Suze Orman's Personal Finance Advice: Quit Your Job

Tim Cavanaugh | July 3, 2009

Here's a fairly dramatic encounter from this afternoon's Suze Orman Show. "Mike" works as a credit manager selling consolidation loans for a "major banking institution." A 22-year-old MBA, Mike calls people with substantial credit card debt (owed both to his own employer and to other lenders), and tries to get them to move their unsecured debt into car or home loans with lower interest rates. Mike had written into the show because he had ethical qualms about selling people potentially disadvantageous products.

Suze conducted her interview with Mike's silhouette in order to "protect his job." She made two cases against this type of loan consolidation: a) a car or home, unlike unsecured debt, can be seized by the bank; b) the maturity terms of mortgage and auto debt mean the person will likely end up spending more. Here's a portion of their exchange: 

Suze: I would feel far more comfortable with somebody who has credit card debt that is high going to somebody like a [Consumer Credit Counseling Service], consolidating that debt, getting them to reduce their interest rate, pay CCCS so that in five years you're through with this debt, and keep all my secured assets exactly that, secured, so no matter what happens I know that I in fact can keep my car and keep my home and that's what I want to do. Whenever you give people an option to pay less, they will take that option. That's how we got into trouble to begin with.

But you know, Mike, as you said, I think you knew all of this; that's why you wrote in to the Suze Orman Show. But now that you've heard if trom me what do you think you are going to do in regards to your job?

Mike: Well, uh, first thank goodness I have a job. But I'll definitely have to go back and think things over. Because, I don't know if I put that in my email, but that's one thing I always wanted to be was a financial advisor. You are somebody I look up to as an established financial advisor. But it's definitely something I'll have to go back and think about.

Suze: Mike, here's what I learned after all the years, and it's been thirty years now really that I've been doing this, is this: that it's better to do what's right than to do what's easy. And I understand that you need a paycheck. I understand that in this economy what are you gonna do? But if you make money off of telling people to do something that in the long run hurts them, that will only come back to bite you in ways that are far beyond what money can buy and what money can do for you. That's why I have never in my career made a move with somebody else's money that was good for me before it was good for them. Thanks, Mike, so I did just want to protect you, but honest to God, it makes no sense.

Mike: Right, when I took the job it was a little bit like, what is it? And like I said I wanted to be a financial advisor, so of course I analyzed it a little more than my fellow employees did, and I was like: I would never do this, why are they doing it?

Suze: Bingo, Mike! Bingo, and listen, you have to understand there's a big difference between a financial advisor and a financial salesperson. Don't you feel like a salesperson?

Mike: That's all I am right now.

Suze: Under the guise of being a so-called financial advisor or representative of this major bank. Again, when are the banks going to get it, that they have got to put people's interest at heart before they put their own bottom line at heart? And until they do that, this economy will never ever turn around. Good for you, boyfriend.

Mike: You're exactly right.

Suze: Bingo!

[Italics, and transcription, mine] I don't feel one way or another about personal finance celebrity Suze Orman, and I only learned today, while watching her show for the first time, that her first name is pronounced "Siouxsie" and not "Siouxs." Her advice seems sound enough, and she appears willing to strike a balance between respecting her callers' desire to buy stuff and advising them whether they can afford it. (For example, she "approved" one guy to buy a 1970 VW Beetle for $5,500 even while advising him that he was massively overpaying for the vehicle, on the logic that given his personal balance sheet he could afford the $5,500.)

But I'm gonna have to go ahead and ... disagree with Suze on this job advice. Mike is right: He's just a salesman right now. His job is to sell debt consolidation. To say he has an ethical obligation to stop selling the bank's products is like saying a lawyer should only become a prosecutor or an actor should only play good guys. Mike may have ethical concerns about his job, but they are no different than the concerns of a salesman who decides he can't sell porn or booze or cigarettes: They exist solely within the confines of Mike's own head.

