Why Guaranteed Annual Income was, is, and always will be, a very bad idea and never, ever happen.

Bad ideas don't become good ideas because celebrities endorse them!

A reader writes (and I am paraphrasing here):

Dear Stupid Doo-Doo Head:

You are so wrong about guaranteed annual income!  All the smart people like Professor Know-It-All (and he has a PhD!) say it is great!  And Jeff Bezos, too!

So you are wrong!  Pfffffft!

Hard to parse this, other than the reader never read my blog, particularly the articles about credentialism.  Credentialism isn't an argument, it's a way of trying to shut down argument.  By saying some "smart guy" or "rich guy" supports an argument, you are not addressing the merits of the argument, but turning it into a war of credentials.  Whichever side has the best credentials wins!

But as I noted in earlier postings, credentials can be exaggerated, faked, or not related to the field in question.  Quoting a Physicist when you should be quoting a Physician (as Penn & Teller did), is a case in point.  Both are "Doctors", but only one is qualified to talk about the effects of smoking.  People with credentials can and have been, wrong about so many things.  Look at me, an Electrical Engineer and a Lawyer and I'm wrong about everything most of the time.   The major fuck-ups in history were all supported by people with incredible credentials.  That doesn't turn a wrong answer into a right one.

So if you throw away credentialism, his argument amounts to... nothing.   On the other hand, even a schoolboy can see through the fallacies of this "basic income" or "guaranteed annual income" or whatever it is:

1.  It ain't never gonna happen:  Even with the Presidency and the House and the Senate, President Biden can't push through all of his agenda, thanks to the Filibuster.  Love it or hate it, it exists and isn't likely to go away, simply because the party in power can quickly become the party out-of-power.  Republicans loathed the Filibuster when they were in power - they love it today.  Ditto for Democrats when the situation is reversed.

OK, you say, let's all vote Democratic and take over 60 seats in the Senate, or abolish the Filibuster!  Well, even then, it fails.  You see, a lot of Democrats are NOT Ms. AOC or someone like her.  Many are middle-of-the-road and some actually think things through, and they don't go along with every liberal idea that comes down the pike - nor do most Americans.  These Democrats, in "swing States" know also they won't get re-elected if they support a far-left agenda.  This Rep. Manchin fellow from West Virginia, for example, isn't being obstinate, he's just representing the views of his constituents.

The idea that an overwhelming majority of Americans would support this (or student loan forgiveness, slave reparations, or other giveaways) is just a fantasy.  The idea that there are enough Democratic votes to make this happen is a fantasy as well - particularly after we lose the House or Senate in 2022.  Rep. Warnock spams me daily, asking for more money (than I already gave him).  Sadly, the Democrats will likely lose the House or the Senate because they are embracing far-left proposals like this, and the GOP will paste these ideas on to even conservative Democrats in swing States and people will vote them out.

2.  It wouldn't work.   Sure, they have tried "experiments" with "basic income" where Andrew Yang or some Mayor hands out checks to a random group of people.  Sociologists then do "surveys" that show that, when you hand someone money it makes them happier.  Surveys, however, are not science, as I have noted before.  And whenever someone uses a survey to try to prove a point, watch out - you are being snookered.

But even in these limited experiments, the result were sort of mixed.  People getting more free money didn't feel compelled to seek out a job, nor did it improve the local economy much, at least according to one study in Finland. 

The problem with these experiments is that they don't give the money to everyone. If they did, well, we'd see the actual effect it has on people.  Fortunately, we have run a nationwide experiment during the last year, which did hand out money to everyone, rich and poor in the form of "stimulus checks" and the results are about what a first-year economics major would report.

Namely, inflation, materials shortages, and labor shortages. Funny thing, but when you pay people not to work, they don't work.  So there are "help wanted" signs are all over the place and many businesses are cutting back on production or hours of operation or even changing how they operate, because of the lack of labor.  It is a simple equation - if I can make enough money sitting at home, why bother working?

Free money - unearned income - erodes the soul, squashes ambition, and leads to depression.  Almost every single person I've met who has inherited wealth - enough to goof off all day long and never work - suffers from some sort of mental illness or another.  The suicide rate amongst the wealthy is surprisingly high - you would think it would be zero.

3.  It just resets zero: But you won't have to worry about any of that with basic guaranteed income.  Once all this money is handed out and put into the economy, prices will go up, as people will have more to spend, and as a result, fewer will work and labor costs will escalate.  Finally, the $15 minimum wage is here - not by law, but by default!  And I say this with confidence as this is what is happening today, right now, right in your home town (or at least mine).

Inflation erodes earning power, as we are seeing right now.  $1000 a month is great, if you receive it as part of Andrew Yang's "experiment" and no one else does.  It has real buying power.  But when everyone gets it, $1000 becomes the new zero.  Well, not exactly zero, but it ain't worth what $1000 was before we started printing money.  And that's what we would have to do - print money.

And by the way, Andrew Yang is not a "billionaire silicon valley startup guy" but a dude who started a test prep company and has a net worth hardly more than mine.  Somehow this mythology has erupted that he has more money than God and he is some sharp businessman.  Like I said, credentialist arguments are flawed, as credentials can be exaggerated and entirely made-up.

4.  We can't afford it:  $1000 a month ($12,000 a year) is the amount some propose for "basic annual income" or whatever you want to call it.  For 330 million people that would come to three trillion nine hundred sixty billion dollars a year.  Or about four trillion dollars.  Find that loose change under your sofa cushions!

Our annual budget for the US government, as proposed by President Biden, is about $4.89 trillion.  So either this "basic income" concept would double the national budget or we would have to cut every other program to the bone to afford it.  And bear in mind our current budget is far, far more than we take in, in taxes, and adds to the national debt. We would be throwing gasoline on the fire of debt.  And that's already a New Jersey tire fire!

