn’t really who we’re talking about here. I think.)
> Anyway, a binger whose usage is equivalent to a non-binge watcher, except concentrated rather than diffuse, is not actually underutilizing the service and isn’t really who we’re talking about here. I think.
I am actually talking about this here. It sounds like you understood my point but also think this is not what I'm talking about? I'm not saying I underutilize my service, I am actually talking about equivalent usage except concentrated rather than diffuse. When you ask companies to automatically omit fees for months of inactivity, you are punishing users who diffuse their use while rewarding users who concentrate their use.
> I mean, for starters this whole conversation is fantasy because streamers, or really, businesses in general, will never on their own initiative stop taking taking money from customers.
Literally false. Netflix did this because they're not trying to build a business on tricking people who don't want their product. But it's a fairly long period of inactivity because anything less and it's not clear if they actually forgot or not https://about.netflix.com/en/news/helping-members-who-havent...
I am actually talking about this here. It sounds like you understood my point but also think this is not what I'm talking about? I'm not saying I underutilize my service, I am actually talking about equivalent usage except concentrated rather than diffuse. When you ask companies to automatically omit fees for months of inactivity, you are punishing users who diffuse their use while rewarding users who concentrate their use.
> I mean, for starters this whole conversation is fantasy because streamers, or really, businesses in general, will never on their own initiative stop taking taking money from customers.
Literally false. Netflix did this because they're not trying to build a business on tricking people who don't want their product. But it's a fairly long period of inactivity because anything less and it's not clear if they actually forgot or not https://about.netflix.com/en/news/helping-members-who-havent...
The problem in question is really a problem with the subscription model that charges you a flat rate regardless of usage. The ostensible selling point is that what you pay does not depend on how much you use, and that you can use as much of a service as you want, such that the price is significantly below what you'd pay if you were using the service maximally. This is similar to dial-up internet in the old days, where you used to be charged per hour, before flat rates became common.
But here's the rub. While it is true that any given person in practice might benefit from such a pricing scheme, it isn't true that everyone could in principle benefit from such a pricing scheme. The model depends intrinsically on uneven and non-maximal usage of the service, which is what the aforementioned subsidizing is doing. For it to work, it requires that a large share of people overpay for the service, where overpaying means paying more than the value of what you receive (by definition, if you don't use a service, then you are overpaying). If everyone were using the service maximally, there would be no difference between paying for how much you use and paying a flat rate, because you can be sure that the service provider would raise prices to cover costs and reap profits.
So no one is doing you any favors here. Poor utilization is not just an "oops" on the part of the subscriber, but an essential feature of the business model. If everyone was being "personally responsible", the business model simply wouldn't work. And because this isn't a charity, the idea of being happy about subsidizing others users is kind of weird.
So two natural questions to ask are:
1. What could a pay-as-you-go model look like in such cases? Could it cover the expenses of the service? Arguably, no. Those who don't use much would probably continue not to use much. Those who do might reduce consumption, because now you must pay for what you use.
2. Is there a morally sound justification for paying at least a base rate for an unused or underutilized utility to keep it afloat (perhaps charging additionally according to usage)? Putting aside all utilitarian arguments, which I take to be unacceptable, we can find a number of cases that seem to operate similarly that we do not appear to object to. Take the salary, for example. One is not payed strictly according to the value one provides, though you could argue that salary is, ideally, a method of paying for the value provided in a diffuse way (value provided previous year reflected in the following year, esp. bonuses, or upfront payment with expectation of value). So salary doesn't seem quite the same. What about the fact that you can use the service on demand? This is like having a driver who gets payed for being on-call. It seems like this may be a good analogue to begin with to try to grasp the ethical and economic reality of the subscription model in question.
But here's the rub. While it is true that any given person in practice might benefit from such a pricing scheme, it isn't true that everyone could in principle benefit from such a pricing scheme. The model depends intrinsically on uneven and non-maximal usage of the service, which is what the aforementioned subsidizing is doing. For it to work, it requires that a large share of people overpay for the service, where overpaying means paying more than the value of what you receive (by definition, if you don't use a service, then you are overpaying). If everyone were using the service maximally, there would be no difference between paying for how much you use and paying a flat rate, because you can be sure that the service provider would raise prices to cover costs and reap profits.
So no one is doing you any favors here. Poor utilization is not just an "oops" on the part of the subscriber, but an essential feature of the business model. If everyone was being "personally responsible", the business model simply wouldn't work. And because this isn't a charity, the idea of being happy about subsidizing others users is kind of weird.
So two natural questions to ask are:
1. What could a pay-as-you-go model look like in such cases? Could it cover the expenses of the service? Arguably, no. Those who don't use much would probably continue not to use much. Those who do might reduce consumption, because now you must pay for what you use.
2. Is there a morally sound justification for paying at least a base rate for an unused or underutilized utility to keep it afloat (perhaps charging additionally according to usage)? Putting aside all utilitarian arguments, which I take to be unacceptable, we can find a number of cases that seem to operate similarly that we do not appear to object to. Take the salary, for example. One is not payed strictly according to the value one provides, though you could argue that salary is, ideally, a method of paying for the value provided in a diffuse way (value provided previous year reflected in the following year, esp. bonuses, or upfront payment with expectation of value). So salary doesn't seem quite the same. What about the fact that you can use the service on demand? This is like having a driver who gets payed for being on-call. It seems like this may be a good analogue to begin with to try to grasp the ethical and economic reality of the subscription model in question.
Should I get a refund for not using my insurance?
I know you're being somewhat flippant with this question, buy I'll bite.
So you -did- use your insurance this (and every) month. You didn't-claim- from insurance, but that's incidental.
Insurance exists to give you peace of mind (or more technically act as a hedge against your risk). You got that benefit/peace/hedge so you used your insurance.
Now, if we take this thought, you could argue that Netflix isn't there to provide "show x" which you may, or may not, watch. Rather its there yo provide you with the -option- to watch show x. Whether you watch it or not is up to you.
I feel this comparison is not equivalent though because risk is very real, while selling a "Netflix option" seems very contrived.
So you -did- use your insurance this (and every) month. You didn't-claim- from insurance, but that's incidental.
Insurance exists to give you peace of mind (or more technically act as a hedge against your risk). You got that benefit/peace/hedge so you used your insurance.
Now, if we take this thought, you could argue that Netflix isn't there to provide "show x" which you may, or may not, watch. Rather its there yo provide you with the -option- to watch show x. Whether you watch it or not is up to you.
I feel this comparison is not equivalent though because risk is very real, while selling a "Netflix option" seems very contrived.
Similar, though not quite the same. With insurance, I would rather not have to use it. With Netflix, I would rather use it.
[deleted]
What's wrong with people putting on their adulting pants and actually being responsible? Why outsource personal responsibility to a third party? That seems, absurd.
"Frazzled and overloaded" is not an excuse for not looking at your bank account one time in 6 months or longer. That's just plain old fashioned irresponsible.
If you are at a stage in life where a $10 subscription is hurting, then it stands to reason you should monitor those things.
"Frazzled and overloaded" is not an excuse for not looking at your bank account one time in 6 months or longer. That's just plain old fashioned irresponsible.
If you are at a stage in life where a $10 subscription is hurting, then it stands to reason you should monitor those things.
It’s asymmetrical. On one side you have the consumer who wants to save $10 by canceling a service they don’t use. On the other side you have highly paid software engineers, data scientists, and product managers who have tens of thousands of dollars riding on meeting their metrics for subscriber retention. For example, Amazon implemented their “Iliad flow” to make it hard to cancel Prime.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/ftc-sues-amazon-...
I don’t think it is entirely fair to demand personal responsibility when the adversary has so much more resources and incentives for making it hard to cancel.
This personally affected my friend. English was not their first language and they were tricked by Amazon into signing up for Prime. The extra charges and difficulty of canceling caused much distress for their limited budget.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/06/ftc-sues-amazon-...
I don’t think it is entirely fair to demand personal responsibility when the adversary has so much more resources and incentives for making it hard to cancel.
This personally affected my friend. English was not their first language and they were tricked by Amazon into signing up for Prime. The extra charges and difficulty of canceling caused much distress for their limited budget.
It's also asymmetrical because most often than not, subscribing is one click whereas unsubscribing is an obstacle course.
This is one asymmetry which can and should be corrected by legal means; markets which require unsubscribing to be as easy as subscribing get a bit more 'healthy' for subscriptions than those that don't.
About every week there is an article on HN about dark patterns. It's always fun to say "personal responsibility" but that tends to neglect quite often there is a billion dollar entity spending vast amounts of time and money in finding ways to screw you over. It is not about the $10 per individual, it's the fact they may be spreading that behavior across a million people or more that makes that company a danger to the public.
> If you are at a stage in life where a $10 subscription is hurting, then it stands to reason you should monitor those things.
Unfortunately people for whom $10/mo hurts are usually working three part time jobs while also trying to get the kids to/from school and take care of them. So I can see why they might not have time.
Unfortunately people for whom $10/mo hurts are usually working three part time jobs while also trying to get the kids to/from school and take care of them. So I can see why they might not have time.
A monthly financial review doesn't take longer than 10 minutes.
So you are suggesting that these three part time jobs offer more than $60/h and thus are more valuable than a 10 minute finance review where you identify your misspending of $10/mo?
So you are suggesting that these three part time jobs offer more than $60/h and thus are more valuable than a 10 minute finance review where you identify your misspending of $10/mo?
Of course not. He's saying that the cumulative mental effects of grinding precarity means that beep-boop rational actor theory doesn't survive contact with the pavement.
You can check to see if thousands of customers actually used a subscription service last month in less than one second, and automate it
Why not point this logic to companies and ask them to do this for their customers? Surely you can see the value in saving every one of your customers 10 minutes.
Why not point this logic to companies and ask them to do this for their customers? Surely you can see the value in saving every one of your customers 10 minutes.
> A monthly financial review doesn't take longer than 10 minutes.
That is an absurdly short time for a meaningful financial review for anyone- whether they have a lot of financial transactions or if they don't (and may be unfamiliar or have anxiety about their finances). Especially if they have kids and serious responsibilities- these companies bank on you forgetting or being too exhausted to change.
That is an absurdly short time for a meaningful financial review for anyone- whether they have a lot of financial transactions or if they don't (and may be unfamiliar or have anxiety about their finances). Especially if they have kids and serious responsibilities- these companies bank on you forgetting or being too exhausted to change.
It’s really not though. Seeing all these comments concerned me a bit. So, I opened up my credit card apps and scrolled through the last six months of transactions to make sure there was nothing unexpected. It took 5 minutes while I was sitting on the toilet. And that 5 minutes normally would’ve been spent browsing instagram or hacker news, so it’s not like it’s 5 minutes that I lost.
You already had the apps installed... already had the passwords loaded... had zero transactions that you had to recall who the vendor was? really?... and you recognized all of your spouse's transactions? and all of your kids?... and you also checked ACH payments?... every ATM withdrawal accounted for?... not concerned with any gradually increasing amounts?... why did you wait 6 months to do this if it's so simple?
I pay through the apps. I have a password manager. There were a couple transactions that took me a couple seconds to recall. I’m single, but this whole thread is about _personal_ responsibility. I would trust my spouse to also keep up with her expenses. I also wouldn’t give my kids credit cards. Cash works fine when it’s needed, that’s what my parents did and I was just fine.
I never put any sort of subscription on ACH. All subscriptions go onto credit cards. There were gradually increasing amounts from Netflix, which I got emails about, which I cancelled once I got the emails telling me the price was increasing once again. I waited 6 months because I already had an idea of what I was paying for, when I checked, it turned out there was nothing unexpected.
I never put any sort of subscription on ACH. All subscriptions go onto credit cards. There were gradually increasing amounts from Netflix, which I got emails about, which I cancelled once I got the emails telling me the price was increasing once again. I waited 6 months because I already had an idea of what I was paying for, when I checked, it turned out there was nothing unexpected.
The point is, not everyone's situation is the same as yours, lots of people have a whole lot more going on. You sound like a tool by insisting that 5 minutes (while taking a shit, no less) is universally sufficient for a comprehensive financial review.
I understand everyone has a different situation. OP literally said that it’s impossible for anyone to review their finances in 10 minutes, and I provided a counterclaim. Additionally, my point was that in this day and age, the majority of people that are able to subscribe to these things have the tools at their disposal to find and cancel the subscriptions while taking a shit. Just hop on your phone, it really is that easy.
You calling me names because you can’t formulate a valid argument does not dispute that fact. It weakens your argument and goes against the nature of this site.
You calling me names because you can’t formulate a valid argument does not dispute that fact. It weakens your argument and goes against the nature of this site.
> I opened up my credit card apps and scrolled through the last six months of transactions to make sure there was nothing unexpected. It took 5 minutes while I was sitting on the toilet.
Six months in five minutes? How many transactions? (and did you remember them all?) How many different credit cards? How about your bank statements, other accounts, etc?
I still stand by the statement that 10 minutes is an absurdly small amount of time for a meaningful review of anyone's finances, and find your claim that you did it in 5 minutes very surprising. I would ask you to show me, but not interested in watching you take a dump :)
Six months in five minutes? How many transactions? (and did you remember them all?) How many different credit cards? How about your bank statements, other accounts, etc?
I still stand by the statement that 10 minutes is an absurdly small amount of time for a meaningful review of anyone's finances, and find your claim that you did it in 5 minutes very surprising. I would ask you to show me, but not interested in watching you take a dump :)
But then how do they end up with the subscriptions in the first place?
I know I don’t have the time for the high transactional overhead of most subscriptions. As such, I don’t subscribe to anything beyond insurance and internet service.
Would it be nice to have other subscriptions? Sure, probably, but the (time) cost is more than I’m willing to bear.
If you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it.
I know I don’t have the time for the high transactional overhead of most subscriptions. As such, I don’t subscribe to anything beyond insurance and internet service.
Would it be nice to have other subscriptions? Sure, probably, but the (time) cost is more than I’m willing to bear.
If you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it.
Personal responsibility only works if parties are roughly equal in terms if power. This is not the case in corporation-consumer relationships. Corporations can employ hundreds or thousands of people whose sole goal is to employ the forefront of scientific psychological knowledge to design dark patterns to make end users not cancel their subscriptions.
I hope you wouldn't ask a person who gets harassed by their boss to take personal responsibility, and such a relationship is a lot less asymmetric in terms of power balance than corporation-consumer relationships are.
I hope you wouldn't ask a person who gets harassed by their boss to take personal responsibility, and such a relationship is a lot less asymmetric in terms of power balance than corporation-consumer relationships are.
If personal responsibility requires a roughly even power balance, does that mean we have almost no personal responsibility today?
Between large corporations and large governments, most areas of our daily life are impacted in some way. I prefer to think that I can take personal responsibility in spite of an authority attempting to take that away from me "for my own good."
Between large corporations and large governments, most areas of our daily life are impacted in some way. I prefer to think that I can take personal responsibility in spite of an authority attempting to take that away from me "for my own good."
> and such a relationship is a lot less asymmetric in terms of power balance than corporation-consumer relationships are
For these subscriptions, the customer holds not just equal power, but all the power. Clicking unsubscribe really isn't very difficult. If corporations held any power, some of them wouldn't try dark patterns.
For these subscriptions, the customer holds not just equal power, but all the power. Clicking unsubscribe really isn't very difficult. If corporations held any power, some of them wouldn't try dark patterns.
These patterns work on adults and are economic inefficiencies whether you subscribe to strict personal accountability or not. Good policy improves individual and social outcomes.
Choose to improve things, even if your ideal is that everyone would take care of it themselves.
Choose to improve things, even if your ideal is that everyone would take care of it themselves.
> What's wrong with people putting on their adulting pants and actually being responsible?
What's wrong with asking businesses to simply not charge you if you don't use the service? You can play the blame game all day, but that doesn't actually give us any reason why not. "Cars shouldn't have seatbelts because you can just not crash your car" is a similar line of thinking that also doesn't make very much sense. Why shouldn't the car manufacturer take some level of responsibility?
What's wrong with asking businesses to simply not charge you if you don't use the service? You can play the blame game all day, but that doesn't actually give us any reason why not. "Cars shouldn't have seatbelts because you can just not crash your car" is a similar line of thinking that also doesn't make very much sense. Why shouldn't the car manufacturer take some level of responsibility?
Does this analogy actually explain or clarify anything, or is it just an attempt to raise the stakes for rhetorical effect?
Dying in a car crash is much worse than accidentally paying for Netflix so carmakers have a heightened responsibility to try and prevent it.
It doesn’t really map to the scenario at all, “dying in a car crash” isn’t a service people intentionally sign up for and then change their minds about.
Dying in a car crash is much worse than accidentally paying for Netflix so carmakers have a heightened responsibility to try and prevent it.
It doesn’t really map to the scenario at all, “dying in a car crash” isn’t a service people intentionally sign up for and then change their minds about.
Not my intent to claim equivalence. The comparison just shows that it's possible and in fact very reasonable for a company to take some level of responsibility on behalf of their customers. I guess the difference in stakes do factor in somewhat: If car companies can do it when it's life or death and requires tons of R&D and manufacturing, why can't Netflix do it for something as mundane as charging their users that can be done with only software?
Obviously the answer is that they CAN do that, but don't. It's nothing to do with responsibility and everything to do with them making a cheap buck off of human forgetfulness.
Obviously the answer is that they CAN do that, but don't. It's nothing to do with responsibility and everything to do with them making a cheap buck off of human forgetfulness.
> What's wrong with asking businesses to simply not charge you if you don't use the service
Pay-per-view services exist. Customers seem to prefer subscriptions.
Any subscription model works by amortising costs over a large population, which always means that some people will benefit more than others. To prevent businesses from charging for unused subscriptions, the only solution would be to ban subscriptions altogether and have everything on a pay-per-use basis. That would also include internet subscriptions and transit passes.
Pay-per-view services exist. Customers seem to prefer subscriptions.
Any subscription model works by amortising costs over a large population, which always means that some people will benefit more than others. To prevent businesses from charging for unused subscriptions, the only solution would be to ban subscriptions altogether and have everything on a pay-per-use basis. That would also include internet subscriptions and transit passes.
> Pay-per-view services exist. Customers seem to prefer subscriptions.
If Netflix will let you pay $2 to buy something from them, they sure don't advertise it. So this assertion requires what the customer wants to buy to be fungible. It's a mindset that requires one to implicitly accept the idea of content-as-gruel, and I think most people don't do that.
It also implies that people are rational and responsive actors and habituation doesn't exist, which isn't true either.
If Netflix will let you pay $2 to buy something from them, they sure don't advertise it. So this assertion requires what the customer wants to buy to be fungible. It's a mindset that requires one to implicitly accept the idea of content-as-gruel, and I think most people don't do that.
It also implies that people are rational and responsive actors and habituation doesn't exist, which isn't true either.
I have no idea what you want to say. Is this what you mean when you talk about riding the personal responsibility bicycle, only this time it is the jargon bicycle?
> Why shouldn't the car manufacturer take some level of responsibility?
They do, through safety tests and improving it over the decades.
They do, through safety tests and improving it over the decades.
People don't cancel shit because they don't know it's charging, they don't cancel shit because businesses make it artificially hard to do so, oftentimes requiring you to connect with a representative over chat or phone and having them argue with you and try to re-sell you the product. Almost every subscription I have right now was started with a free trial with a few buttons, but canceling? Canceling is usually a 20+ minute task of sitting somewhere on a computer or on a phone (or worse, both) when it could be EXACTLY as many buttons.
And we know that, because Apple basically mandated it with App Store subscriptions. Cancelling subscriptions there takes seconds. And we also know that the various subscription companies absolutely hate it.
The one that specifically burns me to no end is I recall hearing from a friend that they were on the phone with a representative from one of those meditation apps trying to cancel their subscription, and just, your product literally is made for people who struggle with mental health issues and especially anxiety, and making that base of customers jump through social hoops of fire, and argue with another person and make them stand their ground on wanting to cancel, is a SUPREMELY CLASSLESS MOVE.
And we know that, because Apple basically mandated it with App Store subscriptions. Cancelling subscriptions there takes seconds. And we also know that the various subscription companies absolutely hate it.
The one that specifically burns me to no end is I recall hearing from a friend that they were on the phone with a representative from one of those meditation apps trying to cancel their subscription, and just, your product literally is made for people who struggle with mental health issues and especially anxiety, and making that base of customers jump through social hoops of fire, and argue with another person and make them stand their ground on wanting to cancel, is a SUPREMELY CLASSLESS MOVE.
I basically only ever sign up for subscriptions that I can cancel from either App Store or through the national system where subscriptions are listed and cancelable in my bank statement these days.
My idea of doing this would be to force banks, MasterCard, Visa, PayPal, Stripe et cetera to have easy-to-list-easy-to-cancel subscriptions. Just two buttons, one to turn the subscription into an invoice you manually have to pay to keep going and one that cancels it outright through the payment provider.
That should hurt businesses more the more consumer hostile they are.
My idea of doing this would be to force banks, MasterCard, Visa, PayPal, Stripe et cetera to have easy-to-list-easy-to-cancel subscriptions. Just two buttons, one to turn the subscription into an invoice you manually have to pay to keep going and one that cancels it outright through the payment provider.
That should hurt businesses more the more consumer hostile they are.
In the European Union, you can cancel any subscription by email. There is no need to make a phone call or visit a scummy website.
> What's wrong with people putting on their adulting pants and actually being responsible? Why outsource personal responsibility to a third party? That seems, absurd.
This is a poor perspective to have, and the purpose of government is to protect its citizens from predatory behavior. You're entitled to the opinion, but I vote for people who protect citizens, because that is where the greatest value is in aggregate improvement (vs "personal responsibility"). Existing is different levels of difficulty for everyone, and personal responsibility projection is of little value. But it is great if you're crushing it taking care of yourself.
(very similar to overdraft fees and upcoming rules to compress them by the Biden admin and the CFPB)
This is a poor perspective to have, and the purpose of government is to protect its citizens from predatory behavior. You're entitled to the opinion, but I vote for people who protect citizens, because that is where the greatest value is in aggregate improvement (vs "personal responsibility"). Existing is different levels of difficulty for everyone, and personal responsibility projection is of little value. But it is great if you're crushing it taking care of yourself.
(very similar to overdraft fees and upcoming rules to compress them by the Biden admin and the CFPB)
Alupis(1)
It's a perfectly reasonable point that the company has all the information necessary and has the ability to automate a system which charges you only when you actually use the service, or hell, even just a system that emails you a reminder for not using the service you're paying for (Amazon kind of does this regarding their Music service as part of Prime, and I love them for it, even though I still don't use it). They don't actually have to burden society with the expectation of monitoring subscriptions.
You might as well be saying that people should take personal responsibility and do their taxes manually if they don't want to pay $50/year to use turbotax instead of pushing for a system where the government sends you an estimate that is likely to be correct for most people (since they're already doing that anyway).
You might as well be saying that people should take personal responsibility and do their taxes manually if they don't want to pay $50/year to use turbotax instead of pushing for a system where the government sends you an estimate that is likely to be correct for most people (since they're already doing that anyway).
> and do their taxes manually
This isn't a great comparison. Looking through a bank statement once a month and clicking "end subscription" takes a few minutes for anyone. Doing your taxes manually is much more difficult. This is the easiest economic decision to choose to stop partipating in in the history of the earth.
This isn't a great comparison. Looking through a bank statement once a month and clicking "end subscription" takes a few minutes for anyone. Doing your taxes manually is much more difficult. This is the easiest economic decision to choose to stop partipating in in the history of the earth.
The average burden of the 1040 C-EZ is 1 hour 40 minutes.
If we take the premise that 10 minutes to review your finances a month and then cancel unused subscriptions is not a burden(and good luck with canceling in 10 minutes) then doing basic taxes takes less time than a full yearly review.
There are a great many people here who argue that doing ones taxes are an impossible burden and the government should automate it away since they have the (most of) the data.
However here it should fall upon the individual to do all this labor in a case where the business has this information already compiled.
If we take the premise that 10 minutes to review your finances a month and then cancel unused subscriptions is not a burden(and good luck with canceling in 10 minutes) then doing basic taxes takes less time than a full yearly review.
There are a great many people here who argue that doing ones taxes are an impossible burden and the government should automate it away since they have the (most of) the data.
However here it should fall upon the individual to do all this labor in a case where the business has this information already compiled.
Because with great power should come great responsibility, yet for some reason we allow giant companies who literally study your behaviors to exploit them to get away with charging you for services you didn't use, when it's trivially easy for them to know when you didn't use them.
Do you have a family, with 2-3 adult users of credit cards?
We have pages and pages of charges each month, between groceries, camps, classes, school fees, school projects, birthday gifts, and now and then a teen grabbing coffee with friends.
I usually looks the bill quickly and see if there are any large purchases unexplained for, and of course credit card descriptions are very opaque sometimes. Noticing that month to month we had a Peacock subscription that someone signed up for as a promo, and never watched again, means I need to notice the one charge on page 3 AND poll all the family that yes no one watches.
We have pages and pages of charges each month, between groceries, camps, classes, school fees, school projects, birthday gifts, and now and then a teen grabbing coffee with friends.
I usually looks the bill quickly and see if there are any large purchases unexplained for, and of course credit card descriptions are very opaque sometimes. Noticing that month to month we had a Peacock subscription that someone signed up for as a promo, and never watched again, means I need to notice the one charge on page 3 AND poll all the family that yes no one watches.
Personal responsibility. The idea is those 2-3 adult users should all be monitoring their own statements. Not you monitoring everything for them.
Who cares about responsibility? I want more efficient price signaling. Bringing spending more in line with intent improves price signaling, so, gives us more utility from this whole capitalism thing. Doing this also happens to benefit and strengthen the weakest actors in the economy, and to make them more-confident economic actors.
It’s all win except for the companies getting free money for no reason. Why not fix this?
[edit] put it this way: if easy visibility into subscriptions and standardized, easy cancellation mechanisms were already mandated, would there be a strong case for changing that?
It’s all win except for the companies getting free money for no reason. Why not fix this?
[edit] put it this way: if easy visibility into subscriptions and standardized, easy cancellation mechanisms were already mandated, would there be a strong case for changing that?
What’s wrong with people who have no legs, can’t they just put their adulting pants and start walking?
Cool that you are mentally and physically fit, I am as well.
But there are lots of people who struggle with range of mental disorders or disabilities. Some might have depression some might have ADHD, some might just be much more forgetful so they might think it is good to check account balance but 30 mins later they just don’t feel or remember they had to do it.
Cool that you are mentally and physically fit, I am as well.
But there are lots of people who struggle with range of mental disorders or disabilities. Some might have depression some might have ADHD, some might just be much more forgetful so they might think it is good to check account balance but 30 mins later they just don’t feel or remember they had to do it.
If you think that services should start unsubscribing people just in case they have ADHD, that seems a very odd way round to think. They're just businesses. I don't think it's reasonable to assume they can know what you want or intend.
They don’t have to unsubscribe automatically, they could refund the money but keep subscription if someone wasn’t even opening their page in like 3 months.
I would say they don’t even have to refund automatically but maybe send an email at least - “Hey are you still with us?” - after they see no activity on account for a month and we also know for sure they track user activity very closely.
But we know - no one will even propose implementing such an email because it will be loss for the company. So that would be action for government to enforce.
I would say they don’t even have to refund automatically but maybe send an email at least - “Hey are you still with us?” - after they see no activity on account for a month and we also know for sure they track user activity very closely.
But we know - no one will even propose implementing such an email because it will be loss for the company. So that would be action for government to enforce.
> But we know - no one will even propose implementing such an email because it will be loss for the company. So that would be action for government to enforce.
Doesn't this just add another hull to the titanic? People don't have 2 minutes to check their bank statements a month, but do have time to check their email regularly enough to catch this? I can't tell who this is for that would be strong enough to require governments to get involved.
Doesn't this just add another hull to the titanic? People don't have 2 minutes to check their bank statements a month, but do have time to check their email regularly enough to catch this? I can't tell who this is for that would be strong enough to require governments to get involved.
That was my idea from top of my mind for corporations to show they care for the customers.
Proposing that they refund money would be realistic if they would at least agree to send out email - which I do believe will never happen.
So refunding money is fantasy, sending out emails is realistic but since they won’t do it, that makes refunds even more unlikely.
Proposing that they refund money would be realistic if they would at least agree to send out email - which I do believe will never happen.
So refunding money is fantasy, sending out emails is realistic but since they won’t do it, that makes refunds even more unlikely.
15 years ago I remember a colleague who'd bought a TV a month earlier get a refund for the difference from Amazon because the TV had recently come down in price. That's great service, don't get me wrong. I just don't think this sort of thing should be expected, particularly when it's not about a price drop you couldn't know about, and it's just not clicking an unsubscribe link.
What I propose is not the same scale.
Thing with returning tv would be more “I did not watch 10 days this month, reimburse these for me.”.
I don’t agree it should go this direction.
If someone did not even open list of movies for whole month or two that is a reasonable question to ask - should they get money back or at least a question via email if they really want any to keep the subscription.
Thing with returning tv would be more “I did not watch 10 days this month, reimburse these for me.”.
I don’t agree it should go this direction.
If someone did not even open list of movies for whole month or two that is a reasonable question to ask - should they get money back or at least a question via email if they really want any to keep the subscription.
It's pretty **** easy to infer that a customer wants to save money when possible
That businesses and advocates play dumb when it comes to this basic fact is no longer astonishing to me, sadly
That businesses and advocates play dumb when it comes to this basic fact is no longer astonishing to me, sadly
They're not playing dumb, just as a magazine subscription isn't playing dumb by not phoning you up to see if you want every magazine. If you sign up to a subscription, you are saying you want it until it's cancelled. If you just want them one at a time, go buy each one in a shop.
A magazine subscription is entirely different. With online services the company can trivially monitor your usage (and likely already do to sell your data / make UX decisions)
If you use 480 hours of Netflix per month it costs the same as 10 minutes per month. S3 does not allow you to multiply your usage by 3000x with the same charge.
Gym memberships operate the same way. Planet fitness could not operate if all paying members showed up at once. This freeloading behavior that is built into the pricing model is very similar to advertising, philosophically speaking.
Gym memberships operate the same way. Planet fitness could not operate if all paying members showed up at once. This freeloading behavior that is built into the pricing model is very similar to advertising, philosophically speaking.
The deal they offer is basically unmetered use for subscribers. Why arbitrarily pick 0 for the metering unit? If I watch half as much TV as the average user, why don’t I get a discount?
This would invariably be followed up with a price increase if any meaningful number of customers have months with no use.
The company would have to cover the costs, likely split between some expected decrease in churn and the rest in a price increase.
If the service is willing to afford eating that cost today, why wouldn't they do a price decrease across the board? Surely they'd rather help those who most use their service rather than the minority that pays but doesn't use it.
The company would have to cover the costs, likely split between some expected decrease in churn and the rest in a price increase.
If the service is willing to afford eating that cost today, why wouldn't they do a price decrease across the board? Surely they'd rather help those who most use their service rather than the minority that pays but doesn't use it.
this is exactly what Slack does (or did, I don't know if they still do). they only charge you for employees that have used slack during the month. though I don't know what "use" entails.
Yeah, that was great, wasn’t it? Slack was bought by Salesforce so they now do the standard enterprise pricing, annual contracts with user counts and “true-ups” (never “true-downs”).
Use means account is in an "active" state, so no, not really what parent is talking about.
>This line of reasoning reminds me of the petulant discussion revolving around overdraft fees... as-if it's difficult to spend 3 seconds tapping a button in your banking app.
Not sure which discussions you call "petulant" but banks high-to-low ordering payments is predatory against people who lack liquidity. (Simple example: if you have $500 in your account, and the following transactions happen in sequence in a day: a +$200 deposit and a -$600 rent deduction, some banks will specifically override chronological order and process -$600 first so that you get an overdraft charge, despite having positive balance all the way when processing chronologically.) This is might not be a common problem for a lot of users of this website (though see a sibling comment re: ADHD), but the problem is real, not "petulance". https://www.nber.org/digest/202103/bank-ordering-debit-charg...
Of course this only happens to you and me, whereas banks can and do use daylight overdraft and can easily go billions in overdraft: https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/psr_dlod.htm (There is a 50 basis points charge for uncollateralized overdrafts (and none for collaterized) but that is less meaningful in relative terms than $30 charge for people in above scenarios.)
