The important difference being that with this program, you don't pay if it doesn't work out for you. The 17.6% APR is in case of a success - they just helped start your career. Seems well worth the greatly reduced risk!
If making $40k/year is "success". With your $6k payment on the $40k you made, your $34k is barely above the poverty line.
> Seems well worth the greatly reduced risk!
No, it doesn't. Just seems like a 300% repayment rate. I bet the number of software jobs starting under $40k is in the bottom 5%, maybe 1% of job listings. So, you're basically only mitigating risk if you can't find a job.
> So, you're basically only mitigating risk if you can't find a job.
Which is.. everyone starting a bootcamp!! Lol.
Who are you looking out for? You seem really concerned about the biblical application of usury laws. Do you know anyone who has zero technical skill and would LOVE to make 40k? I have a feeling you live in a very, very small bubble.
Just because you think someone is so poor they should be grateful for a 3x loan doesn't make it legal or right. That's the definition of loansharking. It's been a pervasive problem that increases economic inequality because only the poorest would accept a loan with those steep terms. Just because it's related to something positive like teaching people to code doesn't make the 3x payback and less burdensome.
I'm not so worried about this company in particular, but if this business model works, imagine desparate people signing up for a $100k loan and having to pay back $300k, or getting $300k for a house and having to pay back $900k.
It's the payback rate that's the problem.
I also don't think it's a bad thing to be concerned about other people in our community.
The difference here is that the incentives of workers and this company are aligned. Either workers start making some serious wages and the company gets their money back (with interest), or both lose - worker their time, company their investment. Given the risk I don't think this is even close to usury. In fact, I would assume they are getting paid by the companies too, for privilege of getting the suitable candidates (which is not a problem in my eyes, if true).
Edit: and if they ever move their operations to EU I know a few people who would probably grab such a chance with both hands.
i know a ton of people who would, as far as im aware the US is significantly cheaper than the UK in pretty much all areas, that $34k translates to about £25k which is not a bad basic wage. i imagine a lot of the people stacking shelves or cleaning toilets for minimum wage would much rather be coding for more money.
If making $40k/year is "success". With your $6k payment on the $40k you made, your $34k is barely above the poverty line.
> Seems well worth the greatly reduced risk!
No, it doesn't. Just seems like a 300% repayment rate. I bet the number of software jobs starting under $40k is in the bottom 5%, maybe 1% of job listings. So, you're basically only mitigating risk if you can't find a job.