But wait! some say, We can abolish social security and other programs and use basic income instead!  Nice try.  First of all, social programs make up only about half the budget.  Or are you proposing zeroing-out our military budget as well, Comrade? Second of all, not only would there be rioting in The Villages but in the trailer park and ghetto as well.  You see, while a lousy $1000 a month might buy a lot of weed for a 20-something living in their Mother's basement playing video games all day long, it represents a 2/3 pay cut for a middle-class person who spend the last 40 years paying into Social Security.  And let's face it - old people vote, in droves.  This is exactly why Florida went from Blue State to reliable Red State in the last 20 years.

Those on our various welfare programs would be similarly pissed-off.  $1000 a month?  People in Section-8 housing get more than that in housing subsidies alone, in many cases.  Add in the food stamps, Obamaphone, Medicaid, and other forms of subsidy we provide as a compassionate nation, and you're talking 40 grand a year.  You want to tell them they are only going to get 12 grand?  It won't even fly with them.

It is just not a well-thought-out idea and it isn't going anywhere.  And stupid "experiments" where small numbers of people are handed taxpayer's money willy-nilly, don't prove a damn thing.  And quite frankly, I'm surprised some taxpayer hasn't challenged this nonsense in court.  We used to call that corruption.

It is sad to me that people even think this way today - but maybe people have always been idiots.  Back in the 1960's, we were going to fly to the moon, and we would all become Scientists and Engineers and embrace a new age of reason and technology.   I held up my end of the bargain.  Others went off the deep end.

Basic Guaranteed Income is right up there with Qanonsense, Antifarts, Anti-vaxxers, Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, Flat-earthers, Moon-landing deniers, 9/11 "Truthers", UFO believers, Gold-bugs, Crypto-nonsense, Scientologists, and some Evangelical Christians - you know, the hatey-whack-church kind.  We have entered a new age of unreason, where you can believe what you want to believe and not only is this OK, it is not up for discussion.

And many of these beliefs are amplified by Russian and Chinese influencers - who want us to become divided, passive, and all living on welfare.  We've gone from being the vanguard of intellectual ability and the apex of civilization, to reverting to belief systems of the 12th Century.   I mean, flat earth - really?  If I was to go back in time to 1968 and tell people that flat-earthers were a "thing" in 2020 and that people thought polio vaccines were evil, I would have been laughed at.

And yes, a lot of celebrities and "smart people" and "rich people" lend their voices to some of these ideas - on occasion - or are quoted out of context.   Elon Musk tweets about Bitcoin, not because he believes in it, but because he knows the price will spike when he tweets about it, and he'll make a cool Billion in an afternoon.

Maybe right there is the key. If we can get people to believe in just about anything, then you can manipulate them out of their last dime. An article in the paper today talks about "Trump Conventions" being held nationwide, where "My Pillow Guy" gives speeches and Trump appears by remote hookup.  No doubt, they solicit donations for the Trump cause.  So maybe these crazy ideas are being bandied about to try to loot people's wallets.

But how would "basic income" or UBI as AOC calls it, factor into this?  Why would Jeff Bezos support this idea, when it would prevent his workers from coming to work or force him to pay correspondingly higher wages (and not to mention, raise his taxes astronomically)?   Well, if you look into it, Bezos (and other tech Billionaires) never said it.  Or to be more precise, it was taken out of context.

Bezos (and Gates, who thinks "AI" is going to take over the world) did muse once that if robots really become a "thing" and everyone gets laid off from work, then "UBI" might make sense, since everyone will have nothing to do and there won't be any jobs around.  So he wasn't saying we need "basic income" today, but in some hypothetical far-off future where robots rule the world.  A hypothetical future that likely won't happen, or if it does, doesn't mean jobs will go away.

If you look at the history of mankind, the amount of labor required to keep our civilization going has decreased dramatically through the centuries, the trend accelerating rapidly in the last few decades. Yet not only are massive numbers of people not out of work, more people are working than ever before. In medieval times, almost everyone worked in agriculture, and it took dozens of workers to farm even a small plot.  Over time, agricultural processes improved, and more and more people left the land and moved into cities.  They all found jobs, though, as technology took off - technology needed to keep an ever-increasing population supported. Today, few farm the land, and fewer and fewer work in factories. A modern auto plant has less than half the workers of even 30 years ago, and yet produces more cars that are also better made.  And yes, this is in part, due to robotics.

But even with half the people gone, unemployment rates haven't increased to 50%. or even close to that. And during this time period, the workforce effectively doubled, when women entered the workforce in droves in the 1970's.  When I was a kid, if you were a woman, you were a housewife, period.  Women made up a small part of the workforce.  Today, they make up nearly half.   Yet the workplace absorbed all those women as well.  Unemployment has rarely risen above 10% in my lifetime and it is considered "normal" for it to be around 5%.   Are robots really going to put us out of work?  Why aren't they already?  Because robots already exist, and they aren't displacing many people from work - yet.  Perhaps they never will.

Or perhaps life will get better for us humans.  Over time, not only are fewer people needed to do jobs, but people have worked fewer hours.  Maybe in the old days, people slaved (often literally) for 12 hours a day, seven days a week. Religion became wildly popular in part because it promised people a day off. Henry Ford introduced the assembly line, making it possible to produce a massive amount of cars with less man-hour per vehicle.  He also introduced the 40-hour workweek and doubled wages overnight to attract and retain workers.

There is a pattern here - with technological advances and "labor-saving" devices, labor is actually saved (funny thing, that!) and our lives get easier and easier.   So yes, as more automation (not "robots") takes place, we will work fewer days, fewer hours, and have longer vacations, perhaps.  But unemployment?  I suspect not.