Not sure which discussions you call "petulant" but banks high-to-low ordering payments is predatory against people who lack liquidity. (Simple example: if you have $500 in your account, and the following transactions happen in sequence in a day: a +$200 deposit and a -$600 rent deduction, some banks will specifically override chronological order and process -$600 first so that you get an overdraft charge, despite having positive balance all the way when processing chronologically.) This is might not be a common problem for a lot of users of this website (though see a sibling comment re: ADHD), but the problem is real, not "petulance". https://www.nber.org/digest/202103/bank-ordering-debit-charg...
Of course this only happens to you and me, whereas banks can and do use daylight overdraft and can easily go billions in overdraft: https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/psr_dlod.htm (There is a 50 basis points charge for uncollateralized overdrafts (and none for collaterized) but that is less meaningful in relative terms than $30 charge for people in above scenarios.)
> Not sure which discussions you call "petulant" but banks high-to-low ordering payments is predatory against people who lack liquidity.
Indeed, and as the article also mentions, banks will intentionally maximize the number of overdraft fees by reordering transactions in a way that causes most pain. This should not be legal.
Indeed, and as the article also mentions, banks will intentionally maximize the number of overdraft fees by reordering transactions in a way that causes most pain. This should not be legal.
I have heard of this, but was always unsure if it happened in real life. An account with $100 in it has 7 checks against it come in the same day (six for $15 each, and one for $90). If they processed all the smaller ones first only the larger check would incur the overdraft fee. But if they processed the largest one first, all the smaller ones would trigger a separate fee.
Surely it's unethical to take advantage of people, even the irresponsible ones? There's a significant minority of people out there who struggle with this kind of thing because of circumstances beyond their control. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were saying "they deserve it".
It's not "personal responsibility" or "ethical business". It's both.
It's not "personal responsibility" or "ethical business". It's both.
But charging a subscription you signed up for isn't taking advantage of you.
Are there really people who struggle with not canceling subscriptions? It's genuinely hard for me to see how that's not a choice.
I could understand if we're talking about something like gambling addiction, where there's a compulsion.
But there's no addiction here. There's no scam. There's no taking advantage of children.
There's literally nothing but asking adults to be aware of their finances and to cancel subscriptions they don't want to pay for any longer. It's the absolute lowest bar I can possibly think of in terms of basic financial skills.
Are there really people who struggle with not canceling subscriptions? It's genuinely hard for me to see how that's not a choice.
I could understand if we're talking about something like gambling addiction, where there's a compulsion.
But there's no addiction here. There's no scam. There's no taking advantage of children.
There's literally nothing but asking adults to be aware of their finances and to cancel subscriptions they don't want to pay for any longer. It's the absolute lowest bar I can possibly think of in terms of basic financial skills.
Knowingly optimizing your business to maximize my chances of forgetting, or making it difficult to unsubscribe, is absolutely unethical.
Difficulty in unsubscribing sure, but that's a totally separate issue. That has nothing to do with not being aware of your subscriptions.
But otherwise, what are businesses doing to "maximize your chance of forgetting"? That's not a thing. That's not something they have control over or can maximize. For monthly subscriptions, you see it every month on your credit card. For yearly subscriptions, companies generally send a notice a ~week before, reminding you that you'll be charged, and then you get a receipt emailed.
That seems entirely reasonable to me. The rest is called personal responsibility. When you sign up for a subscription, you know full well what you're doing. You know it will continue until you cancel. There's absolutely nothing unethical about it being your responsibility to cancel.
But otherwise, what are businesses doing to "maximize your chance of forgetting"? That's not a thing. That's not something they have control over or can maximize. For monthly subscriptions, you see it every month on your credit card. For yearly subscriptions, companies generally send a notice a ~week before, reminding you that you'll be charged, and then you get a receipt emailed.
That seems entirely reasonable to me. The rest is called personal responsibility. When you sign up for a subscription, you know full well what you're doing. You know it will continue until you cancel. There's absolutely nothing unethical about it being your responsibility to cancel.
The premise of this discussion is that another HN user has observed that companies routinely rely on people forgetting to unsubscribe. Again, the idea is that this is part of the core business model.
As I've already mentioned, we agree that personal responsibility is important. I believe we can also agree that some people are unable to be fully responsible for reasons that escape them (depression, severe ADHD, other more pressing responsibilities like children who aren't doing well, etc.)
I think it takes a special kind of misanthropy to suggest that it's fine for companies to base their business model on the fact that such people will pay for a service they aren't using. I am not arguing for legislature or anything of the sort, but I still think it's unambiguously unethical.
It is, in the most literal sense, exploitative.
As I've already mentioned, we agree that personal responsibility is important. I believe we can also agree that some people are unable to be fully responsible for reasons that escape them (depression, severe ADHD, other more pressing responsibilities like children who aren't doing well, etc.)
I think it takes a special kind of misanthropy to suggest that it's fine for companies to base their business model on the fact that such people will pay for a service they aren't using. I am not arguing for legislature or anything of the sort, but I still think it's unambiguously unethical.
It is, in the most literal sense, exploitative.
> People need to have personal responsibility.
Do people need to have personal responsibility when they operate a business? Why is responsibility any less there?
I think it's irresponsible to exploit other people's mistakes (unless they are a competing business, and not always then either). It happens incidentally sometimes at minimal cost, but at high cost or when it can be avoided, it's the businessperson's responsibility to not do it.
Every one makes mistakes; you too. Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass ...
Do people need to have personal responsibility when they operate a business? Why is responsibility any less there?
I think it's irresponsible to exploit other people's mistakes (unless they are a competing business, and not always then either). It happens incidentally sometimes at minimal cost, but at high cost or when it can be avoided, it's the businessperson's responsibility to not do it.
Every one makes mistakes; you too. Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass ...
> Why is responsibility any less there?
It's not. They should be ensuring the service being paid for is available. That's their responsibility.
It's not. They should be ensuring the service being paid for is available. That's their responsibility.
You really think it's responsible to knowingly take people's money for nothing? I think that's textbook irresponsibility - it's an assertion of irresponsibility as ok.
Well, you'd have to put work in to know. If I get a physical magazine subscription, the magazine doesn't know if I read it, unless they put in the work to phone me and ask. They aren't being irresponsible at all.
That's a strawman. It is indeed hard for a magazine to know.
It's trivial for someone like Netflix to know, and they probably already track it.
It's trivial for someone like Netflix to know, and they probably already track it.
The responsibility shouldn't change just because it's easier. Should businesses track you (whether that's easy or difficult) and auto-unsubscribe you, or should you decide when to cancel?
If it shouldn't change because it's easier, why did you make a point about it requiring work? Just admit your argument made no sense, instead of pretending your argument was just an irrelevant aside.
It does matter that it's easier. In fact it can be automated. If a user is inactive for 30 days, the subscription could be disabled and automatically reenabled if and when they decide to use it. You wanna argue that would be a lot of work to implement?
And yes, I think this would be reasonable for someone like Netflix, and unreasonable for a paper magazine. What's so hard to understand about that? they're just not comparable.
It does matter that it's easier. In fact it can be automated. If a user is inactive for 30 days, the subscription could be disabled and automatically reenabled if and when they decide to use it. You wanna argue that would be a lot of work to implement?
And yes, I think this would be reasonable for someone like Netflix, and unreasonable for a paper magazine. What's so hard to understand about that? they're just not comparable.
> why did you make a point about it requiring work?
Because a previous comment said it wouldn't require work. Now you also are saying they'd need to implement it. So we agree it needs work.
> Just admit your argument made no sense
Framing this as "admit" might make it seem like a fait accomplis, but I need a higher bar than that to be persuaded. Biased language only fools very basic readers.
> they're just not comparable.
Why not?
Because a previous comment said it wouldn't require work. Now you also are saying they'd need to implement it. So we agree it needs work.
> Just admit your argument made no sense
Framing this as "admit" might make it seem like a fait accomplis, but I need a higher bar than that to be persuaded. Biased language only fools very basic readers.
> they're just not comparable.
Why not?
Sigh. If you're not capable of admitting when you're wrong I feel bad for you. There's no shame in it you know. I'm wrong about stuff frequently, but at least I'll happily admit it.
Life is too short to waste energy clinging onto bad arguments simply out of spite or poor self-esteem. Embrace cummingham's law.
Have a good life.
Life is too short to waste energy clinging onto bad arguments simply out of spite or poor self-esteem. Embrace cummingham's law.
Have a good life.
Your sighing, nonspecific berating of me that I'm wrong, and assuming I must be spiteful or have poor self esteem are all nonsense, I'm afraid. Make an argument, and stop the ad hominem.
I believe your use case is not impacted by the changes proposed in this thread.
Additionally, hard disagree on your conclusions since it's not about being responsible or not; it's about the process of cancelling subscriptions being convoluted, unfriendly and filled with dark patterns.
Here's an alternate proposition: what if you could quickly and easily cancel any unwanted subscriptions directly through your banking app? Right there next to your expenses statements? What if we took it even further such that you could not only cancel right there but even request a refund for unused billing periods?
And taking it to an absurd extreme: what if you suddenly went into a coma and woke up 50 years later to a large bill from a subscription service you didn't use all this time? Was it a lack of personal responsibility?
Additionally, hard disagree on your conclusions since it's not about being responsible or not; it's about the process of cancelling subscriptions being convoluted, unfriendly and filled with dark patterns.
Here's an alternate proposition: what if you could quickly and easily cancel any unwanted subscriptions directly through your banking app? Right there next to your expenses statements? What if we took it even further such that you could not only cancel right there but even request a refund for unused billing periods?
And taking it to an absurd extreme: what if you suddenly went into a coma and woke up 50 years later to a large bill from a subscription service you didn't use all this time? Was it a lack of personal responsibility?
As someone with ADHD, that's a lot to ask. However, in my opinion what we really need is a common standard for banks to handle recurring payments for subscriptions. Asking me to review every single thing on every account is a ton to ask, but it would be a lot more manageable if recurring stuff had its own section and that I could cancel stuff from my bank app directly.
Sure there are a lot of complexities, but it's not that horrendous as someone who literally worked on recurring payments for a bank. You just simplify things by making it a pull system. A recurring payment is just authorization from the bank to withdraw up to X dollars every Y days/months/year (you want a design like this to avoid dealing with holidays and weekends on the bank side which vary for every country).
Sure there are a lot of complexities, but it's not that horrendous as someone who literally worked on recurring payments for a bank. You just simplify things by making it a pull system. A recurring payment is just authorization from the bank to withdraw up to X dollars every Y days/months/year (you want a design like this to avoid dealing with holidays and weekends on the bank side which vary for every country).
Go into your banking/credit card app and enable purchase notifications. Now, every time your card is charged, you get a notification directly on your phone.
Don't recognize the charge? Deal with it immediately. Get a charge for something you need to cancel? Deal with it immediately.
ADHD is not an excuse to hold zero personal responsibility. Find a way to manage your life that works for you. You're not the only person with ADHD... don't let it be a crutch for mismanaging/neglecting your life.
Don't recognize the charge? Deal with it immediately. Get a charge for something you need to cancel? Deal with it immediately.
ADHD is not an excuse to hold zero personal responsibility. Find a way to manage your life that works for you. You're not the only person with ADHD... don't let it be a crutch for mismanaging/neglecting your life.
>I routinely go months in between using some of my various subscriptions - be it Netflix, Hulu, Audible, etc. I would be very upset if they cancelled on me... I maintain the subscriptions because I can afford to do so.
I also can afford to do that but if that isn’t throwing money away I don’t know what is. I only consistently pay subscriptions that I consistently use. I feel like resubscribing is pretty easy and painless also, so not sure why you’d pay for something you know you don’t use consistently?
I also can afford to do that but if that isn’t throwing money away I don’t know what is. I only consistently pay subscriptions that I consistently use. I feel like resubscribing is pretty easy and painless also, so not sure why you’d pay for something you know you don’t use consistently?
I expect you to take personal responsibility for your belongings while you're at the office and someone wants to rob your house
Don't expect the police to track the guy down
Don't expect the police to track the guy down
It should be reasonable to give customers the choice to opt into a setting that auto-cancels if they do not use the service.
[deleted]
> I enjoy the convenience of having it available when I want it
So why not also enjoy the convenience of only paying for what you actually use?
So why not also enjoy the convenience of only paying for what you actually use?
You can advocate for more personal responsibility and also advocate for businesses to behave in the interests of individual human beings. They're not mutually exclusive. Just because I don't want a business to extort every last cent from me they can doesn't mean I want to absolve myself of all responsibility to everything ever.
> Review your bank/credit accounts
I mean, shouldn't it be your responsibility to know exactly how much money you've made and spent? Why should a bank provide this information for you? Does this not serve as yet another lessening of personal accountability (pun *absolutely* intended)?
> Review your bank/credit accounts
I mean, shouldn't it be your responsibility to know exactly how much money you've made and spent? Why should a bank provide this information for you? Does this not serve as yet another lessening of personal accountability (pun *absolutely* intended)?
Long ago I used to be a regular customer at a massage therapists office and paid dues into their sort of "subscription service" program. They charged a monthly fee about equal to a 1 hour massage, but would give a substantial discount when you actually get massages -- it broke even after about 2x per month which worked well enough for me.
The incredible part was that they tracked whether you got a massage that month. If not, you'd get a 1/3rd credit for a free massage. And after 3 months of no use they would stop billing the monthly fee until you return (and collect your free massage). It was, to me, unbelievably consumer-friendly and reflected well on the business. I recommended everyone I could, and they deserved it.
Unfortunately the place shut down shortly after I moved away.
The incredible part was that they tracked whether you got a massage that month. If not, you'd get a 1/3rd credit for a free massage. And after 3 months of no use they would stop billing the monthly fee until you return (and collect your free massage). It was, to me, unbelievably consumer-friendly and reflected well on the business. I recommended everyone I could, and they deserved it.
Unfortunately the place shut down shortly after I moved away.
I suppose the cynic would argue that if they didn't have this billing practice, they may have survived. Which the other cynic would say is the problem, are businesses being too subsidized by unethical billing?
Or would have created negative backlash with initial clients while still open, accelerating its demise?
Let’s chuck this one on the bin of “who knows? Who cares?” Mistery Bin.
Let’s chuck this one on the bin of “who knows? Who cares?” Mistery Bin.
We also don't know that it closed because it failed. Small businesses like that can end up closing just because the owner moves away or something like that, if the owner is highly involved in operating the place.
I’m highly suspicious that the whole 90% of restaurants fail thing is largely because small business owners don’t know how to manage their finances and maintain adequate buffers for lean months. I expect even the highest revenue places to just fall over suddenly because of it
do you have any proof for this? this is up the alley of something I'm building
> Unfortunately the place shut down shortly after I moved away.
Clearly you were their most important customer, eh?
Clearly you were their most important customer, eh?
I worked once for a company who internally decided to never contact paying accounts that hadn't logged in in over a year. This isn't a gym membership, this is 5 digit yearly payments.
The reasoning? "We don't want them to realize they're paying us for a service they don't use and cancel."
I guess I see the point, but feels unethical.
The reasoning? "We don't want them to realize they're paying us for a service they don't use and cancel."
I guess I see the point, but feels unethical.
The next step should be to transform "unethical" into "illegal", except enormous business entities rely on subscription revenue.
Otherwise it's a very well know effect. There will be unsubscription peaks every time the service communicates with thei customers, even purely informative stuff like "we now have a dark mode" emails will remind people they've a subscription and some will cancel, that's part of the business and something that affects communication frequency in subtle and obvious ways.
Otherwise it's a very well know effect. There will be unsubscription peaks every time the service communicates with thei customers, even purely informative stuff like "we now have a dark mode" emails will remind people they've a subscription and some will cancel, that's part of the business and something that affects communication frequency in subtle and obvious ways.
When I was a teen I worked for a credit card company doing outbound balance transfer sales, it was awful. But the day I put in my two weeks was when my sup pulled a call of mine to review and asked me what I had done wrong.
In it, a very very old woman who never used her card anymore, hadn't had a balance in some time, barely remembered she had it, was not interested in the balance transfer. My requirement in addition to the balance transfer was to also offer the product that came up for the account. The product was an account protection that basically froze your payments if you were unable to make them.
She asked if I thought that was something she really needed, I said no, you don't run a balance so it'd likely not be worthwhile if she planned to continue not using it. The sups issue with the call was that I said she didn't need the product. He wanted me to swindle that lady.
I didn't walk out or anything I just said this is my 2 weeks this isn't for me. Anyway, at some point people make these things okay, we can stop it.
In it, a very very old woman who never used her card anymore, hadn't had a balance in some time, barely remembered she had it, was not interested in the balance transfer. My requirement in addition to the balance transfer was to also offer the product that came up for the account. The product was an account protection that basically froze your payments if you were unable to make them.
She asked if I thought that was something she really needed, I said no, you don't run a balance so it'd likely not be worthwhile if she planned to continue not using it. The sups issue with the call was that I said she didn't need the product. He wanted me to swindle that lady.
I didn't walk out or anything I just said this is my 2 weeks this isn't for me. Anyway, at some point people make these things okay, we can stop it.
That's not fair.
A business has to plan for the future. That means investments in capital and labor. These users have the right of their contract to resume using the service at a moment's notice, which the business is honoring by keeping the server capacity available, generating content, having support staff at the ready, etc.
A business has to plan for the future. That means investments in capital and labor. These users have the right of their contract to resume using the service at a moment's notice, which the business is honoring by keeping the server capacity available, generating content, having support staff at the ready, etc.
[deleted]
In the elderly neighbor and shovel example, I don't see what's wrong, as long as it was communicated. It depends on the agreement really - for example, if the shovel guy was charging a little less for subscription than what it would otherwise cost the elderly in a regular year of snow. The elderly is getting the benefit of always having a shoveler ready and available, and the shoveler is getting the benefit of more predictable income.
I am as frustrated about everything turning into a subscription as the next person, but the solution is not to put the onus of cancellation on businesses. It is to prevent monopolies (so that there is a true free market) and dark patterns (i.e, cancellation should be easy and terms should be very clear when subscribing).
I am as frustrated about everything turning into a subscription as the next person, but the solution is not to put the onus of cancellation on businesses. It is to prevent monopolies (so that there is a true free market) and dark patterns (i.e, cancellation should be easy and terms should be very clear when subscribing).
> ready and available
This is key. I've had software contacts where I was on retainer to provide service if needed. I wasn't needed, and got paid just for making myself available.
The shovel person's availability is reduced, they can't take another job that conflicts with this contract. They needed to buy a shovel, stock salt, maintain their car, etc. This seems like a pretty normal service retainer.
This is key. I've had software contacts where I was on retainer to provide service if needed. I wasn't needed, and got paid just for making myself available.
The shovel person's availability is reduced, they can't take another job that conflicts with this contract. They needed to buy a shovel, stock salt, maintain their car, etc. This seems like a pretty normal service retainer.
I only blame businesses when they make it hard to cancel a subscription. Here’s a couple from my list: Adobe and Audible. The latter cause they don’t let you keep your “credits” if you cancel.
> If you took monthly payment from your elderly neighbor to shovel their walk and it never snowed, it would be shameful to keep taking it - people's opinions of you would change negatively if they heard about it.
Except the neighbour did buy something. You being available to shovel their driveway. You having the equipment to shovel their driveway.
Which is why you pay for snow removal services even in months without snow.
Except the neighbour did buy something. You being available to shovel their driveway. You having the equipment to shovel their driveway.
Which is why you pay for snow removal services even in months without snow.
I believe this is implemented in Russia: I did not check that but when I sign up for some streaming service, after some time they start begging me to watch something and then stop charging me. I guess they may only charge on the months when I've showed up. They may resume it immediately when I come back, though.
Myself would like to know how that works in detail.
Myself would like to know how that works in detail.
Aren't they just providing access to their service? Different companies provide different billing methods and that's fine!
For example you could pay $20/month for ChatGPT and use it as much or little as you like, or pay $/per API call... But not every company needs to offer both.
For example you could pay $20/month for ChatGPT and use it as much or little as you like, or pay $/per API call... But not every company needs to offer both.
Yes, sometimes you purchase capacity to be able to use something. The provider has to reserve that capacity.
Usually capacity is allocated based on past usage, either by the individual or by some group. It depends on what they are selling, of course.
But an easy way to relieve that capacity problem is to stop fleecing people for something they forgot to cancel.
But an easy way to relieve that capacity problem is to stop fleecing people for something they forgot to cancel.
The way I see it, if they can register if you're using it, then after a year of disuse (or getting close to it) they should send a "we will cancel this for you" type notices.
If it's business to business, that's more on both sides.
If it's business to business, that's more on both sides.
Interested in filing public comments on this if the FTC asks for them?
This is what Credit Cards do. They're shady AF but have no problem cancelling your card due to inactivity.
A subscription service is an agreement between a consumer and a business, where the consumer agrees to provide money in exchange for access to some service. That service might be something that they regularly receive, e.g. meal kits, or it might be something that they can choose to access, e.g. Spotify. In the former case, where there is a definite agreement that some item will be delivered, I agree with you; not providing that is fraudulent. It looks like you're talking about the latter case, though, and I starkly disagree there.
First, it is not the responsibility of the business to ensure people use the product that the business sold them. Why should it be? This standard doesn't exist for companies providing physical products. Someone could order a meal kit subscription, and after receiving the food every week, they could choose to throw it straight in the trash. The company shouldn't offer someone a refund because they chose to throw away the food they sent. The same principle applies for digital subscriptions - the subscriber is choosing to throw away access to whatever service the business provides.
Second, I think it's worth pointing out that the principle underlying your argument, that it is the responsibility of the payee to ensure the payer gets what they pay for, logically contradicts salaried or waged work. The principle you've implied is consistent with all services being paid for piecemeal, since if nothing is produced, nothing was received. This implies cashiers should be paid per transaction, chefs should be paid per meal, baristas should be paid per cup, etc. Maybe you do think that - I can't possibly know. However, I doubt you would support a minimum-wage worker having to return a day's pay to their employer if no customers showed up that day. I think that's silly, because in the absence of active demand, the employee is still providing a service: their presence, and thus the ability to fulfill transactions if requested.
I also think what you're saying not only absolves consumers of their responsibility, but also strips from them any agency in the matter. This is not a problem requiring collective action, like climate change. This is a problem where the individual's actions are 100% capable of resolving it. In a world where lots of issues are out of the individual's control, why not empower people to control what they can? Cancelling unwanted subscriptions is a simple and effective way to avoid unwanted subscription fees, and is available to every subscription-holder. Arguing that businesses should resolve, to their own detriment, a problem that consumers create, and can easily resolve, doesn't make any sense to me.
First, it is not the responsibility of the business to ensure people use the product that the business sold them. Why should it be? This standard doesn't exist for companies providing physical products. Someone could order a meal kit subscription, and after receiving the food every week, they could choose to throw it straight in the trash. The company shouldn't offer someone a refund because they chose to throw away the food they sent. The same principle applies for digital subscriptions - the subscriber is choosing to throw away access to whatever service the business provides.
Second, I think it's worth pointing out that the principle underlying your argument, that it is the responsibility of the payee to ensure the payer gets what they pay for, logically contradicts salaried or waged work. The principle you've implied is consistent with all services being paid for piecemeal, since if nothing is produced, nothing was received. This implies cashiers should be paid per transaction, chefs should be paid per meal, baristas should be paid per cup, etc. Maybe you do think that - I can't possibly know. However, I doubt you would support a minimum-wage worker having to return a day's pay to their employer if no customers showed up that day. I think that's silly, because in the absence of active demand, the employee is still providing a service: their presence, and thus the ability to fulfill transactions if requested.
I also think what you're saying not only absolves consumers of their responsibility, but also strips from them any agency in the matter. This is not a problem requiring collective action, like climate change. This is a problem where the individual's actions are 100% capable of resolving it. In a world where lots of issues are out of the individual's control, why not empower people to control what they can? Cancelling unwanted subscriptions is a simple and effective way to avoid unwanted subscription fees, and is available to every subscription-holder. Arguing that businesses should resolve, to their own detriment, a problem that consumers create, and can easily resolve, doesn't make any sense to me.
It might be profitable to offer terms where billing was related to use instead of canceling or not. Like I'd be more inclined to have an account with more services if they cost less (over time) and required less attention. Maybe there are lots of people like me. Note that I do currently engage in the responsibility that you speak of, by avoiding subscriptions.
Internet and phone services are subscription based and going "pay what you use" would probably not go too well
You can get pay go phone contracts. They charge more on a per unit basis than unmetered of course.
And then we are talking about video services mostly here. In a perfect world, we'd have on demand streaming on a per piece of content basis that cost about what they can generate from showing ads on that content. A few cents for an episode of whatever.
And then we are talking about video services mostly here. In a perfect world, we'd have on demand streaming on a per piece of content basis that cost about what they can generate from showing ads on that content. A few cents for an episode of whatever.
Taken to a logical extreme, it might mean all that. That discussion is interesting philosophically (I mean that sincerely), but in this case I'm just speaking practically, and in that context it's easy to see the solutions IMHO.
This is one thing slack does right, if an account doesn’t post for a month you don’t get charges for it
It should be illegal to charge someone for a month of a service that they did not use.
It's trivially easy to see that someone doesn't log in. Then you just pause their subscription after refunding that month. Next time they log in, you can prompt them to resubscribe with one click.
It's trivially easy to see that someone doesn't log in. Then you just pause their subscription after refunding that month. Next time they log in, you can prompt them to resubscribe with one click.
Gyms everywhere would go belly-up!
And neighborhood gym memberships would be well north of $100/month. No one in these discussions considers second order effects.
Why should it be illegal?
Because accurately pricing sales around intended purchases makes the economy better
And it's more efficient for a company managing subscriptions to automate accurate pricing the right way than it is for each and every customer to sift through their payment history for anomalies
And it's more efficient for a company managing subscriptions to automate accurate pricing the right way than it is for each and every customer to sift through their payment history for anomalies
So what is the solution? A law that requires services to cancel auto-pay after a month (or so) of inactivity? Or at least requires them to provide an option or setting so that users can have this behavior as desired?
Its the workout gym model of the 90s.
They would regularly sign up more people than the gym could hold, but most people might go to the gym once a month or once every 3 months.
They would regularly sign up more people than the gym could hold, but most people might go to the gym once a month or once every 3 months.
Sounds just like gyms!
lazide(2)
What would you want business to do ? See that customer is not active then go ahead and remove their subscription?? Lmao then you will have customers asking why did you stop my account. Clearly you have not faced customers before.
OP doesn't say remove subscription, just charge $0 for months where users don't use the service.
And charge more than agreed bill if you use more ? This is not how pricing work
Why not send a message reminding them of the service, and giving an easy one-click way of cancelling? You could include some info on how they can use your service as well of course.
Imagine someone walked by your house every month and dropped a $5 bill on your lawn. The 1st of every month ... there it was.
Would you put up a sign reminding them to stop stop dropping $5 bills?
Would you put up a sign reminding them to stop stop dropping $5 bills?
No, which is why I think the government should force companies remind people they took out subscriptions, and make it easy to cancel them.
[deleted]
Talking about Netflix specifically: if I don't log in and watch something for a week they will start spamming me with emails like: "Here's a show we think you'd like", "Continue watching show X", "New season of show Y is coming to Netflix next Tuesday".
They really seem hell-bent of making me watch something, just in case I was considering cancelling my subscription.
They really seem hell-bent of making me watch something, just in case I was considering cancelling my subscription.
> which take money for services they don't deliver
They are delivering a service.
> This particular behavior is little better than taking money and simply refusing to provide service
No it's not.
> No matter how awful or shameful, people say 'it's business' and those magic words absolve every evil
No, they don't.
They are delivering a service.
> This particular behavior is little better than taking money and simply refusing to provide service
No it's not.
> No matter how awful or shameful, people say 'it's business' and those magic words absolve every evil
No, they don't.
I see that you disagree with the parent comment.
I would like to know why.
Could you provide some details as well?
Not the op, but, if you pay me $5/month for a VPS, and you never do anything but let it sit idle because you forgot about it, and you don’t notice that you’re still paying me $5 / month… how exactly does that make me evil?
Because you are taking money for nothing? How is that the right thing to do?
> evil
A bit of a strawperson
> evil
A bit of a strawperson
How do you know its doing nothing? I have a couple VPSes I have sitting idle for my disaster recovery scenario.
Yes, it depends on the situation - the service, what the vendor knows about usage, etc. Sometimes you know, sometimes you don't.
It is quite concerning that this comment is so high up.
It is lazy, doesn't provide any additional explanation for their reasoning. It is useless and basically just says "no".
It is lazy, doesn't provide any additional explanation for their reasoning. It is useless and basically just says "no".
Perhaps, but all I'm doing is reversing the equally unjustified claims in the parent. Ironically they've lamented unjustified claims in the sibling comment to this one, but their post is chock full of them.
How are you supposed to know that they're unjustified when the (at that time) top comment is just "no"? Are you supposed to accept the superiority of some anonymous commenter, or is the fact that they just "need to" post "no" and therefore show that their opinion must be superior?
I was that commenter who said no. I was replying to equally unjustified assertions. Just because my reply was shorter, does mean it contained fewer justifications.
No.
It's pretty common on the Internet and on HN too, and in public debate. Aggressive, confident assertions deny others the power to disagree.
Contempt and shame - super-popular rhetoric these days - achieve the same thing, and they are related (both kinds of rhetoric are an aggressive display of arrogance). They assert, implicitly, that there's no way to debate this person.
Anger is another similar tactic.
Then if you don't understand that it's tactical, you give up. So far, to my amazement, very few people seem to understand it; almost all take it at face value.
Contempt and shame - super-popular rhetoric these days - achieve the same thing, and they are related (both kinds of rhetoric are an aggressive display of arrogance). They assert, implicitly, that there's no way to debate this person.
Anger is another similar tactic.
Then if you don't understand that it's tactical, you give up. So far, to my amazement, very few people seem to understand it; almost all take it at face value.
> Their average response was $62. When they were given more time to guess again, they increased their estimate to $96. They were still way off. The correct answer was $273.
I have been in rooms at SaaS companies where the fact that people forget to cancel the subscription was described as an important benefit of the subscription model, and a reason to set the price at something easily overlooked.
People are terrible at estimating or keeping track of their subscriptions, myself included. A couple years ago I painstakingly audited all my recurring subscriptions. Painstaking because I had to go through all my bank and credit account statements for a year looking for the services that billed yearly or semi-yearly rather than monthly. I had also drastically underestimated what they cost me, by about a factor of two in my case. I think of myself as being very frugal about this kind of thing, so it was a surprise.
But then I was able to save myself almost $1000 a year just by eliminating some unused subscriptions I had sort of forgotten. Not forgotten entirely, but services I sort of failed to think about as costs, because the monthly spend for them individually was so low. But once I thought about them as a yearly cost, and then about the total yearly cost for all these little services, that successfully (and more accurately) reframed the situation.
I didn't find unsubscribing or cancelling to be particular onerous. I do use Privacy.com now, which would make it both easier to track and theoretically easier to cancel. Ironically, Privacy.com is a monthly subscription (at the tier I use) but it is definitely worth it.
I told people about the $1000 a year "raise" I got by just trimming dead weight. I told them they should do the same exercise—make a spreadsheet, have a column that multiplies the monthly fee by 12, and think about it as a yearly cost instead—and they were all, uniformly, without exception certain that they already knew what they spent, and it wasn't really very much.
My advice: do the exercise anyway, it is worth it.
I have been in rooms at SaaS companies where the fact that people forget to cancel the subscription was described as an important benefit of the subscription model, and a reason to set the price at something easily overlooked.
People are terrible at estimating or keeping track of their subscriptions, myself included. A couple years ago I painstakingly audited all my recurring subscriptions. Painstaking because I had to go through all my bank and credit account statements for a year looking for the services that billed yearly or semi-yearly rather than monthly. I had also drastically underestimated what they cost me, by about a factor of two in my case. I think of myself as being very frugal about this kind of thing, so it was a surprise.
But then I was able to save myself almost $1000 a year just by eliminating some unused subscriptions I had sort of forgotten. Not forgotten entirely, but services I sort of failed to think about as costs, because the monthly spend for them individually was so low. But once I thought about them as a yearly cost, and then about the total yearly cost for all these little services, that successfully (and more accurately) reframed the situation.