In fact, when he makes "a move with somebody else's money" it's the bank's money, not the borrower's. So he does have an ethical obligation: to his employer. And because Suze is informally giving Mike advice, I'd say she served him poorly by implying that he needs to stop doing what he's doing. Not just because it means he loses his paycheck but because a 22-year-old MBA should be doing anything he can to learn about finance, particularly if he eventually wants to become a personal financial advisor. (And if he does, he should steer his clients away from this type of loan consolidation, for exactly the reasons Orman says.)

Comments

|7.3.09 @ 4:40PM|#

This guy is apparently too gutless to actually act on his own without having somebody else tell him it's okay. If *you* think what you're doing is wrong, then stop.

|7.3.09 @ 4:53PM|#

I had all sorts of different views on this, but I think P Brooks hits it in the store: grow a sack and figure out what you can do, instead of asking Suze Orman to stroke your sense of morality.

hmm|7.3.09 @ 5:09PM|#

She's been all over the place with advice and other comments. She's about as consistent as a can of mixed nuts. The only thing she does do often is chastise and ride the high horse. Not a huge fan, but I don't hate her either.

Brooks is dead on. The guys a follower and a spineless one at that.

Joke:
A Harvard MBA shows up for his first day on the job. He walks into his new bosses office ready to prove himself. She hands him a stack of papers and tells him the copy room is down the hall and on the right. I need 15 copies correlated and bound. The Harvard MBA looks at her stunned. He wonders if she has mistaken him for someone else. He stutters, "Miss. I'm the newly hired MBA." She turns back around and says, "Oh! I'm so sorry." The new employ breaths a sigh of relief, but before he can put his stack of papers back on her desk she says, "Here follow me I'll show you how the copier works."

|7.3.09 @ 5:23PM|#

I disagree with Tim - at least in the choice of his analogies. There is a big difference between a salesman who just operates the cash machine when somebody comes to buy booze or cigarettes and a guy who calls people and tries to persuade them to buy a disadvantageous product. There's a difference between not stopping people from making bad choices and trying to influence them so that they make bad choices.

max hats|7.3.09 @ 5:24PM|#

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical. A lot of sales jobs are unethical in my opinion. If your job is to try to convince people to make bad decisions, you're fucked. You have a right to be fucked in that way, but that doesn't make it ethically right.

So he does have an ethical obligation: to his employer.

Is this a parody post? When you work for someone, you provide services in exchange for compensation. That's it. Until you start lying, cheating, stealing or breaking contracts, ethics do not factor in. The entire post is blowing my mind.

|7.3.09 @ 5:26PM|#

"Is this a parody post?"

My thoughts exactly.

robc|7.3.09 @ 5:28PM|#

While not a fan of Suze's, I agree with her advice here.

And this comment by Tim is just silly:

To say he has an ethical obligation to stop selling the bank's products is like saying a lawyer should only become a prosecutor

I dont see the connection. I cant think of anything even remotely unethical about being a defense lawyer. Even the guilty need representation. What is unethical is being a prosecutor who thinks his purpose is to win. He should be happy when he loses a case if the defendant is actually innocent. A "perfect" record for a prosecutor would be winning all the cases where the defendant is guilty and losing all the ones where he is innocent.

Now, while I dont think being a bk attorney is unethical, I do think that many of them suggest bankruptcy to clients who shouldnt be going thru it, and that is unethical. I think that is a more reasonable analogy.

|7.3.09 @ 5:40PM|#

To say he has an ethical obligation to stop selling the bank's products is like saying a lawyer should only become a prosecutor or an actor should only play good guys.

No, it's not.

Playing bad guys hurts no one and defending a potentially innocent person also hurts no one.

Russ 2000|7.3.09 @ 6:03PM|#

I don't know if I agree with Tim, but I will say that the Suze Orman show would be much better, and much more in tune with the current economic cycle, if she would have guests with opposing viewpoints punching each other like the Springer show.

JB|7.3.09 @ 6:19PM|#

I tend to view MBAs as retards. Instead of getting experience actually working, they want to take time off to go and get their fancy piece of toilet paper.

Executive MBAs are slightly different though not much.

jasno|7.3.09 @ 6:23PM|#

somebody who has credit card debt that is high

Wow.. I have credit card debt, and I'm high... I guess that means me.