But perhaps there is another reason Mr. Bezos - who rivals Walmart as one of the nation's (if not the world's) largest low-wage employer - might think this "UBI" concept is keen.  It acts as a wage subsidy to low-wage employers.  I wrote before about food stamps and Obamacare and other programs designed to help the working poor.   Republicans make noises about abolishing welfare-type programs, but they go along with Medicaid and Foodstamps and whatnot, provided there is a working requirement.  Walmart can pay its employees less if they can get by with food stamps - and their own employee website has (or had) links on how to sign up.  Obamacare is opposed by many in the GOP (mostly for show, it turns out) but low-wage employers don't mind - it means their part-time employees can get health care and they don't have to provide it.  They just would rather not provide it for full-time employees as well!

So, to Bezos, $1000-a-month in "UBI" is $1000-a-month in wages he doesn't have to pay his employees, at least in theory.  So maybe even without the robot apocalypse, he might favor it.

Or maybe, since he knows is just ain't never gonna happen, he can say he supports it, to build up his "street cred" with the plebes, who then might decide they don't need to unionize, as Uncle Jeff and Uncle Sugar will take care of them.

It is a funny thing, ain't it?  I mean, how many poor and underpaid people in the United States have made folk heroes out of Billionaires, like Space Jesus.  Maybe it started years ago, with "Sir" Richard Branson.  He was hip with the cool kids, and allowed all us hippies to fly to the UK for cheap on one of his 747's.  But any good Communist shouldn't be rubbing elbows with Billionaires, should they?  Yet, many do, and many people who are Billionaires or wealthy celebrities, claim to endorse far-left causes that are really not their own.  Like I said, it is a funny thing.

So, to the dear reader who never really read my blog - no sale to credentialist arguments.  If you can't argue the thing on its merits, but have to revert to credenitalism, it means you have nothing really to say, particular when your citations to authority are a wee bit overstated.  Moreover, it just isn't going to happen, and in fact, pining for these sort of things is what is going to cost us the 2022 and 2024 elections.

We need to focus on the ground game.  And winning elections is really the only thing that matters - to either party.  One reason Biden won last time around, was that people wanted not just change from Donald Trump, but a more middle-of-the-road, centrist candidate.  Liberals are pissed-off that Biden hasn't "come out" as a raging Bernie-like Socialist, and likely he never will, as he never was.  And that isn't what the majority of Americans want, anyway.  Get over that.

We keep blathering on about "slave reparations" - as if paying people today for ills visited upon people who were their distant ancestors, will some how make things right (Again, does Obama get these, given that none of his ancestors were slaves in the US?). Similarly, "free college" and "student loan forgiveness" ring pretty hollow to people who never went to college or who paid off their student loans. Encouraging these sort of things only encourages people to borrow yet more money - or stop making payments on their current loans.   Free money corrodes society.

The GOP will do a bang-up job of painting all Democrats with this wide, red brush, defacing campaign posters with the hammer-and-sickle. People like Bernie Sanders (who is NOT a Democrat!) and Andrew Yang (who barely is) are not helping matters, any more than Qanonsense supporters and the MyPillowGuy are making the GOP appear attractive and normal to mainstream America.

But in most elections, people "hold their nose and vote" - and will vote for a candidate they might not even like, if they dislike the other fellow even more, or see him as a threat to their way of life.  Trump screwed the pooch with his toxic behavior over four years.  He could have behaved a smidgen more rationally and been re-elected.  But his paranoid, narcissistic behavior - which came into full bloom after the 2020 election - convinced people to vote Democratic, even if they feared some of the more liberal tenets of the Democratic party.

Next time around, the narrative will be flipped.  People will vote for GOP candidates in swing States in 2022, because they fear the Democrats will "go too far" - and in fact, this is how our system works, to dampen extreme swings in policy. Whether this will put Trump back in the White House in 2024 (presuming he hasn't choked on a Col. Sanders chicken bone by then) remains to be seen.  I suspect Trump has had enough of being President, and would prefer to be king-maker instead, next time around.

We'll just have to see.  The point is, pining for nonsense political views - whether they are far-left or far-right, not only is a waste of time, it damages the party you are most closely aligned with, and emboldens the party you are diametrically opposed from.  "Basic Income" is never going to happen.  So just give it up!

Another Day, Another Scam....

Scams aren't funny and they should bother you because they are an attack on civilization itself.  That, and they are on the rise.

Scams bother me.  Some people say, "Well, you'd have to be stupid to fall for a scam!  Those people get what they deserve!" - which is just blaming the victim.  Yes, you should not walk down a dark alley at night, but if you are raped, robbed, or murdered, it wasn't your fault, but that of the rapist, robber, or murderer.   Of course, defense attorneys would (and do) argue otherwise, which is why they always try to put the victim on trial, not the defendant.

Scams bother me on a number of levels.  The first is that they are on the rise and have been for decades.  Al Gore once famously (or fatuously) said that we are moving from a manufacturing-based economy to an information-based economy.  I will take that a step further and suggest that we are moving from an information-based economy to a fraud-based economy.  When so much "information" out there today is clearly fake, how can such an economy succeed? It is a lot easier (and far more profitable) to scam people than to do business with them.  Eventually, we will spend all day defrauding each other, rather than doing actual work.

The problem is, of course, that scamming has gone mainstream. Back when I was a kid, shysters and con artists weren't so hard to discern.  There weren't so many of them, as each Police department had a "bunko" squad who chased such gypsies out of town. Ordinary merchants offered reasonable deals.  Your local banker paid 3% "bank interest" on your savings and loaned out that money to local people in 6% mortgages and pocketed the difference.  Maybe there were no screaming deals, but there were no ruinous rip-offs, either.