I didn't find unsubscribing or cancelling to be particular onerous. I do use Privacy.com now, which would make it both easier to track and theoretically easier to cancel. Ironically, Privacy.com is a monthly subscription (at the tier I use) but it is definitely worth it.
I told people about the $1000 a year "raise" I got by just trimming dead weight. I told them they should do the same exercise—make a spreadsheet, have a column that multiplies the monthly fee by 12, and think about it as a yearly cost instead—and they were all, uniformly, without exception certain that they already knew what they spent, and it wasn't really very much.
My advice: do the exercise anyway, it is worth it.
Gyms, cloud storage, restaurant buffets, insurance all follow this business model. If everyone paying into it actually expected to extract their entire money's worth of value the whole industry would collapse.
>Gyms, cloud storage, restaurant buffets, insurance all follow this business model.
I'm struggling to understand how you can lambaste people by saying "jUsT cAnCeL iT"[0] when you seem to be well aware of the business model of gyms, wherein cancelling a membership is widely-known to be a purposefully cumbersome and difficult experience.
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39059793
I'm struggling to understand how you can lambaste people by saying "jUsT cAnCeL iT"[0] when you seem to be well aware of the business model of gyms, wherein cancelling a membership is widely-known to be a purposefully cumbersome and difficult experience.
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39059793
That's misunderstanding the point, "this business model" doesn't mean hard-to-cancel. The comment specifically points to a model where customers with heavy usage are subsidizing customers with light usage (edit: I mixed it up, it's light users who subsidize heavy users). With maybe the exception of gyms which I've heard bad things about, cloud storage and buffets and insurance are usually not hard to cancel.
I completely understand the original point and also agree with it wholeheartedly, but you misunderstand the reason for my comment. The user I responded to made a separate comment elsewhere in this thread, and I highlighted their comment in this chain we're in as evidence that they should be well aware of why the point in their other comment doesn't always work out the way they would like.
The fundamental business model in this discussion is different, yes, but if you understand that business model then you're likely also well aware of the other side of their business around membership cancellations.
The fundamental business model in this discussion is different, yes, but if you understand that business model then you're likely also well aware of the other side of their business around membership cancellations.
I don't see the conflict between the two comments. You can lambaste people for not even trying to cancel a subscription they don't want while recognizing that many subscriptions depend on light users. Light users are not people who want to cancel their subscription but can't because of shenanigans, they're just light users. It's not "the other side of their business", you can have a heavy/light user model while not playing these shenanigans with customers.
>I don't see the conflict between the two comments.
There isn't. I haven't said that there is.
>You can lambaste people for not even trying to cancel a subscription they don't want while recognizing that many subscriptions depend on light users.
Yup. Never said one couldn't do that, either.
>Light users are not people who want to cancel their subscription but can't because of shenanigans, they're just light users. It's not "the other side of their business", you can have a heavy/light user model while not playing these shenanigans with customers.
Sure. Still not really what I'm getting at, though.
I simply pointed to their comment here as evidence that they understand how gym memberships work, thereby being aware of how convoluted many of them can be when it comes to canceling them, which stands counter to their comment elsewhere in the thread. It's that simple, and I don't know how to make myself any clearer at this point.
Feel like I'm just repeating myself now - not sure if it's a poor explanation on my part or others just aren't grokking it for reasons on their end, but I'll reevaluate and see how I can be clearer in the future.
There isn't. I haven't said that there is.
>You can lambaste people for not even trying to cancel a subscription they don't want while recognizing that many subscriptions depend on light users.
Yup. Never said one couldn't do that, either.
>Light users are not people who want to cancel their subscription but can't because of shenanigans, they're just light users. It's not "the other side of their business", you can have a heavy/light user model while not playing these shenanigans with customers.
Sure. Still not really what I'm getting at, though.
I simply pointed to their comment here as evidence that they understand how gym memberships work, thereby being aware of how convoluted many of them can be when it comes to canceling them, which stands counter to their comment elsewhere in the thread. It's that simple, and I don't know how to make myself any clearer at this point.
Feel like I'm just repeating myself now - not sure if it's a poor explanation on my part or others just aren't grokking it for reasons on their end, but I'll reevaluate and see how I can be clearer in the future.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I’ve moved a lot and have cancelled memberships at at least 10 gyms that I can remember. Some were easier than others, but none of them where prohibitively difficult to the point where it couldn’t be done.
The worst one, which was very unique, was when the gym had just change hands and I was looking to cancel on the guys first day and he didn’t want to lose anyone. We (me, him, and some other trainer who was his mentor) talked for probably 3 hours. From our talk, I was also a bit of a unique situation, and I don’t think they would have talked to other people for as long. I was also being nice, I could have just drew and hard line and walked out. He ended up giving me 3 months free and a few free training sessions… then I went back when that was running out and cancelled when he wasn’t there in about 3 minutes.
The second worse was maybe a 10 minute conversation (Lifetime). The others weren’t enough to remember. Some I cancelled by sending an email.
Even if you aren’t moving, just tell them you’re moving and there are no affiliated gyms nearby. It’s not like they are going to check. They can’t really argue with that.
The worst one, which was very unique, was when the gym had just change hands and I was looking to cancel on the guys first day and he didn’t want to lose anyone. We (me, him, and some other trainer who was his mentor) talked for probably 3 hours. From our talk, I was also a bit of a unique situation, and I don’t think they would have talked to other people for as long. I was also being nice, I could have just drew and hard line and walked out. He ended up giving me 3 months free and a few free training sessions… then I went back when that was running out and cancelled when he wasn’t there in about 3 minutes.
The second worse was maybe a 10 minute conversation (Lifetime). The others weren’t enough to remember. Some I cancelled by sending an email.
Even if you aren’t moving, just tell them you’re moving and there are no affiliated gyms nearby. It’s not like they are going to check. They can’t really argue with that.
> restaurant buffets
Buffets have monthly subcriptions?
Buffets have monthly subcriptions?
No, their entire model is based on the assumption that users could extract maximum value from the buffet (eating everything) but typically don't (have a normal- to large-sized meal, the supply cost of which is obviously far less than what the customer pays to get in). The parent commenter's point is that many businesses are run this way (eg. the gym is not equipped for 100% of subscribers to go to the gym every day, just as the buffet is not equipped for 100% of customers to eat a huge amount).
I was legitimately excited about this idea. If anyone wants to start a buffet with a monthly subscription, I may be your first customer.
A monthly subscription restaurant would be a true game changer.
I'm imagining going to a place where I sit and choose food without ever making price calculations, the restaurant also doesn't have to care about pushing drink orders or time spent at the table.
if the cost was low enough people would probably stop caring about optimizing and try to get their money's worth, while the restaurant would only need to focus on customer satisfaction to get renewals.
That must exist in some way, what is it ?
Edit: school restauration is that, and I genuinely think of it as a crucial system that helps so many kids. I could see company restaurants in the same light but the closed nature isn't great.
I'm imagining going to a place where I sit and choose food without ever making price calculations, the restaurant also doesn't have to care about pushing drink orders or time spent at the table.
if the cost was low enough people would probably stop caring about optimizing and try to get their money's worth, while the restaurant would only need to focus on customer satisfaction to get renewals.
That must exist in some way, what is it ?
Edit: school restauration is that, and I genuinely think of it as a crucial system that helps so many kids. I could see company restaurants in the same light but the closed nature isn't great.
I keep a spreadsheet with all my recurring payments. I do this so if a credit card expires or gets compromised, I have an easy list of places I need to change it. That spreadsheet also contains the cost of each thing (monthly and yearly). The columns are the company, what it’s for, the card/account it’s using, the monthly cost, and the yearly cost. It’s very useful to have. Everything is on there, from my property tax to domain registrations, and Netflix.
In my budget I allocate $100 for subscriptions and just look to stay under that. I found giving myself allowance to spend X amount made me chill out a little, so I wasn’t always trying to cut at all costs, since they are hard to avoid now. That budget item avoids the death by 1,000 cuts, while also letting me not sweat the small stuff.
In my budget I allocate $100 for subscriptions and just look to stay under that. I found giving myself allowance to spend X amount made me chill out a little, so I wasn’t always trying to cut at all costs, since they are hard to avoid now. That budget item avoids the death by 1,000 cuts, while also letting me not sweat the small stuff.
Yeah, was just going to say this is Planet Fitness' whole value prop .. Cheap enough that the lie you tell yourself that you will go more next month is easily worth $10 / month.
That's part of all Gym's model really. They gleefully under-provision their facilities, knowing that on a given day, almost nobody will show up relative to the number of people who will pay.
Most gyms, but not all. I went to a gym that gave the first session free, beat the hell out of you, then told you that you couldn’t sign up that day; you had to contact them the next day when you were good and sore to actually sign up. They also closed registration completely during January to avoid the new years people. They wanted people that would actually show up.
Planet fitness hasn't been $10 for a while now.
Their cheapest plan is something like $12.99 and with fees it's up to $18 or so. And that was 5 years ago.
Their cheapest plan is something like $12.99 and with fees it's up to $18 or so. And that was 5 years ago.
That still sounds dirt cheap for a gym. I workout at home or outdoors these days, but my last gym membership (24 Hour Fitness) was $25/month, 5 years ago, and the folks at the front desk were amazed I had that rate.
Aside, is Planet Fitness still unfriendly to people that push themselves during workouts? I'm no bodybuilder and never will be (my little-girl wrists made that decision) but the idea of a "lunk alarm" was rather off-putting.
Aside, is Planet Fitness still unfriendly to people that push themselves during workouts? I'm no bodybuilder and never will be (my little-girl wrists made that decision) but the idea of a "lunk alarm" was rather off-putting.
It's $10 a month in my town. But that doesn't include the once a year fee of around $50.. so technically you're correct but I assume you weren't counting that since long ago that yearly fee existed too when it was $10 a month as you remember.
I see $10 on the random location I clicked on: https://www.planetfitness.com/gyms/oakland-ca/offers
mine is literally 10.99 a month and something like $20 annual fee once a year. I lift late so it works out well for me, but I realize that's not true for everyone.
How do people not check their credit card statements every month against their receipts? That’s insane to me.
I just cancel my debit card instead. It’s quicker, and then when I have to add my card to sending that needs it again I have a much deeper understanding of where my money is going.
Canceling/reordering a credit or debit card is not guaranteed to actually end all subscriptions – some recurring payments can follow you across card reorders!
This is a "feature" of VISA, called Visa Account Updater [0]
[0]: https://developer.visa.com/capabilities/vau
[0]: https://developer.visa.com/capabilities/vau
I’ve never had that problem. Maybe it’s because I bank with USAA, and a lot of their tech is out dated.
"They recognized that getting a new card is one of the rare times you must actively renew your automatically renewing subscriptions, since you have to update the payment information on file with those companies."
This isn't true: I've had subscriptions roll over to the new credit card number - and not just for a month or two. Apparently the bank will continue to process them (I'd rather they didn't.)
This isn't true: I've had subscriptions roll over to the new credit card number - and not just for a month or two. Apparently the bank will continue to process them (I'd rather they didn't.)
Visa calls this "Visa Account Updater (VAU)" [1]. MC and AMEX have something similar.
[1] https://developer.visa.com/capabilities/vau/overview
[1] https://developer.visa.com/capabilities/vau/overview
It's easy to decide it's malicious, but after replacing a lost card that was on file for what must have been fifty different payments, I would rather they did.
Even incurred some chargeback fees in the process because I forgot to update a few vendors.
Even incurred some chargeback fees in the process because I forgot to update a few vendors.
Exactly. My cards have been getting replaced on average once a year, either due to expiry or some new security feature or whatever else. It would be a monumental pain to keep updating every online account, so I'm glad this feature exists.
There's apparently some kind of service that automatically updates payment processors when you get a new card. Seems kind of stupid since one of the main reasons to get a new card is that is compromised and you might just end up sending the new card info to the same company that lost it or is refusing to cancel your subscription.
presumably if you report a card lost/stolen, the bank will report that to these services
The bank will "helpfully" tell retail partners the new expiry date, and 3 digit code. It's to help you, supposedly.
I get the concern. At the same time, when my card was stolen last year, it was helpful to not have to update my billing info on 8,000 different vendor websites or risk having an account cancelled. I think tying a credit card to an account number versus an account as an entity is becoming somewhat antiquated.
It goes both ways, a couple years ago I had to deal with a scammer who the bank kept "helping" with each new card they issued me. It happened like 5 times before it stopped, nothing I could do.
You issue a chargeback. It's been a while since I've worked on these systems, but IIRC back in the day you would get a refund and they would be penalized an extra $25 or so on top of it. If they get too many they can loose their merchant account.
We always made cancels easy in our system, and if someone issued a chargeback we would ban their email from signing up again.
We always made cancels easy in our system, and if someone issued a chargeback we would ban their email from signing up again.
If you use the iOS app for Bank of America, there's a "dispute this transaction" button for every charge. If you click on that, you'll be informed that your card will be cancelled immediately for your own protection, and a new one issued. When what I want is to charge back to a vendor who never shipped and won't refund when contacted. You have to get on the phone, wait for half an hour, and then be very nice about the whole thing, while trying to avoid a card replacement, which is easy and safe for them and very hard for you.
I did, the charge back process wasn't the issue. Each time I would call, they would give me a new card and number, I'd go update everywhere. Then a few days later there would be a new fraud charge on the new card.
That's one of the reasons I enjoy using PayPal and Google Pay. Because my payment card details simply aren't on file with any vendors anymore. And I get a dashboard full of recurring payments where I can unilaterally cut anyone off. And I can modify which payment card they're using for each.
[deleted]
Missing a payment and having to pay a late fee or interruption to an important service seems bad in fairness.
Yes, miraculously my EZ-Pass bill is still being paid perfectly successfully even after two replacements for the *original* card expired since, and one was canceled due to theft. Magic!
That happens in case an existing card renews (or is replaced after getting lost etc.) If you get a net new card then retailers aren't getting that info.
[deleted]
I recently had my credit card stolen which is a great forcing function to audit subscriptions because you have to dig them all up to update the associated payment methods.
After combing through my credit card bills to identify all the recurring charges my conclusion was less that I have too many subscriptions but that cost creep is out of control on them.
Ex: I stopped paying attention to my storage unit monthly bill because it was on autopay. Turns out now after 4 years I'm paying more than double the published rate. Called the storage facility and they said the only way around it is to rent a new unit at the new rate and move my things there to start the process all over again.
After combing through my credit card bills to identify all the recurring charges my conclusion was less that I have too many subscriptions but that cost creep is out of control on them.
Ex: I stopped paying attention to my storage unit monthly bill because it was on autopay. Turns out now after 4 years I'm paying more than double the published rate. Called the storage facility and they said the only way around it is to rent a new unit at the new rate and move my things there to start the process all over again.
Same. New York Times always gets me without fail. They always start at something absurd like $3/mo or $5 for six months, and before you know it I’m auditing my statements and see that I’ve been paying $34.99/mo for the last two years. Repeat ad infinitum.
I feel like a great way to solve these <businesses practices that are indistinguishable from scams> is to require confirmations when payments change (maybe with exception of variable rate loans?).
If you work at a bank, maybe pitch a notifications system that detects reoccurring transactions that are in fixed amounts that notifies customers when they change. In fact, also pitch giving your customers a fucking list of reoccurring transactions.
Seriously, how is so much software so bad and so many products lack very basic functionality that would not be very difficult to implement but have high utility? I mean my laundry app doesn't even sort the laundry rooms in alphabetical order, they're just in a random fucking list. It's impressive to me we have systems that are so low value you can hire software engineers that don't know about sort. I don't think AI is going to replace a lot of coding jobs, but I suspect it'll replace these jobs (I just fear it'll also make this type of software more common).
If you work at a bank, maybe pitch a notifications system that detects reoccurring transactions that are in fixed amounts that notifies customers when they change. In fact, also pitch giving your customers a fucking list of reoccurring transactions.
Seriously, how is so much software so bad and so many products lack very basic functionality that would not be very difficult to implement but have high utility? I mean my laundry app doesn't even sort the laundry rooms in alphabetical order, they're just in a random fucking list. It's impressive to me we have systems that are so low value you can hire software engineers that don't know about sort. I don't think AI is going to replace a lot of coding jobs, but I suspect it'll replace these jobs (I just fear it'll also make this type of software more common).
> If you work at a bank, maybe pitch a notifications system that detects reoccurring transactions that are in fixed amounts that notifies customers when they change.
I get exactly these types of notifications from both Discover and Citi.
I get exactly these types of notifications from both Discover and Citi.
Thanks for letting me know! That's an awesome feature.
This is something my central bank has forced on all banks. If I want auto pay, then my bank notifies me a day or two before, and after the mandate is executed. I also have a single place where all my auto pay mandates can be managed from
[deleted]
They're also difficult to cancel. They gave me a student discount for using my .edu email address, but after awhile I realized I wasn't really using it so I tried to cancel. They work really hard to make that difficult to do.
Not sure if it's still the case but it used to be that if you changed your address to California you could cancel online since IIRC it's a law there.
I have this memory of having to do that to get rid of the wsj after I made the fatal mistake of forgetting to cancel after a trial.
I have this memory of having to do that to get rid of the wsj after I made the fatal mistake of forgetting to cancel after a trial.
When I need to cancel something that is hard to cancel, I get a free virtual card from Privacy (privacy.com), then switch my subscription to use the virtual card number, then pause or cancel the card in Privacy.
[deleted]
This should be illegal. I lived in apartments like this as well, they would increase the rates for existing tenants while giving lower rates to new tenants. I’d also move out when they tried to pull this, just out of spite.
I have always heard that it’s cheaper to keep an existing client than to acquire a new one. Apparently these places don’t realize that. They don’t need to pay for advertising when they are filly booked up with people paying the market rate, nor do they need to do all the extra work invoiced in signing someone up or moving them out. I don’t own or operate a business, so maybe I’m talking out of my butt, but these people strike me as bad business owners who are chasing the wrong metrics.
I have always heard that it’s cheaper to keep an existing client than to acquire a new one. Apparently these places don’t realize that. They don’t need to pay for advertising when they are filly booked up with people paying the market rate, nor do they need to do all the extra work invoiced in signing someone up or moving them out. I don’t own or operate a business, so maybe I’m talking out of my butt, but these people strike me as bad business owners who are chasing the wrong metrics.
I've very late to the discussion, but this seems relevant anyway -- The issue isn't just the cost of getting/retaining customers. Businesses don't charge solely based on cost, they charge based on what customers will pay. Existing customers also are willing to pay more to not have to move. If customers are willing to pay more, then it makes good business sense to charge them more. For the owner, having an empty apartment is the worst, so it's worth it to do extra work and give discounts just to get somebody renting.
It isn't nefarious, and you do your part by being willing to move instead of pay the higher price. It's all just the way the capitalist market works.
It isn't nefarious, and you do your part by being willing to move instead of pay the higher price. It's all just the way the capitalist market works.
Ah yeah. The good ole' storage unit scam. They all raise the prices about every 6 months. I just rent a U-Haul for a day and move it to a new place. And it forces me to throw things away that I truly don't need. Over the years, the amount of stuff I have has been shrinking and I have less to move.
Rinse and repeat every now and then.
Rinse and repeat every now and then.
My final calculus was adding up what I had spent on storage units, and realizing it was way more than the replacement cost of most of the crap, so I reduced it down to personal momentos only.
In general, based on various family/partner-related experiences, is that you either have a specific I need more room for a specific set of activities that I have a concrete plan to use OR I have a specific plan to have more space for this crap--which I want to keep. A lot of people pay for storage space with no real plan which is just going to be tossed at some point anyway.
A while ago I read something along the lines of, clutter is a delayed decision. That's what most storage units are. People don't want to make a decision today, so they stick it in a storage unit and pay on it monthly so they can make the decision later... or the decision gets made for them.
I think that's about right and it's even OK to a point. Sometimes I do come back to hobbies, etc. Or it takes that 5 years to be confident I'm really not going to wear this clothing again. But keeping stuff "just in case" is definitely a tendency to keep under control or it gets to a point where dealing with clutter is such a chore that many people lie down until the impulse to deal with it goes away.
[deleted]
I'm surprised literally no one suggested just cancelling the vast majority of your subscription services and cutting ties with unethical companies. The suggestion that poor people need yet more help from the government because they're too dumb, busy, or gullible to know when they're about to get screwed is condescending. The suggestion that the core audience of WSJ and HN needs this is pitiful.
Want to watch a movie? Borrow the DVD from your local library. Want to watch it repeatedly? Buy it off Amazon. Want to read a book? Library. Amazon. AbeBooks. Want to get fit? Go for a hike. Do pushups. Buy a barbell and free weights.
Here's my personal finance plan: Check your bank account daily. Cancel services you don't need. Don't do 30-day trials. Don't sign up for overdraft "protection" at $40 a pop. Use cash if you can't handle plastic, and don't use credit cards. Just don't borrow money, period, if you're not using it to buy a house. Don't let anyone take money out of your checking account but you. If a company screws you, never do business with them again. Pay up front for a year of service and mark when it renews. Write checks before you give out your card numbers.
I know, Stone Age, right? But I like to keep my life simple.
Want to watch a movie? Borrow the DVD from your local library. Want to watch it repeatedly? Buy it off Amazon. Want to read a book? Library. Amazon. AbeBooks. Want to get fit? Go for a hike. Do pushups. Buy a barbell and free weights.
Here's my personal finance plan: Check your bank account daily. Cancel services you don't need. Don't do 30-day trials. Don't sign up for overdraft "protection" at $40 a pop. Use cash if you can't handle plastic, and don't use credit cards. Just don't borrow money, period, if you're not using it to buy a house. Don't let anyone take money out of your checking account but you. If a company screws you, never do business with them again. Pay up front for a year of service and mark when it renews. Write checks before you give out your card numbers.
I know, Stone Age, right? But I like to keep my life simple.
Do 30-day trials and put a reminder in your calendar to cancel with the URL to do so. Make this a habit. Yes, subscriptions are a dark pattern but the minimal amount of effort to avoid being charged in some circumstances (not gyms) seems like a small thing. That said, the world would indeed be a better place if businesses didn't charge you for service they weren't providing. Although you might model these monthly subscriptions as "insurance premiums" to save the 5 minute sign-up time the next time you want to watch something.
What I do is canceling the trial immediately after subscribing for it. Most services will let you finish the trial period and you won't risk forgetting to cancel it and paying for another billing cycle.
Ah yes. Why do I need government help managing my subscriptions when I can checks notes literally get the content from the government?
Off the top of my head: Libraries already exist, and the regulatory regime to oversee subscription services doesn't.
Meaning, no one has to do all the stuff required to bring a new government agency into being (including raising taxes or borrowing money), there are no new regulations to comply with (which would cost the streaming services more, which would cost you more), you don't have an new, unnecessary agency brought into being which will literally never go away and increase the size of permanent government we all have to pay for and live with, you haven't expanded the scope of government intrusion in our lives, etc.
Meaning, no one has to do all the stuff required to bring a new government agency into being (including raising taxes or borrowing money), there are no new regulations to comply with (which would cost the streaming services more, which would cost you more), you don't have an new, unnecessary agency brought into being which will literally never go away and increase the size of permanent government we all have to pay for and live with, you haven't expanded the scope of government intrusion in our lives, etc.
You've worded this sarcastically but it does sound like a valid question.
I do a pretty good job of keeping only the subscriptions I use. Thankfully my S.O. has a severe allergy towards those kind of bills. Did you cancel HBO Max? We haven't watched it in 2 weeks. Are you still using Apple Music? Why do we have three music subscriptions? Is this really the cheapest mobile plan around? It can get naggy but man does it save some $$$.
What drives me nuts are the subscriptions that we actually use but keep creeping up in price. SiriusXM is the worst, I think that one is up nearly 25% in the past couple years. One of those frog-in-boiling-water situations were you don't notice the ~$1/month increase but suddenly the thing is well above your mental marker of what it costs.
What drives me nuts are the subscriptions that we actually use but keep creeping up in price. SiriusXM is the worst, I think that one is up nearly 25% in the past couple years. One of those frog-in-boiling-water situations were you don't notice the ~$1/month increase but suddenly the thing is well above your mental marker of what it costs.
Pandora is my favorite subscription. I have paid $3.99 a month for years, for all the music I could ever listen to. It is literally always on in my house or office.
Try FIP radio. Free, no ads, and really good music picks to my taste. Beats Spotify and everything else I’ve tried in terms of finding new music or listening to something in the background.
TBH, I still have a Spotify subscription for listening on demand.
TBH, I still have a Spotify subscription for listening on demand.
Or Radio Neptune! Classical during (European) day, jazz during the night, no talk, no ad https://radioneptune.fr/
Relisten.net is also free if Grateful Dead and other similar bands fit your taste
I use Copilot (which costs $100/y) and review every transaction across all of our accounts. Gives me a lot of piece of mind. It's very fast to audit because the UI is slick and it has simple name matching rules it uses to categorize.
EDIT: The specific app is https://copilot.money/ I use the MacOS and iOS apps though I prefer the Mac app.
EDIT: The specific app is https://copilot.money/ I use the MacOS and iOS apps though I prefer the Mac app.
Too many products called Copilot these days.. Which one are you using and what does it do?
I aggressively track my recurring subscriptions, but I still feel like sometimes my primary credit card balance is rising more rapidly than I can account for. And the data we get on our statements seems purposefully crafted to confuse and bewilder instead of inform. Part of it is the difference between the "balance" and the "available credit", the latter of which includes things like invisible holds and unprocessed payments. The two numbers are never the same, and I have no clear way of tracking the relationship between those two numbers.
That's a long way of saying that $100/year might not be such a bad deal to get some genuine visibility about my own spending. Especially since the companies currently providing me the information about my spending are, essentially, my enemies.
That's a long way of saying that $100/year might not be such a bad deal to get some genuine visibility about my own spending. Especially since the companies currently providing me the information about my spending are, essentially, my enemies.
This app is only available in the US. Any other similar app you’d recommend? Maybe one you tried before using copilot?
This might not be quite the same, but I’ve been using YNAB for years now. I religiously budget and track every dollar spent. It takes me maybe 20-30min/week, and it’s provides so much peace of mind knowing where every dollar is going, and more importantly, knowing what every dollar in my bank account is set aside for.
You do need to adopt their zero-based envelope budgeting paradigm though. It’s very opinionated.
You do need to adopt their zero-based envelope budgeting paradigm though. It’s very opinionated.
Haven't used Sirius in a long time. But back in the day, if you cancelled, they would follow up quickly with a lower offer.
If you don’t call them you’ll pay something like $20/month. Calling and threatening to cancel can get them down to $5/month.
If you actually cancel, they will mail and call you intensely to try to get you to sign back up, until you call again to give them an ultimatum to stop.
If you actually cancel, they will mail and call you intensely to try to get you to sign back up, until you call again to give them an ultimatum to stop.
I just cancel most monthly subscriptions as soon as I get them so I have to consciously re-subscribe every month if I want to use them.
Forget to? Or involve so many dark patterns it's nearly impossible to?
I was looking for this comment.
Sometimes the only way to cancel is to make a telephone call (to a number that may not be easy to find)
and wait on hold to talk to a person,
who will then do everything they can to convince you to stay.
Companies put a lot of effort into making signup frictionless, I don't buy an excuses that say cancelling is intrinsically harder than signup and can't be streamlined.
Companies put a lot of effort into making signup frictionless, I don't buy an excuses that say cancelling is intrinsically harder than signup and can't be streamlined.
I think it's both.
To counter the dark patterns, I now use privacy.com. It's far easier to just cancel a virtual credit card.
To counter the dark patterns, I now use privacy.com. It's far easier to just cancel a virtual credit card.
Is it true you can use a fake name (and presumably address I guess) for privacy.com credit cards?
I have virtual cards through capital one but they seem much less feature rich.
I have virtual cards through capital one but they seem much less feature rich.
Yup. you can use any name and address you want. Excellent for increasing online shopping security. (Parent company of the three companies you bought stuff from got big hacked? Who cares; all they're getting from you is fake data.)
US only…
I think subscriptions are a "dark pattern" on the web. Often they start after a free trial with minimal knowledge. This could be one category of subscriptions that are not cancelled.
Personally on my projects I never auto-renew anything. If you find value you'll take the time to come back and pay again. I wish by default subscription services like Netflix would not charge you for months you don't use the service (I.e. if you never logged in once)
I know this probably won't happen because forgetting to cancel is good for the bottom line but if your company is truly customer obsessed, I don't know why you would charge your customers for a service they're not using at all.
Edit: Also, omitting the "cancel subscription" button from your website if it's that simple and instead redirecting users to call a number that's hard to find in your Help section is another "dark pattern" of subscriptions.
Personally on my projects I never auto-renew anything. If you find value you'll take the time to come back and pay again. I wish by default subscription services like Netflix would not charge you for months you don't use the service (I.e. if you never logged in once)
I know this probably won't happen because forgetting to cancel is good for the bottom line but if your company is truly customer obsessed, I don't know why you would charge your customers for a service they're not using at all.
Edit: Also, omitting the "cancel subscription" button from your website if it's that simple and instead redirecting users to call a number that's hard to find in your Help section is another "dark pattern" of subscriptions.
Try canceling your Amazon Prime. Every order now, I have to be careful not to re-activate Prime, with all the dark patterns.
I also have to keep switching the shipping method on an order page, from the paid option, to the free (non-Prime) option. And there's a long spinner (sometimes ~15 seconds) to punish me when I click the radio button. (In the past, they've also hidden a default trial of Prime in the shipping option radio buttons, so that's another reason to check that.)
(If only Walmart.com, Target.com, Walgreens.com, etc. would close the gap to even current Amazon, we'd have better options and less trashiness. Anecdotally seems like Amazon -- either from the top, or from individuals juicing their metrics -- are taking advantage of Amazon's enviable competence and position, and cashing out excess goodwill.)
I also have to keep switching the shipping method on an order page, from the paid option, to the free (non-Prime) option. And there's a long spinner (sometimes ~15 seconds) to punish me when I click the radio button. (In the past, they've also hidden a default trial of Prime in the shipping option radio buttons, so that's another reason to check that.)
(If only Walmart.com, Target.com, Walgreens.com, etc. would close the gap to even current Amazon, we'd have better options and less trashiness. Anecdotally seems like Amazon -- either from the top, or from individuals juicing their metrics -- are taking advantage of Amazon's enviable competence and position, and cashing out excess goodwill.)
"Try canceling your Amazon Prime. Every order now, I have to be careful not to re-activate Prime, with all the dark patterns."
I just got myself a month of Prime because of this. And cancelling requires you to go through around 5 screens with buttons "Do you want to cancel?", "Yes, I want to keep Prime" and so on. And the colors of the cancel button are always different. So you have to closely read and understand each button or your cancel attempt will get cancelled.
I just got myself a month of Prime because of this. And cancelling requires you to go through around 5 screens with buttons "Do you want to cancel?", "Yes, I want to keep Prime" and so on. And the colors of the cancel button are always different. So you have to closely read and understand each button or your cancel attempt will get cancelled.
The company that made such a huge fuss over the idea of one-click presumably appreciates the effects of gauntlet-of-confusing-clicks. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Licensing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Patent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click#Licensing
Obviously, if Netflix adopted a pay-per-use model, earnings would crater. AOL made so much $ from ppl forgetting to cancel.
I tried to downsize my google plan from 2tb to 100gb. It's now charging me for both plans every month, and my available space toggles every couple weeks (with dire warnings in every app about being at 90% capacity when it's on the 100gb plan). Support says all the things that are already on the support pages and then throw up their hands and say they don't have access to do anything to fix it.
Sounds like time to consider small claims court.
The thought has crossed my mind, but if I win they can still (algorithmically, no doubt) say “we've decided we no longer want your business”, which would be a bigger deal given how prevalent “sign in with google” is, to say nothing of the various important and/or official things that are mailing to gmail.
This requires government regulation. Sorry but the free market incentivizes bad behavior in this instance. If it means that the price of a subscription will go up cause they can no longer extract payments from the lazy/forgetful then so be it.
If each American spends $6 on average on something, "Americans are spending billions on it" is true.
Businesses these days with these dark patterns. I denounce them and immediately cancel anything when they start just fine and suddenly implement something hard to get out of.