Russ 2000|7.3.09 @ 6:35PM|#

If you have steady employment, like a cardiologist for example, it makes a lot more sense to take a secured loan at 6% for a few years than an unsecured loan at 22% because the chance of default is close to zero and therefore the chance of the bank seizing the collateral is close to zero.

The problem with Suze's advice is that what Mike is selling is a bad deal for most people, but is a good deal for some people. If Mike is purposely selling the deal to people who would be better off without it, he's being unethical to those customers. If he's purposely making no effort to find the customers that the deal would be good for, he probably misled his employer.

|7.3.09 @ 7:09PM|#

Suze's advice on the difference between secured and unsecured loans is simply wrong. A creditor can seize property to satisfy an unsecured loan. The difference is that, with a secured loan, you have a property right granted by the debtor that may be directly enforced. With an unsecured debt, the creditor need only get a judgment to attach a lien which may be enforced in much the same manner as a secured debt. I'm a lawyer. I've done this. The major difference is that the secured debt can not be discharged by bankruptcy.

If the secured debt comes with a much lower interest rate and a tax write-off for the interest, it is probably a very good trade-off at the cost of making a default seizure a little easier for the creditor as long as you can pay the loan. Of course, if you can't pay your loans at any interest rate, you need to make some serious changes or talk to a bankruptcy lawyer.

|7.3.09 @ 7:35PM|#

I do not understand why both Cavanaugh and Orman think consolidating is a bad deal. You're going from around a 25% interest rate to around 5-10%. What's the problem?

The idea that you "spend more [interest]" because the term is longer is a red herring. You "spend more" because you have the money for a longer period of time ... but for people who let their credit card balance grow, paying 25% for two years is still a lot more than paying 7% for three years.

And this doesn't take into account that some car loans and mortgages (like mine) allow you to make extra payments any time.

Shannon Love|7.3.09 @ 7:52PM|#

It sounds like Mike is someone who wanted to do finance and ended up being a telemarketer.

I think the ethical dilemma depends upon whether Mike is required to present the program as beneficial to all borrowers and is required to present the program as a favor that the lender is doing for the borrower .
I don't think most people have the same wariness buying financial products from banks (owing in part to moral hazard created by regulation.) I think it would be easy for banks to exploit that trust.

Even if it isn't legally fraud people who are loathe to sell their own integrity would have problems with this. A lot of people can't work high pressure sales for just this reason. People in sales have to be able to lie to people and convince them that what is good for the sales person is good for them. It doesn't matter what the product is. The fact that in this case Mike has to talk people into financial arrangements that could cause them to lose their homes, cares or drive them into bankruptcy makes it all the worse.

Some dude|7.3.09 @ 8:58PM|#

How do you even pronounce "Siouxs," or "Siouxsie" for that matter?

|7.3.09 @ 10:12PM|#

People in sales have to be able to lie to people and convince them that what is good for the sales person is good for them.

Bullsh*t. You obviously don't know the first thing about sales. If you ever experience a weird, unfamiliar sensation which turns out to be intellectual curiosity, I highly recommend you crack one of Zig Ziglar's books about selling. He suggests salespeople confine themselves to products which they know solve a real problem and focus on listening to customer needs instead of jamming product down their throats. And if their product doesn't meet the customer need, say that and move on.

The best, most effective salespeople are fast-listening introverts. You probably know a few, but weren't even aware what they're up to.

|7.3.09 @ 10:49PM|#

It it not ethical to lie, even if your employer is paying you and orders you to lie as a requirement for earning your paycheck.

If Mike is portraying himself to his potential customer as an impartial "financial advisor" when he is really acting as a salesman for his employer, then he is lying, and that is unethical.

If Mike is clearly portraying himself as a salesman, then he is not acting unethically, provided the potential customer understands this.

You do not have an ethical requirement to lie for your employer, that is, you do not have an ethical requirement to deceive just because you are being paid to do so.

I suppose there may be special cases where lying is an ethical part of a job (e.g. as part of a police sting operation) but this is not such a special case.

