> Most people would rather pay a $25 overdraft fee, than not go overdrawn and keep the $25. That's what the fees popularity tells us.
That is not the case. In the US, only 41% of the people who went overdrawn did so willingly. About 20% knew they were low on funds and expected their deposit to clear first, and for the remainder, the overdraft was a surprise.[1]
The popularity of fees indicates that those who charge them want to keep charging them; it does not indicate that those who pay the fees are in favour of going overdrawn and paying fees.
My interpretation of the evidence is that 41% happily admit it. And another 50 plus pretend they don't. A few are unlucky as you say.
If this were not the case, those 50ish percent would stop doing it. The fact they keep paying these fees tells us one of 2 things is true: EITHER they are honestly not capable of managing a current account OR they (like the 41%) choosing not to but are conditioned not to admit it.
Personally I find the second option much more likely.
The same is true in a lot of other pieces of evidence: people routinely vote against their own interests for instance. And they knowingly eat food that's bad for them despite being offered alternatives.
This is a fundamental part of human nature no one wants to address: people are not logical, dispassionate, long term thinking, selfless, analytical, strategic entities. They do dumb shit that is bad for them. And then they lie about it.
"Lie" might not be the right word, people will claim passionately they want X then do Not X without a moments hesitation.
> The fact they keep paying these fees tells us one of 2 things is true: EITHER they are honestly not capable of managing a current account OR they (like the 41%) choosing not to but are conditioned not to admit it.
The fact that people keep getting robbed at gunpoint tells us one of two things is true: EITHER the victims are honestly not capable of living in a crime-infested world, OR they choose to get robbed but are conditioned to not admit it.
See the issue with your logic? There's a third option: there is a large power imbalance (like people designing exploitative bank account UXs/people in shady corner with guns) and that is being exploited against the wishes of the people who are victimized by them.
I mean, if you keep getting robbed by the same guy, in the same alley, and you could easily avoid that alley, but you don't and you know you will get robbed when you go down there, then yes. Sooner or later you're not actually being robbed. You're giving the guy money presumably because you like the service he offers?
I am all for clearer labeling etc. The few who legitimately don't want to go overdrawn should be offered all the assistance possible.
I just think we need to acknowledge that 40% admit they choose this and another 40% choose it but won't admit it...
> if you keep getting robbed by the same guy, in the same alley, and you could easily avoid that alley, but you don't and you know you will get robbed when you go down there, then yes.
Or rather, there is a robber at every alley, because there is no law that prevents robbing, and no enforcement of the laws that exist. In that society, if you have a gun but aren't robbing people, you're giving up money. What are people without guns gotta do?
Most people would rather keep $25 (or spend it on an overdraft fee) than give it up to pay a nurse to nurse a sick, poor person.
These are the unpopular truths we all deny and yet all see daily.