I hate when their cancelling scheme puts blocks in front of the user so it’s harder and harder to quit. In my country I’ve noticed some have their Cancel Subscription page unavailable, or it says it has cancelled it but you don’t get email or confirmation of anything, and then surprise, another month payment, and then you have to call, and they leave you waiting for hours.
I despise this and I denounce them with local regulation authorities, then they get moving, and even then they may still squeeze another month out of you, attribute it to error and just expect you don’t denounce them again because that would be even more time from you.
But this is me... I know lots of people who spend at least 6 months before they have the time/energy to actually go through this process so they can cancel.
I’d say to hell with them, it gives bad rap to good businesses which let you cancel/pause without too much hassle.
I hate when their cancelling scheme puts blocks in front of the user so it’s harder and harder to quit. In my country I’ve noticed some have their Cancel Subscription page unavailable, or it says it has cancelled it but you don’t get email or confirmation of anything, and then surprise, another month payment, and then you have to call, and they leave you waiting for hours.
I despise this and I denounce them with local regulation authorities, then they get moving, and even then they may still squeeze another month out of you, attribute it to error and just expect you don’t denounce them again because that would be even more time from you.
But this is me... I know lots of people who spend at least 6 months before they have the time/energy to actually go through this process so they can cancel.
I’d say to hell with them, it gives bad rap to good businesses which let you cancel/pause without too much hassle.
Use virtual credit cards and privacy.com. It really helps with peace of mind that you can really have a free trial and not worry about it.
Recent story: I had Duolingo, for some reason I've forgotten. They sent me a "we are about to renew" message.
So I went there and cancelled my account, and they even sent me a "sorry to see you go" message. They definitely got it.
Then they went and charged my card anyway. But it was declined, because I'd closed the privacy.com virtual card I'd given them.
That's why you do this.
So I went there and cancelled my account, and they even sent me a "sorry to see you go" message. They definitely got it.
Then they went and charged my card anyway. But it was declined, because I'd closed the privacy.com virtual card I'd given them.
That's why you do this.
Potentially stupid question: if you cancel the virtual credit card, can't the company then send your debt to collections resulting in a bigger headache?
What debt? Typically when you sign up for a service with a free trial, they charge you before each paid period. You get X days for free as part of the trial, then at the end of the trial they attempt to charge you for the next month of service. When that charge declines, they just don't provide you with the next month of service, and all they've given you is the free trial which incurs no debt.
If you're receiving a service at cost but agreeing to pay for it later, then yes they could send you to collections if you refuse to pay it, but that model is only really used for a select few services (some phone plans come to mind). The vast majority of online services are prepay.
If you're receiving a service at cost but agreeing to pay for it later, then yes they could send you to collections if you refuse to pay it, but that model is only really used for a select few services (some phone plans come to mind). The vast majority of online services are prepay.
How does one get virtual credit cards? I remember some banks like Discover offered them, but I don't see them anymore.
with capital one they have a browser extension called Eno that remembers which card is for which domain and autofills it.
Wise offers them: https://wise.com/gb/virtual-card/
Apple Card does this:
https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/04/01/apple-card-virtual-...
It’s not unique to Apple though. I think it’s this standard from EMVCo
https://www.emvco.com/emv-technologies/payment-tokenisation/
It’s not unique to Apple though. I think it’s this standard from EMVCo
https://www.emvco.com/emv-technologies/payment-tokenisation/
Apple lets you replace your card number with a new one, but it's not quite the same as creating single-use virtual numbers for sketchy businesses.
The EMVCo link is actually more interesting. The payment tokenization scheme means that the merchant never gets your card number (the PAN), they get a token.
> EMV Payment Tokenisation enhances transaction security by removing the most valuable data to a fraudster within a transaction, the primary account number (PAN), and replacing it with a unique alternative value, a payment token.
> This reduces the value of payments information stolen in the event of a data compromise, as a payment token should not be able to be used beyond the environment in which it was intended. Payment tokens support both face-to-face (F2F) and remote payment transactions.
Basically, if Amazon leaks my credit card data, thieves can’t use it because the number is associated with my Amazon account only. That one token can be cancelled and the next time I buy something a new one is issued and I don’t have to replace my credit card just because one merchant leaked my info.
> EMV Payment Tokenisation enhances transaction security by removing the most valuable data to a fraudster within a transaction, the primary account number (PAN), and replacing it with a unique alternative value, a payment token.
> This reduces the value of payments information stolen in the event of a data compromise, as a payment token should not be able to be used beyond the environment in which it was intended. Payment tokens support both face-to-face (F2F) and remote payment transactions.
Basically, if Amazon leaks my credit card data, thieves can’t use it because the number is associated with my Amazon account only. That one token can be cancelled and the next time I buy something a new one is issued and I don’t have to replace my credit card just because one merchant leaked my info.
Citi still offers it
privacy.com
no, this is bad advice . Credit cards are better because the dispute process is more favorable to buyers and longer dispute window. A debit card has worse buyer protection.
The virtual cards offered by Privacy are credit cards (specifically, charge cards) and feature the normal credit card dispute process.
I was about to post this. The usual HNers with nothing better to do will warn about how you're still liable, they can come after you, yada yada yada.
Ignore them. Just give a virtual credit card to any subscription service, and set a credit limit on it. Problem solved. If they try to keep charging your card: too bad, the charges are declined.
Ignore them. Just give a virtual credit card to any subscription service, and set a credit limit on it. Problem solved. If they try to keep charging your card: too bad, the charges are declined.
I use a service called Privacy [1] to generate virtual card numbers, which I than use with all of my subscriptions. All of the virtual cards are tied to a physical credit card used as the funding source. I get a notification every time a card is charged or a charge is denied (if it's above the set limit or no longer active). This has saved me from fraud where a single-use virtual card # I used to pay for airport parking was used to buy something online and promptly denied and multiple overcharges with random subscriptions. I even started using it for things like gym and utility payments. Highly recommended to keep a tab on subscriptions.
[1] https://privacy.com
[1] https://privacy.com
Were you able to tie it to a credit card? Last time I tried it only let me do a debit card, which was a bummer, since I prefer using credit.
I started using privacy about 6 months ago. It is a great service. I have changed all of my subscriptions over to them and I set a monthly or yearly limit depending on the subscription type.
Its so ironic because WSJ is one of those subscriptions...
and the WSJ is one of those subscription companies that uses dark patterns. When I had WSJ ~2 years ago, there was a separate page for people living in California where you could click to cancel, and everyone else had to jump through hoops.
Glad the FTC is going after this nonsense [1].
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/...
Glad the FTC is going after this nonsense [1].
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2023/03/...
I give them points for mentioning that in the second paragraph.
I'm using a service called Subly that keeps track of all of my recurring payments and puts them into a database that I can view at a glance. It shows me which day of the month it renews, how much, and to which card or account it will be charged. This includes my annual renewal fees as well. It then shows me what my average monthly expenditure is.
With this I can see that I'm spending roughly $112/month on subscriptions. The whole thing couldn't be much easier.
The service costs $4/month. The irony of that is not lost on me, but the convenience of seeing my recurring monthly charges is worth it for me.
https://web.subly.app
With this I can see that I'm spending roughly $112/month on subscriptions. The whole thing couldn't be much easier.
The service costs $4/month. The irony of that is not lost on me, but the convenience of seeing my recurring monthly charges is worth it for me.
https://web.subly.app
How much does it provider over simply taking the time to add the numbers to a spreadsheet? Does it integrite with bankstatements or automate the prosess in other ways?
Exactly my thought. I already review all my credit card and bank statements every month and manually extract important information to my spreadsheet. The once-a-month manual work is to me absolutely worth it to be on top of my personal and household finances.
People who use such a service probably don't know what a spread sheet is.
It's disappointing but not surprising that no credit card company that I know of provides simple built-in summaries of past 12 month spend by merchant and merchant category.
Edit: It looks like my bank has some basic view accessible through a submenu.
Edit: It looks like my bank has some basic view accessible through a submenu.
Similarly, it sucks that banks don't allow you to unilaterally stop recurring payments on your credit card. Some companies make cancelling a subscription like getting out of a Saw trap.
Sure, there are proxies like Privacy.com and PayPal that let you do this, but this should be a standard feature everywhere.
Sure, there are proxies like Privacy.com and PayPal that let you do this, but this should be a standard feature everywhere.
CapOne does, along with a quick view of 'recurring charges'. Amex also lets you view by category across custom date ranges, custom tags, etc...
The core disappointed with credit cards and also banking in general in the US, is the existance of a company called Plaid--which generated $170 million of revenue in 2020 parsing transaction data.
There should be a standard interface to pull transaction data without having to rely on a third party as it rapes your privacy.
Notably, this apparently exists in EU.
There should be a standard interface to pull transaction data without having to rely on a third party as it rapes your privacy.
Notably, this apparently exists in EU.
I can see past 12 months by category in Bank of America.
https://www.bankofamerica.com/online-banking/mobile-and-onli...
I do not know if BoA offers a breakdown by merchant though.
https://www.bankofamerica.com/online-banking/mobile-and-onli...
I do not know if BoA offers a breakdown by merchant though.
Amex too.
To chime in with the others, my Chase card offers this service automatically as well. I think most major credit card companies are starting to offer these services because they want a piece of the pie that companies like Intuit (through Mint, now Credit Karma) are grabbing by just siphoning up financial data.
On the contrary, most big banks provide year end summaries that can be download ed as csv to analyze them in Excel.
One of the many reasons to do household accounting. It's not even about making/keeping a budget, but simply about knowing where your money goes. It's a shame that many solutions are in turn also subscription based, so I don't have any good recommendations (I use YNAB Desktop, which was killed off a few years ago and replaced with a SaaS solution that's always increasing in price). But having insight into how you spend your money is such a powerful tool, it's worth doing even if it means manually entering stuff into a LibreOffice Calc workbook.
If you use macOS + iPhone, a Shorcuts based approach using Numbers is simple and powerful enough for your budgeting needs.
Shortcuts being the simplest way to add a row on to the budget sheet (i.e transaction) from iPhone homescreen or macOS Spotlight.
I wrote a small tutorial here: https://rahulkrrrishna.xyz/notes/2023/11/18/simple-budgeting...
Shortcuts being the simplest way to add a row on to the budget sheet (i.e transaction) from iPhone homescreen or macOS Spotlight.
I wrote a small tutorial here: https://rahulkrrrishna.xyz/notes/2023/11/18/simple-budgeting...
Happy to see YNAB mentioned. I actually had no idea they used to have a desktop app!
I’m a happy subscriber though and to me its yearly cost is easily made up by how much money I save using it.
I’m a happy subscriber though and to me its yearly cost is easily made up by how much money I save using it.
I'd like to call out ZenBusiness on this one. They allowed an LLC (which to be fair we weren't using actively) to enter a delinquent state, but continued to charge the registered agent fee for 2 additional years until we noticed; each year we'd get a "your XYZ LLC is going to automatically renew" email from them, with no mention of the fact of outstanding annual reports due. After that they had the gall to charge penalty fees to reinstate the account, on top of the state fees. Definitely moving to a competitor at end of year when it comes time to renew again.
Whenever this subject comes up I'm disheartened to see how many are willing to blame the victim: the consumer.
We have allowed businesses to exist whose only really business model is duping customers into a subscription and then making it difficult or impossible to cancel. Just go look at timeshares [1].
I would dearly love to give money to some quality news publications to support their work but I don't. Why? Because I absolutely don't ever want to deal with their subscriptions department should I ever want to cancel.
Ever tried to cancel an Equinox gym membership? I've seen half a dozen sign up constulants standing around at the entrance, someone call up to cancel and being told there's no specialist available.
Cancelling a service should be no more difficult than pressing a button on an app or a website. We passed the CAN-SPAM Act to force compliance in communications for businesses [2]. The same should apply to taking their money.
Speaking of gyms, it's an anti-user business model. The perfect gym customer is one who pays for a membership and never uses it. The more members a given gym can "support", the more profitable it is. If everyone used it 2 hours a day they'd go out of business. Planet Fitness took this one step further and removed their most popular equipment to dissuade people from going and charging so little that people usually can't be bothered to cancel it.
All US cable/Internet start with an introductory rate that quietly gets jacked up over time. You can go through a "cancel dance" to renew that rate every year or so but it's absolutely exhausting to have to deal with this.
VPNs do the same thing. $2.99/month introductory price! Wow! Bargain! It just quietly gets jacked up later on.
This is what government is for.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd2bbHoVQSM
[2]: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act...
We have allowed businesses to exist whose only really business model is duping customers into a subscription and then making it difficult or impossible to cancel. Just go look at timeshares [1].
I would dearly love to give money to some quality news publications to support their work but I don't. Why? Because I absolutely don't ever want to deal with their subscriptions department should I ever want to cancel.
Ever tried to cancel an Equinox gym membership? I've seen half a dozen sign up constulants standing around at the entrance, someone call up to cancel and being told there's no specialist available.
Cancelling a service should be no more difficult than pressing a button on an app or a website. We passed the CAN-SPAM Act to force compliance in communications for businesses [2]. The same should apply to taking their money.
Speaking of gyms, it's an anti-user business model. The perfect gym customer is one who pays for a membership and never uses it. The more members a given gym can "support", the more profitable it is. If everyone used it 2 hours a day they'd go out of business. Planet Fitness took this one step further and removed their most popular equipment to dissuade people from going and charging so little that people usually can't be bothered to cancel it.
All US cable/Internet start with an introductory rate that quietly gets jacked up over time. You can go through a "cancel dance" to renew that rate every year or so but it's absolutely exhausting to have to deal with this.
VPNs do the same thing. $2.99/month introductory price! Wow! Bargain! It just quietly gets jacked up later on.
This is what government is for.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd2bbHoVQSM
[2]: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act...
>Speaking of gyms, it's an anti-user business model. The perfect gym customer is one who pays for a membership and never uses it.
My gym managed to find itself in a great little niche by being the complete opposite: they'll call you if you haven't been in for two weeks, then bug you to either start coming in again or pause your membership. The result is a dedicated membership base of regulars who seriously want to be there, which sustains itself on word-of-mouth referrals.
Of course, this is a small-time operation and not a national chain like Planet Fitness.
My gym managed to find itself in a great little niche by being the complete opposite: they'll call you if you haven't been in for two weeks, then bug you to either start coming in again or pause your membership. The result is a dedicated membership base of regulars who seriously want to be there, which sustains itself on word-of-mouth referrals.
Of course, this is a small-time operation and not a national chain like Planet Fitness.
I've been reconciling my transactions in GnuCash for 20 years, I've been pretty good at catching charges I don't expect.
I also set the credit cards to send me an email for any transaction over $1.
I also set the credit cards to send me an email for any transaction over $1.
the typical auto renewal scam. Some reason it's common and i'm happy to see it getting some light. I wanted to order some science stuff for my kids for Christmas by ordering them 6 months of packages, one per month. They wouldn't let me only order 6 but I had to order them with a rolling subscription that automatically renewed. I emailed them and said I don't want it to renew automatically, I want 6 and then I will personally decide whether to order more, to which their system didn't even support. They're obviously banking on people forgetting to cancel, which I can't believe is legal. In this case it's not as bad cause they actually deliver a physical product.
Once I looked at my bank account and noticed that i'd been paying for ancestry for the past 6 months... WTF! So I logged into my account, canceled it and requested a refund stating that I didn't even know I had it and didn't login once. They told me they don't offer refunds despite me never logging in. You basically sign up to a free trial by placing down a credit card to get access and forget about it. Total scam and I can't wait for it to be illegal.
Once I looked at my bank account and noticed that i'd been paying for ancestry for the past 6 months... WTF! So I logged into my account, canceled it and requested a refund stating that I didn't even know I had it and didn't login once. They told me they don't offer refunds despite me never logging in. You basically sign up to a free trial by placing down a credit card to get access and forget about it. Total scam and I can't wait for it to be illegal.
Absurdity aside, I set a reminder for any trial end, preferably a couple of days before.
I typically cancel the subscription right after signing up, it’s more practical.
99.9% of services keep your account alive until your trial/paid for period runs out. The other 0.1% I never sign up to.
99.9% of services keep your account alive until your trial/paid for period runs out. The other 0.1% I never sign up to.
[deleted]
[deleted]
This sort of thing exists in many areas, not just subscriptions.
Starbucks has over $1.5B (something like 17% of its free cash, don't quote me though) in the form of spare change lingering on Starbucks Cards. It fundamentally affects their financials, but is also perceived as just spare change slipping into the couch.
Starbucks has over $1.5B (something like 17% of its free cash, don't quote me though) in the form of spare change lingering on Starbucks Cards. It fundamentally affects their financials, but is also perceived as just spare change slipping into the couch.
Well, it’s still a liability on the balance sheet. But it’s great for cash flow and general accounting flexibility.
This is a similar to how airlines are more like banks than airlines these days. They issue credit cards and collect transaction fees, but instead of giving cardholders cash back they give them miles…gift cards for future travel, essentially. If something bad happens financially it’s a great buffer for them. They can always manipulate the value of miles within some level of reason until customers get mad (see: Delta). It’s also great to be a bank when you’re in a capital-intense business.
This concept is also how how fast-growing businesses can have cash flow problems.
Let’s say I pay my vendors right away, but when I sell my widgets I get paid 30 days later.
If I sell 10 widgets the first month, and suddenly sell 1000 widgets the second month, I might look like I’m an incredibly profitable company. But I probably ran out of cash to pay my vendors for the raw materials to build my widgets.
This is a similar to how airlines are more like banks than airlines these days. They issue credit cards and collect transaction fees, but instead of giving cardholders cash back they give them miles…gift cards for future travel, essentially. If something bad happens financially it’s a great buffer for them. They can always manipulate the value of miles within some level of reason until customers get mad (see: Delta). It’s also great to be a bank when you’re in a capital-intense business.
This concept is also how how fast-growing businesses can have cash flow problems.
Let’s say I pay my vendors right away, but when I sell my widgets I get paid 30 days later.
If I sell 10 widgets the first month, and suddenly sell 1000 widgets the second month, I might look like I’m an incredibly profitable company. But I probably ran out of cash to pay my vendors for the raw materials to build my widgets.
And when you do try to cancel, you have to chat or call somebody. I'm looking at you SiriusXM.
I had XM (before the Sirius merger) and cancelled it >10 years ago. The process was difficult enough that I would never even remotely consider signing up for them again. If it had been more painless, I may have resubscribed at some point. Instead, they've completely poisoned their brand with me permanently.
I've heard enough horror stories about other classes of subscription-type things (gym memberships, newspaper subscriptions, etc.) that I don't even consider signing up for those - entire industries that I write off because of bad behavior when it comes to cancelling subscriptions.
I always wonder if companies think through the consequences of their aggressive "retention" efforts.
I've heard enough horror stories about other classes of subscription-type things (gym memberships, newspaper subscriptions, etc.) that I don't even consider signing up for those - entire industries that I write off because of bad behavior when it comes to cancelling subscriptions.
I always wonder if companies think through the consequences of their aggressive "retention" efforts.
> I always wonder if companies think through the consequences of their aggressive "retention" efforts.
Probably not beyond the next quarterly results.
Probably not beyond the next quarterly results.
Thanks for the heads up. I will never try them (buying a new car soon).
We bought a new car last April. We also had XM radio about fifteen years ago. Much like GP comment, we will never sign up for SiriusXM ever again, so much so that we didn't even bother with the "free" six month subscription with new car purchase...because I don't want to do deal with canceling, or deal with anything to do with SiriusXM. I'll sing a cappella at the top of my lungs before I'll be so desperate as to turn on SiriusXM.
That's right, SiriusXM can't even give us their service, that's much they poisoned that water well.
That's right, SiriusXM can't even give us their service, that's much they poisoned that water well.
That’s how I feel about non-Tesla EVs. Well Rivian is good, other than lack of charging network; I’d never get one due to that gap. But legacy manufacturers have burned their bridges.
Dealers get a commission for converting you, keep an eye on the paperwork.
Excellent, good point, thanks
> It’s like when Netflix asks if you’re still watching when you’ve fallen asleep on the couch—except this policy actually saves you money.
I assumed this was because they pay for some content on a per-view basis, so they don't want to pay if you're not actually there/awake.
That said, I have found the autoplay-next-episode behavior to be strangely inconsistent, even for the same show. Some nights it automatically plays 4 in a row if we do nothing, and other nights it stops after each one. I've tried to figure out if it's based on time (sometimes we watch pretty late), but there seems to be no correlation.
I assumed this was because they pay for some content on a per-view basis, so they don't want to pay if you're not actually there/awake.
That said, I have found the autoplay-next-episode behavior to be strangely inconsistent, even for the same show. Some nights it automatically plays 4 in a row if we do nothing, and other nights it stops after each one. I've tried to figure out if it's based on time (sometimes we watch pretty late), but there seems to be no correlation.
Just did this with Xfinity an hour ago.
I didn't even _forget_, per se: been trying to cancel online for months. It says they'll call you, then they never do, and _then_ I forget until I see the next billing statement. Finally went into the store this morning, but without any proof of previous attempts on hand, all they could do was cancel as of today.
Frankly, they couldn't even give me a paper confirmation, and they say the email confirmation will come in a day or two, so this probably isn't even over yet.
I actually did get a screenshot of the most recent attempt, but everyone involved knows I'm probably not going to find it worth my time to fight it. They win.
I didn't even _forget_, per se: been trying to cancel online for months. It says they'll call you, then they never do, and _then_ I forget until I see the next billing statement. Finally went into the store this morning, but without any proof of previous attempts on hand, all they could do was cancel as of today.
Frankly, they couldn't even give me a paper confirmation, and they say the email confirmation will come in a day or two, so this probably isn't even over yet.
I actually did get a screenshot of the most recent attempt, but everyone involved knows I'm probably not going to find it worth my time to fight it. They win.
This was a hidden savior that helped some of the publishing industry delay what was already a precipitous decline. As soon as I became aware of recurring billing through Recurly, I switched all of the products of my employer at the time to a subscription based model. Yes, it takes a bit more work on the part of the customer service agents who deal with angry customers who do not want to be billed anymore, but on the flip side, it's usually many months before people who are not using the service realize that they have continued to be billed.
One of the reasons why I avoid subscriptions to anything if at all possible is to avoid this. More than a couple and the cost of having to keep track of them exceeds any value of having them.
I put most of my non essential subscription spending on virtual debit cards. I rotate the virtual cards frequently so stuff that is low priority gets automatically blocked and churned out.
I feel like this might be a good place to share something I learned recently about credit cards: interest accrues daily, not by statement (e.g. monthly). Further, your statement does not accurately reflect what you owe for that billing period. Instead, the interest for that period will be reflected on your next bill.
I had errantly figured I could postpone my payments to the due date and not accrue interest, but that is not the case and I ended up with a few hundred dollars more in interest than I expected.
I had errantly figured I could postpone my payments to the due date and not accrue interest, but that is not the case and I ended up with a few hundred dollars more in interest than I expected.
This is true, but only if you’re not paying your full statement balance each month.
If you’re paying your full statement balance then you can wait all the way until the due date since you’ve never accrued any interest in the first place.
If you’re paying your full statement balance then you can wait all the way until the due date since you’ve never accrued any interest in the first place.
[deleted]
For anyone trying to avoid this, sign up to Personal Capital (bought out by empower or something), link up ALL your bank accounts, credit cards, etc. Then once a month go in and check every single line item charge and ensure the charge was properly labeled.
Now if a companies autocharge is extra sketchy, such as not informing you about auto pay, enabling it automatically, etc, just threaten a chargeback when contacting their support and most the time they'll immediately refund you.
Now if a companies autocharge is extra sketchy, such as not informing you about auto pay, enabling it automatically, etc, just threaten a chargeback when contacting their support and most the time they'll immediately refund you.
I would suggest something like [LunchMoney](https://lunchmoney.app/) instead. Built in budgeting, rules to classify payments, and recurring subscriptions are automatically found and called out.
I had a bunch of issues with Personal Capital connections continuously messing up and there's no way to classify and evaluate the purchases.
I had a bunch of issues with Personal Capital connections continuously messing up and there's no way to classify and evaluate the purchases.
Whenever I sign up for a streaming service, my first act is to disable autopay. I really think it should be disabled by default, and you can enable if wanted. That would resolve much of this problem. Do all users even know they are signing up for autopay? Many probably do not realize it. Often 1 month is plenty of time for me to watch what I want to watch, and if not, it's easy enough to renew for one more month
Don't sign up directly. Sign up as Apple TV "channel" which forces the streamer to provide the subscription through Apple's App Store and the beautifully pro-consumer subscription management it offers: reminders you're on the subscription, transparency on the plans and pricing, one click cancellation, all in a one location.
Of course, if devs are intending to make money from subscriptions, devs may rationalize how devs should be in control of the user's subscription instead of letting the user pick Apple because users trust Apple will balance power for users.
Of course, if devs are intending to make money from subscriptions, devs may rationalize how devs should be in control of the user's subscription instead of letting the user pick Apple because users trust Apple will balance power for users.
I was recently appalled to discover how many of my subscriptions auto-updated the expiration date when my card expired.
I had hoped to use "ignore it until charges stop going through because jumping through their hoops is ridiculous" to cancel a few pesky subscriptions and it didn't even work!
I think this is a "feature" of using Stripe for billing? Or something? I couldn't find anything obvious that they had in common but that.
I had hoped to use "ignore it until charges stop going through because jumping through their hoops is ridiculous" to cancel a few pesky subscriptions and it didn't even work!
I think this is a "feature" of using Stripe for billing? Or something? I couldn't find anything obvious that they had in common but that.
This is why I put stuff on apple pay/paypal subscription. Easy to remember to check a few times a year rather than going through credit card bills.
Fwiw, when I've forgotten to cancel something, I've had success saying something like "I was checking my credit card statement and was surprised I'm still paying for X. I haven't used it at all since Y date. Would it be possible to have a refund, perhaps partial, since then, for $xx?". Basically I make it easy for them to say yes.
This reminds me of a recent commercial where a father is looking at a phone bill and complains melodramatically that the family is wasting money, only for his wife to condescendingly tell him to switch cell phone plans and show up for dinner. Um, I think people who scan the bills to find services they don't need are on the right track...
I would really like a requirement for a once yearly "Hey, do you remember you're paying for this?" reminder.
The irony is that Americans are probably spending a lot because they forgot to cancel their WSJ subscription;-)
When I canceled mine a couple of years ago I think it could only be done by phone, which already is a hurdle. To be fair to WSJ, it was smooth sailing from there and they did not bother me or try to trick me to renew it, in or after the phone call.
When I canceled mine a couple of years ago I think it could only be done by phone, which already is a hurdle. To be fair to WSJ, it was smooth sailing from there and they did not bother me or try to trick me to renew it, in or after the phone call.
Rackspace charged me $5 recently for the first time in a long time. It turned out to be a few bytes of a log file for a service that I had long since removed to the best of my knowledge.
Time to finally get rid of them. Unfortunately they require for me to make an international call at my expense to close my account.
Naming to shame.
Time to finally get rid of them. Unfortunately they require for me to make an international call at my expense to close my account.
Naming to shame.
The number is likely larger than the article suggests, because both Visa and Mastercard will share updated payment information to merchants who had recurring charges. The paper treats this as a "possibility" (and uses a small lambda factor to adjust for it) rather than the norm that it is in 2024.
Subscriptions should have a time based expiry option. It's trivial to implement from a technology standpoint and not providing that option is an anti-consumer tactic. The fact that all businesses are so anti-consumer is a testament to the dystopian times we live in. Technology is being used to actively harm us.
I am in favor of a LOT of pro-consumer, anti-business regulations, like dramatically expanded food labeling, mandatory event ticket refunds, standardized brake lights and turn signals... the list is a long one.
But I still don't think a company should cancel my subscription without my knowledge to protect me from myself. One click cancel? Hell yes. But auto expiration? That's a bridge too far.
But I still don't think a company should cancel my subscription without my knowledge to protect me from myself. One click cancel? Hell yes. But auto expiration? That's a bridge too far.
I can't wait for services like Privacy to enter the mainstream. It's coming. (I'd like to think that it's coming.)
When 90% of your user base is using super-easily-createable disposable credit cards from valid BINs that self-destruct after your free trial's over, the way free trials work will have to change.
When 90% of your user base is using super-easily-createable disposable credit cards from valid BINs that self-destruct after your free trial's over, the way free trials work will have to change.
I liked the one Pennsylvania bill introduced where subscription services have to email you that they're about to charge you again.
Throws a wrench into the "was hoping you forgot about it, now ask/argue with customer support on the phone" dark pattern.
Throws a wrench into the "was hoping you forgot about it, now ask/argue with customer support on the phone" dark pattern.
> Americans spend billions of dollars on stuff they have forgotten about
How can you forget about something when you are getting an SMS / Push notification the second they take your money?
Is this not true for the US?
How can you forget about something when you are getting an SMS / Push notification the second they take your money?
Is this not true for the US?
It's useful to periodically cancel a credit card / get a completely new number / etc to break automated billing you have forgotten.
I think there's credit cards that offer this as a feature now.
I think there's credit cards that offer this as a feature now.
Right, income tax is a subscription service to stay in a country. Forced health insurence deduction is another one. They are my biggest subscriptions.
Sounds like a multi-million dollar business opportunity for a relatively cheap monthly service that automatically cancels services you don't use.
This is my dream. A company in between me and all kinds of service providers (energy, insurance, internet, mobile, let’s go crazy and add: mortgage, mobility) and just regularly switches me to the best offer while I retain service. They could get probably get away with a 10% fee and still deliver, because they can reverse auction their portfolio and get massively better deals than usually available. They can do KYC and vouch for my credit rating, keep my PII safer while putting my saved money to work in an investment account while bargaining for the lowest costs. Worth billions. We could then use those billions to buy stakes in the firms that give us shitty service to force them to put the customer first.
Sounds pretty awesome albeit vastly more complicated than what I had imagined. The idea of customers collective bargaining to force competition is neat.
It's not quite the same pitch, but I use privacy.com to set up a unique virtual card for every subscription I sign up for - that way, all in one dashboard and can stop them on demand. I also set the spend limit just above the current price so if there's a price hike it denies the transaction.
You mean the company listed in TFA, that was formerly called TrueBill before Rocket bought them for $1B a few years back? ;P
podcasts advertise this to me all of the time. I think it's called rocketmoney or zenwallet or something along those lines
Isn't this how Michael Dell got going originally too?
Newspapers for newlyweds, initially free they'd then keep going with the subscription
s/forget to cancel/unable to cancel/
Ironically, I had a subscription to the print WSJ years ago. I never read it, but canceling was extremely difficult.
This is classic price discrimination, and makes the services cheaper for people who are more price sensitive
Meetup is one of them, I’d say about 15% of meetup are dead groups that haven’t done anything for 2yrs or more
This is why VPN and Squarespace/Wix ads are so pervasive on youtube: lots of ppl forgetting to cancel.
Or can't figure out how to cancel.
This is why I use copilot or earlier Mint. They are great at detecting these recurring payments
You can set up alerts for all charges going to your card to your phone.
Reminded me to cancel my Disney+ I got for Loki S2 (disappointing)
I’m here for the recommendations for apps to cancel subscriptions
I'm very eager for a consumer version of Ramp where I can issue myself a card per-subscription service. Then I can review all the cards I've issued, and turn them off if I no longer want the service.
I would immediately sign up if this existed.
I would immediately sign up if this existed.
This is why pretty much everything i subscribe to is through apple. Walled garden and all that but i subscribe and instantly cancel all but a few things and it makes sure im not throwing money away on services i only use for a week or two
It’s almost like we need legislation to reign in subscriptions.
Serious lack of empathy in this thread, mostly by a bunch of incredibly wealthy individuals that have their life in order.
When a lot of people struggle with certain categories of problems, it's worth considering if those problems could be nerfed in some way rather than telling them just "get good".
There's definitely a huge slew of predatory billing techniques and dark patterns to get people to keep paying for services. These patterns should be documented and destroyed.
Having more accessible billing methods also makes life better for everyone (maybe except the company). Consider how absurd it is that only from California can you cancel your New York Times subscription online while every other state requires you to call in and deal with a retention agent. Let's not pretend this is in any way reasonable, it's straight up bullshit.
Sure personal responsibility is important, but there's no reason we should accept predatory and abusive practices from companies. It just makes reality worse for everyone.