Today, in an era of 3% mortgages and fractional savings (and near-zero fed rates), Banks offer 22% credit cards to middle-class people, and the friendly people at the payday loan place offer 300% interest to the very poor.  You can make more money today by ruining your customer than by doing business with them.  No one cares about their business reputation anymore or "repeat customers."  It is assumed that every customer you deal with will be browned-off at you, but since every other merchant is offering shoddy, deceptive deals, what are people going to do?   The cable companies knew this - and perhaps today they may be paying the price.   Or maybe not.

But beyond that, shoddy deals erode away our civilization.  Scratch a Qanonsense believer or an Antifart Activist and you get the same thing - a person who is upset with society because their personal lives are a train wreck.  Whether it is ruinous student loans or an upside-down mortgage they've been struggling to hold on to since 2008, these are people for whom the American Dream turned out to be a nightmare.   Their education - if they have one - turned out to be worthless, and every merchant they deal with basically loots their wallet.  It is all so unfair, and as far as they are concerned, our society isn't worth maintaining. They pine for the end-times, or the zombie apocalypse.

Now, of course, it is easy to play blame-the-victim, as I have done here in this blog.  These folks made a series of shitty choices in life, often egged on by the industries offering these shitty choices.  The College Industry promotes the idea that a college degree - any college degree - will make you wealthier, and they use backward-looking statistics going back to the 1960's to make this point.  And yes, back in 1968, a degree in "Liberal Arts" might get you a job.  Today?  Not so much.

Similarly, the blue-collar worker never saved a dime from his cushy union job, but relied on the pension plan and health insurance provided by the creaky, money-losing steel mill. Mitt Romney buys the mill, guts the benefits and underfunds the pension and suddenly, their world comes apart. Yes, they probably shouldn't have gone on strike for two years to demand wages double those prevailing in their area.  They are to blame for the choices they made.  But of course, it is too late to unbark the dog.

The problem is, in both cases, these folks feel they have nothing left to lose in our society, and that is a dangerous thing.  The 1% has a vested interest in keeping the 99% happy, or at least not miserable, as the 99% outnumbers them, well, 99 to 1.  When people start to think that working hard and saving money is only for chumps, they stop working hard and saving money and instead think that voting for Andrew Yang is the answer.  Free Money!  Why bother trying?  And that is how civilizations fall.

Which is why it is obvious to anyone who thinks for even a microsecond, who is promoting these sort of things. Maybe such movements originated organically, but foreign forces certainly do their best to amplify such discontent on the Internet.   And I say this with certainty, as it is well documented that the same foreign influences have been at work for decades, and in fact, our government does the same thing, by trying to influence elections in foreign countries, or destabilize foreign governments.

Yet, people spread disinformation about even this.  Russia is our friend! they say, denying that the Russian Internet Research Agency even exists, or that ransomware attacks are going on daily.

It seems that the sheer volume of scammery is increasing every day.  Since sending e-mails and texts and setting up websites is basically cost-free or of very low cost, you can attempt to scam millions of people at a time, for only pennies. Every day, I get dozens of scam e-mails in my SPAM box - a box created to accommodate the incredible volume of this stuff.  My phone rings daily, exhorting me to buy an extended warranty or some other scam.  It never ends, these days - even letters in the mail (how old school!) arrive almost daily, pushing some scam or another.

Consider the one above.   The letter is addressed to me, and no doubt uses data pulled from "public record" or some other data source.   We've been living in our house for 15 years now, and never had a home warranty.  And while I have had a number of mortgages with Access National Bank (which was bought out by another bank several years ago - I was a founding shareholder) all of those were for investment properties. 

Home warranties are not a wholly bad deal.  For a few hundred bucks, you can offer one, as a seller, to qualm the fears of buyers, particularly first-time buyers, in a normal real estate market.  Today, well, right now you can ask whatever price you want, no matter the condition.  But back in the day, it was an incentive many used to sell their home, or something buyers bought if they were nervous.

However, no home warranty company is going to offer to "extend" a warranty 15 years after purchase. It is just a SPAM letter, hoping to snag someone who is nervous and fearful - and this is an excellent example of why fear is never an emotion to be trusted. The "home warranty" is fraudulent, period.  They take your credit card payment over the phone, send you some official-looking documents, and figure you won't file a claim for months - if ever - and never realize the scam.  Even if you file a claim, well by then, they have closed up shop and moved along.

And I can say this with certainty as they are lying to me from the get-go - saying the home warranty I never bought has expired, on my house which is mortgaged by a company that never held the mortgage.  You don't need to spelunk this deal to see if it is a scam, any business deal predicated on a lie, no matter how trivial, will go downhill from there.  So getting a letter like this, with obvious mistakes, misstatements and lies, well, you need not try to figure out if the home warranty company is a fraud or not.

Notice how the top of the page, which appeared through a window in the envelope, says "To the Order Of" as if it were a check, and also "FINAL NOTICE" as if it were an overdue bill.  Both of these are lies, small lies, to get one to open the envelope.  But lies nevertheless.  And I just think it's swell that my postal person thinks I am not paying my bills!  But then again, she probably delivered the same piece of junk mail to everyone on the street.

And like I said, such warranties have uses - but you have to buy them from a legitimate company at the time you buy your house.  You can't wait until your roof leaks and then try to buy a home warranty and think you are going to get a free roof out of the deal.  No shit, some people really think that way.  They think they are going to "pull a fast one" on a major multinational corporation. And those corporations like to let you think you are getting away with things like that, with free flyer miles and BoGo bonuses.  I know way too many people who go on frequent cruises and claim to have gotten away with some great freebie because they knew the secret tips 'n tricks.  Disney people are the same way - buy the annual pass and spend $10,000 and you get a free tote bag!  Betcha didn't know about that!