The root cause of our financial collapse is an ethical collapse, mainly the prevalence of lying. It is not OK to take an investor's money and not deliver shares to him (naked short selling). It is not OK to create money out of debt and say it has value (fiat currency). It is not OK to cook the books of a corporation (Madoff, Enron, WorldCom, and many others). It is not OK to cook the books of a federal agency (Social Security). It is not OK to lie on a mortgage application. And on and on and on.....

So here is a question: Why is lying not OK? Can you figure this out?

|7.3.09 @ 11:43PM|#

I partly agree with both max hats and Malto Dextrin. Something may be legal but be unethical or immoral. Judging from the original Reason item (i.e. presuming it to be true), the guy is selling something that will be harmful to most people that buy it. The product itself is (for most purchasers) intrinsically harmful.

Indeed, under some circumstances (presumably not applicable here) lying to customers may be fraudulent or otherwise allow customers an out (e.g. "I explicitly asked the insurance salesman whether meteor strikes were covered and he said yes" if believed may in some jurisdictions allow for some relief even if, in fact, the insurance contract explicitly excludes meteor strike coverage).

Even without that, lying so that someone buys a product that is actually harmful to that person is very different from e.g. selling someone a set of steak knives or particular brand of car or whatever that may not be the "best" or they may not need, the product still does what it's supposed to without any significant undisclosed risks to the purchaser beyond "wasting" what they spend.

As for those posters calling this guy a coward or whatever, how so? If someone (1) has concerns about the morality or ethics of what their employer wants; and (2) seeks advice to help them decide; that's not cowardice. Cowardice would be (1) believing, after getting advice or otherwise, that what you are doing is seriously wrong; (2) doing it anyway (there may be mitigating factors e.g. my child will die if I lose this job and my health insurance...).

Brett Stevens|7.4.09 @ 1:30AM|#

The problem is that idiots exist just waiting for you to take their money.

hmm|7.4.09 @ 1:38AM|#

He's a coward or spineless for needing someone else to be his moral compass. A major problem in the business world that all the ethics classes in the world won't fix.

...and I was like: I would never do this, why are they doing it?

The exact point of his spineless cowardice. He knows he should not be doing what he is doing, yet instead of standing up and saying no he looks for someone else to say no so he can follow them. That is a spineless follower and a liability to whoever hires him.

Finance|7.4.09 @ 5:09AM|#

i agree with mike's words in Suze Orman Show.

toddb|7.4.09 @ 10:43AM|#

People watch Suze Orman? A couple of years ago I watched for about 5 minutes. Her first advice involved some stunning insight into how it was best to buy stocks low and sell high. Then she went on to try to convince some guy that he needed to sell some high return investment in order to pay off a credit card (charging a lower interest than the investment was returning) so that he didn't feel "bad" about carrying credit card debt.

Tim Cavanaugh|7.4.09 @ 1:55PM|#

He knows he should not be doing what he is doing, yet instead of standing up and saying no he looks for someone else to say no so he can follow them. That is a spineless follower and a liability to whoever hires him.

Mike may be spineless, but I'm stunned at how many folks here seem to think doing high-pressure sales that make the buyer poorer is necessarily unethical. Have you never been talked into buying your woman some expensive and worthless cosmetic by a fox behind the counter at a Crabtree & Evelyn? Do you actually think the fox has something to apologize for? She should be commended by Mrs. Crabtree and Mr. Evelyn, and that's the only connection that should matter to her.

|7.4.09 @ 6:09PM|#

To say he has an ethical obligation to stop selling the bank's products is like saying a lawyer should only become a prosecutor or an actor should only play good guys. Mike may have ethical concerns about his job, but they are no different than the concerns of a salesman who decides he can't sell porn or booze or cigarettes: They exist solely within the confines of Mike's own head.

Thanks for confirming what I've suspected all along. Total degeneracy. No values, no standards and no limits. If it's not REALLY illegal, it can't possibly be immoral or unethical to rip people off, can it?

Ann|7.4.09 @ 10:30PM|#

If Mike believes in what he is doing and knows that there are people who will benefit by debt consolidation and makes an effort to reach those who will benefit, what is the harm? However, since he believes he is doing something wrong, he probably is pushing debt consolidation on those who do not need it or will not benefit by it, and that is wrong.

hmm|7.4.09 @ 11:06PM|#

Have you never been talked into buying your woman some expensive...