When a lot of people struggle with certain categories of problems, it's worth considering if those problems could be nerfed in some way rather than telling them just "get good".
There's definitely a huge slew of predatory billing techniques and dark patterns to get people to keep paying for services. These patterns should be documented and destroyed.
Having more accessible billing methods also makes life better for everyone (maybe except the company). Consider how absurd it is that only from California can you cancel your New York Times subscription online while every other state requires you to call in and deal with a retention agent. Let's not pretend this is in any way reasonable, it's straight up bullshit.
Sure personal responsibility is important, but there's no reason we should accept predatory and abusive practices from companies. It just makes reality worse for everyone.
> Serious lack of empathy in this thread
I think it's something learned, and that is, something taught by the far right ideological movement and others trying to create cultural change. Empathy is outre, it's embarassing. Embracing contempt and cruelty makes people look smart, these days.
Empathy is fundamental to human rights, freedom (for others), equality, equity, justice, fairness. It leads to truth. By attacking that fundamental infrastructure (the empathy), you can undermine it all.
I think it's something learned, and that is, something taught by the far right ideological movement and others trying to create cultural change. Empathy is outre, it's embarassing. Embracing contempt and cruelty makes people look smart, these days.
Empathy is fundamental to human rights, freedom (for others), equality, equity, justice, fairness. It leads to truth. By attacking that fundamental infrastructure (the empathy), you can undermine it all.
Alternative headline: People who actively use their subscriptions are being subsided buy those who don't. If you use the gym a lot be grateful people are paying that don't. If they did, the gym would have no room.
While bits based subs are not quite the same, still holds that if people who don't need that sub any more cancelled then others would probably pay more.
While bits based subs are not quite the same, still holds that if people who don't need that sub any more cancelled then others would probably pay more.
IDK if that holds. If pricing is such that people would probably pay more, then the business will raise the price. The fact that they're getting free money from zombie subscriptions doesn't really change things.
Though perhaps you could say businesses then actively reduce pricing to keep things just under the zombie radar, but that's even more effed up: it means the pricing strategy is such that zombie accounts are actually the business's goal, not just a side effect.
Though perhaps you could say businesses then actively reduce pricing to keep things just under the zombie radar, but that's even more effed up: it means the pricing strategy is such that zombie accounts are actually the business's goal, not just a side effect.
I think it does. The amount of effort people will put in and outrage that will ensue is going to scale up with the price of the service. So there is probably a careful identified max here.
But they also use the "only $2 for the first 6 months" thing to get you hooked first and then wait for you to become complacent and forget about it.
But they also use the "only $2 for the first 6 months" thing to get you hooked first and then wait for you to become complacent and forget about it.
This is the point of subscription models
Like wars in the Middle East?
Reminder that you don't have to deal with these exploitative business models if you simply pirate content.
And people wonder why I write checks and lick stamps like a boomer.
Aholes at wsj were themselves guilty of this shit
It's bizarre to me just how many people in this country (especially the ones who can least afford it) simply do not take charge of their financial health. Even in this very thread you can see all kinds of excuses ("it's too hard to log in and check credit card statements every month", "they make you call or chat to cancel so I don't bother", "they should cancel subscriptions automatically if you don't use them", "it's the government's fault").
This discussion is about subscriptions but the general idea applies to so much more – basic budgeting, retirement savings, not paying random fees, not paying interest, moving spare money to investment accounts every month, rebalancing your investments every quarter, negotiating rents, negotiating your salary.
Ultimately it is your money and your problem. No one is looking out for you. You can either endlessly complain about it or build some good habits. 30 minutes of effort once a month to go over bills and budgets is hardly the end of the world.
This discussion is about subscriptions but the general idea applies to so much more – basic budgeting, retirement savings, not paying random fees, not paying interest, moving spare money to investment accounts every month, rebalancing your investments every quarter, negotiating rents, negotiating your salary.
Ultimately it is your money and your problem. No one is looking out for you. You can either endlessly complain about it or build some good habits. 30 minutes of effort once a month to go over bills and budgets is hardly the end of the world.
Some of these are valid issues though. I'd consider myself in top 1% when it comes to financial health and I still pay for stuff I forgot to cancel. Some of the reasons:
> They make you call between 9 am and 5 pm, and hold for hours to cancel, sometimes even disconnect forcing you to start over, while not offering a callback option. Sometimes there are weeks I absolutely cannot afford to do this because of work.
> You buy something, and they tag a "3-4 months free" of another service, which you can't opt out of even if you want to, and then suddenly charge you that extra money on the 5th month. You obviously cancel it, but you still overpaid for a month.
> Services that charge you once a year. You forgot to cancel the Xbox subscription because you bought a PS5, got charged a year later. Now you cancel it, but you paid for the year.
> Services that make you use or forgo credits that you already paid for if you cancel. (Audible) You want to cancel, but you put it off for another month because now, you need to figure out 5 ebooks to buy. Next month, you end up in the same situation and now you need to figure out 6 ebooks to buy.
The point being, you could check all your statements weekly, and still end up spending money on something you forgot about.
> They make you call between 9 am and 5 pm, and hold for hours to cancel, sometimes even disconnect forcing you to start over, while not offering a callback option. Sometimes there are weeks I absolutely cannot afford to do this because of work.
> You buy something, and they tag a "3-4 months free" of another service, which you can't opt out of even if you want to, and then suddenly charge you that extra money on the 5th month. You obviously cancel it, but you still overpaid for a month.
> Services that charge you once a year. You forgot to cancel the Xbox subscription because you bought a PS5, got charged a year later. Now you cancel it, but you paid for the year.
> Services that make you use or forgo credits that you already paid for if you cancel. (Audible) You want to cancel, but you put it off for another month because now, you need to figure out 5 ebooks to buy. Next month, you end up in the same situation and now you need to figure out 6 ebooks to buy.
The point being, you could check all your statements weekly, and still end up spending money on something you forgot about.
Two of those can be fixed with a simple calendar entry. We do that with subscriptions but also with things like AirBNB bookings where you can cancel up to x weeks in advance.
That's cool that you've found a system that works to avoid the abuse, but it's still abusive.
Which part is abusive? I might view that last item as a sort of dark pattern (exploiting the sunk cost fallacy), but I still fail to see how it's abusive. If you're not using the service, cancel your subscription? Is everything you don't like even slightly now qualified as ABUSE?
The hostile “you must call into an understaffed call center and hold for several hours” is definitely abusive. I believe NYT was particularly bad about this in the past.
You acknowledge it's a dark pattern, but then excuse it. Dark patterns are 100% abuse.
my solution to this is to not have any subscriptions except for property taxes, garbage, utilities, insurance and phone plan. and I absolutely avoid 30 day free trials (if they ask for credit card info) like the plague. the moment I see a credit card number entry field, I close the browser tab immediately.
but, I'd like to know, which companies have onerous cancellation policies?
but, I'd like to know, which companies have onerous cancellation policies?
Bloomberg - Had a subscription and saw the renewal coming up. Decided to cancel, but you can't do it yourself - you have to go through their service desk and of course they try five ways from Sunday to get you to reup with a cheaper plan (that then jumps to the full price after 1 to 3 months).
Spectrum (previously Time Warner Cable) - To cancel you need your account number (both the TW and the Spectrum ones for folks who were converted) and your PIN for each - which you likely setup only once and may well not have realized you needed since it's only for starting service and cancelling. Don't have them? You can't cancel. Let me emphasize that again, if you don't give them the right number they will continue to charge you until your credit card expires, and then send you to collections. I am fastidious about account info and had mine, but some of my neighbors were less so.
Were you looking for a full list (I have more) or just wanted a couple of examples?
Spectrum (previously Time Warner Cable) - To cancel you need your account number (both the TW and the Spectrum ones for folks who were converted) and your PIN for each - which you likely setup only once and may well not have realized you needed since it's only for starting service and cancelling. Don't have them? You can't cancel. Let me emphasize that again, if you don't give them the right number they will continue to charge you until your credit card expires, and then send you to collections. I am fastidious about account info and had mine, but some of my neighbors were less so.
Were you looking for a full list (I have more) or just wanted a couple of examples?
> which companies have onerous cancellation policies?
gyms
gyms
Most of them could be solved by our CC system putting people in control. Wanna cancel NYT, stop payment and let them come to you if they want to bother. The fact that people can just take money from our accounts on a whim and we have to beg them to get it back or stop is a ridiculous system. I would much rather deal with invoices.
The only system where they just charge you I like is the usage model. I get a bill from AWS, OpenAI, and Backblaze every month for a few dollars but if I stop using them the bill drops to $0.
The only system where they just charge you I like is the usage model. I get a bill from AWS, OpenAI, and Backblaze every month for a few dollars but if I stop using them the bill drops to $0.
This is how UPI-based subscriptions work in India. You open your UPI app, go to the autopay section, and see all your subscriptions, whether it is one-time mandates or as-presented recurring ones. You can just cancel there and it's done.
My solution is to try to subscribe through Apple as much as possible, even if it's more expensive. Unified interface, always can cancel online and I think they are required to let you use it until the end of the billing cycle if you have been charged. Not always possible, but when it is, it's often worth it.
> They make you call between 9 am and 5 pm
This is customer service. A written notice of termination works for any consumer contract.
> but you paid for the year
Unpay for it. This is the utility of credit cards.
This is customer service. A written notice of termination works for any consumer contract.
> but you paid for the year
Unpay for it. This is the utility of credit cards.
> This is a customer service. A written notice of termination works for any consumer contract.
Not entirely. Most places don't accept cancellations over email, or require certified mail for cancellations, which just means now you have to go to the post office between 9-5.
> Unpay for it. This is the utility of credit cards.
Most places have segments in their contract that state if you do a chargeback or block a payment, they will terminate your account, and payment providers can block that card from being used on their service in the future.
Not entirely. Most places don't accept cancellations over email, or require certified mail for cancellations, which just means now you have to go to the post office between 9-5.
> Unpay for it. This is the utility of credit cards.
Most places have segments in their contract that state if you do a chargeback or block a payment, they will terminate your account, and payment providers can block that card from being used on their service in the future.
Not only can they terminate your account and potentially block that card in the future across other services using the same payment provider, more expensive subscriptions like a gym WILL continue accruing a bill for you and will send it to collections which hurts your credit score.
You can dispute that with the credit services though. Which probably won't get you anywhere but it is worth doing.
Make sure you give them negative feedback with the BBB if canceling is too hard.
Though the business model of most gyms (except the expensive ones) is to get you to enroll and then not come, so they won't care.
Make sure you give them negative feedback with the BBB if canceling is too hard.
Though the business model of most gyms (except the expensive ones) is to get you to enroll and then not come, so they won't care.
If it won't get you anywhere... then how is it worth doing? What a waste of time.
> Most places don't accept cancellations over email, or require certified mail for cancellations
E-mail yes. But I've never seen a letter mailed fail. Especially if you Cc your state's consumer protection regulator.
> if you do a chargeback or block a payment, they will terminate your account
Wait, what are we trying to do?
E-mail yes. But I've never seen a letter mailed fail. Especially if you Cc your state's consumer protection regulator.
> if you do a chargeback or block a payment, they will terminate your account
Wait, what are we trying to do?
Credit cards don't let you "unpay" a charge. You can dispute it as either an error or as fraud, but if your credit company issues a chargeback most services state in their ToS that they reserve the right to deactivate accounts for doing so.
> Unpay for it. This is the utility of credit cards.
That's a facile answer. You're extremely well educated on this matter and know full well the downsides of "unpaying".
EDIT: see sibling comment from "notaustinpowers" for an explanation of the downsides (thanks!). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39060260
That's a facile answer. You're extremely well educated on this matter and know full well the downsides of "unpaying".
EDIT: see sibling comment from "notaustinpowers" for an explanation of the downsides (thanks!). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39060260
Use a temporary credit card number that's only authorized for one payment. When it doesn't work the second year, they'll let you know you need to pay.
Sign up and immediately cancel/turn off billing, so you aren't charged again next year (again, they'll send you a bunch of notices ahead of the end of your service).
Put a calendar reminder in for 11.5 months out from when you sign up.
In Slack, /remind me in 11.5 months to cancel X service.
Sign up and immediately cancel/turn off billing, so you aren't charged again next year (again, they'll send you a bunch of notices ahead of the end of your service).
Put a calendar reminder in for 11.5 months out from when you sign up.
In Slack, /remind me in 11.5 months to cancel X service.
My tech-hating mom is currently spending hours, maybe even days setting up billpay through her bank so she doesn't have to give companies her credit card info for subscriptions. She's been burned too many times trying and failing to cancel subscriptions.
But reading suggestions like yours, apparently it's all on people like my poor mom to outwit corporations with multi-million-dollar budgets dedicated to screwing her over. (And yes I'm helping, but precious few tech-noob elders have an engineer in the family.)
But reading suggestions like yours, apparently it's all on people like my poor mom to outwit corporations with multi-million-dollar budgets dedicated to screwing her over. (And yes I'm helping, but precious few tech-noob elders have an engineer in the family.)
> My tech-hating mom is currently spending hours, maybe even days setting up billpay through her bank so she doesn't have to give companies her credit card info for subscriptions. She's been burned too many times trying and failing to cancel subscriptions.
Why? That's much worse. If anything is going to do a recurring charge to me, I want it to go through a credit card which offers a layer of indirection.
I never authorize automatic billing directly to a bank account, then the money is truly gone. With a credit card I can always protest the charge and have had to do this with particularly difficult businesses a few times.
Why? That's much worse. If anything is going to do a recurring charge to me, I want it to go through a credit card which offers a layer of indirection.
I never authorize automatic billing directly to a bank account, then the money is truly gone. With a credit card I can always protest the charge and have had to do this with particularly difficult businesses a few times.
> Why? That's much worse.
Congratulations, HNer — you're more tech savvy than my mom.
Perhaps you're volunteering to help vulnerable seniors like her navigate the Hobbesian nightmare of subscriptions?
I applaud your initiative, but if you're new to this, let me caution you: they don't always understand or follow the advice you give them precisely. Even if they are trying their best.
Congratulations, HNer — you're more tech savvy than my mom.
Perhaps you're volunteering to help vulnerable seniors like her navigate the Hobbesian nightmare of subscriptions?
I applaud your initiative, but if you're new to this, let me caution you: they don't always understand or follow the advice you give them precisely. Even if they are trying their best.
[deleted]
would a service like privacy[dot]com which generates custom one-off credit card numbers with custom spend limits be useful? (Not affiliated, I just use them from time-to-time exactly for that purpose)
Privacy.com is awful. You forgo the credit card protections, they need full access to a checking account, you can't do chargebacks, you lose any cashback methods.
Use a virtual card from your credit card Many banks offer these now a these days (Capital one does, with all cards, in app or in browser, no need for extension).
Use a virtual card from your credit card Many banks offer these now a these days (Capital one does, with all cards, in app or in browser, no need for extension).
> Use a temporary credit card number that's only authorized for one payment
These get sold to a collections company. Invalid payment doesn’t invalidate the contract.
These get sold to a collections company. Invalid payment doesn’t invalidate the contract.
Critical HN energy
So easy a toddler (with three PhDs) could do it!
Do you actually think setting a calendar reminder is hard?
What are the downsides of disputing a charge?
"Most places have segments in their contract that state if you do a chargeback or block a payment, they will terminate your account, and payment providers can block that card from being used on their service in the future." Also, depending on the agreement, you can be sent to collections (gym memberships are notorious for this).
The chargeback doesn't supersede the vendor's control of access to the service or potential legal/debt obligations.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39060260
The chargeback doesn't supersede the vendor's control of access to the service or potential legal/debt obligations.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39060260
> Most places have segments in their contract that state if you do a chargeback or block a payment, they will terminate your account,
When terminating my account is exactly what I want, that's totally fine.
This does highlight yet another problem with consolidating to huge companies. You'll never be able to charge back to a behemot like amazon or google, they'll just erase you off large parts of the internet which would be problematic.
But with smaller vendors that you are trying to get rid of and never want anything to do with them again, it works wonderfully.
When terminating my account is exactly what I want, that's totally fine.
This does highlight yet another problem with consolidating to huge companies. You'll never be able to charge back to a behemot like amazon or google, they'll just erase you off large parts of the internet which would be problematic.
But with smaller vendors that you are trying to get rid of and never want anything to do with them again, it works wonderfully.
If you unpay for, say, YouTube, I'm pretty sure Google will straight up delete you.
> This is customer service. A written notice of termination works for any consumer contract.
Next time you're in a well trafficked area, ask 20 people if they know they can do this.
Next time you're in a well trafficked area, ask 20 people if they know they can do this.
Also who would you even send it to? How do you guarantee they receive it? If you do certified mail that is a cost and another thing to take up your time.
True, although I'd rather pay the few dollars for that and the 10 minutes in the post office, than spend endless hours on hold just to be hung up on and start again.
That’s assuming the letter even works in having the subscription cancelled. Regardless of whether or not it should work, I am certainly not confident such a thing would be handled properly. If it isn’t then you are back to customer service or i guess hiring a lawyer.
10 minutes during weekday business hours plus 30 for commute and 20 minutes of standing in line if you go at noon. Also, the discoverability of this workflow is complete dogshit.
None of this is a problem for me, but I fully understand why dishonest businessfolk love to exploit the hell out of these "tiny conditions" and then turn around and pretend they don't understand why they are a big deal.
None of this is a problem for me, but I fully understand why dishonest businessfolk love to exploit the hell out of these "tiny conditions" and then turn around and pretend they don't understand why they are a big deal.
> Also, the discoverability of this workflow is complete dogshit.
Yes, the correct solution is certainly to pass laws that force companies to enable easy and quick unsubscribe process.
Just commenting on that between the two bad choices of hours and hours on hold, or 10 minutes in the post office, I'll take the latter.
Yes, the correct solution is certainly to pass laws that force companies to enable easy and quick unsubscribe process.
Just commenting on that between the two bad choices of hours and hours on hold, or 10 minutes in the post office, I'll take the latter.
There ought to be some legislation to modify the credit card system such that all your recurring subscriptions are managed through your payment provider (say credit card web portal) so you can see a list and cancel them with one click.
I have one credit card I only use for recurring charges. That helps me easily see how much I spend each month and notice when yearly charges happen, etc. Some services will even rebate if you cancel soon after the yearly charge happens.
Most of them will, particularly the sketchier ones like online dating sites.
It is worth it to them to let you cancel a subscription rather than have to deal with chargebacks, lawsuits, bad publicity, etc.
It is worth it to them to let you cancel a subscription rather than have to deal with chargebacks, lawsuits, bad publicity, etc.
I interviewed a bunch of "financial hardship" people a few years back for an app my company was working on. The lack of financial knowledge was pretty disappointing to me, but the big thing I remember is that all the people I talked to were good people. They all had decent, yet low-paying jobs (nurses, care-givers, teaching assistants, cashiers, etc.) I was expecting a bunch of jerks or bungling idiots, and there was some of that: many people don't know how interest works on a credit card until it's too late, or other people are completely apathetic to their finances. But, honestly, the thing that stuck with me the most is that most of them were very trusting people, and ultimately that's what got them to where they are (broke). They trusted blindly: "[credit card company] wouldn't double my interest rate just because I missed one payment.", "The guy who sold me the car seemed nice. Why would he give me a 29% interest rate on my car loan?", and "The credit card companies can't do that; there's got to be laws that prohibit that." Lots of statements like that really stuck with me. I felt bad. It's like I wanted to give a TED Talk that would've lasted about 30 seconds: "The banks and credit card companies are not your friend, don't trust them. Once you fall into debt with them, you're never gonna get out. The law offers very little protection for you, if any at all."
And, thankfully, the app was never released. It was basically just an app for pay-day loans.
And, thankfully, the app was never released. It was basically just an app for pay-day loans.
Worked at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for awhile. We encountered a lot of these cases and there are a ton of dark patterns as well as just straight-up not honoring the 300 page contracts that they had written. For the most part you come to understand that people are actually trying really hard to get it right most of the time.
The lack of knowledge is quite startling (but understandable, given how complex some of these things often are and how much time it takes to figure them out that people just don't have) and the pace at which it is exploited is very disappointing but inevitable.
The lack of knowledge is quite startling (but understandable, given how complex some of these things often are and how much time it takes to figure them out that people just don't have) and the pace at which it is exploited is very disappointing but inevitable.
Intentional Obfuscation is difficult to convey to people who, for example, make enough money to hire someone to do their taxes for them.
It's sad but Usury/Interest is often exploiting two bifurcated groups of people -- those who are trusting and those who are desperate.
Yea, most people assume the best in others I think. They assume others will not break the law for personal gain. In real life, those folks get taken advantage of. I know because I used to be one but now I don’t trust anyone. The moral degradation of society isn’t in the extra drugs and sex we have, it’s in the way we accept merely to follow the letter of the law, and find as many loopholes as possible otherwise. You see that in VC funded startups constantly, in politics, and everywhere else.
> They all had decent, yet low-paying jobs (nurses, care-givers, teaching assistants, cashiers, etc.) I was expecting a bunch of jerks or bungling idiots, and there was some of that
> And, thankfully, the app was never released. It was basically just an app for pay-day loans.
Maybe next time don't work for them? It's not too late to give money to charity though.
Maybe next time don't work for them? It's not too late to give money to charity though.
The rapacious corporations agree with you — no matter how deceptive or even illegal their practices are, no matter how much R&D money is brought to bear in designing innovative user interfaces and bureaucratic frameworks which systematically exploit human weaknesses (particularly those of vulnerable populations such as less-tech-savvy elders) to bleed the populace dry... it's all the fault of the individual victims who are "allowing" themselves to be ripped off, one-by-one.
These comments are so blatantly absurd considering in all the cases we're talking about, the user signed up for the service initially. Even if it's a trial, the user is forced to make it abundantly recognized that they will be charged money when the trial is over because they are forced to input credit card information or authorize use of Apple Pay or some other similar service to enter the trial.
I can understand suggesting that services like this, especially when using tech like Apple Pay, have made it too easy to 'check out' through a trial process, but the language is still over-the-top since the user is still clearly considering the product as potentially useful to go through the effort of signing up for a trial or an actual sub. (And on the flipside, Apple Pay, e.g., makes it easy to see all subs in one place and cancel them in one place, so it has that going for it.)
And of course, what illegal practices are you talking about? I'm going to guess most people here aren't blaming the victim if a practice is actually illegal. But I see you're being hyperbolic so maybe I shouldn't bother.
I can understand suggesting that services like this, especially when using tech like Apple Pay, have made it too easy to 'check out' through a trial process, but the language is still over-the-top since the user is still clearly considering the product as potentially useful to go through the effort of signing up for a trial or an actual sub. (And on the flipside, Apple Pay, e.g., makes it easy to see all subs in one place and cancel them in one place, so it has that going for it.)
And of course, what illegal practices are you talking about? I'm going to guess most people here aren't blaming the victim if a practice is actually illegal. But I see you're being hyperbolic so maybe I shouldn't bother.
The big change between the subscriptions of yore, e.g. magazine subscriptions in the days before the internet, and the subscriptions of today, is that payments used to be push and now they are pull. The magazine used to have to beg and plead with you to send them a check, but now vendors can set up an automatic debit continuing into perpetuity.
The regulatory environment has not caught up (although the article explains how it's starting to). It turns out that recurring pull payments tend not to be cancelled, resulting in a system where massive overpayments for actual services consumed are the norm. This is not economic efficiency leading to useful consumer innovation, it's rewarding the players who lodge the darkest dark patterns. Occasionally that includes, as described elsethread, the illegal practice of "just straight-up not honoring the 300 page contracts that they had written" — although unethical practices such as making it deceptively difficult to cancel are presumably more common than outright lawbreaking.
The regulatory environment has not caught up (although the article explains how it's starting to). It turns out that recurring pull payments tend not to be cancelled, resulting in a system where massive overpayments for actual services consumed are the norm. This is not economic efficiency leading to useful consumer innovation, it's rewarding the players who lodge the darkest dark patterns. Occasionally that includes, as described elsethread, the illegal practice of "just straight-up not honoring the 300 page contracts that they had written" — although unethical practices such as making it deceptively difficult to cancel are presumably more common than outright lawbreaking.
I think you are misrepresenting OPs point. We all know many people who are extremely sloppy with their personal finances, and sign up for things they can't afford, debt they are unlikely to pay back, etc.
Am I sad for companies who take in these people as customers? No, but let's not canonize people who are reckless with their spending, even when warned.
Am I sad for companies who take in these people as customers? No, but let's not canonize people who are reckless with their spending, even when warned.
Of course in any population there will be a long tail of people who are bad at finances, for example leasing cars they can’t afford or using buy now pay later plans for clothes they don’t need.
That's not what this is about though. In those situations, the person is consciously choosing a bad option. However this is materially different, because with auto-pay people are being charged without their knowledge. The first situation involves making a bad choice, but this is being unaware of a bad thing, which companies are exploiting.
That's not what this is about though. In those situations, the person is consciously choosing a bad option. However this is materially different, because with auto-pay people are being charged without their knowledge. The first situation involves making a bad choice, but this is being unaware of a bad thing, which companies are exploiting.
Let's not pretend that the only people getting ripped off are those who are 100% irresponsible and entirely devoid of any redeeming financial virtue.
My rule of thumb looking at any problem has evolved to: it it's one person, blame them. If it's happening to swaths of the population, scrutinize the system they operate in. Mistakes can only be treated entirely as such if most other people don't fall for them. Otherwise it's a systemic issue.
> We all know many people who are extremely sloppy with their personal finances, and sign up for things they can't afford, debt they are unlikely to pay back, etc.
You know I have heard this my entire life, and I have yet to actually meet any of these people. The people I have met though fall into one or more of a number of categories:
- People uneducated in finance, usually lower class: You can say things like "well of course credit cards charge interest" but I was never taught that in school. I learned it from my mother, who is an accountant. She also taught me how to do things like a proper budget, balance a checkbook, diligent record-keeping on expenditures, and how to file my taxes. I was never offered this knowledge in schooling. The gap between how many, I believe well intention-ed and well educated people have between what is "common sense" financial knowledge and what is known by common people, can be the grand fucking canyon.
- Despite the above, I have also never in my life met a person who believed a credit card was free money. Everyone knew they had to pay it back, even if they didn't understand interest and why interest was about to ruin their credit score.
- Additionally, I have never met a person who signed up for things they couldn't afford for the hell of it. I met a few people who were sold mortgages they couldn't afford, by representatives of financial institutions. I've also met people who borrowed money from Payday loan stores because their cars were broken and they could not earn money until that was solved, and they lacked the money to accomplish that.
- I've also met people who, before they were legally allowed to DRINK, were allowed to sign on the dotted line for six figures of educational funding, with no demonstration of understanding how the critical above concepts worked, so they could know what they would eventually pay, nor any demonstration of how they would earn enough of a living afterwards to pay it off, which is just odd to me? Like, a bank won't loan you $500k to buy a house that's only worth $100k, so why will they loan you $150k to get a degree in underwater basket weaving?
- Lastly, I've also met people who struggle with things like depression, addiction, attention issues, all manner of ailments that either stem from or are made worse by a lack of dopamine in their brains, which makes them impulsive and possibly reckless depending on the day, and I have seen them interacting with products that are clearly, blatantly, preying on their inability to say no effectively so that they will say yes. And once they say yes enough times, their credit cards are maxed out, and they're in the poorhouse for no other reason than being vulnerable to manipulation.
And like, all of that aside, even if you meet NONE of those categories, I still, frankly, believe it's not only possible but the only ethical response to all of this is: we should have a society that leaves enough room for people to fuck up occasionally without ruining their goddamn lives. I don't know exactly how we go about that, in finance especially this is a tricky thing, but at the same time, I simply don't believe that a lifetime of wage-slave-serfdom, or perhaps worse, freezing to death on the street, is an acceptable punishment for you making a bad financial decision at some point in your life. That does not make sense to me.
You know I have heard this my entire life, and I have yet to actually meet any of these people. The people I have met though fall into one or more of a number of categories:
- People uneducated in finance, usually lower class: You can say things like "well of course credit cards charge interest" but I was never taught that in school. I learned it from my mother, who is an accountant. She also taught me how to do things like a proper budget, balance a checkbook, diligent record-keeping on expenditures, and how to file my taxes. I was never offered this knowledge in schooling. The gap between how many, I believe well intention-ed and well educated people have between what is "common sense" financial knowledge and what is known by common people, can be the grand fucking canyon.
- Despite the above, I have also never in my life met a person who believed a credit card was free money. Everyone knew they had to pay it back, even if they didn't understand interest and why interest was about to ruin their credit score.
- Additionally, I have never met a person who signed up for things they couldn't afford for the hell of it. I met a few people who were sold mortgages they couldn't afford, by representatives of financial institutions. I've also met people who borrowed money from Payday loan stores because their cars were broken and they could not earn money until that was solved, and they lacked the money to accomplish that.
- I've also met people who, before they were legally allowed to DRINK, were allowed to sign on the dotted line for six figures of educational funding, with no demonstration of understanding how the critical above concepts worked, so they could know what they would eventually pay, nor any demonstration of how they would earn enough of a living afterwards to pay it off, which is just odd to me? Like, a bank won't loan you $500k to buy a house that's only worth $100k, so why will they loan you $150k to get a degree in underwater basket weaving?
- Lastly, I've also met people who struggle with things like depression, addiction, attention issues, all manner of ailments that either stem from or are made worse by a lack of dopamine in their brains, which makes them impulsive and possibly reckless depending on the day, and I have seen them interacting with products that are clearly, blatantly, preying on their inability to say no effectively so that they will say yes. And once they say yes enough times, their credit cards are maxed out, and they're in the poorhouse for no other reason than being vulnerable to manipulation.
And like, all of that aside, even if you meet NONE of those categories, I still, frankly, believe it's not only possible but the only ethical response to all of this is: we should have a society that leaves enough room for people to fuck up occasionally without ruining their goddamn lives. I don't know exactly how we go about that, in finance especially this is a tricky thing, but at the same time, I simply don't believe that a lifetime of wage-slave-serfdom, or perhaps worse, freezing to death on the street, is an acceptable punishment for you making a bad financial decision at some point in your life. That does not make sense to me.
> And like, all of that aside, even if you meet NONE of those categories, I still, frankly, believe it's not only possible but the only ethical response to all of this is: we should have a society that leaves enough room for people to fuck up occasionally without ruining their goddamn lives.
At this point, I don't understand what the fuck you people are talking about. This is an article about people paying for subscriptions they don't use, not people ruining their goddamn lives. The hyperbole is extensive, is this article posted to some Socialist Discord so everyone can raid the comments? Why is this level of bad faith discussion occurring?
At this point, I don't understand what the fuck you people are talking about. This is an article about people paying for subscriptions they don't use, not people ruining their goddamn lives. The hyperbole is extensive, is this article posted to some Socialist Discord so everyone can raid the comments? Why is this level of bad faith discussion occurring?
The topic of the original post is an article about that. The GP comment we're all replying to took that as a direction to discuss how many people do not take care of their finances, and how you, as an individual, are on your own. Several comments in reply to that person went on to discuss how "take care of your financial health" is only really an applicable statement when the person in question is at least somewhat educated in finance: that tons of people reach adulthood without that knowledge or those skills. And, that situation is complicated still more by the fact that many businesses, quite intentionally, are preying on both that lack of knowledge in general, and on people at large using dark patterns to obfuscate or make canceling subscriptions difficult. Then, off of that, someone else commented saying that they felt a reply was misrepresenting what was said by another, stating that "we all know people who are sloppy with their finances", which is, IMO, a clear and standard example of the appeal to common belief fallacy. To which I challenged, citing numerous experiences to the contrary I have had, and my utter lack of experiences to this common knowledge I have been told is common knowledge: that people, by and large are poor because they fail at money management, and not, which is my contention, that the majority of that time they are not poor because of bad money management, but they are poor because they are poor and are being taken advantage of. This is not hyperbole, this is just an evolving discussion. If you don't like the direction it's taking, you're free to not participate.
Note that you are currently making excuses for blatant dark patterns for some reason. I dunno why we're doing that. People should definitely push harder to not waste money, but entities should not abuse their position to try to push them into passively allowing it. There's so many things you need to take care of in life that I don't imagine most people ever really get to give as much attention to all of the facets of their lives as they need to, and finances are only one of them. The fact that someone is effectively stealing your money and forcing you to trade it for time and effort you could spend doing anything else is criminal. (I mean, literally, it should actually be criminal. If I don't want to be subscribed, fucking unsubscribe me. That means you Planet Fitness after I moved to California.)