But nothing in life is free and Their Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch (TANSTAAFL!) and when we try to seek out free things or too-good-to-be-true bargains, well, that's when the scammers get us.  And by scammers, I mean not only the outright crooks in the world, but the companies trying to throw pennies at us, hoping we spend dollars.  And yes, this is blaming the victim - but again, you kind of sort of have to these days, as there is no way to go after many of these scammers, as often their business model is perfectly legal, because our "free enterprise" friends in government legalized their scams.  Payday loans exist only because we decided to allow them to exist.

Scams make me angry - or sad anyway.  Because they are corrosive to our society.  And sadly, today, so many people get scammed and then want the government to bail them out.  Republicans decry such bailouts, but then again, they were the same ones who voted to make the scams that people fall for, legal.

Maybe we can put a stop to a lot of this nonsense, or at least try to.  At one time in this country, we tried to stamp out bad bargains, scams, and rip-offs.  Today?  Well, we just shrug and hope it isn't us who gets caught in the trap.

Somehow, I don't think that is a good plan.

If You Can't Perfect Your App - Perfect Your Autogrooming!

 

Why bother making something nice, in this world of fake news and online shilling?   Just spoof the system so people think it's nice!  A short video of the app developers for McDonald's.

I recently updated my posting about the McDonald's online ordering app.  I downloaded it in December, but I didn't use it very much over the last few months - maybe six times.  At first, it worked great, and the "deals" were pretty decent.  But over time, as the pandemic waned, the deals got less and less attractive, to the point where free medium fries was about it.  No more buy-one-get-one-free, which worked great with two people.

But the final straw was when the app stopped working properly.  You would place an order, go to the "store" and wait.  And wait. And wait.  The people behind the counter would claim they never received the order.  In one instance, they were apologetic and filled the order, but not until after I had to "speak to the manager" and of course, the other customers staring at me like I was a trouble-maker.   It wasn't very fun and it took four times as long.

The second time, no food and no offer to even make it - after waiting a half-hour (!!).  So much for "fast food" - they don't even call it that anymore.  The "manager" said the hold on my credit card would come off, as I was never served.  But three days later, they charged my card, and I ended up disputing it with the bank.  The bank processed a refund right away.  But what a waste of time!

So I uninstalled the "app" and decided that we didn't really need to go there anyway.  The last time we went, well, I could have made a ham sandwich at home for less money.  I should follow my own advice!

I was curious about the reviews of the app, though, and as you might guess there were a plethora of (fake) five-star, one-word reviews, and an awful lot of one- and two-star reviews with detailed comments (I added one of my own).  There seemed to be a pattern, too.  Many complained of never receiving their food and being charged anyway (and most seemed to take this on the chin rather than contest it!)  Others complained that the new versions of the app froze their phone.  Still others complained that their "bonus" points were erased and the free coffee drinks they were promised were scotched.

I digress, but I never investigated the "bonus points" thing as it applied to "McCafe" drinks only, and paying huge amounts of money for something as cheap as coffee is stupid.  I make a big pot of coffee every morning (or tea) in our $9.48 Wal-mart coffee maker.  In the afternoon, after the coffee goes cold in the carafe, I fill a glass with ice, add the cold coffee and a little cream and - voila! - an iced coffee drink.  Why bother going to a store for such a thing, when you can have it for pennies at home?   But an entire generation has been trained that coffee is something that you buy at Starbucks, prepared for you by an expert.

But getting back to the review site, it was clear that Micky-D's has a lot of problems with their app.  And the big problem, as I see it, is that the app says your order has been transmitted to the store, but in no way actually confirms this (by receiving a message back from the store that the order was received) and then sending you a confirmation of this.  If they could put in this feedback-loop, you wouldn't sit there for a half-hour waiting for the order.  Of course, that would be hard to do, and require a lot of coding and reprogramming of the store computers and whatnot.   It is just easier to put up a lot of fake five-star reviews and pretend it isn't happening.   Sort of the Captain-of-the-Titanic approach.

But what about those one-star reviews that populate the app store?  How do you deal with that? Well, that's easy.  You program a "bot" to post kicky, casual messages that sound like someone actually wrote them, but are just selected from a template of a half-dozen canned responses.  Each message encourages the user to visit a URL to express their dissatisfaction.  But as I learned, filling out that form only generates two automated e-mails, one which tells you they received your message and another - pages long - telling you to call an 1-800 number.   Both messages are from do-not-reply mailboxes.  You call the 1-800  number and the person on the other end isn't authorized to do anything or even look up the transaction.  The only thing they do is act concerned and tell you there is nothing they can do.

Pretty slick, eh?  Why provide customer service when you can just provide the appearance of customer service?  Contrast this with GEICO, where even the "chat box" connects to a real person who is authorized to actually do things and can provide real help.

The only place more dysfunctional that McDonald's is Subway!

And of course, the reason for all of this is that McDonald's doesn't need or want the app anymore.  They make their money from hungry people going through the drive-through, ordering the same five $12 meals.  When a basic sandwich is $4.95, well, fast-food isn't fast or cheap anymore.  They don't need or want someone ordering from the dollar menu or using a coupon on the app.  They don't need or want to sell a McSalad, or an ice cream either - which is why they stopped selling McSalads and why the ice cream machine is always broken.  Why bother screwing around with that shit when shoveling french fries and burgers and high-fructose soft drinks makes you so much money?

