[antihero]

Nope. It's not a reach. My personal experience with payday loans which, due to having a regular income, was that I paid them back (with high interest but not the crazy amounts people talk about from missed payments) on time. It wasn't the interest that got me, it was the lack of money. That you then had to deal with for the next month, meaning you were more likely to get another loan.

[wutbrodo]

This thread is about the distinction between zero-interest loans and high-interest loans. The parent commenter claimed that people would be less likely to internalize the need to pay zero-interest loans because there's no interest. I said that the principal is a much more dominant concern. You are _agreeing with me_, but somehow couching your comment as disagreement?

> It wasn't the interest that got me, it was the lack of money.

This is precisely my point! The same thing applies for zero-interest loans.

Your comment says "it's not a reach [that the presence of interest is what makes people conscious of their payday loans]", and then says "the presence of interest is not what makes people conscious of their payday loans". Is this completely self-contradictory, or am I missing something?