Megan Fox naked couldn't talk me out of a quarter, I am the alpha frugal. I don't think what he does is unethical at all in the general sense of selling. I personally don't agree with the loan tactics used for these loans and there are ethical issues with how they are marketed and sold, but I don't know enough about how his particular company operates to make a call on a very gray subject. I don't believe high pressure sales are inherently unethical.

I wasn't very clear with my statement, which was aimed mostly at some spineless weasel looking for an out, an all too common MO in business. He knows what he is doing is something he thinks is not right. (I should have worded my statement better.) Yet he is incapable of mustering the intestinal fortitude to stop doing it. That kind of cowardice and spinelessness is something that drives me batshit insane and it is becoming all too common.

I don't care what Mike does. I do think he is a liability for any business with his willingness to hang his ethics and morals on some strangers advice. I do not think high pressure sales are inherently unethical. I do think there are caveats such as the arms length principle and information being provided above board that can lead to unethical high pressure sales. The counter argument to that is personal responsibility and the fact that 10 minutes and Google and any semi competent human can figure out anything. My problem is not with the high pressure sales. (the information is limited) It's with his inability to act on what he thinks is right. That is an absolute failure.

max hats|7.5.09 @ 6:17AM|#

She should be commended by Mrs. Crabtree and Mr. Evelyn, and that's the only connection that should matter to her.

Your continual linking of ethics to some sort of employee obligation to an employer is mind-boggling. You don't work for someone because it is capital "R" Righteous. You work for them because they pay you. If you don't like what they pay you to do, then you shouldn't do it.

So he does have an ethical obligation: to his employer.

What is this ethical obligation to one's employers you keep speaking of? Employees are free to ignore their company's best interests, and employers are free to fire them for it. Employment is nothing but a transaction, and it's a pretty simple one. But somehow, somewhere in this basic cash for services scheme we call "working" you imagine that some sort of moral obligation outside of the contract develops. Employees don't just provide services because they are paid to - they should provide these services because doing so is righteous.

What's truly hilarious about all this is I'd imagine you'd go blue in the face arguing a company has no outstanding ethical obligation to its employees. The ethical structure you are arguing is fundamentally illiberal - it is corporatist in the worst way.

Pendulum|7.5.09 @ 12:10PM|#

>To say he has an ethical obligation to stop selling the bank's products is like saying a lawyer should only become a prosecutor or an actor should only play good guys.

You cannot possibly be serious.

I'm a law student. Within criminal law, I will only become a defense attorney, because, given my moral inclinations, I think prosecution in the current system is morally abhorrent. Others with different moral inclinations choose to become prosecutors, and would never do defense, which is great for them. You're saying that I should actually just act as a complete free agent, unconstrained by any ethical views in what I'd like to use my talents for? You're comparing the choice of playing a bad guy in a film to participate in the mass incarceration of people for non-violent behavior? Should American soldiers also decide to join the Russian army if the pay is higher and the conditions better?

Mike is to be commended for having ethical qualms about a high pressure sales job. And, yes, the correct thing to do, if the ethical objections are sufficiently bothersome, is to quit and find new work. Not only is it ethically superior, but it leads to greater personal happiness with one's contribution to the world.

hmm|7.5.09 @ 12:13PM|#

You work for them because they pay you. If you don't like what they pay you to do, then you shouldn't do it.

I don't think the argument is you are ethically bound to stay and work, but you are ethically bound to do what you have agreed upon until you quite. You agree with Bob to do X for Y. You don't do X you have broken an agreement, or promise to Bob. The ethical portion as I see it lies in the employment agreement and has an ethical portion on each side. Bob acts, company has an ethical obligation to pay. Company pays, Bob has an ethical obligation to act. I don't get the righteousness point. Your point that if you don't like it quit is the same point that is made that the high pressure sale itself is not inherently unethical and Bobs obligation is to those that he has made the agreement with, his employers until he severs the relationship.

