MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Would you take the job?

Scorpio21_2

I am amazed at the variety of comments here. In the main I agree with "dunamis" and "Aldahbra". Many comments are horrifying, no wonder our society is in such a mess if people take the opinion that "if Sam doesn't do the job another person will"......how does that make it right? .....it is time we stood up for what is morally right and wrong.

Over my years I have suffered financial stress and redundancy but have never considered a position that actually risks creating an even worse debt position for vulnerable people.

There are many alternative jobs that may not be ideal either but at least stand higher in the realms of morality.

Conclusion.....should NOT take the job!

silkcutblue

Would I take the job? No WAY! And then when I'd made that decision, I'd go back to my cardboard box, open up a tin of value dog food and eat it with my fingers. ie, if it is a question of me starving or someone else? Someone else can.

All the rest of you who said no and meant it - I believe there is a Girl Scout meeting just waiting for someone to organise a sing-song around the camp fire. Remember to get everyone to hold hands and think loving thoughts.

cosmicDolphin

To take this job would just be trading on other peoples misery, there are plenty of jobs around that would be more ethical and just as well or better paid. I believe in Karma so everything you do will eventually come back to you - don't take the job.

galenvanbrok

I'm a firm beleiver in learning your lessons through painful experience. In my younger days and even now on more occasions than I care to remember I've been suckered. For example just the other month I got a phone call from Carphone Warehouse offering me a shiny new handset. During the telephone conversation I somehow managed to verbally agree to a new 18 month contract on less than favourable terms, with no cooling off period and a recording of the conversation I appear to have been had. I'm not asking for sympathy though, Im my own worst enemy sometimes. But Ive learned my lesson and that won't happen again. I don't need the rest of the country to wear a coloured wrist band or march on London to save me from my stupidity.

You can't expect people to take responsibility for their finances and at the same time remove that responsibility by forcing individuals employed in these industries to ruminate their own complicitness.

Also, in a free market economy there will be a spectrum of options ranging from what might be reagrded as a good deal to the other end that constitutes a bad deal, some consumers profit and other lose.

To level the playing field in any way would result in some form of spread of benefit. I'll give an example. Say I buy a package holiday from a reputable trader with proper safegaurds against financial collapse, perhaps the company is a member of ABTA. Now such collective schemes will cost a small contribution to a fund that will protect against disaster. Such schemes will encourage individual operaters to not only offer good commercial terms but also to be financially prudent lest escalating risk get out of hand. Irresponsible operators will escalate the cost of insurance that has to be spread amongst everyone. If such systems were not in place all of us would have to pay ever more per holiday to safeguard the fools that book holidays the terms of which are just to good to be true.

Each time a moneysaving expert wins a small victory and so cuts the profit margins of business that same business or industry must strive to maintain margin by exploiting the less financially astute.

So if you feel that this individual shouldnt take the job then be prepared to forego next years no claim bonus on your car insurance, or get a little more interest on your credit card or a little less interest on your savings.

I would point out one distinction that this individual could make in their dealings with customers. My dad was a saver all his life, coppers in one jar, twenty pence pieces in another. Towards in the end of his life even though he had the cash in hand, was talked into a terrible HP agreement for a washing machine. I was distraught not so much be the higher APR he had agreed to but the fact that he had the money to buy the bloody thing outright. Between you and I, my dad was slipping into his dotage and unfortunately didnt have the long life ahead of him to recover from this minor yet troubling financial setback. My advice would be then to look at the young and financially naive customers and savour the valuable financial education you will impart upon them. With any luck they will, for the remainder of their financial lives, come to appreciate your valuable instruction.

meher

MSE_Martin wrote:

Sam is £15,000 in debt and really struggling to make the repayments having been made redundant four months ago. Now at last, there's a job offer, but it's from a doorstep lender. The money is good and would really help, but it depends on selling doorstep debts at very high APRs to lots of vulnerable people. Should (s)he take the job?

No second thoughts on this - s/he should take up the job. Why should s/he shoulder responsibilities of the so called 'vulnerable persons'. They make themselves vulnerable for lacking in good values in life and a sense of responsibility - for mismanagement of money. It's high time we move away from the culture where we blame others and hold ourselves accountable for problems like debt, we get into. But I would appreciate if s/he obliges to advise his/her clients on seeking independent financial advise if they're not too certain of available offers.

ManAtHome

Well, "forgetting" all my working history and circumstances, surely the answer would have to be yes...

Well over half the working poulation is engaged in flogging people stuff they don't really need - the UK economy would collapse if they weren't. Let he who is without sin...

Where do you draw the line - allegedly cheap gas/electric/phones, knock-offs at car-boots/ebay, "designer" stuff at Primark cost, Armani retail etc etc..?

Mics_chick

One simple answer - No!!

There's no way I could feed off other people's misery by selling them highly dodgy loans even if I was in a financial mess...

seven-day-weekend

I like to think I would not take the job, but if my family were suffering....? I would try to find an alternative, but if there wasn't one I may well take it. I hope not though.

These doorstep loans do have the advantage of lending little bits of money over short periods to people who would not get credit elsewhere and haven't the wherewithall to have savings. The APRs are horrendous, but I suppose that's the price you agree to if you want this facility.

However I think it would be much better if such people joined credit unions.

Ebenezer_Screwj

If Sam feels that he is salesman material and can handle knocking on peoples doors he should take the job. The "moral dilemma" is irrelevant, he is bound by law to explain the terms and conditions of the loans and people know full well before they undertake debts that they will have to be repaid.

hollydays

meher wrote:

No second thoughts on this - s/he should take up the job. Why should s/he shoulder responsibilities of the so called 'vulnerable persons'. They make themselves vulnerable for lacking in good values in life and a sense of responsibility - for mismanagement of money. It's high time we move away from the culture where we blame others and hold ourselves accountable for problems like debt, we get into. But I would appreciate if s/he obliges to advise his/her clients on seeking independent financial advise if they're not too certain of available offers.

Wow! Quite a statement.
Many people get into debt through illness.

Would any of the people who would take the job,bite the bullet and be able to offer the loan to their friends and family if they had got themselves in this situation?