That's a lovely and idealistic view of humans.
Unfortunately bad actors have realized that what we actually are is just meat computers with unpatchable security vulnerabilities, so demanding that people just stop having problems and fit your nebulous definition of competence with unlimited and unwavering performance, has predictably not panned out.
What is the more moral solution then? Recognizing and placing systematic limits on exploitation behaviors, or is it continuing to demand super-vigilance from the victims?
Unfortunately bad actors have realized that what we actually are is just meat computers with unpatchable security vulnerabilities, so demanding that people just stop having problems and fit your nebulous definition of competence with unlimited and unwavering performance, has predictably not panned out.
What is the more moral solution then? Recognizing and placing systematic limits on exploitation behaviors, or is it continuing to demand super-vigilance from the victims?
You can have:
1) An “ethical” system in which a bunch of people are losing money and are surprised by this, unaware of it, or intend to stop it, haven’t yet, but absolutely would if it were as easy as thinking “stop that”. But they said yes somewhere along the line, so it’s all “ethical”.
2) A just-as-ethical system that… simply doesn’t do that bad stuff in 1, or at least does way less of it.
It’s weird to me that people defend situations akin to 1 when 2 is totally achievable, on the grounds that “well 1 isn’t technically unethical (as I define it)”. Ok? So what? 2 is better and isn’t less ethical. What is going through someone’s head when they defend 1 and dismiss or put down the notion of 2? If you could flip a switch to toggle between the two, would you really leave it on 1? I do not get it. Why not pick the version with better outcomes?
[edit] and, separately, I think it’s plainly unethical—to put it mildly—to add terms to a contract or steps to a process that you know with great certainty your counterparty will later regret or dislike, relying on their overlooking it or not having better options, purely for your own benefit at their expense. I don’t think their saying “yes” makes that ethically an ok thing to do—it’s straight-up predatory. But even if it does make it Ok, why prefer that over… not-that?
1) An “ethical” system in which a bunch of people are losing money and are surprised by this, unaware of it, or intend to stop it, haven’t yet, but absolutely would if it were as easy as thinking “stop that”. But they said yes somewhere along the line, so it’s all “ethical”.
2) A just-as-ethical system that… simply doesn’t do that bad stuff in 1, or at least does way less of it.
It’s weird to me that people defend situations akin to 1 when 2 is totally achievable, on the grounds that “well 1 isn’t technically unethical (as I define it)”. Ok? So what? 2 is better and isn’t less ethical. What is going through someone’s head when they defend 1 and dismiss or put down the notion of 2? If you could flip a switch to toggle between the two, would you really leave it on 1? I do not get it. Why not pick the version with better outcomes?
[edit] and, separately, I think it’s plainly unethical—to put it mildly—to add terms to a contract or steps to a process that you know with great certainty your counterparty will later regret or dislike, relying on their overlooking it or not having better options, purely for your own benefit at their expense. I don’t think their saying “yes” makes that ethically an ok thing to do—it’s straight-up predatory. But even if it does make it Ok, why prefer that over… not-that?
Just wanted to say that I found this phrasing to be fantastic.
Just came across a very terse version of this sentiment, which you might like:
“You can try having self-control, but there are a thousand engineers on the other side of the screen working against you.” ― Tristan Harris
(Found on https://www.staygrounded.online/p/how-i-got-my-phone-screen-..., itself linked from a discussion of use of grayscale mode, which I also recommend for people like me that easily get sucked into a whirlpool of novel information seeking. History has relentlessly proven to me that the less "self control" I need to have, the more self control I actually have.)
“You can try having self-control, but there are a thousand engineers on the other side of the screen working against you.” ― Tristan Harris
(Found on https://www.staygrounded.online/p/how-i-got-my-phone-screen-..., itself linked from a discussion of use of grayscale mode, which I also recommend for people like me that easily get sucked into a whirlpool of novel information seeking. History has relentlessly proven to me that the less "self control" I need to have, the more self control I actually have.)
Agreed, this was a really well-put response.
I agree. It's absolutely crazy. I think about this every time I see someone pull out their massively stacked wallet full of cards. I couldn't live like that.
However, it's not entirely the people's fault. Credit card providers make it really easy to sign up for their cards but make it really difficult to do things like "add an alert that texts me whenever a purchase above $0.01 is made" or "alert me when my 0% APR promotional period is ending" or "tell me when i'm about to pay a late fee".
All of them will make you go through a labyrinthian exercise to turn these alerts on, if they make them available (LOOKING AT YOU, CITIBANK) and many will not alert you on anything less than $50, which is crazy given how many transactions are smaller than that!
Also, in a world where everything is getting more expenses and incomes aren't keeping up, using a tool that reminds you how broke you are on a daily basis isn't fun. So I can understand why folks shy away from it. I certainly did when I was living at the edge for a few years after I graduated. (That said, having this data is essential for creating a plan to change that outcome, but thinking long-term is not fun.)
Regardless, things are getting better. Most utilities and other services accept eChecks now with Bill Pay, which allows people to pay for their recurring expenses from one place. Many restaurants and shops use Toast, Stripe, Clover or newer NCR POS's which make it easy to email your receipts. (A pet peeve of mine is restaurants that use Stripe or something like that but don't accept Apple Pay or hand you a bill instead of a mobile POS. Like, come on; you're already paying for these features!)
However, it's not entirely the people's fault. Credit card providers make it really easy to sign up for their cards but make it really difficult to do things like "add an alert that texts me whenever a purchase above $0.01 is made" or "alert me when my 0% APR promotional period is ending" or "tell me when i'm about to pay a late fee".
All of them will make you go through a labyrinthian exercise to turn these alerts on, if they make them available (LOOKING AT YOU, CITIBANK) and many will not alert you on anything less than $50, which is crazy given how many transactions are smaller than that!
Also, in a world where everything is getting more expenses and incomes aren't keeping up, using a tool that reminds you how broke you are on a daily basis isn't fun. So I can understand why folks shy away from it. I certainly did when I was living at the edge for a few years after I graduated. (That said, having this data is essential for creating a plan to change that outcome, but thinking long-term is not fun.)
Regardless, things are getting better. Most utilities and other services accept eChecks now with Bill Pay, which allows people to pay for their recurring expenses from one place. Many restaurants and shops use Toast, Stripe, Clover or newer NCR POS's which make it easy to email your receipts. (A pet peeve of mine is restaurants that use Stripe or something like that but don't accept Apple Pay or hand you a bill instead of a mobile POS. Like, come on; you're already paying for these features!)
> It's absolutely crazy. I think about this every time I see someone pull out their massively stacked wallet full of cards. I couldn't live like that.
If you want to maximize your credit score (and you should since it'll give you better rates, saving you money) you want to have lots of credit cards with high limits.
One of the factors that goes into your credit score your available credit. You want your available credit to be very high but your utilization to be very low (but not zero).
I keep lots of credit cards, at least one or two from every major bank and some from smaller ones. Thus my available credit is very high and so is my credit score.
If you want to maximize your credit score (and you should since it'll give you better rates, saving you money) you want to have lots of credit cards with high limits.
One of the factors that goes into your credit score your available credit. You want your available credit to be very high but your utilization to be very low (but not zero).
I keep lots of credit cards, at least one or two from every major bank and some from smaller ones. Thus my available credit is very high and so is my credit score.
> All of them will make you go through a labyrinthian exercise to turn these alerts on, if they make them available (LOOKING AT YOU, CITIBANK)
How long ago is your experience with this from? I ask because I just got my first card from Citi within the last three weeks and was able to turn these on really easily before my card arrived. I actually have a notification for $16 sitting on my lock screen from them as I type this.
How long ago is your experience with this from? I ask because I just got my first card from Citi within the last three weeks and was able to turn these on really easily before my card arrived. I actually have a notification for $16 sitting on my lock screen from them as I type this.
A few months ago? I'm glad it's easier!
> . I think about this every time I see someone pull out their massively stacked wallet full of cards. I couldn't live like that.
Some folks in this situation are likely just optimizing for rewards / points / sign-up bonuses. I've had more than 10 cards at a time and definitely have my financial "house" in order. I get many free several-thousand-dollar trips per year to boot.
Some folks in this situation are likely just optimizing for rewards / points / sign-up bonuses. I've had more than 10 cards at a time and definitely have my financial "house" in order. I get many free several-thousand-dollar trips per year to boot.
It may be simply a case of the people who most need this stuff are the most likely to lack either or both mental energy or the requisite knowledge.
And frankly, I don't see why the government shouldn't mandate making it easy to unsubscribe.
And frankly, I don't see why the government shouldn't mandate making it easy to unsubscribe.
I don't disagree with you, but lots of people do not take charge of their financial health simply because they do not know any better, or are too trusting to entities that will loan them money. And they are that way likely because their parents were that way too.
A common thing I hear when talking about things like the student loan crisis and the housing market crash of the late 2000s is "well no one forced them to take out those loans" or "I took out a loan and I paid it off, why can't they?" But when it's as prevalent an issue that more than half of undergrad students in the U.S. are in debt, and the fact that poor people taking out subprime mortgages just so they can have somewhere to live can cause a global financial disaster, it starts making me think -- yeah maybe it is the "government's fault". Maybe us smart people on the top have to understand not everyone is as smart as us, and we have to build a system that works for all the truly clueless folk.
A common thing I hear when talking about things like the student loan crisis and the housing market crash of the late 2000s is "well no one forced them to take out those loans" or "I took out a loan and I paid it off, why can't they?" But when it's as prevalent an issue that more than half of undergrad students in the U.S. are in debt, and the fact that poor people taking out subprime mortgages just so they can have somewhere to live can cause a global financial disaster, it starts making me think -- yeah maybe it is the "government's fault". Maybe us smart people on the top have to understand not everyone is as smart as us, and we have to build a system that works for all the truly clueless folk.
You suggest that spending 30 minutes a month can improve someones financial situation.
In those 30 minutes they could cancel unused subscriptions and maybe save $50 a month. $50 a month isn't bad, but it's not going to be the difference between retiring comfortably and not retiring.
Or they could spend those 30 minutes updating their resume and applying to a job; if they apply for a better job every month they could easily find a better paying job that gives them an additional $20,000 a year, especially if they do this consistently.
Overall, I agree people would benefit from more effort put into their personal finances, but people have limited mental energy and their time can be better spent on things other than cancelling subscriptions. Indeed, if someone is willing to put effort into improving their financial situation and the best option society offers them is for them to pinch pennies and cancel their subscriptions, that is a sad situation for them and reflects poorly on society.
In those 30 minutes they could cancel unused subscriptions and maybe save $50 a month. $50 a month isn't bad, but it's not going to be the difference between retiring comfortably and not retiring.
Or they could spend those 30 minutes updating their resume and applying to a job; if they apply for a better job every month they could easily find a better paying job that gives them an additional $20,000 a year, especially if they do this consistently.
Overall, I agree people would benefit from more effort put into their personal finances, but people have limited mental energy and their time can be better spent on things other than cancelling subscriptions. Indeed, if someone is willing to put effort into improving their financial situation and the best option society offers them is for them to pinch pennies and cancel their subscriptions, that is a sad situation for them and reflects poorly on society.
Luckily we have many waking hours in a month to do both.
If you do both, then you are spending at least some of your time sub-optimally.
Education, applying to jobs, entrepreneurial ventures, etc, all of these have higher expected value than cancelling subscriptions.
Education, applying to jobs, entrepreneurial ventures, etc, all of these have higher expected value than cancelling subscriptions.
Not cancelling subscriptions has a high correlation with irresponsible spending habits. The same person will likely amass a large amount of stuff that stays unused. Instead of repairing, they will buy new. When they buy new, they don’t consider the longevity and durability of the item.
I guarantee you there are very few on the planet whose time management is so strict that spending 30 minutes a month to review their finances would cut into any of those activities.
people aren't thought experiments in ancap-economics textbooks.
irrational behaviour is core to not only people but pretty much every lifeform on the planet.
irrational behaviour is core to not only people but pretty much every lifeform on the planet.
some people work nearly every waking hour (I have more the a few hundred weeks in my life for sure) other huge logistical challenge that comes out of this is the hours for the call center need to overlap when you’re not working so you can call someone to cancel.
I cancelled my amazon prime while taking a shit. Do these workaholics not shit? Where do they find the time to subscribe to services in the first place?
$50 a month won't get your retied, but it will free up some cash to use for better purposes.
> No one is looking out for you
This is literally what law enforcement and consumer protection is for. Otherwise we could make the same argument about pickpocketing victims, which is frankly what this is more akin to.
This is literally what law enforcement and consumer protection is for. Otherwise we could make the same argument about pickpocketing victims, which is frankly what this is more akin to.
Strongly disagree. You gave them the means and permission to bill you on a regular basis. These area valid and legal transactions. There are no protections from poor judgement (if you deem a subscription to be a poor choice).
So willingly going to netflix.com, picking a plan, entering your credit card info, hitting subscribe and watching TV for the next month is the same as getting pickpocketed?
I signed up for a service years ago - scent bird - and it was nearly impossible to cancel.
They kept changing the app and I could never find the way to cancel (turns out it doesn’t exist). I would just eat the most monthly because I never wanted to spend the time to figure it out. One day I sat down to check their website. No way to cancel.
So I went to the support page. It has a deep-link to the cancellation page. The link is broken. Reddit and others couldn’t find a valid link. Everyone said to DM them on social media.
So I tried to contact support, but they don’t publish a valid email or phone number staffed conveniently in my time zone.
So I blindly emailed “support@“ and asked to cancel. The response was another broken deep link. I replied no I wanted support staff to do it. They refused. So I told them I was a California resident and we have a law on the books requiring that online signups can be cancelled online and support staff is legally required to honor a cancellation request. No reply.
I got an email a few days later cancelling my account for violating their arbitration clause in their TOS.
This is basically pickpocketing.
They kept changing the app and I could never find the way to cancel (turns out it doesn’t exist). I would just eat the most monthly because I never wanted to spend the time to figure it out. One day I sat down to check their website. No way to cancel.
So I went to the support page. It has a deep-link to the cancellation page. The link is broken. Reddit and others couldn’t find a valid link. Everyone said to DM them on social media.
So I tried to contact support, but they don’t publish a valid email or phone number staffed conveniently in my time zone.
So I blindly emailed “support@“ and asked to cancel. The response was another broken deep link. I replied no I wanted support staff to do it. They refused. So I told them I was a California resident and we have a law on the books requiring that online signups can be cancelled online and support staff is legally required to honor a cancellation request. No reply.
I got an email a few days later cancelling my account for violating their arbitration clause in their TOS.
This is basically pickpocketing.
It is when systems are intentionally designed to be extremely low friction to initiate and extremely high friction to cancel. In a lot of cases that’s exactly what happens.
To be fair, there should probably be a national consumer protection law that ties complexity of cancellation to complexity of sign up.
To be fair, there should probably be a national consumer protection law that ties complexity of cancellation to complexity of sign up.
Some states in the US have laws on the books so that if you can sign up to a service online, you need to be able to cancel online—at least.
Requiring someone to call to cancel your service is almost always a shady business practice to make it difficult enough that it's not worth their time. If it takes you less than 5 minutes to sign up, it should take you less than 5 minutes to cancel. If you can sign up without talking to someone, you should be able to cancel without talking to someone.
That type of practice could use some sort of regulation.
That type of practice could use some sort of regulation.
There could be a rule where should be able to cancel with the same mechanism that signed up. If signed up and use the service with app or site, then should be able to cancel with them.
> (especially the ones who can least afford it)
> [...] basic budgeting, retirement savings, not paying random fees, not paying interest, moving spare money to investment accounts every month, rebalancing your investments every quarter, negotiating rents, negotiating your salary.
These look like things that are generally unavailable to those who can least afford not doing those things.
It's expensive to be poor.
> [...] basic budgeting, retirement savings, not paying random fees, not paying interest, moving spare money to investment accounts every month, rebalancing your investments every quarter, negotiating rents, negotiating your salary.
These look like things that are generally unavailable to those who can least afford not doing those things.
It's expensive to be poor.
There is more than one way to feel about this situation! I watch my finances, but the hours I spend on it feel wasted, and I am resentful of the people whose parasitic attitudes towards my bank account make this necessary.
It's as if, when I go to relax or exercise, my only option is hiking in a tick-infested field. I spend an extra 15 minutes prepping my clothes before going out, and an extra 15 minutes checking every inch of my body after I come back in.
It's true that all this extra work is my responsibility. It's also true that ticks suck (literally) and it would be preferable if there were a way to prevent them from parasitizing me in the first place.
It's as if, when I go to relax or exercise, my only option is hiking in a tick-infested field. I spend an extra 15 minutes prepping my clothes before going out, and an extra 15 minutes checking every inch of my body after I come back in.
It's true that all this extra work is my responsibility. It's also true that ticks suck (literally) and it would be preferable if there were a way to prevent them from parasitizing me in the first place.
> Ultimately it is your money and your problem. No one is looking out for you.
This is true, but it doesn't mean that collective solutions cannot exist or should not be desired.
This is true, but it doesn't mean that collective solutions cannot exist or should not be desired.
> It's bizarre to me just how many people in this country (especially the ones who can least afford it) simply do not take charge of their financial health.
They may be too exhausted from their second job - or from the one job they have to be on their feet the whole work day - and may not have the mental energy to comb through financial statements. You have the luxury of time and energy, so real reasons sound like excuses to you. I would recommend you (re)read John Scalzi's essay on Being Poor[1]. Except:
>> Being poor is knowing how hard it is to stop being poor.
The link between stress and poor decision-making is well studied, and unfortunately poor financial health is self-reinforcing: being poor is very expensive!
1. https://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/
They may be too exhausted from their second job - or from the one job they have to be on their feet the whole work day - and may not have the mental energy to comb through financial statements. You have the luxury of time and energy, so real reasons sound like excuses to you. I would recommend you (re)read John Scalzi's essay on Being Poor[1]. Except:
>> Being poor is knowing how hard it is to stop being poor.
The link between stress and poor decision-making is well studied, and unfortunately poor financial health is self-reinforcing: being poor is very expensive!
1. https://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/
I'm with you on every point except
>negotiating rents
I have never, ever been in a situation where a rent negotiation would have done anything except ensure I didn't get the apartment.
Is that real? Where?
>negotiating rents
I have never, ever been in a situation where a rent negotiation would have done anything except ensure I didn't get the apartment.
Is that real? Where?
Anecdotally...
I've lived throughout the US - Seattle, Atlanta, East Bay, Portland - and each time I've leased a place I've pushed back and asked for cheaper rent. Sometimes it's worked, sometimes it hasn't, but that's never ended a conversation or resulted in them walking away.
The home I'm renting now, I asked my landlord to reduce their proposed rent increase by 75% if we committed to a two-year lease, and they were fine with that. Never been an issue for me, and if a potential landlord bristles at something like that, then it's a sign that things may not be so great after I've signed the lease.
I've lived throughout the US - Seattle, Atlanta, East Bay, Portland - and each time I've leased a place I've pushed back and asked for cheaper rent. Sometimes it's worked, sometimes it hasn't, but that's never ended a conversation or resulted in them walking away.
The home I'm renting now, I asked my landlord to reduce their proposed rent increase by 75% if we committed to a two-year lease, and they were fine with that. Never been an issue for me, and if a potential landlord bristles at something like that, then it's a sign that things may not be so great after I've signed the lease.
With a small landlord it is sometimes possible. Even with the large ones if you let them know you are looking at moving you can sometimes get a discount for the year. Note that you need to be serious about moving to pull this off: you need to actively look at other places to live, and be ready/willing to follow through and move if they don't give you what you want. Apartments are competitive markets for new renters, but once someone is there the hassle of moving means people are often willing to pay more.
Low conscientiousness is linked to anti-social behavior, blue-collared crimes, and crimes of passion,[3] as well as unemployment and homelessness.[19] Low conscientiousness and low agreeableness taken together are also associated with substance use disorders.[27] People low in conscientiousness have difficulty saving money and their risky borrowing practices make them fall prey to subprime and predatory lending more often than conscientious people. High conscientiousness is associated with more careful planning of shopping trips and less impulse buying of unneeded items.[19] Conscientiousness is positively correlated with business, white-collared, and premeditated criminal behavior.[28]
It's bizarre to me that some people think that American's are somehow more stupid or gullible than other nations. Lots and lots of capital was spent to make sure that Americans are conditioned to spend as much and as frictionless as possible. And now they do and regulation cannot catch up.
> retirement savings, not paying random fees, not paying interest, moving spare money to investment accounts every month, rebalancing your investments every quarter, negotiating rents, negotiating your salary.
Where else do people need to actively manage their pension accounts like in the US? If your employer does not provide a decent 401k they trying to create a solid retirement investment account is an uphill challenge. In most other places it's simply a tax into a pension fund.
> not paying random fees There is very little price transparency. Random fees are typically not random, but hidden. You can't book a rental car online without being hit with some municipal tax or other surcharge at the counter. In SF a health surcharge often added to the bill on top tax. It makes no fucking sense that it is not a part of the price or part of the sales tax. Cellular carriers and ISPs know exactly how much you gonna be paying but will bend backwards to make sure you don't know it until very end.
You are right that basic financial discipline is a personal responsibility, but removing the asymmetry in the relationship between large businesses and consumers is on the government and legal system.
> retirement savings, not paying random fees, not paying interest, moving spare money to investment accounts every month, rebalancing your investments every quarter, negotiating rents, negotiating your salary.
Where else do people need to actively manage their pension accounts like in the US? If your employer does not provide a decent 401k they trying to create a solid retirement investment account is an uphill challenge. In most other places it's simply a tax into a pension fund.
> not paying random fees There is very little price transparency. Random fees are typically not random, but hidden. You can't book a rental car online without being hit with some municipal tax or other surcharge at the counter. In SF a health surcharge often added to the bill on top tax. It makes no fucking sense that it is not a part of the price or part of the sales tax. Cellular carriers and ISPs know exactly how much you gonna be paying but will bend backwards to make sure you don't know it until very end.
You are right that basic financial discipline is a personal responsibility, but removing the asymmetry in the relationship between large businesses and consumers is on the government and legal system.
> This discussion is about subscriptions but the general idea applies to so much more – basic budgeting, retirement savings, not paying random fees, not paying interest, moving spare money to investment accounts every month, rebalancing your investments every quarter, negotiating rents, negotiating your salary.
I think it's one of the major failures of the education system. Why is there no class in school which covers taxes, savings, budgeting, etc? People are seemingly just expected to know this on their own.
I think it's one of the major failures of the education system. Why is there no class in school which covers taxes, savings, budgeting, etc? People are seemingly just expected to know this on their own.
Most subjects taught in K-12 tend to be ancient: language, math, history, science, music, etc. with occasional modern electives.
Obviously personal finance is also ancient on some level, but I wonder how long it's actually been so complicated and critical as to warrant consideration for being taught in school. I'm no expert, but I think the complexities like payment cards, insanely complex tax code, etc. are quite modern. On the other hand, the same could be said for driver's ed which is pretty common.
Obviously personal finance is also ancient on some level, but I wonder how long it's actually been so complicated and critical as to warrant consideration for being taught in school. I'm no expert, but I think the complexities like payment cards, insanely complex tax code, etc. are quite modern. On the other hand, the same could be said for driver's ed which is pretty common.
When I was in grade school (a very long time ago), personal finance was a huge focus. It was the main thing you learned in Home Economics class. When my kids were in grade school, it was basically not taught at all. Home Ec was more about sewing and cooking than about, you know, economics.
I don't know when that change happened, but it's to the detriment of everyone.
I don't know when that change happened, but it's to the detriment of everyone.
Would the kinds of people who have trouble budgeting and managing their investments be any better at it if the technique was taught at school? Judging from my own experience, I'd say willpower is the bigger barrier. Thankfully I'm not in a situation where I'd need to carefully watch my daily expenses (being semi-concious of them works well for me), but if I had to, I'd have to force myself. Maybe that's too much for some.
> managing their investments
Bold of you to assume that these people have investments at all.
Bold of you to assume that these people have investments at all.
Probably because people don't pay attention. I had someone at university that asked the same question, why didn't we have these classes be required. Our school required it and they were in the same class as me. They just didn't bother to pay attention to even know they had taken it.
IF you don't know the basics of math you won't figure out personal finance. If you do know math you can figure it out - that isn't saying you will, but you can.
> It's bizarre to me just how many people in this country (especially the ones who can least afford it) simply do not take charge of their financial health.
It’s designed to be complicated, confusing or easy to forget just so it traps people at least once. It’s borderline fraud sometimes, at least it feels like that to me. The recourse is to be super vigilant but when you let guard down you fall into a trap and it’s hard to beware all traps at all times especially when they’re being constantly evolving
It’s designed to be complicated, confusing or easy to forget just so it traps people at least once. It’s borderline fraud sometimes, at least it feels like that to me. The recourse is to be super vigilant but when you let guard down you fall into a trap and it’s hard to beware all traps at all times especially when they’re being constantly evolving
> No one is looking out for you. You can either endlessly complain about it or build some good habits. 30 minutes of effort once a month to go over bills and budgets is hardly the end of the world.
I don’t disagree, but I’d point out that this applies to basically anything in life. Relationships, exercise, health, work, etc. The fact is people prioritize and many don’t prioritize their finances. All of us drop the ball on something.
I don’t disagree, but I’d point out that this applies to basically anything in life. Relationships, exercise, health, work, etc. The fact is people prioritize and many don’t prioritize their finances. All of us drop the ball on something.
Is it really that shocking? People pay a lot for convenience. Not putting effort into managing money is another act of convenience that comes with a cost.
Hiring a money manager would be the convenience here, but that's not what is happening.
It's called nickel and diming and the term originated when they stopped being something you could buy a sandwich with.
I'm not surprised at all, a few billions is paltry. I think i have a few subs that i've forgotten about for months or years. I have several bank accounts and several credit cards, things become complicated.
At the time i liked what those people were making, or i wanted to watch a certain series, etc.
I'm not surprised at all, a few billions is paltry. I think i have a few subs that i've forgotten about for months or years. I have several bank accounts and several credit cards, things become complicated.
At the time i liked what those people were making, or i wanted to watch a certain series, etc.
>It's bizarre to me just how many people in this country (especially the ones who can least afford it) simply do not take charge of their financial health.
I've seen it first-hand how those with the biggest financial problems earn as much money as anybody else, but they simply can't handle it. And the rest of us are supposed to bail them out of course.
I've seen it first-hand how those with the biggest financial problems earn as much money as anybody else, but they simply can't handle it. And the rest of us are supposed to bail them out of course.
While that's true, there are multi-billion dollar industries built around exploiting financial ignorance. Payday loan companies and gambling are top of mind for me here. Who are we really bailing out, the financially unhealthy or the corporate parasites?
> (especially the ones who can least afford it)
There's a correlation between financial illiteracy and acquiring cripling debt.
There's a correlation between financial illiteracy and acquiring cripling debt.
The line between reasonable responsibiliy and unreasonable responsibility is subjective and blurry. We can generally agree it's my responsibility to not waste my life savings on novelty mugs, but it's not my responsibility to keep my money in an armored vault at home in case a burgler breaks in and tries to steal it.
Laws exist to protect people from bad actors so our time and efforts can be better spent on things that are valuable to us and society.
Is 30 minutes a month an unreasonable responsibility to protect against companies taking advantage of people with unutilized subscriptions? Should the law be updated to enable people to save people that time and effort? Maybe. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to at least consider.
Laws exist to protect people from bad actors so our time and efforts can be better spent on things that are valuable to us and society.
Is 30 minutes a month an unreasonable responsibility to protect against companies taking advantage of people with unutilized subscriptions? Should the law be updated to enable people to save people that time and effort? Maybe. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to at least consider.
A lot of it is genetic. Good luck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientiousness
You have a lot of it, and so do the type A personality people on this site.
>It's bizarre to me just how many people in this country (especially the ones who can least afford it) simply do not take charge of their financial health.
But, see...
>No one is looking out for you.
... that's just it, isn't it?
Nobody's looking out for you. We send kids to public school from ages five to eighteen, but at a broad level, we do not have a requirement for any of that education to be about how to take charge, and stay on top of, your fiscal health. I'm not sure how you can look down on others like that when a large chunk of people are kicked into adulthood without ever having been taught how to look after themselves financially.
But, see...
>No one is looking out for you.
... that's just it, isn't it?
Nobody's looking out for you. We send kids to public school from ages five to eighteen, but at a broad level, we do not have a requirement for any of that education to be about how to take charge, and stay on top of, your fiscal health. I'm not sure how you can look down on others like that when a large chunk of people are kicked into adulthood without ever having been taught how to look after themselves financially.
But you can teach yourself, like how most everyone who is looking over themselves financially did. Learning doesn't end with schooling, and for most they know that, doing dance, art, and sport classes for example all on their own. It’s just that financial literacy isn’t a priority.
If it's not a priority for people, and we understand that there is an incredibly wide range of circumstances that everyone is in, much of which don't allow for easy fiscal education, access to it, or time for it, it should be pretty darn obvious that it should be a part of our basic education system. Am I to take your response as a suggestion that we shouldn't bother introducing this subject matter as a requirement at the public school level?
Let's add it as a class, I'm not against it. I do have doubts about its efficacy introduced to students in high school before they have their first credit card and their counselors continuing to push the college at all costs view, but it won't hurt.
I'm not sure what the solution is. Frankly I just don't think people are that interested in it - even if you do know about it, looking at your cc bill or budgeting just isn't a thing people want to do. If you know your mortgage jumps up in 5 years, most people will think they'll be able to afford it then. We vote in policies that help the wealthy because everyone assumes that's who they'll be soon enough!
That all being said, I'm not sure how much we should protect people against themselves. I don't mean to take a libertarian view and we can improve the current situation (like making subscription cancelling easier and online), but I don't think solving finances is a tenable one. I'm digressing, but we all like to kick the can down the road, including our national debt or pension obligations.
I'm not sure what the solution is. Frankly I just don't think people are that interested in it - even if you do know about it, looking at your cc bill or budgeting just isn't a thing people want to do. If you know your mortgage jumps up in 5 years, most people will think they'll be able to afford it then. We vote in policies that help the wealthy because everyone assumes that's who they'll be soon enough!
That all being said, I'm not sure how much we should protect people against themselves. I don't mean to take a libertarian view and we can improve the current situation (like making subscription cancelling easier and online), but I don't think solving finances is a tenable one. I'm digressing, but we all like to kick the can down the road, including our national debt or pension obligations.
People tend to act shocked when I tell them my finance app requires me to enter transactions manually and doesn't magically categorize everything.
You spend a third of your life working for that money, surely you spend 5 minutes at most tracking how you spend it.
You spend a third of your life working for that money, surely you spend 5 minutes at most tracking how you spend it.
When I was very poor (~$22k/year), I had a google sheet that had a running tally of all my transactions, what category they came from, and was therefore able to forecast months in advance when I'd be able to afford to go to a movie with my partner. If I was going to have a shortfall (maybe because I'd been scheduled for less hours unexpectedly, or I had an unexpected health issue), I'd know weeks in advance if I was at risk of missing rent, and adjust my grocery spending accordingly.
Being exposed to the crushing reality of my poverty, alongside the daily ritual of sending off job applications and reading rejection emails from last week's applications, took a heavy toll on my mental health. If I was running things that close to the bone again, I'm certain I could take that habit up again, but one of the ways I know I've come up is that my survival does not require me to categorize every transaction in real time and confirm adherence to the budget down to the penny.
Being exposed to the crushing reality of my poverty, alongside the daily ritual of sending off job applications and reading rejection emails from last week's applications, took a heavy toll on my mental health. If I was running things that close to the bone again, I'm certain I could take that habit up again, but one of the ways I know I've come up is that my survival does not require me to categorize every transaction in real time and confirm adherence to the budget down to the penny.
I'm guilty of being averse to this too, even though I intellectually know that if I accept manually entering transactions, then there are so many more options I can choose for tracking finances. As it is, I'm locked into a Banktivity subscription fee...
I think part of it is that it is just so hard to centralize all finances through just one bank. The best bank for retirement doesn't support business credit cards; the best credit cards are with completely different companies, etc. Monthly finances are a huge hassle as it is.