The whole thing is creepy, but what was really creepy was these messages, which were responses to the one-star app reviews, that usually say things like "Yo!" or "ya" or whatever, trying to be hip with the kids.  Here is a sampling:

McDonalds USA, LLCApril 27, 2021

Let's get that looked into, Patriece. Please provide our Mobile App team with more info at: https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/contact-us/mobile-app-questions.html

McDonalds USA, LLCNovember 10, 2018

We're sorry to hear about this, Judy! We’d love to help you with a solution. Please give our McDonald's Mobile App team a call at 877-334-4332, so we can look into this further.

McDonalds USA, LLCDecember 31, 2019

We're sorry to hear about this, Joel. Try uninstalling and reinstalling the app. If that doesn't help, please reach out to our Mobile App team, so we can assist you further at 1-877-334-4332.

McDonalds USA, LLCJuly 24, 2019

We're really sorry you were disappointed, Tyler! Can you provide some more info in this link https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/contact-us/restaurant-feedback.html/ so we can look into this further.

McDonalds USA, LLCMay 11, 2018

Hi there, Donald! While we understand your experience should be a flawless one, we appreciate you bringing this to our attention. We will make sure to forward your feedback on to the appropriate team. Thanks!

McDonalds USA, LLCSeptember 4, 2019

We're sorry to hear about this! We’d love to help you with a solution. Please give our McDonald's Mobile App team a call at 877-334-4332, so we can look into this further.

McDonalds USA, LLCJune 16, 2021

That's no good, Jacob. Try uninstalling and reinstalling the app. If that doesn't help, please provide our Mobile App team with more info at https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/contact-us/mobile-app-questions.html, so we can look into this further.

McDonalds USA, LLCDecember 21, 2018

Oh no, friend! We suggest clearing your phone's cache. Head to the Settings menu of your device. Find Apps in the menu and then the McDonald’s App. Tap Storage and the buttons for clearing the cache should become available. If that doesn’t resolve your issue, give us a call at 1-877-334-4332, so we can look into this further.

McDonalds USA, LLCDecember 31, 2020

We always want your Mobile Ordering to be awesome, Chris. Please provide our Mobile App team with more info at https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/contact-us/mobile-app-questions.html.

McDonalds USA, LLCMay 30, 2021

That doesn't sound too good, David. Please contact our Mobile App team at https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/contact-us/mobile-app-questions.html, so they can help you solve any issues you're having with the McDonald's Global Mobile App.

McDonalds USA, LLCApril 11, 2021

That's not too great, Dan. Try uninstalling and reinstalling the app. If that doesn't help, please provide our Mobile App team with more info at https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/contact-us/mobile-app-questions.html, so we can look into this further.

McDonalds USA, LLCNovember 24, 2020

Sounds frustrating, Linda! Please contact our Mobile App team at https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/contact-us/mobile-app-questions.html

McDonalds USA, LLCJanuary 23, 2021

Sounds like you've had some difficulties with your payment, Patrick. Please provide our Mobile App team with more info at https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/contact-us/mobile-app-questions.html, so we can get this looked into for ya.

What is creepy about the messages, is that they are always dated months or even years before the complaint in question.  The messages above were posted in response to reviews from 2021, yet many are dated as early as 2018 - before the present version of the app even existed! Why is this?  Also, they don't respond to every low rating, just every fifth one or something.

Sometimes, the messages clearly are robotic and not a response from a real human.  Consider this exchange;

Jeff Fulcher

June 17, 2021

Was terrible and now works great. Now it's back to terrible. No access to daily deals or my rewards. Going on day 3.

McDonalds USA, LLCOctober 30, 2018

We're happy to hear that, Jeff! Swing by for your faves anytime the craving hits!

We're so glad to hear that the app sucks, Jeff!  WTF?  Clearly some bot is being used, or a person from a third-world country is selecting from a menu of canned responses.  But what is interesting is that they have this auto-grooming machine working flawlessly, but for some reason can't get the app to work right.  Maybe the guy in charge of auto-grooming should be put in charge of the app itself.

But that isn't the answer.  Now, more than ever, it pays to consume less, and yet people are running around trying to consume as much as possible.  There are no deals to be had in today's labor-shortage, material-shortage, and inflationary economy.  I drove by the Ford dealer the other day and the lot was empty.  Oh sure, they had a few oddball cars there, but very few pickups and SUVs.   Do you think the dealer is going to sell you one at a discount right now?  Of course not.

And so on down the line.   Maybe a year or two ago, the merchants were interested in selling to every customer, as they had product to sell and if a coupon, sale, or discount got you in the door, so be it. But today, with five buyers for every one product on the shelf (or so it seems) it is sold to the highest bidder.

So McDonald's perhaps, is sabotaging the app, or more precisely, some of the franchisees are sabotaging it.  With the line at the drive-through a mile long, they don't need Joe Cheapskate and his coupons or apps, screwing up the flow and demanding a discount.  So they claim they never received the order or whatever.  It is like the ice cream machine - they just give up and say it is broken, because they are in the business of selling greasy burgers and fries, and ice cream is just a distraction.

I would have a lot more respect if they just stopped selling the ice cream, but again, I suspect there is a tension between the franchisees and corporate.  Corporate says to sell ice cream, the franchisees find it easier to say the machine is broken, particularly when the service calls are so expensive.

And the same is true, I think, for the "app".   Maybe at the height of the pandemic, they were willing to walk out to your car and deliver food "curbside" or work with Uber Eats to deliver product.  But Uber Eats wants a cut, so today they say they aren't doing delivery anymore (which is a good thing - who wants cold fries delivered to their house for $20?)  And discounts and BoGos are not profitable for the franchisees, either.  With the labor shortage, the best thing for them is to pump out the same three meals through the drive-through window and leave the front doors locked.