Leaving is always the option and that is what I found offensive, his inability to act upon what he felt was wrong is chicken shit.

Pendulum|7.5.09 @ 12:24PM|#

>Your point that if you don't like it quit is the same point that is made that the high pressure sale itself is not inherently unethical and Bobs obligation is to those that he has made the agreement with, his employers until he severs the relationship.

In some peoples' worldview, high pressure sales is inherently unethical. The justification is because high-pressure sales involves attempting to trick others into making impulsive, irrational decisions, in contravention of their long-term financial priorities.

In other people's worldview, high pressure sales is not unethical. One justification for this view is that you may have higher priorities, like providing for your family, than being considerate of some stranger.

Both moral views have points to recommend them. I know which type of person I'd prefer to come across me bleeding in the street, though. Or, which type of person I'd want if a second American revolution came about.

hmm|7.5.09 @ 12:48PM|#

There's a lot of conjecture in those explanations. The argument for irrational decisions is as flawed as the people act rationally argument for economics. People act irrationally w/o anyone's help all the time. Doing something you view as wrong to secure a benefit you see as necessary is another argument entirely, and a bit of a strawman. The point I made is that he thinks it is wrong, but needs someone else to endorse his action, not that he is cornered into feeding 15 kids and there is no other option.

I agree with what I think is your general sentiment.

hmm|7.5.09 @ 1:32PM|#

Cyber-bullying is bullshit. It's nothing more than a shift of personal responsibility from parents and individuals to someone else. The idea that my calling anyone a fucktard online or telling someone they should go play in traffic is an actionable crime based on the actions of the person it was directed at is absurd.

The hypocritical nature of posts here calling for her death or worse because she was mean on the internet are pretty funny. If she killed herself tomorrow we would be looking at quit a few criminals by their own standards.

hmm|7.5.09 @ 1:57PM|#

Epic fail. Wrong thread.

Fuck you I'm an anteater!

max hats|7.5.09 @ 3:37PM|#

I don't think the argument is you are ethically bound to stay and work, but you are ethically bound to do what you have agreed upon until you quite. You agree with Bob to do X for Y. You don't do X you have broken an agreement, or promise to Bob. The ethical portion as I see it lies in the employment agreement and has an ethical portion on each side. Bob acts, company has an ethical obligation to pay. Company pays, Bob has an ethical obligation to act. I don't get the righteousness point. Your point that if you don't like it quit is the same point that is made that the high pressure sale itself is not inherently unethical and Bobs obligation is to those that he has made the agreement with, his employers until he severs the relationship.

If I understand correctly, what you are saying is that an employee, until that employee quits, has an ethical obligation to work well. That makes sense, especially if one considers employement a contract. Money will be delivered, so services ought to be rendered.

But, it leads to some tremendous slippery slopes. Every idle second at work, every nonproductive office conversation then effectively becomes theft, or at least a breach of contract.

I think the ultimate judge of an employee's output must be the employer, not an outside system of right and wrong. If an employer likes what an employee does, they can reward. If an employee chooses to work poorly, they can be fired. How an employee works must ultimately remain the employees decision though, as an independent agent making rational decisions on their own behalf. The idea that an ethical system forces employees to deliver for their employers seems to me like a slide to corporatism. And what ethical obligation does an employer have that is equivalent? Employers are free to be completely terrible to their employees, but as long as they deliver a paycheck I don't think anyone here would argue that they are being unethical. It seems to me a value system is being argued here which is ultimately one sided, and unfounded.

max hats|7.5.09 @ 3:44PM|#

Leaving is always the option and that is what I found offensive, his inability to act upon what he felt was wrong is chicken shit.

Well, yeah. I'm not trying to argue in defense of the kid in anyway. I'm just trying to pick at the idea that he has any sort of duty to either stay at the job, or even to work well at it. But yes, he is terrible. And a 22 year old with an MBA working as a telemarketer? I would bet there's a lot of time and dollars spent at non-accredited degree mills in his past.

robc|7.5.09 @ 6:17PM|#

max hats,

I think you are mostly right, at least for most at-will jobs. But, there are exceptions. When the Atlanta Falcons were unhappy with Michael Vick, they didnt just fire him, they also sued to get a portion of the signing bonus they had paid him back.