I think part of it is that it is just so hard to centralize all finances through just one bank. The best bank for retirement doesn't support business credit cards; the best credit cards are with completely different companies, etc. Monthly finances are a huge hassle as it is.
> I think part of it is that it is just so hard to centralize all finances through just one bank.
I always advice against single points of failure (whether software, security, or finance). Do the opposite, pick the best for each and intentionally avoid overlap.
I have credit cards from every major bank but I don't have anything else at those banks. My accounts with money in them are in other institutions where I don't have cards or anything else. My mortgage is with a bank where I have nothing else with them, and so on.
Decentralize, avoid too many eggs in any one basket.
I always advice against single points of failure (whether software, security, or finance). Do the opposite, pick the best for each and intentionally avoid overlap.
I have credit cards from every major bank but I don't have anything else at those banks. My accounts with money in them are in other institutions where I don't have cards or anything else. My mortgage is with a bank where I have nothing else with them, and so on.
Decentralize, avoid too many eggs in any one basket.
I use an app like this as well. Was working great until I moved in with someone and it became more time consuming to look over line items and split all the restaurant / grocery bills rather than just entering the total. Now I have a bowl full of receipts to go through and the balance is usually not up to date :/.
sure, but when there's a dozen apps that will do it automatically, why?
if the app automatically categorizes things, you don't ever have to look at it. doing it yourself requires that you review every transaction individually.
Categorization and review are two different processes. The app I use will download and categorize, but I still have to review/accept each transaction. What is the benefit of manual entry in this case?
Why are both of you not naming the apps you use?
I use Tiller, which ingests my transactions but doesn't categorize them for me (except by a rule set that I manually defined)
My credit card statement already automatically categorizes things.
I don't know what's the point of using a 3rd party app for this, unless you feel very generous about providing your data for someone to sell.
I also don't know what's the point of reviewing transactions individually. If I pay something monthly (e.g. internet/car insurance/utility bills), I'm not going to look at it every month. I might check it at the end of the year to see if there are any 10x anomalies, but that's it.
I'm also not going to check transactions under $20, unless there are hundreds of them that are unexpected.
Although I do feel sorry for buyers who spend $1000+ every month on impulse shopping, but those are also the kind of people to never check their financial health anyway.
I don't know what's the point of using a 3rd party app for this, unless you feel very generous about providing your data for someone to sell.
I also don't know what's the point of reviewing transactions individually. If I pay something monthly (e.g. internet/car insurance/utility bills), I'm not going to look at it every month. I might check it at the end of the year to see if there are any 10x anomalies, but that's it.
I'm also not going to check transactions under $20, unless there are hundreds of them that are unexpected.
Although I do feel sorry for buyers who spend $1000+ every month on impulse shopping, but those are also the kind of people to never check their financial health anyway.
What value do you feel that you gain from all that categorization effort?
> 30 minutes of effort once a month to go over bills and budgets is hardly the end of the world.
Maybe for someone who already has good financial habits it is 30 minutes, but for people who never bother with this it will take far more time.
Maybe for someone who already has good financial habits it is 30 minutes, but for people who never bother with this it will take far more time.
Well that's a dismal way to look at it. Regulations should be in place to prevent these kinds of business practices. For example, if a user doesn't use a service, perhaps they should get a refund for those months.
This is exactly the problem I am talking about. Why is the first instinct to always externalize blame? Why is big government the default solution to everything? How about – if you are not getting value out of a subscription (that you signed up for), go and cancel it. And if you choose not to, don't blame the rest of the world for your money problems.
> How about – if you are not getting value out of a subscription (that you signed up for), go and cancel it.
That sounds sensible, but fails to acknowledge the power differential between a single person and a billion+ dollar corporation.
The latter has armies of people whose sole job is to intentionally make it almost completely impossible to unsubscribe.
Resolving this power imbalance is one of the useful properties of government. Pass laws that say it must be very easy to unsubscribe (some states have).
That sounds sensible, but fails to acknowledge the power differential between a single person and a billion+ dollar corporation.
The latter has armies of people whose sole job is to intentionally make it almost completely impossible to unsubscribe.
Resolving this power imbalance is one of the useful properties of government. Pass laws that say it must be very easy to unsubscribe (some states have).
I'm with you that someone who has been paying for a service despite not using it shouldn't necessarily be entitled for a refund.
That said, I wholeheartedly believe that there should be a legal requirement for any subscription to be as easy to cancel as it is to sign up. Gym memberships are notoriously for being criminally difficult to cancel. It's beyond ludicrous that I can sign up for a gym online or at my local gym, but can't cancel the same way. Nope, I have to pick up a form (which only the manager can give you, which means I have to go there when he's there, and he'll be conveniently unavailable), fill it out, mail it, and hope they don't conveniently "lose" it. And even if they don't lose it, they'll just sit on it for 2-3 months before the payments stop.
That said, I wholeheartedly believe that there should be a legal requirement for any subscription to be as easy to cancel as it is to sign up. Gym memberships are notoriously for being criminally difficult to cancel. It's beyond ludicrous that I can sign up for a gym online or at my local gym, but can't cancel the same way. Nope, I have to pick up a form (which only the manager can give you, which means I have to go there when he's there, and he'll be conveniently unavailable), fill it out, mail it, and hope they don't conveniently "lose" it. And even if they don't lose it, they'll just sit on it for 2-3 months before the payments stop.
Bluntly, we live with individuals who just suck at finance (this extends to other now-necessary skills too). I want to live in a world where they aren't constantly taken advantage of. Consider it a mental disorder if you need to; we don't have to punish people for being dumb.
Besides, regulation of this kind (cancelling subscription) benefits everyone but certain companies. I don't want to waste my time due to someone's misguided free market ideology. Even if navigating endless bureaucracy does make me feel smart.
That said, I hate the tendency of regulators to outright ban certain activities. Everyone should be free to throw their money away (by e.g. making risky investments), after signing a lot of very scary forms and showing that they really mean it.
Besides, regulation of this kind (cancelling subscription) benefits everyone but certain companies. I don't want to waste my time due to someone's misguided free market ideology. Even if navigating endless bureaucracy does make me feel smart.
That said, I hate the tendency of regulators to outright ban certain activities. Everyone should be free to throw their money away (by e.g. making risky investments), after signing a lot of very scary forms and showing that they really mean it.
If I watch 1 hour of Netflix a month and you watch 300 hundred hours a month, should the government mandate that Netflix charge you 300x more than me? If not, why should the person who watches 0 hours be treated any differently? Ultimately Netflix is creating the plan and publishing its details, and we are all opting into it willingly. Whether we get value from it or not is for us to decide, not the government.
Because a person who doesn't watch Netflix for a month gets no value from their money, so not charging them is a clear win with no downsides.
Netflix doesn't get as much money, but since they didn't provide any service, I fail to see why that's a problem.
The only reasonable price for 0 work is 0€. For anything more it gets complicated.
Netflix doesn't get as much money, but since they didn't provide any service, I fail to see why that's a problem.
The only reasonable price for 0 work is 0€. For anything more it gets complicated.
That's not entirely true though. Netflix had to be prepared to provide that service. Meaning they needed to be able to have the capacity to serve the videos if necessary. Some times just having that capacity has a cost in and of itself.
Not to mention they still are producing content whether you watch it or not, and by subscribing you are paying for that content to be created.
It's more extreme in other scenarios, like say hospital emergency rooms. But it still applies to services like Netflix imho.
Not to mention they still are producing content whether you watch it or not, and by subscribing you are paying for that content to be created.
It's more extreme in other scenarios, like say hospital emergency rooms. But it still applies to services like Netflix imho.
>... if you are not getting value out of a subscription (that you signed up for), go and cancel it.
You're not wrong, necessarily, but the world isn't as black and white as you would like it to be. There is nuance to things, and not every subscription is as easy to cancel as you seem to think it should be.
I cancelled my NYT subscription about a year before California required them to make it a one-click process. I had to sit on the phone with them for 90 minutes in order to make it happen. Various holds, multiple reps pushing different "packages" for me rather than just outright cancelling. I literally had to argue with them in order to make it happen.
I had the time then. I didn't mind, though I sure was annoyed as hell. These days, with the job I have, and my outside-of-work life situation being what it is, 90 minutes isn't exactly an easy chunk of time for me to block out just so I can cancel a $25/month subscription. I could end up finding time for it, sure, and that - to your point - is absolutely on me. But it's not as easy to do that now as it was when I'd signed up for it years back. And you know, deep down, just as well as I do, that shit isn't ever as black and white as your attitude would like it to be. You can call it an "excuse" all you want, but that's a disingenuous take.
You're not wrong, necessarily, but the world isn't as black and white as you would like it to be. There is nuance to things, and not every subscription is as easy to cancel as you seem to think it should be.
I cancelled my NYT subscription about a year before California required them to make it a one-click process. I had to sit on the phone with them for 90 minutes in order to make it happen. Various holds, multiple reps pushing different "packages" for me rather than just outright cancelling. I literally had to argue with them in order to make it happen.
I had the time then. I didn't mind, though I sure was annoyed as hell. These days, with the job I have, and my outside-of-work life situation being what it is, 90 minutes isn't exactly an easy chunk of time for me to block out just so I can cancel a $25/month subscription. I could end up finding time for it, sure, and that - to your point - is absolutely on me. But it's not as easy to do that now as it was when I'd signed up for it years back. And you know, deep down, just as well as I do, that shit isn't ever as black and white as your attitude would like it to be. You can call it an "excuse" all you want, but that's a disingenuous take.
Consumer protection laws exist for a reason
Same "advice" can be given to fatties too. Your health and your problem. I put advice in quotes because it doesn't work and isn't that easy in practice.
Honestly this is a very out of touch view. And you assume people don't do these things. Of course they do. Some don't. But you're making a broad generalization.
People do check this stuff. Even then it's easy to forget about something for a few months. Or ask if your SO is using something.
There are so many charges on a typical CC statement that spending time every day going through them isn't always worth it either.
People do check this stuff. Even then it's easy to forget about something for a few months. Or ask if your SO is using something.
There are so many charges on a typical CC statement that spending time every day going through them isn't always worth it either.
Whenever I get a free trial of Prime, I immediately set a reminder on my phone to cancel it in a month. It's really not that hard.
You can also immediately go to settings and choose not to renew. It'll still be active for the rest of the month.
Gosh I've wasted so much time worrying about not cancelling on time
It's even easier to reject all free trials of everything. That's what I do.
I habitually reject subscriptions and automatic payments, too, as far as possible, so I can retain full control of the flow & timing of my expenses.
(For services where it's not possible, I subscribe them to a single credit card, which I treat as though it were another utility bill.)
(For services where it's not possible, I subscribe them to a single credit card, which I treat as though it were another utility bill.)
I'm already ordering stuff from Amazon, why would I refuse free shipping?
I think it is human nature.
If someone was hired to manage your life, and they did what you did, they would be fired with contempt.
If someone was hired to manage your life, and they did what you did, they would be fired with contempt.
It's not bizarre when you consider the lengths companies go to, to try convince those who can least afford it to make a purchase.
The most vulnerable are used a fodder for a vast capitalist system.
The most vulnerable are used a fodder for a vast capitalist system.
Industrialisation means that most consumer goods are mass produced. That means these companies need to make their money from wide sales instead of tall sales. Wide as in getting as many individual customers as possible, instead of tall as in selling bespoke products for an expensive price to few customers.
Very few people need more than one washing machine. Well off people already own washing machines. So if you're selling washing machines, you need to make a way for as many poor people as possible to be able to buy them, hence credit and split payments.
Very few people need more than one washing machine. Well off people already own washing machines. So if you're selling washing machines, you need to make a way for as many poor people as possible to be able to buy them, hence credit and split payments.
What's your point?
That the system is just fine thank you Sir, move along?
That the system is just fine thank you Sir, move along?
My point is that is logical and not that bizarre that companies will do anything they can to broaden their customer base. Once you've sold your product to the rich and the middle class, you have to target the poor. Because your factory keeps spitting out product and you need customers.
Some companies only sell to people who are financially struggling.
And a great deal of these companies rely on people not being financially literate to make huge amounts of money.
There's no inevitability to these systems. People make choices to run companies these ways.
They don't have to sell because the factories can't stop making products.
There's no inevitability to these systems. People make choices to run companies these ways.
They don't have to sell because the factories can't stop making products.
You're talking about individual companies, I'm talking about the systemic factors in general.
> They don't have to sell because the factories can't stop making products.
What are they supposed to do? Shut down the factories and fire their workers? Industrialised production relies on huge up-front investments and large operating cost, in exchange for enormous output and low per-unit cost of production. That's how it works in capitalism. That's how it works in communism. If industry can't operate on that model and need to get their income from fewer customers, then consumer goods would be much more expensive as a result. Also much better in quality, but inaccessible for the majority of people.
> They don't have to sell because the factories can't stop making products.
What are they supposed to do? Shut down the factories and fire their workers? Industrialised production relies on huge up-front investments and large operating cost, in exchange for enormous output and low per-unit cost of production. That's how it works in capitalism. That's how it works in communism. If industry can't operate on that model and need to get their income from fewer customers, then consumer goods would be much more expensive as a result. Also much better in quality, but inaccessible for the majority of people.
We're talking about subscription services.
A huge number of these services won't actually even supply physical goods.
Your argument isn't relevant here.
A huge number of these services won't actually even supply physical goods.
Your argument isn't relevant here.
Mass media is also an example of mass production, working in the same way. Whether it's through subscriptions or selling physical media or entrance tickets, creators seek a huge audience. They usually have huge investment costs to produce their stuff, whether it's money or time. Then their cost-per-unit sold is extremely low, sometimes approaching zero. But if they can't get paid by a mass audience, then creativity will have to return to bespoke works. Ie, artists will make their work for rich individuals by commission, instead of to the general public.
I do see your point, but it seems to me that you're trying to explain why capitalism isn't the problem.
I don't think this is true.
Think about the system you're describing. It makes a lot more sense until you introduce the concept of greed.
These companies aren't going to a mass market instead of selling to smaller rich audiences. They're selling to the mass market as well.
There's no target profit amount.
"As much as possible".
I don't think this is true.
Think about the system you're describing. It makes a lot more sense until you introduce the concept of greed.
These companies aren't going to a mass market instead of selling to smaller rich audiences. They're selling to the mass market as well.
There's no target profit amount.
"As much as possible".
That's passing the buck. All of those suggestions you have apply to these companies as well. It's just that when they are lazy, they get to leech off of everyone else and make money from it, where they hide behind the "complexity" of their systems. It's absurd that you place the blame on the victims of this.
There's so much bullshit required a lot of the time in canceling things or even knowing that you were signed up for something in the first place. Just purchasing something these days will automatically sign up yourself up for endless emails from that and other companies, even if you unchecked the so-called newsletter option. There are so many dark patterns that sign people up for things that they didn't even they got signed up for. I have absolutely been signed up for something, either by accident or a dark pattern, that I didn't realize until latter. It wasn't due to laziness, me lamenting others, or some bad habit. It was due to being effectively tricked and legally scammed.
Companies have used software-based services as a sort of trojan horse, and they absolutely take advantage of people who don't understand technology.
There's so much bullshit required a lot of the time in canceling things or even knowing that you were signed up for something in the first place. Just purchasing something these days will automatically sign up yourself up for endless emails from that and other companies, even if you unchecked the so-called newsletter option. There are so many dark patterns that sign people up for things that they didn't even they got signed up for. I have absolutely been signed up for something, either by accident or a dark pattern, that I didn't realize until latter. It wasn't due to laziness, me lamenting others, or some bad habit. It was due to being effectively tricked and legally scammed.
Companies have used software-based services as a sort of trojan horse, and they absolutely take advantage of people who don't understand technology.
Eh, there's a pretty big difference between "I'm too lazy to solve this" and "the only reason this requires so much effort is because the business would lose a ton of revenue if people could simply stop paying for things that they don't want to have". There really is no reason why cancelling a subscription at some predefined point in the future should require any kind of business-hours-only-must-talk-to-a-physical-person approach, and if your CSR handling your cancellation is not empowered to actually process your request (which is pretty common with e.g. cable and phone companies as well as gyms), then its abuse, pure and simple. I know what my hourly equivalent is, so if the cost to my employer (or myself, if I'm an independent contractor) while I sort this out when I should be working is more than the monthly bill itself, then it becomes not worth my time to sit on the phone and deal with it.
I had a regular order with Chewy, until the dog food brand I was having drop shipped stopping selling that particular type of dog food to Chewy (but I could get it somewhere else). And I had to sit on hold for 30 fucking minutes, just so Chewy would stop charging me (considerably more) for, and shipping to me, dog food that I did not want, had never wanted, and was actually shopping elsewhere to avoid. And I didn't find out that they didn't carry that brand anymore until they shipped "what we believe is the closest match" to me. I honestly thought it was a mis-pick initially, so when I went to resolve it, I followed that customer service UI pattern, to no avail. They've changed it since then, but the fact still remains, that was not at all a scenario I should've needed to call in for. I certainly shouldn't have needed to sit on hold for it. When I finally spoke to the CSR, she was apologetic that I even had to talk to her about it.
I had a regular order with Chewy, until the dog food brand I was having drop shipped stopping selling that particular type of dog food to Chewy (but I could get it somewhere else). And I had to sit on hold for 30 fucking minutes, just so Chewy would stop charging me (considerably more) for, and shipping to me, dog food that I did not want, had never wanted, and was actually shopping elsewhere to avoid. And I didn't find out that they didn't carry that brand anymore until they shipped "what we believe is the closest match" to me. I honestly thought it was a mis-pick initially, so when I went to resolve it, I followed that customer service UI pattern, to no avail. They've changed it since then, but the fact still remains, that was not at all a scenario I should've needed to call in for. I certainly shouldn't have needed to sit on hold for it. When I finally spoke to the CSR, she was apologetic that I even had to talk to her about it.
[deleted]
I don't understand, do people not log in online to look at their credit card statements? It takes 5 minutes to skim your transactions, look for suspicious charges, get a quick read on where money is going.
There are lots of challenges to actually canceling subscriptions, but not knowing that you're being charged for something every month? Seems absent-minded to me.
There are lots of challenges to actually canceling subscriptions, but not knowing that you're being charged for something every month? Seems absent-minded to me.
Most HNers have never held a job outside of a high paying tech job. When you're working retail and struggling to pay bills, literally all you think about is money. So much so that it is debilitating from the stress. When you're under that much pressure constantly, it is very easy to miss something.
"But, if it's that bad, they shouldn't even be signing up for this stuff!", I hear some of you saying. You look for an escape wherever you can. Some little thing that will pull you, even for a moment, out of the monotony of the daily grind. Don't blame these people.
"But, if it's that bad, they shouldn't even be signing up for this stuff!", I hear some of you saying. You look for an escape wherever you can. Some little thing that will pull you, even for a moment, out of the monotony of the daily grind. Don't blame these people.
See, I used to buy into this reasoning, but now, I'm not so sure.
You can easily say the same thing about someone who does work a high-tech job. You make so much money you stop looking at your bank accounts. There are so many new grads or even late 20s professionals who barely manage their finances beyond 1-2 months. I would argue middle-class folks manage the idea of a "6 month emergency fund" a lot better than those in high-tech who make 200k+ a year and just don't think about money anymore.
I think the right reasons are:
- folks don't know how to do this (literally what does it means to review your statements and check your accounts + what to look for)
- folks do not understand how manageable it can be once you spend the initial activation energy
- last and maybe most controversial, folks don't have the ability to make it a habit (which then causes every few months for it to become a big hurdle).
You can easily say the same thing about someone who does work a high-tech job. You make so much money you stop looking at your bank accounts. There are so many new grads or even late 20s professionals who barely manage their finances beyond 1-2 months. I would argue middle-class folks manage the idea of a "6 month emergency fund" a lot better than those in high-tech who make 200k+ a year and just don't think about money anymore.
I think the right reasons are:
- folks don't know how to do this (literally what does it means to review your statements and check your accounts + what to look for)
- folks do not understand how manageable it can be once you spend the initial activation energy
- last and maybe most controversial, folks don't have the ability to make it a habit (which then causes every few months for it to become a big hurdle).
>You can easily say the same thing about someone who does work a high-tech job
No you F-ing can't, and if you even remotely think that, you have never experienced poverty. Life's a lot different when your bills are $X this month and working 60 hours only makes you $X-$1000. "Change your expenses" Oh yeah? Am I supposed to WILL cheaper apartments into existence? Am I supposed to magically reduce the cost of my groceries? Am I supposed to pray away the late fee on my cell phone plan because I literally had $10 in my bank account and couldn't pay it?
It is expensive to be poor, intentionally so. It is a huge source of profit for numerous companies to make poor people pay more for the same service and access.
I'm sick and tired of privileged jerks saying "Just be better with your money" as if you can magically stretch your $15 and hour job to cover $1500 a month in rent, or that you should have no problem scheduling things when you can't even know your work schedule the week before.
What part of "personal responsibility" changes that your rent goes up %5 every single damn year, and your pay check does not?
I grew up in poverty. I only escaped it through sheer luck that I am above average intelligence and my hyperfixation was computers and computing history and programming, and despite a literal full ride scholarship to a second rate state college, I still couldn't afford it without my jackass Rich Uncle, who is exactly the type to complain about "personal responsibility", writing a $10K check. Now I pay $20k or more in taxes every year, for the rest of my life, which clearly offsets the 16 years times $10k a year "tuition" it costs to put someone through public school.
But notably, that doesn't undo the actual, physiological changes in my brain that come from growing up in poverty. These changes cause you to make less rational and less value-positive decisions. But no, definitely my fault that my brain broke when my mom spent most nights screaming and crying and trying to not starve to death.
Meanwhile she has literally won awards in the state for being one of the best teachers. For 30 years. She still cries about the suffering we experienced. But no, better that poor people get screwed over if they don't make perfect decisions, that they are empirically wired to not be able to do as easily as someone who grew up in a not financially stressed household.
No you F-ing can't, and if you even remotely think that, you have never experienced poverty. Life's a lot different when your bills are $X this month and working 60 hours only makes you $X-$1000. "Change your expenses" Oh yeah? Am I supposed to WILL cheaper apartments into existence? Am I supposed to magically reduce the cost of my groceries? Am I supposed to pray away the late fee on my cell phone plan because I literally had $10 in my bank account and couldn't pay it?
It is expensive to be poor, intentionally so. It is a huge source of profit for numerous companies to make poor people pay more for the same service and access.
I'm sick and tired of privileged jerks saying "Just be better with your money" as if you can magically stretch your $15 and hour job to cover $1500 a month in rent, or that you should have no problem scheduling things when you can't even know your work schedule the week before.
What part of "personal responsibility" changes that your rent goes up %5 every single damn year, and your pay check does not?
I grew up in poverty. I only escaped it through sheer luck that I am above average intelligence and my hyperfixation was computers and computing history and programming, and despite a literal full ride scholarship to a second rate state college, I still couldn't afford it without my jackass Rich Uncle, who is exactly the type to complain about "personal responsibility", writing a $10K check. Now I pay $20k or more in taxes every year, for the rest of my life, which clearly offsets the 16 years times $10k a year "tuition" it costs to put someone through public school.
But notably, that doesn't undo the actual, physiological changes in my brain that come from growing up in poverty. These changes cause you to make less rational and less value-positive decisions. But no, definitely my fault that my brain broke when my mom spent most nights screaming and crying and trying to not starve to death.
Meanwhile she has literally won awards in the state for being one of the best teachers. For 30 years. She still cries about the suffering we experienced. But no, better that poor people get screwed over if they don't make perfect decisions, that they are empirically wired to not be able to do as easily as someone who grew up in a not financially stressed household.
Not only that, but people really underestimate how locked into a difficult financial situation you can get. Yeah, you can just get a better job or just move where there are more opportunities, except you need time to make all of that happen; if you're working dogshit hours just to keep the lights on and you have a family to feed, finding the time to go to interviews or to figure out where to live may not be on the table, at least not immediately. Especially if one can't even afford the move itself.
Those whom have reached financial escape velocity, or never had to reach it because of good fortune, often are biased towards believing that their current lifestyle is entirely the result of their own decisions and didn't involve luck.
People should act with personal responsibility, but all the personal responsibility in the world won't make a winner in a losing situation. Anyone can do what Warren Buffet does, but Buffet doesn't risk starvation or having his children live on the street when things don't work out.
Those whom have reached financial escape velocity, or never had to reach it because of good fortune, often are biased towards believing that their current lifestyle is entirely the result of their own decisions and didn't involve luck.
People should act with personal responsibility, but all the personal responsibility in the world won't make a winner in a losing situation. Anyone can do what Warren Buffet does, but Buffet doesn't risk starvation or having his children live on the street when things don't work out.
My dad was a part-time janitor at my high school and I was in my teens before I realized that sometimes people got more than a single gift for Christmas, but I'm also able to talking about this without resorting to ad hominem and calling people privileged jerks for having a different opinion or calling wealthy family members jackasses while simultaneously taking their money.
Is it a human right to live in a $1500/mo apartment? Is it a human right to live within a short commute of your workplace? Is it a human right to have your salary increase commensurate with inflation or your increase in costs when you're doing the same job from 5 years ago?
When someone says "be better with your money" they're not telling you that your $15/hr job should cover your $1500/mo rent, they're telling you that you shouldn't be living in a $1500/mo apartment on $15/hr. I'm willing to bet a lot of them have no idea just how little $15/hr is, though.
Is it a human right to live in a $1500/mo apartment? Is it a human right to live within a short commute of your workplace? Is it a human right to have your salary increase commensurate with inflation or your increase in costs when you're doing the same job from 5 years ago?
When someone says "be better with your money" they're not telling you that your $15/hr job should cover your $1500/mo rent, they're telling you that you shouldn't be living in a $1500/mo apartment on $15/hr. I'm willing to bet a lot of them have no idea just how little $15/hr is, though.
> they're telling you that you shouldn't be living in a $1500/mo apartment on $15/hr.
This is directly saying that janitors, coffee pourers, cashiers, etc shouldn't be able to live where they work. This is explicitly saying that people who can't get a valuable job should be expected to commute farther, longer, less reliably, etc than anyone else.
Why? Does SV not buy coffee? Does NYC not need to be cleaned? These jobs need to be done, and it isn't the janitor's fault nobody built a damn apartment complex in the city to house them.
This is directly saying that janitors, coffee pourers, cashiers, etc shouldn't be able to live where they work. This is explicitly saying that people who can't get a valuable job should be expected to commute farther, longer, less reliably, etc than anyone else.
Why? Does SV not buy coffee? Does NYC not need to be cleaned? These jobs need to be done, and it isn't the janitor's fault nobody built a damn apartment complex in the city to house them.
I worked my way up, I'm 41 and working non-stop since I was 12 receiving a check as a paperboy. Worked at tire shops, autobody, whatever you can imagine. Before I was a paperboy, I ground down spot welding tips in my dad's shop to buy my toys and video games. Worked night shifts during community college and university. Fully qualified for SS in my 20s. Never a dollar from mommy and daddy. I haven't even received a Christmas or birthday gift in 20 years.
Developer now (a career mistake honestly), but back then I would've never had any subscriptions. Can't imagine being back in those shoes and having the TIME to fully utilize Netflix, Spotify etc.
My advice is if you're in that position, work more. Study more or work more. Trying to avoid it with some escape like watching Netflix is not productive and only makes things worse.
When I was in college, I kept a strict schedule. Classes from 9AM-1PM, work from 2PM-7PM, 7PM-12:30AM I was in the library studying until it closed. My grades suffered but there wasn't any time for TV. I simply cannot imagine getting ahead NOT doing this, and sitting on Spotify or Netflix instead. Almost scary, guaranteed way to remain a dud. But I'm sure it's common. Given life is harder now than it was 50 years ago, I'm sure the lack of effort + lazy ways is why everyone thinks times are so tough. If times are tough, we need to become tough.
For me, that life was satisfying. I needed no "escape", as I liked and struggle to remain productive today and feel more than ever the need for an escape. I often tell people my hobby is "survival". Fixing my truck, reviewing/fine tuning my finances, working on my house, strategizing for life. The issue isn't not enough time watching Youtube. It's that I'm not productive enough.
Doubly true for the "downtrodden" poor. It's just that most of them are not the forgotten men, the abandoned hardy stock from the upper midwest that know what it takes to get ahead. They've been groomed to complain and sulk instead. It's a lot easier. When I meet these people I ask them, "have you done your best for the Lord?". They have everything they need, breath in their lungs. All I ever needed. It's disrespectful to Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ to not do our best in life. Once I see these people exhaust all possible options to improve their condition, then I'll give them a handout and sympathy. Till then, no Netflix, more work. Or suffer, whatever is preferred.
Developer now (a career mistake honestly), but back then I would've never had any subscriptions. Can't imagine being back in those shoes and having the TIME to fully utilize Netflix, Spotify etc.
My advice is if you're in that position, work more. Study more or work more. Trying to avoid it with some escape like watching Netflix is not productive and only makes things worse.
When I was in college, I kept a strict schedule. Classes from 9AM-1PM, work from 2PM-7PM, 7PM-12:30AM I was in the library studying until it closed. My grades suffered but there wasn't any time for TV. I simply cannot imagine getting ahead NOT doing this, and sitting on Spotify or Netflix instead. Almost scary, guaranteed way to remain a dud. But I'm sure it's common. Given life is harder now than it was 50 years ago, I'm sure the lack of effort + lazy ways is why everyone thinks times are so tough. If times are tough, we need to become tough.
For me, that life was satisfying. I needed no "escape", as I liked and struggle to remain productive today and feel more than ever the need for an escape. I often tell people my hobby is "survival". Fixing my truck, reviewing/fine tuning my finances, working on my house, strategizing for life. The issue isn't not enough time watching Youtube. It's that I'm not productive enough.
Doubly true for the "downtrodden" poor. It's just that most of them are not the forgotten men, the abandoned hardy stock from the upper midwest that know what it takes to get ahead. They've been groomed to complain and sulk instead. It's a lot easier. When I meet these people I ask them, "have you done your best for the Lord?". They have everything they need, breath in their lungs. All I ever needed. It's disrespectful to Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ to not do our best in life. Once I see these people exhaust all possible options to improve their condition, then I'll give them a handout and sympathy. Till then, no Netflix, more work. Or suffer, whatever is preferred.
I am not that much younger than you but I think you need to look at average income and expenses for young people these days. Look at what it cost to attend college if you graduated around 2018.
We missed the period of time where you could "work your way through college" and have it paid off by the time you graduated, but we were able to graduate with reasonable levels of debt. I think I had $20k in debt when I graduated in 2008. My first apartment was a $450/mo room in someone's house then a $500/mo studio.
It's not possible to graduate college today only $20k in debt and they're going to make $10k/yr more than I did but have to pay for a $1800/mo studio (the median rent in the same town I got that $500/mo studio in 15 years ago). So it's great that you were disciplined but that's not the only thing that matters and each year things are a little worse for those just starting out.
We missed the period of time where you could "work your way through college" and have it paid off by the time you graduated, but we were able to graduate with reasonable levels of debt. I think I had $20k in debt when I graduated in 2008. My first apartment was a $450/mo room in someone's house then a $500/mo studio.
It's not possible to graduate college today only $20k in debt and they're going to make $10k/yr more than I did but have to pay for a $1800/mo studio (the median rent in the same town I got that $500/mo studio in 15 years ago). So it's great that you were disciplined but that's not the only thing that matters and each year things are a little worse for those just starting out.
>it's great that you were disciplined but that's not the only thing that matters and each year things are a little worse for those just starting out
The only thing you can control is yourself. There's really nothing anyone can do about conditions. I do believe that no one and nothing has more control over your life, than yourself.
The only thing you can control is yourself. There's really nothing anyone can do about conditions. I do believe that no one and nothing has more control over your life, than yourself.
Good for you that you're so good at things but I think it's pretty icky to blame people who aren't as good at things as I am.
I think people are far more capable than they think they are. The rest are just lazy and hide behind excuses to not even try.
I got a great tip here on HN: if your credit card supports email notifications for transactions, set it to alert you on every transaction. On my Citi card the notification is called “Transaction amount exceeds” and is configurable with a dollar amount, which I set to zero. Now I get an email within a minute or two of every charge that includes the amount and payee in the email. It’s a great way to put recurring charges you might have forgotten about “in your face” and lets you skip reviewing your whole statement at the end of the month (and gives you a searchable “database” of charge history).