The good news is, this is (or should be) a transitory situation.   Shortages usually resolve themselves, unless the government tries to help by rationing.   Once the supply chain is re-started and pandemic panic dies down, things should return to normal or at least a new normal.

(Or maybe not.  As I noted in a very early posting, demographics may be driving the present labor shortage.  That and restrictive immigration policies.  The latter we can fix, the former is systemic).

But in the meantime, it is not a very good time to visit a restaurant or buy a car or even purchase lumber.   It pays to wait for these shortages to abate, rather than panic-buy.

UPDATE: I received an email this morning from McDonald's informing me that they are basically turning the app into a frequent flyer program where you can accumulate points based on how often you visit the store. Since I don't go there very often this is of no interest to me. But it explains why they sort of sabotage their old version of the app, is part of a transition to the new rewards model.

Second Marriages and Asymmetrical Relationships

Second marriages can be tricky, when there is an asymmetry in power.  But then again, most relationships suffer from this problem.

A reader writes asking about what he should do in his situation.  Both he and his girlfriend have over $1M in assets, each, and she owns a $700,000 house.  If he moves in, should he pay for half the house?   I am sure most readers weep for them, having a combined two million bucks and all.  Life is hard!

But as I noted before, I am not an advice columnist.  My only take is that it might be better, if they decide to marry, to buy a house together that is theirs and not just hers.  Because let's face it, even if you paid for the whole house, it will always be "her house" that you moved into.  But that's just how I feel about it.  Maybe others are less bothered by the concept.

This also illustrates how it is harder, as you get older, to find a mate. When Mark and I met, we had nothing.  I had a battered old Chevette and a loan from the Patent Office Credit Union.  Mark had a slightly dinged Golf GTI and a slightly dinged credit rating.  Together we started out with nothing and worked out way up.  What he have today is a result of those efforts and it is ours jointly.  Neither of us can claim to have done it all by themselves, without the other.

Not everyone is so lucky - or smart, perhaps.  When I lived in Syracuse, back in the 1980's, there was a short article in the city paper:

"A local hairdresser, Bruce Gaylord, was found dead in the trunk of his gold 1982 Cadillac Coupe De Ville, which was on fire at the time. Police are looking to question a certain Mr. Simon Roughtrade, who was allegedly staying with Mr. Gaylord and hasn't been seen since. One of Mr. Gaylord's neighbors, Patricia Faghag noted, that "Bruce was such a kindhearted man! He always took in troubled young men and gave them a place to stay! Such a shame what happened!"

I embellish a bit, but that was pretty much the story, word-for-word, including the comment from his neighbor.  Taking in strays is never a good idea, but sadly, this isn't limited to gay people - straight men do it as well, convinced that "Tiffany" the crack-whore stripper really loves him, and that when her ex-boyfriend gets out of jail, bad things won't happen to him.  They usually do.

But it goes beyond this.  In fact, until fairly recently, most marriages were asymmetrical in power, as women had few rights.  We are about to celebrate Juneteenth, when the slaves were emancipated.  But of course, full emancipation was years in the making - and indeed, even today, things are hardly even-steven.  But for women - of any race - equality took (and is taking) even longer.  Until fairly recent times, not only could women not own property, but were also deemed to be property.

Even in more recent times - my lifetime - the man was considered the "breadwinner" and made the majority of all of the income in the household.  The woman had little or no power, in many relationships.  All of that is changing.  Slowly.

It is hard when two people come together and there is an asymmetry in power.  And it is not always along traditional lines.  A former neighbor of mine had a landscaping business.  His wife was a surgeon.  Slight difference in income levels.  And it is harder for men in such a situation, as they are expected to be the "breadwinner" even today, and of course their "friends" will rib them about being a "kept man" or some such nonsense.   With friends like that...

So that is one reason Mark and I put everything into joint tenancy early on.  When we bought our first house together in 1987, the closing attorney was aghast. "Don't you want tenants-in-common?  If you die, he gets the whole house, including your half!"   But of course, there is no such thing as "half a house" and sadly, during the HIV epidemic, many people died and the surviving partner was booted out of their home, when greedy relatives swooped down to claim all the possessions - often using Biblical scripture to justify their actions, at least morally.  But legally, if one partner had the house in his name only, and didn't even bother to prepare a will, the property goes to the greedy relatives (who threw the deceased partner out of the house when he was 18 and declared himself gay).

Again, this is a lot easier to combine your assets when you start out with nothing and build your way up.   And that is why I say that people who stay single for a long period time are probably destined to remain single.  Once you accumulate wealth, buy a house, settle down, it is a lot harder to "share" with a potential partner, lest you lose half your hard work if it doesn't play out. And like I said above, moving in to someone else's house is never going to be completely comfortable.

But maybe that is one reason why, traditionally, most people get married fairly young - when they are just starting out - "A kiss for luck and we're on our way!" as Karen Carpenter sang.

A kiss for luck and we're on our way! - kind of creepy she sang this with her brother.....

But what about second marriages?   When you get older, your spouse dies and you remarry.  Or, heaven forbid, something doesn't work out and you get divorced.  Or worse yet, you just get divorced on a whim, which seems to be the trend, or was the trend, until recently.  You meet someone new, but by then you both have houses, significant assets, and children.  How do you set things up financially?

I am not an advice columnist - just pointing out how difficult these arrangements are.  Even more difficult is the fact that pensions and Social Security may be affected by whether and when you get married.  And some folks never think about this, or if they do, write it off.