That wasnt a normal firing for poor performance though, they couldnt have got it back in that case.

hmm|7.5.09 @ 9:13PM|#

What you said is pretty much what I was getting at. There is an ethical obligation between employer and employee and only at best an arms length requirement between employee and customer. The two relationships are not the same in any measure and the employer/employee relationship is stronger with an almost fiduciary or contractual responsibility to produce and reimburse.

I agree with the age and circumstantial evidence that this guy is a tard with a degree mill degree. But that doesn't excuse being a spineless turd.

Slippery slope arguments based on minutia, the finite, and absolutes are almost always a strawman or an outright fallacy. Ethics are rarely based on absolutes and attempting to boil an ethical arguments down to absolutes borders on reductio ad absurdum.

robc|7.5.09 @ 9:29PM|#

I think this thread (and others like it) sometimes confuse ethics and morals.

Many professions have a code of ethics - following this isnt necessarily moral, however. Actually, all have them, they just arent always written down.

I think Mike's problem is that he isnt sure what business he is in. As a "financial advisor", I think ethics would require him to not offer his clients a product that was bad for them. As a "loan salesman", I think the ethics is to sell the product and caveat emptor. Its like selling cigarettes - ethical for the quicky mart cashier, not so much for a doctor.

Morality, on the other hand, may be different. It is very possible to be an ethical payday loan guy. Be honest with the fees and interest rates and sell the payday loans to the customers that come in. Im not sure you can find a moral one though.

Morality is much more personal though (I think there is an absolute morality, but I dont claim to know what it is).

Anyway, if Mike thinks he is behaving unethically or immorally, he should quit his job. Which it seems he does. As others have said, grow a spine.

Legality is, of course, different from ethics and morality too. Im fine with payday loan places being legal.

hmm|7.5.09 @ 10:14PM|#

I got a chance to look at some preliminary data on payday loans being collect to study their effect and potentially predatory nature. Surprisingly the initial information seems to defy the generally held idea that the loans are detrimental and predatory in nature. The information collected on credit cards looks more predatory and potentially damaging than payday loans.

I was a little shocked. I always viewed payday loans as taking advantage of people with no other means, but it looks like many simply provide a service for people with no other means and both benefit. (at least at first blush)

Rich|7.5.09 @ 11:12PM|#

"But if you make money off of telling people to do something that in the long run hurts them, that will only come back to bite you in ways that are far beyond what money can buy and what money can do for you."

Perhaps a few more congresscreatures should follow Suze's advice.

Prosperity Trekker|7.6.09 @ 12:30AM|#

Mike should stick with his job while he positions himself for something better. 10% of us don't have jobs. Mike has one because his employer thinks Mike can help the business do business. This is strictly business, it's legal and it will continue to be legal as it won't see any regulatory change. Mike truly has one option. Stay employed while he looks for something that makes him feel more fulfilled.

Bad credit personal loans|7.6.09 @ 1:53AM|#

really sound he should keep his job though. :)

PR|7.6.09 @ 10:11AM|#

Suze's advice only makes sense if someone is planning on defaulting. Does bad credit not cost people more money in the long run? Drastically reducing your interest rate and shifting some of the burden to Uncle Sam through mortgage deductibility makes sense.

Craig|7.6.09 @ 12:00PM|#

I'm stunned at how many folks here seem to think doing high-pressure sales that make the buyer poorer is necessarily unethical.

If Mike has a problem with what he is selling, he should quit.

Personally, I don't see any ethical problem, and selling someone a secured debt with a lower interest rate makes them richer, not poorer. They pay much less in the short term, and have more time to save up to pay it off.

Telling people to keep paying high rates on unsecured debt, for the unstated reason that they may have to default and don't want to make it easy for the lender to collect, sounds more unethical to me.

And to Tim's point, it's the buyer who is responsible for what they buy. The salesman's obligation is to represent his product honestly.

|7.7.09 @ 5:40AM|#

the above thoughts are smarter no need to add anything from my side.
scott......
foreclosure auctions