On the Social Psychology of Rising Credit-Card Debt: A Reflection of American Society?

It is perhaps too easy to point to economic reasons for an increase in debt within a society. The Wall Street Journal reported during the first quarter of 2020 that credit-card debt in the U.S. “rose to a record in the final quarter of 2019 as Americans spent aggressively amid a strong economy and job market, and the proportion of people seriously behind on their payments increased.”[1] The record $930 billion, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, was “well above the previous peak seen before the 2008 financial crisis.”[2] After critiquing the economic explanation, I will suggest that a social-psychological mentality or attitude may be behind not only the rising debt, but also other disappointing manifestations in the contemporaneous American society more broadly speaking.

The U.S. economy between 2001 and the third quarter of 2007 had been “weaker, overall, than its performance in the equivalent years of the 1990s.”[3] So if spending aggressively (a rather strange expression) amid a strong economy and job market in 2019 led to the record in credit-card debt, why was the debt level higher in the 2001-2007 period than during the 1990s? Furthermore, why wouldn’t a weaker economy result in more buying on credit and a jump particularly in serious credit delinquencies? In actuality, the fourth quarter of 2019 saw only moderate growth of 2.1 percent, a full percentage point below the comparable figure from the year’s first quarter. The softening of domestic consumer spending and the low unemployment rate of 3.5% should result in more credit-card debt being paid off rather than added. Going on economic factors alone takes on the look of a twisted pretzel.

I submit that a creeping pathological mentality in the some segments of American society, or perhaps outside of society, may be another, steadier trending factor. Specifically an attitude toward money and personal responsibility may have been spreading during the 2010s among the working poor. I cannot offer any empirical evidence, so my theorizing can only be considered as an initial sketch. Even so, the rough sketches of the attitude itself can be revealing with respect to personal responsibility and other people.

The attitude, which I have observed on number of occasions, includes the decision not to utilize self-discipline in the face of instant-gratification, which in turn may be felt as coming all-at-once as if overwhelming once a paycheck is received. Self-discipline may simply be dismissed as if it were an exogenous bad odor. In actuality, that odor comes from the attitude itself. The ensuing behavior is to spend too much of the paycheck without concern for money that will be needed before the next paycheck arrives (not to mention any concern to put some money aside in case of unemployment or an emergency).

In 2019, I listened more to the jobless poor who received government checks. I found that in many cases, they most or almost all of a check all at once. In many cases, they would turn to selling drugs and going to food-banks (and selling food stamps) to have money well into the month. That the mentality in spending virtually all of a check can point to an underlying mental illness suggests just how problematic the underlying mentality is. In retrospect, the consequent increase in serious delinquencies of credit-card debt can be viewed as a symptom rather than as the problem. Another “red flag” concerning the seriousness of the mentality occurred to me when I realized that the non-working poor are so very poor they are the most vulnerable financially, and a significant number, at least from my observations, displayed such flawed judgment in spending recklessly, as if they could offer no resistance to the instinct for immediate gratification. The mentality may thus be oblivious to external context and even the internal context of the mentality’s own bad judgment.

Regarding the working poor, people who display a failure of judgment concerning how much credit-card debt to add or have given the amount of the pay may also 1) have an implicit assumption that money is rightly for free (the extreme being conducive to theft), 2) believe that society owes them so they can rightly assume debt without any intent to pay it back, and 3) feel little or no responsibility to people they don’t know, including the owners of the credit-card companies and others. This extremely narcissistic attitude is entirely comfortable in violating Kant’s ethical notion of the Kingdom of Ends, by which other people are to be treated not only as a person’s means, but also as ends in themselves. Accumulating credit-card debt as if the companies’ concerns were of no significance turns the rational beings running and owning the companies into mere means to the person’s flawed decision that such money is and should be free, without obligation on the person’s part. If the counterparty is hurt, it is easily dismissible as “not my concern.” The mentality is thus not conformable to society and its implicit social contract.

I submit that the impact of the sordid mentality is evinced in not only the taking on of credit-card debt either recklessly or without any intention of repaying it, but also the increase in prison populations and drug use, and the general declining trend of civility toward strangers in public. In other words, the records in credit-card debt may be a few data points that together with other data may suggest the underlying mentality whose baleful manifestations running through American society are broader than generally thought.