This sounds like it can get a bit overwhelming. I absolutely abhor notifications on my phone unless they are things that need my immediate attention. Email is a particular pain where it is difficult to impossible to differentiate spam from legitimate communications.
I really do wish banks or visa/mastercard would offer virtual card functionality. It really would empower users to have more control over their money and improve security and privacy.
I really do wish banks or visa/mastercard would offer virtual card functionality. It really would empower users to have more control over their money and improve security and privacy.
Alarm fatigue [0] is a very real phenomenon that I am sure (potentially, depending) translates to people in their everyday lives somehow, too. I personally disable notifications for practically everything except messages and weather on my phone. Anything else, I have to check it manually. I do get email notifications about charges to my CC, though, and I tend to review them fairly quickly because I check my email a few times a day.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alarm_fatigue
That's the point. Try it out for a month, get overwhelmed by your expenses, then cut back as you learn about them. After that month, turn the email notifications off and make a habit of checking the website every day or every so often.
This sounds better in theory than practice. When it comes to apps, I'm a privacy maximalist, turning off all the ad tracking and that I can, and a notification minimalist, turning off every notification that is not something that needs immediate attention or at least action within a short timeframe.
But my settings are changed out from under me constantly. So I wouldn't trust being reliant upon them. Which in that case I'd rather have no signal, as this gets categorized differently in my brain where I think we are naturally inclined to believe any signal is stronger than it actually is. So it's harder to lull myself into a false sense of security and the friction is sometimes purposefully self inflicted. I can totally understand how the same explanation and justification can be used in the opposite direction though, to I guess this is a personal thing.
I do still believe that there should be a __legal__ requirement that users must verify and approve any price change to a reoccurring fixed rate subscription. I'm open to not being aware of nuance that needs to be considered or how it can/will be trivially abused, but I have a hard time seeing how this would not be simple basic consumer protection. I do not think it is in the public interest for companies to be able to employ strategies which are intentionally designed to trick the public and/or customers. While I appreciate you laying our your strategy (I just don't think it'll work for me but I'm sure it'll be beneficial to others) I want to make sure that we also do not codify coping mechanisms as solutions to problematic behaviors.
But my settings are changed out from under me constantly. So I wouldn't trust being reliant upon them. Which in that case I'd rather have no signal, as this gets categorized differently in my brain where I think we are naturally inclined to believe any signal is stronger than it actually is. So it's harder to lull myself into a false sense of security and the friction is sometimes purposefully self inflicted. I can totally understand how the same explanation and justification can be used in the opposite direction though, to I guess this is a personal thing.
I do still believe that there should be a __legal__ requirement that users must verify and approve any price change to a reoccurring fixed rate subscription. I'm open to not being aware of nuance that needs to be considered or how it can/will be trivially abused, but I have a hard time seeing how this would not be simple basic consumer protection. I do not think it is in the public interest for companies to be able to employ strategies which are intentionally designed to trick the public and/or customers. While I appreciate you laying our your strategy (I just don't think it'll work for me but I'm sure it'll be beneficial to others) I want to make sure that we also do not codify coping mechanisms as solutions to problematic behaviors.
I'm like you in that I hate notifications, but I love this idea at the same time, so I think I'll set up an email filter that sends them all past the inbox, right to a dedicated folder, where I can periodically review them all together. Sounds much better than logging into each CC provider separately, finding the statement area, downloading a clunky PDF, after probably having to change a password and confirm contact info is still the same, etc etc etc.
A CLI to parse all the emails and roll them up into a nice summary would be a neat little project as well!
A CLI to parse all the emails and roll them up into a nice summary would be a neat little project as well!
Actually this is not a bad idea. I was thinking phone notifications, but emails are much easier to control. Though I find filtering often not that great. I've been using Thunderbird, but if you have a suggested CLI email client that can "easily" (I live in the terminal, so that's the bar) integrate gmail and my work/school emails, allow me to hack on it, and __most importantly__ has decent documentation, then I'd love to hear about it. I tried Mutt many years ago but experienced too much friction, but things change and I haven't revisited the topic.
I use the stock macOS Mail app to pull down Gmail etc, and its backing data store should be hackable, it’s all in sqlite3 DBs (although I just tried and I get authorization errors trying to work with them! Bet it’s SIP). I was thinking either a standalone CLI or something in emacs.
> This sounds like it can get a bit overwhelming.
Indeed, I wouldn't want that but glad it's an option.
There's no need to review transactions the moment they happen to catch any fraud. It is fine to wait for the statement and review it once a month. You're still not liable, so there's no rush to do it immediately.
> I really do wish banks or visa/mastercard would offer virtual card functionality.
Some do, although for some reason it has never worked for me (but also have not tried debugging the process too much).
Indeed, I wouldn't want that but glad it's an option.
There's no need to review transactions the moment they happen to catch any fraud. It is fine to wait for the statement and review it once a month. You're still not liable, so there's no rush to do it immediately.
> I really do wish banks or visa/mastercard would offer virtual card functionality.
Some do, although for some reason it has never worked for me (but also have not tried debugging the process too much).
That would mean I would have to turn email notifications on or get in the habit of checking my email every day.
The searchable database of charge history would be nice though. My card number has changed a few times due to data breaches at places I’ve used the card and I don’t think my credit card company’s search is smart enough to follow branches.
The searchable database of charge history would be nice though. My card number has changed a few times due to data breaches at places I’ve used the card and I don’t think my credit card company’s search is smart enough to follow branches.
Well, you don't have to check it _immediately_. I think as long as it's visible and you see in O(days) it would serve its purpose.
My phone goes ping every time any money goes out of my account. Yes, at the beginning of the month I get a slew of pings for mortgage, power, water, etc, but it's worth it. A while back my phone went ping twice and I was phoning the bank within minutes of a couple of fraudulent payments being made - ironically just before the bank sent me a text asking me if I was making the third one.
Having it go ping every time like that is definitely a way to have good knowledge of what recurring payments you are making.
Having it go ping every time like that is definitely a way to have good knowledge of what recurring payments you are making.
I do this as well, but with Chase, and use a filter to stick them into their own folder so they don't hit my INBOX. I use maildir for my local email and have shell scripts built on top of easy filesystem access to my credit card purchases.
Oddly, I get emails for everything except gasoline purchases. I'm afraid to contact support because in the extremely unlikely event that it gets forwarded to the correct people, the attempted fix would break something in my workflow.
Oddly, I get emails for everything except gasoline purchases. I'm afraid to contact support because in the extremely unlikely event that it gets forwarded to the correct people, the attempted fix would break something in my workflow.
I do this too for all our cards. I still go in everyday to check but the email notifications are great. Every couple years we get a charge that is fraudulent and I always catch it before the bank starts calling (if they even do that).
On topic, its a great reminder to see say the Netflix charge happened and how much. An example is we subscribed to Viki for a couple months and forgot to cancel. Seeing that charge was a great reminder to poll the house if anyone was still using it.
On topic, its a great reminder to see say the Netflix charge happened and how much. An example is we subscribed to Viki for a couple months and forgot to cancel. Seeing that charge was a great reminder to poll the house if anyone was still using it.
I love getting charge alerts. In restaurants I'll normally get the alert on my watch before the waiter gets back to the table. Though the SO sometimes gets annoyed when I text her about buying something before she's even left the store :D
I have this set up with push notifications on my phone and that's very helpful as well.
I've been doing this for several years. Once, I caught someone trying to make a fraudulent ACH withdrawal from my account and was able to stop it basically instantly.
Apple Card (and some but not all cards you add to Apple Wallet) pop up a little notification every time they're charged.
It can be nice, but you might miss the nighttime ones.
It can be nice, but you might miss the nighttime ones.
Absolutely not.
It was easy to look at statements when they arrived by mail.
But with paperless billing, you've got to conscientiously log into your credit card site each month. If you have four cards, that's four logins. Who's going to do that? Not many.
The only reason I review my transactions it's because it's easy through an aggregator like Monarch (was using Mint before it shut down). And the only reason I do that is for budgeting -- reviewing transactions is just a side effect.
It still annoys me to no end that I don't have a single bank or credit card that will attach my statement as a PDF to a monthly email. As long as there's a secure email transmission connection, I don't understand why they won't do that.
It was easy to look at statements when they arrived by mail.
But with paperless billing, you've got to conscientiously log into your credit card site each month. If you have four cards, that's four logins. Who's going to do that? Not many.
The only reason I review my transactions it's because it's easy through an aggregator like Monarch (was using Mint before it shut down). And the only reason I do that is for budgeting -- reviewing transactions is just a side effect.
It still annoys me to no end that I don't have a single bank or credit card that will attach my statement as a PDF to a monthly email. As long as there's a secure email transmission connection, I don't understand why they won't do that.
Maybe I'm unusually anal retentive about this, but I have every bank account, PayPal, Venmo, both credit cards, every brokerage, 401(k), HSA, IRA, mortgage, everything... in Quicken, which I check every single day. 1. Start Quicken, 2. Hit Update, 3. Get Coffee, 4. Review everything in boldface to make sure it's not a surprise.
I have the next month worth of bills and paychecks "below the line" as future transactions, so not only can know what's in my checking account today, but I know exactly, to the penny what will be in my checking account on 18-Feb.
I've in the past found credit card fraud/mistakes within a day of being charged, and have fixed them quickly, before even my next paper statement was printed.
Some friends I know don't have any idea how much is in any of their accounts outside of occasionally seeing a number on an ATM receipt. They might have a budget, but no idea how much all their monthly charges add up to in reality. And yea, they always seem to be forgetting about some subscription or charge. I couldn't live like that--not for me.
I have the next month worth of bills and paychecks "below the line" as future transactions, so not only can know what's in my checking account today, but I know exactly, to the penny what will be in my checking account on 18-Feb.
I've in the past found credit card fraud/mistakes within a day of being charged, and have fixed them quickly, before even my next paper statement was printed.
Some friends I know don't have any idea how much is in any of their accounts outside of occasionally seeing a number on an ATM receipt. They might have a budget, but no idea how much all their monthly charges add up to in reality. And yea, they always seem to be forgetting about some subscription or charge. I couldn't live like that--not for me.
I used to be that way, now I rarely check anything. No time anymore, and all the software I used to use is not compatible/complicated to setup.
Someday, I keep telling myself, I'll be down to one bank account, one credit card, and that's it.
Someday, I keep telling myself, I'll be down to one bank account, one credit card, and that's it.
> Maybe I'm unusually anal retentive about this, but I have every bank account, PayPal, Venmo, both credit cards, every brokerage, 401(k), HSA, IRA, mortgage, everything... in Quicken
This is something I'd like to have, but I don't want to use Quicken. Partially because I pretty much exclusively use Linux at home, and I don't want to have something as important as financials reliant on a maybe-it-will-work WINE translation layer. And partially because Quicken is now owned by Intuit, which is a corporation I'm particularly disinclined to reward with my patronage.
Unfortunately, every time I've looked at ways to get statements delivered to me electronically from my various financial institutions, it seems that the available options are "don't" and "something that only works in Quicken." (There used to be some open file formats for exchanging information here, but it seems that institutions have started dropping support for them in favor of proprietary protocols, from what I can tell.) I'd be happy with something as meek as "email me a PDF statement"!
This is something I'd like to have, but I don't want to use Quicken. Partially because I pretty much exclusively use Linux at home, and I don't want to have something as important as financials reliant on a maybe-it-will-work WINE translation layer. And partially because Quicken is now owned by Intuit, which is a corporation I'm particularly disinclined to reward with my patronage.
Unfortunately, every time I've looked at ways to get statements delivered to me electronically from my various financial institutions, it seems that the available options are "don't" and "something that only works in Quicken." (There used to be some open file formats for exchanging information here, but it seems that institutions have started dropping support for them in favor of proprietary protocols, from what I can tell.) I'd be happy with something as meek as "email me a PDF statement"!
GNUcash aint pretty, but it works.
My understanding it suffers from the "everyone is abandoning OFX" problem, leading it to be unable to ingest the data it needs.
I wish there was some way to do this without handing over the credentials for my entire financial life to a 3rd party—which I refuse to do.
I don't believe you are actually "handing over the credentials" to Intuit or any other 3rd party (unless you consider your computer the third party). When you use Direct Connect, they're stored locally (for example, Keychain on Mac), and when you use Quicken Connect (aka EWC or EWC+), it's more like oauth where you authorize through the financial institution website, and they issue a token to Quicken. What you want to avoid is their "Quicken Sync" which stores credentials in their cloud (yikes!).
It is confusing as an end user, and they don't really do much to explain it. You have to do some digging to understand how it works.
It is confusing as an end user, and they don't really do much to explain it. You have to do some digging to understand how it works.
Thanks, I must be thinking of Quicken Sync. I’ll look into Direct Connect.
[deleted]
Autopay is evil. I have nothing on autopay.
Instead, I have a monthly reminder to pay my bills every month, with a list of all the bills/sites that need to be paid. There's 11 things in the list, but not all of them have a balance every month. I do this towards the end of the month (instead of at the beginning of the month), so that I can include rent in it too, and pay _everything_. It lets me see whether my spending is creeping up and gives me an opportunity to cancel useless stuff. It doesn't take long (5-30 mins depending on how detailed I'm being).
Instead, I have a monthly reminder to pay my bills every month, with a list of all the bills/sites that need to be paid. There's 11 things in the list, but not all of them have a balance every month. I do this towards the end of the month (instead of at the beginning of the month), so that I can include rent in it too, and pay _everything_. It lets me see whether my spending is creeping up and gives me an opportunity to cancel useless stuff. It doesn't take long (5-30 mins depending on how detailed I'm being).
Autopay did more to improve my credit score than anything else. If left to my own devices, I'll forget to pay bills. Autopay prevents that.
It may be evil for you, but for me, it's an absolute lifesaver.
It may be evil for you, but for me, it's an absolute lifesaver.
Yeah, even when I was living paycheck-to-paycheck, I used auto-pay.
I'd just had a post-it note stuck to my monitor of the dates and usual amounts for the auto-pays, so I was never caught off guard or surprised amount money moving.
I'd just had a post-it note stuck to my monitor of the dates and usual amounts for the auto-pays, so I was never caught off guard or surprised amount money moving.
Autopay is amazing if you're careful with it.
I have a bank account that all incoming money goes into and another that's just for autopay. I transfer the sum of the costs of my recurring expenses into the autopay account from the incoming account, and that's it. Literally set it and forget it. This combined with using Privacy disposable cards for 90% of these transactions and setting hard spend limits on them has allowed me to never look at a bill.
I _used to_ have autopay deduct from a single account. Yeah, that's scary as hell and has caused heaps of problems. Not doing that again.
I have a bank account that all incoming money goes into and another that's just for autopay. I transfer the sum of the costs of my recurring expenses into the autopay account from the incoming account, and that's it. Literally set it and forget it. This combined with using Privacy disposable cards for 90% of these transactions and setting hard spend limits on them has allowed me to never look at a bill.
I _used to_ have autopay deduct from a single account. Yeah, that's scary as hell and has caused heaps of problems. Not doing that again.
I call it Auto-steal.
My strategy here is disable all auto pays and make it a manual ritual to pay my bills at the start of each calendar month.
Doing it once a month is easy enough to remember (or put a calendar invite, if you're not able to) and forces me to do a quick validation. In my 20 years of working and being independent, I've never accidentally paid for a subscription longer than one month.
Doing it once a month is easy enough to remember (or put a calendar invite, if you're not able to) and forces me to do a quick validation. In my 20 years of working and being independent, I've never accidentally paid for a subscription longer than one month.
Things I don’t have on autopay frequently get shut off when I forget (or delay) paying for them.
Yeah, I'm not around or just forget to pay something. For its potential downsides, the fact that I basically don't have to think about a bunch of my ongoing billing (including essential stuff like electricity) is an admittedly first world but nonetheless big improvement over weekly write checks/mail envelopes ritual as I did for years. (Certainly there are incremental levels but I carefully evaluate new subscriptions and don't really have an issue with automatic billing.)
I sort of have a compromise solution for this. I use my banks autopay whenever possible which is a push instead of a pull. That way I can just shut it off instead of finding some weird website I haven't used in a million years or call and wait on hold for 20 minutes. I started using it mostly so I didn't have to buy checks but I saw it had some advantages beyond that.
It doesn't work well with variable bills though because I can't schedule an amount I don't know yet to be paid. I'm stuck using a pull for my power bill for instance.
It doesn't work well with variable bills though because I can't schedule an amount I don't know yet to be paid. I'm stuck using a pull for my power bill for instance.
Yup, I've learned that lesson as well.
You go on vacation and bill pay day was in the middle of it. Or you're just busy and forget to move the calendar reminder to tomorrow. Or you get through half of them and get interrupted and forget you didn't finish.
I trust autopay far more than I trust myself!
You go on vacation and bill pay day was in the middle of it. Or you're just busy and forget to move the calendar reminder to tomorrow. Or you get through half of them and get interrupted and forget you didn't finish.
I trust autopay far more than I trust myself!
Yes and then you log in and see:
Apple $4.99
Apple $1.99
Apple $14.99
Apple $4.99
Apple $2.99
Apple $9.99
good luck!
Apple $4.99
Apple $1.99
Apple $14.99
Apple $4.99
Apple $2.99
Apple $9.99
good luck!
Ha! I was literally dealing with that exact issue last week as I was doing my Mint to Monarch migration.
And thinking I'd to categorize my transactions as AppleCare+ vs software vs gaming vs cloud storage vs streaming, for budgeting purposes.
And then just kind of gave up. Apple seriously needs to put more detail in their transaction line, although I guess they can't always when they combine things in a single charge. But even just different merchants would help between iCloud, Apple Store, App Store, and Apple Services. Or something.
And thinking I'd to categorize my transactions as AppleCare+ vs software vs gaming vs cloud storage vs streaming, for budgeting purposes.
And then just kind of gave up. Apple seriously needs to put more detail in their transaction line, although I guess they can't always when they combine things in a single charge. But even just different merchants would help between iCloud, Apple Store, App Store, and Apple Services. Or something.
I used to filter these by different cards, but now they're all on the Apple Card. :(
[deleted]
> Mint before it shut down
This was the best, and only feature I used on Mint. Quick glance a couple times a month was an easy way to find unusual charges etc. I haven't found a replacement.
This was the best, and only feature I used on Mint. Quick glance a couple times a month was an easy way to find unusual charges etc. I haven't found a replacement.
I'll be another vote for ynab. It takes some getting used to, but it makes it very easy to see where things are, save for specific targets, verify bills are getting paid, etc.
$100/year, but they don't sell your information or push you to buy other products, and it has dramatically helped communication about money with my wife. I have a handful of friends who also use it and swear by it.
$100/year, but they don't sell your information or push you to buy other products, and it has dramatically helped communication about money with my wife. I have a handful of friends who also use it and swear by it.
I used YNAB 4, but gave them up for ethical reasons when they started charging yearly for their web app that was worse than the stand alone app (and the stand alone app was a cheaper one time payment). I just didn't want to see a company succeed by purposely switching to a worse but more expensive offering.
Actual Budget is similar to old ynab but is free and self-hosted.
https://github.com/actualbudget/actual
https://github.com/actualbudget/actual
Supposedly this is a selling point of https://copilot.money/ but I do it with YNAB which I prefer overall
Yeah, I wound up on Monarch since it was founded by the former product manager at Mint and has a similar modern consumer look.
It's whitespace heavy though -- for people who like something that looks more like an enterprise software dashboard, there's Simplifi.
It seems like Monarch and Simplifi are where the most Mint users have wound up, judging from various forum posts. And they have an extremely similar feature set and interface. But they are both paid.
It's whitespace heavy though -- for people who like something that looks more like an enterprise software dashboard, there's Simplifi.
It seems like Monarch and Simplifi are where the most Mint users have wound up, judging from various forum posts. And they have an extremely similar feature set and interface. But they are both paid.
My wife and I review CC and bank activity every 2nd Sunday. It's part of our budgeting. We both stubbornly refused to take our finances seriously early in life, before we met. By the time we had met, we had both crawled our way out of CC debt and were both independently taking it Seriously. We combined our finances pretty early in our relationship, like before year 2. We used to "meet" once every month to discuss this stuff but since having kids we've pushed it to two weeks because it is, in our experience, so easy to go overboard if you're not regularly reminding yourself.
Yes, exactly. I am myself guilty of exactly that. My excuse (a really lame one): logging in to my credit card accounts is too much of a friction with 2FA and all that, and then sifting through statements is work. I don't want to do the work.
Of course, that's a pathetic excuse, and I tell myself that one of these days I will check my statements but that day never comes.
It's quite easy to be lazy in the moment and put this "work" off to tomorrow. As a result, days, weeks and months go by.
I now use privacy.com for most subscriptions and one-off trials etc. It at least notifies me via email every time there is a transaction.
Of course, that's a pathetic excuse, and I tell myself that one of these days I will check my statements but that day never comes.
It's quite easy to be lazy in the moment and put this "work" off to tomorrow. As a result, days, weeks and months go by.
I now use privacy.com for most subscriptions and one-off trials etc. It at least notifies me via email every time there is a transaction.
>Seems absent-minded to me.
This is an unrealistic attitude. One can insult people all day, but it doesn't change the fact that society doesn't work properly if we don't account for things humans do, even if it only looks like they are hurting themselves. On one hand, we shouldn't use law to force people to "be responsible for themselves" in petty cases (as opposed to e.g. forcing people to have car insurance), but if enough people commit the same mistake, it's almost by-definition not purely their fault - and on a more objective note, it is certainly pointless to waste time wondering how much of it is carelessness and how much of it is reasonable given what else is going on in people's lives and what their experiences and competencies are like. We simply must give a shit, as natural as it feels to want to just let people deal with things themselves.
Again, one can continue to consider these people mostly at fault or try to get them educated or just make fun of them or hyperbolically lament the fall of society or whatever one's preferred flavor of reaction is, but we also have to solve the active problem. Modern society is too integrated and complex to not give a shit.
Ideally, what I'd like to be able to say is that modern humans are too sympathetic and imaginative to not give a shit.
This is an unrealistic attitude. One can insult people all day, but it doesn't change the fact that society doesn't work properly if we don't account for things humans do, even if it only looks like they are hurting themselves. On one hand, we shouldn't use law to force people to "be responsible for themselves" in petty cases (as opposed to e.g. forcing people to have car insurance), but if enough people commit the same mistake, it's almost by-definition not purely their fault - and on a more objective note, it is certainly pointless to waste time wondering how much of it is carelessness and how much of it is reasonable given what else is going on in people's lives and what their experiences and competencies are like. We simply must give a shit, as natural as it feels to want to just let people deal with things themselves.
Again, one can continue to consider these people mostly at fault or try to get them educated or just make fun of them or hyperbolically lament the fall of society or whatever one's preferred flavor of reaction is, but we also have to solve the active problem. Modern society is too integrated and complex to not give a shit.
Ideally, what I'd like to be able to say is that modern humans are too sympathetic and imaginative to not give a shit.
I do review CC statements diligently. I use GnuCash for my household accounting and refuse to use any SaaS or automated solution. I do want to review my statements, be it CC, pay stubs, 401k, etc so I know what's happening.
Yeah it takes a bit of time once or twice a month, but it's worth it I think.
Twice a year or so I catch "late fees" on my spouse's CC that shouldn't be there. Banks just seem to randomly do that because in most cases they'll get away with it.
Yeah it takes a bit of time once or twice a month, but it's worth it I think.
Twice a year or so I catch "late fees" on my spouse's CC that shouldn't be there. Banks just seem to randomly do that because in most cases they'll get away with it.
> It takes 5 minutes to skim your transactions, look for suspicious charges, get a quick read on where money is going.
If you use your credit card heavily, then this takes a lot more than 5 minutes. Keeping the CC usage light in order to make it easier to manage is important to me, and a key part of that is to avoid recurring charges as much as possible.
If you use your credit card heavily, then this takes a lot more than 5 minutes. Keeping the CC usage light in order to make it easier to manage is important to me, and a key part of that is to avoid recurring charges as much as possible.
I have a cheap VPS that I'm not using but I get the bill every month. Every time I see it I think "I should cancel that" but then I think "maybe I'll get around to doing something with it this month" and I let it go another month.
One option to consider would be to develop locally on a VM or container and then when it's in a "let others play" state, then fire that VM back up and push your artifacts or container to it.
Don't disagree. Many of my charges are some vague Amazon charge that my wife made, which could be a product delivered, or a subscription. So Amazon subscriptions is another place to check. It would take time to match up each charge to the actual order.
Most credit and debit cards have the option to get a text message for any transaction over a certain amount. all of my cards are set to send me a text for any transaction over $0.
It's easy for things to get hidden, especially when changes in already small amounts of money. I'm a bit embarrassed that this happened to me once. My spotify student account ended and it got switched over to premium automatically. Probably got an email somewhere but they also send spam so it likely got misread or filtered. On the bank statement, which it was a payment I was expecting, just not the right amount and it occurs at a similar time of the month as a bunch of other bills.
I think there is a rather easy way that we could solve this in a fairly robust way. It could be a legal requirement that when pricing on reoccurring subscription transactions changes that the user has to log in and confirm the change. The reason I'd actually suggest a legal route is because there's many companies that are highly incentivized to create dark patterns that will enroll people in subscriptions at a low or zero rate and then automatically transfer them to higher or paid accounts. It can happen to the best of us, but I'm more concerned with the not best of us. Personally I'm not a fan of a system that allows the easy extraction of money from people who are not as technically literate (i.e. most people). And I really don't think it is a good system to allow legitimate businesses to employ the same tactics as spammers.
If you read the article you'll find that the cases they talk about are specifically mentioning people who signed up for one thing but got a different thing instead. These are deceptive practices, full stop.
While we're at it, I'd love it if companies could stop sending spam from the same accounts they send important information. This dark pattern successfully teaches people to ignore any incoming email to them and explicitly allows this shit to happen. If contracts change, they should simply require a confirmation of that change. Maybe there's something I'm not seeing, but this sounds like a very reasonable and not very controversial take.
I think there is a rather easy way that we could solve this in a fairly robust way. It could be a legal requirement that when pricing on reoccurring subscription transactions changes that the user has to log in and confirm the change. The reason I'd actually suggest a legal route is because there's many companies that are highly incentivized to create dark patterns that will enroll people in subscriptions at a low or zero rate and then automatically transfer them to higher or paid accounts. It can happen to the best of us, but I'm more concerned with the not best of us. Personally I'm not a fan of a system that allows the easy extraction of money from people who are not as technically literate (i.e. most people). And I really don't think it is a good system to allow legitimate businesses to employ the same tactics as spammers.
If you read the article you'll find that the cases they talk about are specifically mentioning people who signed up for one thing but got a different thing instead. These are deceptive practices, full stop.
While we're at it, I'd love it if companies could stop sending spam from the same accounts they send important information. This dark pattern successfully teaches people to ignore any incoming email to them and explicitly allows this shit to happen. If contracts change, they should simply require a confirmation of that change. Maybe there's something I'm not seeing, but this sounds like a very reasonable and not very controversial take.
I put all my subscriptions on a single credit card (and use it for nothing else) so that it's easy to scan. Otherwise they'd be buried.
I check all my accounts every day.
No, they don't.
I definitely understand. There are several reasons why I can sympathize with folks that don't check their bank statements daily/weekly and miss leaking transactions.
First, there is a lot of crap in a bank statement. They are tiring to parse.
Second, logging into and using your banking portal is a chore. First, you have to remember your password. Not everyone is using a password manager. (Love the work that Apple has done to bridge this gap, and I'm ABSOLUTELY LOVING passkeys.) Second, you have to present a second factor. Some (few) banks are with the times and use a TOTP second factor. Many use SMS two-factor. Many will CALL you with the code. All of them suck. Then you have to navigate the new UIs that look very pretty and are designed to simplify common functions (mostly checking your balance) but have made things like filtering your statement by transactions from today more difficult.
Third, many merchants use very confusing IDs that make it confusing to see where a transaction originated from (for example: a restaurant that uses an abbreviated form of their former name or their parent company's name in the merchant ID). Apple, for example, uses APPLE.COM/BILL for iCloud _and_ AppleCare transactions. This segues into my last reason why navigating transactions periodically sucks.
Tracing a previous expense is an AWFUL experience 99.95% of the time.
I capture every single receipt and bank alert into Expensify (moving into Google Sheets), so tracing an unknown charge is very easy for me (search my email; failing that, search Expensify; failing that, log into bank, which is painful; see above). However, I had to spend significant effort building systems and writing code to accomplish this since there are basically zero services that do this for consumer spending.
Most people don't save receipts. Those that do often don't save them digitally. I know this because I work in consulting, an industry where we have to track receipts to submit expense reports, and EVERYONE whines about this. Many have to block time in their calendar to get this done.
Regardless, even if you do save all of your receipts and alerts, you still need to log into the portal for the vendor that charged that $5.95 and find that charge. Portals that can be even harder to log in and navigate through than banks.
Determining which Apple service that APPLE.COM/BILL charge was associated with, for example? Good fucking luck. It's clicks on clicks on clicks. (They also make you use a single card for ALL digital purchases you make with them. Want to buy an album? Want to buy AppleCare for your new iPhone? Are you forced to subscribe to this super critical app on that iPhone that used to be free? The same card is used for all of that. This is the biggest reason why I've been investing time in moving App Store subscriptions into separate accounts. But even this sucks because many app vendors will only use the App Store for managing subscriptions!)
Consequently, when your statement, which you spent five minutes _just trying to get to_, presents an unknown $5.95 charge (that you didn't get alerted on if you had alerts on because your bank won't send alerts for anything below $50), it's easier to say "welp" and charge it back (a whole process in and of itself) or say "it's five dollars" and forget about it.
First, there is a lot of crap in a bank statement. They are tiring to parse.
Second, logging into and using your banking portal is a chore. First, you have to remember your password. Not everyone is using a password manager. (Love the work that Apple has done to bridge this gap, and I'm ABSOLUTELY LOVING passkeys.) Second, you have to present a second factor. Some (few) banks are with the times and use a TOTP second factor. Many use SMS two-factor. Many will CALL you with the code. All of them suck. Then you have to navigate the new UIs that look very pretty and are designed to simplify common functions (mostly checking your balance) but have made things like filtering your statement by transactions from today more difficult.
Third, many merchants use very confusing IDs that make it confusing to see where a transaction originated from (for example: a restaurant that uses an abbreviated form of their former name or their parent company's name in the merchant ID). Apple, for example, uses APPLE.COM/BILL for iCloud _and_ AppleCare transactions. This segues into my last reason why navigating transactions periodically sucks.
Tracing a previous expense is an AWFUL experience 99.95% of the time.
I capture every single receipt and bank alert into Expensify (moving into Google Sheets), so tracing an unknown charge is very easy for me (search my email; failing that, search Expensify; failing that, log into bank, which is painful; see above). However, I had to spend significant effort building systems and writing code to accomplish this since there are basically zero services that do this for consumer spending.
Most people don't save receipts. Those that do often don't save them digitally. I know this because I work in consulting, an industry where we have to track receipts to submit expense reports, and EVERYONE whines about this. Many have to block time in their calendar to get this done.
Regardless, even if you do save all of your receipts and alerts, you still need to log into the portal for the vendor that charged that $5.95 and find that charge. Portals that can be even harder to log in and navigate through than banks.
Determining which Apple service that APPLE.COM/BILL charge was associated with, for example? Good fucking luck. It's clicks on clicks on clicks. (They also make you use a single card for ALL digital purchases you make with them. Want to buy an album? Want to buy AppleCare for your new iPhone? Are you forced to subscribe to this super critical app on that iPhone that used to be free? The same card is used for all of that. This is the biggest reason why I've been investing time in moving App Store subscriptions into separate accounts. But even this sucks because many app vendors will only use the App Store for managing subscriptions!)
Consequently, when your statement, which you spent five minutes _just trying to get to_, presents an unknown $5.95 charge (that you didn't get alerted on if you had alerts on because your bank won't send alerts for anything below $50), it's easier to say "welp" and charge it back (a whole process in and of itself) or say "it's five dollars" and forget about it.
[deleted]
vvpan(1)