---

1. Yuka Hayashi, “Credit-Card Debt in U.S. Rises to Record $930 Billion,” The Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2020.

2. Ibid.

3. Aviva Aron-Dine, Richard Kogan, and Chad Stone, “How Robust Was the 2001-2007 Economic Expansion?,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 29, 2008. (accessed February 11, 2020)

Tension between Wall Street and Main Street: A Case beyond the Reach of Corporate Social Responsibility

In October 2011, Gerald Seib wrote that political and economic pressures in the wake of the financial crisis were “pushing business leaders into the public cross hairs.”[1] I submit that the very existence of the largest American banks was becoming an issue. In such a case in which a gulf between business and society is so fundamental or deep, corporate social responsibility programs do not suffice and may even backfire. While it is normal for the norms and values of a business sector to differ from those of the wider whole (i.e., society), it is uncommon for a rupture to be so deep that corporate marketing and CSR are not sufficient business responses. I submit that in such cases and where corporations have a lot of power over government officials, CEOs extend their toolset to government to fill in the trench. The "Occupy Wall Street" protests is a case in point. 

From the corporate standpoint, the time was ripe for the field of business and society, whose topics include corporate social responsibility, corporate citizenship, and stakeholder management. The fundamental matter to be “managed,” or assuaged, in that field of business concerns divergent norms as well as values between the individual corporations or the business sector and the wider society. Tension is not always or invariably present, but the fact that a corporation and even the business sector is a part of a wider whole (i.e., a society) suggests that the respective interests, perspectives, norms, and values are likely to differ. Generally speaking, the interests of a part are not identical to the interests of the whole of which the part is a subunit or part. An externality such as from dumping chemicals in a river or polluting the air means that a company's interest, norms, and values can differ from those of a society. 

Self-interest can obviously affect norms and values. A powerful corporation's executives and board may believe that the company's power over members of the U.S. Congress is normal and right because such dominance is in the corporation's financial interest. Meanwhile, voters may feel that such a distended dominance by the moneyed interest harms democracy and is thus a norm that should not exist. 

According to Seib, societal populists and corporate executives were not on the same page in 2011. In as much as the executives were utilizing corporate social responsibility to create the impression that the corporate norms and values being espoused were in line with societal norms and values, the field of business and society may not have been equipped to deal with divergent talking points that are grounded in antipodal, or antithetical, social realities. In short, corporate social responsibility as marketing or "window-dressing" can be detected as fake, thereby increasing the rift rather than reducing it. Indeed, it can be said that the topic began as an ideal  to bridge the gap between corporations and societies only to end up in marketing.[2] Foisting the illusion of convergent corporate and societal values can backfire by illuminating boardrooms as places where only a narrow perspective of short-term profit pervades.

In the context of the “Occupy Wall Street” protests spreading across the U.S. during the Fall of 2011, Seib pointed to the existence of “a radical disconnect between the picture populist critics paint from the outside, and the one business leaders describe from inside.”[3] This disconnect had gone back to September 2008, when bankers viewed the collapse of the housing market (and those of related financial products, such as CDOs) as a result of over-reaching, dishonest and languid mortgage borrowers. 

Meanwhile, the wider society saw greedy and fraudulent mortgage originators and investment bankers behind the adjustable-arm steep mortgages and the "crap" bonds that were based on those risky mortgages. This disconnect infuriated the general public, especially because contrition would not come from Wall Street. Greed refuses any constraint, including even acknowledging even some responsibility. Banks would engage in mass foreclosures without a hint of guilt for having misled people into going for oversized houses. The mortgage producers at Countrywide and other companies conveniently made the bad assumption that a few years of mortgage payments would enable the mortgage borrowers to shift from step-wise increasing-rate to fixed 20-year mortgages so as to avoid the higher interest payments. This flawed assumption was no doubt helped out by the fact that more mortgages would be sold, and thus higher bonues received. The interest of the economy, not to mention society as a whole, was of lesser concern. Hence the clash in norms and values between the part and the whole. 

In the populist protests, the crowd also saw American companies with enough profit and cash to create jobs domestically yet without the will to do so. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, American corporations had cut their work forces in the U.S. by nearly 3 million, while increasing employment abroad by almost 2.5 million. In the fall of 2011, Standard & Poor predicted corporate earnings growth of 13.5% for the third quarter, which, according to Seib, suggested “to Wall Street protesters that companies were hoarding profits without creating work.”[3] Saving money by moving factories "off shore" fits the business value of efficiency, and even the maxim in trade that goods should be produced where doing so is cheapest (e.g., where the goods are most plentiful). The cost of such a norm of and value on going abroad is externalized to the host country, which is left with the impaired social contract between a large corporation and the society. 

Generally speaking, a government says, in effect, to a company: We'll let you incorporate and even expand into multinational corporations but we expect you to provide jobs in addition to benefiting your customers with goods and services. This version of the social contract that includes the obligation to provide as many jobs as possible (i.e., while still allowing for a reasonable profit, and thus dividends) is controversial, however, because CEOs could retort that providing goods and services that reduce suffering and increase happiness is sufficient. From a utilitarian standpoint, therefore, such CEO's could even claim an ethical justification. Such a justification would likely merely be marketing to craw back some of the lost reputational capital, a long-term intangible asset. 

According to Seib, business leaders cited more practical factors that more easily fit into the traditional business calculus. From the business perspective, third-quarter expectations were less than expected. The managers pointed to the benefits of an artificially weak dollar that had already strengthened at the expense of exports. More broadly, businesses were looking at weak consumer demand and increasing costs with government regulations, which make augmenting the domestic work force more costly. Seib juxtaposes this business view of a hostile business environment with the societal view that looked angrily at unpatriotic and greedy corporate chieftains. 

I submit that when a divide is so gaping, depating the factors in the business environment doesn't fit. Corporate social responsibility programs, such as having employees volunteer at soup kitchens, are not restorative. Firstly, the benefit from such programs would not come close to the original costs borne by society from the reckless and even fraudulent banking practices. Secondly, the people hurt from those practices are not necessarily helped by a program. This is especially true if the "restorative" program in oriented to another society problem, such a disease. Thirdly, corporations benefit from the good public relations from a CSR program. An angry populist is not likely to be pleased that one of the selfish, reckless banks is actually benefiting as it makes contrition. Fourthly, the gap between the business sector (or an industry, but not likely an individual company) and a society can be so deep enough that capitalism itself is severely questioned at large. Filling in such a deep trench goes beyond what CSR can do; a bulldozer rather than some shovels are needed in such cases. I contend that the "Occupy Wall Street" protests that took place three years after the financial crisis deepened or perhaps only exposed such a trench. I suspect this is why the U.S. Government, which was refusing to hold mortgage producers and investment bankers criminally accountable for the fraud--protecting the powerful financial sector--took an active role in stopping the protests. To have the very legitimacy of corporate America, or even just the banking sector, even questioned in such a public way was likely too much for a government whose elected officials could receive unlimited campaign contributions. 

1. Gerald F. Seib, “Populist Anger Over Economy Carries Risks for Big Business,” The Wall Street Journal, October 11, 2011. More generally, see Skip Worden, Essays on the Financial Crisis.

2. William C. Frederick, my doctoral professor in the field of Business & Society, came to this conclusion, as did I. When upon retirement from teaching he turned to the application of the natural sciences to economizing and power-aggrandizement in relation to societal "ecologizing" forces, and then to management, I truly became one of his students (for twenty years). I gave a conference paper, for example, on how a company could be run on ecologizing rather than profit-maximizing principles. The field of Business & Society is indeed wider and more abstract than the CSR topic. 

3. Seib, “Populist Anger Over Economy Carries Risks for Big Business.”

Google’s Philanthropy: $1 Billion to Tech-Train America’s Unemployed

In October 2017, Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, announced that the company would give $1 billion over the next five years to nonprofit organizations that help people “adjust to the changing nature of work.”[1] The digital skills philanthropic venture would essentially help otherwise unemployed Americans get jobs that require high-tech skills. This would also enable more people to use the internet, and thus the company’s products. So a reporter at USA Today can be said to gild the lily a bit in claiming that the initiative “is a tacit acknowledgement from one of the world’s most valuable companies that it bears some responsibility for rapid advances in technology that are radically reshaping industries and eliminating jobs in the U.S. and around the world.”[2] I submit that it is highly unlikely that such an acknowledgement ever took place at Google, given the more likely scenario wherein the company’s management saw an opportunity to enlarge (and hopefully enrich) its labor pool and customer base.

In making the announcement from Pittsburgh, Pichai observed, “One-third of jobs in 2020 will require skills that aren’t common [in 2017]. It’s a big problem.”[3] Indeed. He may in fact have been understating it. Giving $10 million to Goodwill’s Digital Career Accelerator so it could “provide 1 million people with access to digital skills and career opportunities” does not necessarily mean that 1 million people would become proficient at such skills, which after all are not easy to master. There is also the matter of attitude, which can function as a wedge between digital skills and realized and sustained career opportunities. Chronic unemployment itself can test and even twist a person’s attitude, which can also be a factor in a person’s unemployment in the first place.

Generally speaking, funneling a society’s extant labor force and the unemployed through a skills-filter, in this case, digital skills, ignores the innate diversity that exists within any societal labor pool (and society itself). The heterogeneous nature of people vocationally is happily in line with the fact that a diversified economy is more stable than one that privileges a certain sector or even its skill-set.

---

[1] Jessica Lynn, “Google to Give $1 Billion to Nonprofits and Help Americans Get Jobs in the New Economy,” The New York Times, October 12, 2017.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

Efficiency, Corporate Social Responsibility and Full Employment: Squaring a Circle

The New York Times reported that President Obama urged American businesses on February 7, 2011 to “'get in the game' by letting loose trillions of dollars being held in reserves, saying that they can help create a 'virtuous cycle' of more sales, higher demand and greater profits that will put people back to work and turn around the sluggish economy.” Obama continued, “If there is a reason you don’t believe that this is the time to get off the sidelines — to hire and invest — I want to know about it. I want to fix it.” In the speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Obama said that companies have a responsibility to help the economy recover. The trouble is that responsibility is a rather vague term that can be variously applied. This is one reason why the corporate social responsibility concept could mean providing society with the products and services that are sought via the marketplace (e.g. Milton Friedman of the Chicago school) while meaning for others increasing corporate philanthropy to alleviate a society problem such as poverty. In other words, responsibility can be made concrete in various ways that can accommodate and indeed reflect the ideologies of those applying the term.

It could be predicted, therefore, that the President's application of responsibility might have differed from some of the business managers in the audience. Indeed, Obama’s suggestion that businesses could help the economy recover by spending their reserves was met, according to The New York Times, “with skepticism by some in the audience.” For example, Harold Jackson, a executive at Buffalo Supply Incorporated (a medical supply company), called the President's suggestion naive. “Any business person has to look at the demand to their company for their product and services, and make hiring decisions,” Jackson said. “I think it’s a little outside the bounds to suggest that if we hire people we don’t need, there will be more demand.” In effect, Jackson was defending Friedman's application of corporate social responsibility from that of the President's.

To President Obama's assumption that American businesses were still sitting on the sidelines, it can be asked, in what sense? The President was pointing to what he viewed as excessive retained earnings. Yet John Schoen of MSNBC reported the same day that the American manufacturing sector was “roaring back” after the recession. Schoen reports a sustained rise in factory orders in five of the last six months, which prompted manufacturers to boost hiring. The Commerce Department had reported a few days before Schoen's report on February 7, 2011 that the manufacturing sector had added 49,000 new jobs in January. Yet this is hardly a roaring comeback in terms of new jobs. Schoen reports that businesses have figured out how to make more widgets with the same number of workers, resulting in higher productivity and profits. Investing reserves in automation, for example, raises productivity by making products faster and better. According to Schoen, “Productivity is a pretty simple concept: It’s a measure of how much stuff a worker makes in a given number of hours. . . . Productivity has also risen as American manufacturers have moved to specialize in more valuable products, sending manufacturing of cheaper goods overseas where wages are lower. As the value of American-made products has risen, so too has the average level of output per worker when measured in dollar terms.” Schoen reports that according to the U.S. Labor Department, the level of output per hour worked rose by 2.6 percent in the last three months of 2010. Even if it is not in the interest of labor, such improvement is in line with the logic of business, given how business is designed and how a competitive marketplace works. Spending retained earnings beyond that which can be expected to raise productivity simply does not make sense to a business practitioner.

In general terms, the (nearly) “jobless recovery” can be seen as pointing to a major difference between the interests of business and society—the latter being represented by the President at the Chamber of Commerce. Given the nature of business enterprise in a competitive market, it is only natural for managers (and boards) to work toward (and reward) greater efficiency (i.e. productivity). Business managers thus understand or apply responsibility in this way. As per Harold Jackson's point, to hire labor beyond the optimal efficiency point in order to solve the wider societal problem of unemployment would run against a firm's telos, or goal. Ultimately, such over-hiring would compromise a company's continued viability (which could result in the loss of even more jobs).

One cannot blame a manager for thinking in line with his or her company's logic, or raison d'etre, any more than one can blame a shark for hunting for food and eating like a shark. A shark is a shark, and a business can also be viewed as a feeding machine. To posit or impose responsibilities onto a machine does not make sense either to the machine or to those who operate it (in their functioning as operators). To an operator, responsibility means operating well—which, by the way, is virtue in the ancient Greek sense. The President's use of responsibility extrinsic to a business calculus simply would not register. It would be like trying to get ought out of is. Even within business functionality, responsibility even as in fiduciary duty to the stockholders is simply translated into “try to get as much profit as possible, now or later.” In other words, ought does not compute in a business technical vocabulary. The term is extrinsic, like societal problems and goals. To come from a societal standpoint and impose “be responsible” to a business practitioner is like shouting at a deaf person. The business person is apt to simply look curiously at the person as if wondering why he is speaking in a foreign language while assuming he is being understood nevertheless. “How odd,” is perhaps the most honest response that one could give to such a display.

The difference between the President's application of responsibility and that of Jackson can also be understood as the difference between the interest of a subunit and the system as a whole. It is only natural for a part of a whole to operate in the interest of the part itself rather than necessarily the whole. The interests of the latter can thus fall through the cracks. Government regulation is an attempt to plug such cracks, but regulations, like firms, are particular. On the issue of unemployment, the societal question is whether even a fully-operational economic system can supply full employment. If not, it may be the government's responsibility to supply the surplus employment, directly or indirectly via subcontracting. Crucially, this supply must be designed such that it does not reduce the employment provided by the private sector. The surplus jobs must be functions that the private sector does not and would not address. The President's error in his speech to the Chamber of Commerce could be that he was assuming this surplus is the responsibilities of “parts” of the system (i.e. individual companies) rather than of the system itself (i.e. the government).

In sum, responsibility is a dubious concept to apply to business; the term is too vague to have much traction in discussing such vital matters as affect our economic livelihoods and the related viability of our economy. It seems to me that the priority ought to be that every able-bodied and minded adult has a job (or, otherwise, a means by which he or she can have sufficient economic wherewithal to survive in this interdependent society), whether through business, non-profits or government. Ideologies, including responsibility itself, ought to be relegated as luxuries with which we can play on the margins once full employment has become a fait accompli. That is to say, ideologies might contribute to improving full employment, rather than being depended on to reach it or allowed to keep us from it. Of course, it could be countered that ideologies are part and parcel of this entire discussion and thus cannot be dissected from it. That may well be. Even so, I submit that ideologies such as laissez faire and corporate social responsibility ought not be allowed to thwart us in how we constitute full employment as a societal fact. That is to say, we ought to direct full employment by whatever means necessary then work from there (once attained) to improve it. Simply put, for some reason, we don't treat full employment as necessary.; rather, we treat it as a goal.  "How odd," an alien from another galaxy might say (in its own language, of course), should one visit us and want to study us.

Sources:

Michael D. Shear, “In Speech to Chamber of Commerce, Obama Urges Businesses to ‘Get in the Game,’” The New York Times, February 7, 2011.

John W. Schoen, “Factories Boom, but with Few New Workers,” February 7, 2011, NBCNews.com.