For example, Tim and Jennifer are both widows. Jennifer has a nice "widow's pension" as her husband was highly-paid executive.  Not only that, she gets a survivor's benefit from her husband's Social Security.  She has no Social Security benefits of her own, as she never worked the necessary 40 quarters to qualify.  She and Tim decide to marry, but that means she loses some of her widow's pension and her Social Security survivor's benefits, as she had not yet turned 60.  They would be better off, financially, if they remained unmarried.  But Jennifer, being religious, refuses to go along with this, as it is "against God's will" - even though they already had premarital sex.

They also have unequal assets coming into the marriage.  She owns a home, with a mortgage, and has some assets.  But Tim has far more assets, a bigger Social Security check, and a fat pension as well.  How do they deal with the inequality?  Badly, as it turns out.

They did decide that Jennifer would sell her house and they would buy a new one together.  Tim wasn't happy that Jennifer's adult children all had keys to her house and would stop by, day and night, to hang out and raid the refrigerator.  Tim thought buying a different house that was "theirs" would put a stop to that.  It didn't.

But also, they worried if one predeceased the other, the division of assets would be unequal.  So Tim signed a screwy will that gave Jennifer all of his assets if he died, but if Jennifer died, her will stipulated that Tim received only half of her assets including half the house.  They really didn't think this through very well.  Tim would have to sell the house and find a new place to live.

It gets complicated, second marriages.  Like I said, I know one couple who decided to keep everything separate - they split the utilities and mortgage payments, and each pays for their own cars.  You see letters to The Moneyist all the time about this - couples who lead separate financial lives. They go out to dinner with friends, and husband orders the Lobster, while impoverished wife orders just soup. She is chagrined when the bill comes and husband suggests splitting it, 50-50.  It really makes no sense.

Worse yet, I have met couples where one spouse stays home, unable to afford an expensive activity the other spouse wants to engage in.  "You go on that cruise by yourself, hon, I can't afford it!"  Is that even a marriage, or just a shitty roommate arrangement?

Complicating things is the desire to leave money to the children-from-a-previous-marriage in the will, or worse yet, inter vivos transfers.  Dad wants to be a big-shot for his daughters, paying for their cell phone bills when they are well into their 40's. Meanwhile, his new wife is eating canned beans, when he is out playing golf with his buddies. It creates a weird vibe, in my opinion.  But I guess people sign up for these deals and are happy with them - even though they bitch about it all the time.  To each their own.

The prenuptial agreement, of course, was designed specifically for such asymmetrical marriages.  And in some cases, I guess they make sense.  On the other hand, it is a way of saying, "I love you and would be willing to die for you, but then again, I don't trust you and kind of love my stock portfolio more!"

It is also a way of controlling people. If you hold all the purse-strings and your spouse can't leave you without being destitute, well, you are pretty certain they will never leave you.  It is leverage against your opponent, so to speak.  You can keep them in line, and they can't divorce you without sacrificing an awful lot.  Donald Trump loves these sorts of arrangements.  But then again, I doubt he is capable of feeling love for anyone other than himself, if he even knows what love is.

The trophy-wife and the boy-toy are about the same thing, as is the mail-order bride. And in our travels and in life, we have seen examples of all of these things.  I recounted before how a friend of mine married this Vietnamese girl, who was quite sweet to him and bore him children.  She also managed to get all of her family members out of Vietnam, now that she was a US Citizen by marriage.  He confided to me that he felt a stranger in his own home, with everyone speaking Vietnamese (which he didn't understand other than to know when they were talking about him - and laughing).   Eventually, when the last relative came Stateside, she filed divorce papers.  And he didn't see this coming.  I love you long-time!

And who knows?  Maybe that Russian mail-order bride or that young girl from the Philippines really does love you. It has been known to happen.  On the other hand, it is kind of awkward when you meet some 50-something guy with a 20-year-old wife from overseas and you realize he is gunning far above his league.  I mean, what do you say?  "So how did you two meet?"  It gets awkward.

But then again, such arrangements have occurred, over the centuries, and life goes on, and yes, sometimes people in these situations really love each other.  In the West, we question arranged marriages, yet they are prevalent in much of the world and serve a useful social function, gluing society together. And many people in these situations report they are quite happy and in love.  Many if not most second marriages are successful, with spouses able to navigate the tricky waters of pensions and Social Security and disparity in incomes and assets.  It isn't impossible to do, you just have to think it through and talk about it, rationally.  That, and think about "what if?"

Mark and I both believe that, in a lifelong marriage, the first to die is the lucky one.  And often this is the case in real life, as I noted before, where the husband dies of a heart attack, leaving a financial mess that he never disclosed to his wife, to clean up.  But beyond that, picking up the pieces of your life and trying to start over at age 60, 70, or 80, is tough to do.  Finding a new spouse seems like one answer, but it isn't as simple and uncomplicated as when you were 25 and had nothing and were looking for someone to split the rent with.

The older you get and the more successful you become, the harder it is.  Ask Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos.  Do their new paramours really love them, or just that pile of cash they are sitting on?  And do these Billionaires really love their new girlfriends, or just see them as something younger and sexier to entertain themselves with? The subconscious is a powerful thing and a scary thing as well, and none of us like to examine our real motives in that regard - what drives us in life.   The dark hours of the early morning are not good times for such contemplations.

Reflections on FICO

Today, more than ever, you can check on and monitor your credit history and FICO score.  Yet today, it seems the majority of people have the worst sort of credit history and low scores.  What gives?

Mark and I were reminiscing about our first mortgage together.  We almost didn't qualify for a "3-2 buydown" which had an introductory rate of 8-5/8% which went up in three years to 11-5/8%.  Take that Millenials!  You think you have it so hard.  Boo-fucking-hoo.  Just kidding.  Every generation has its crosses to bear.

Anyway, his credit history, as I noted before, had a ding in it.  Back in the era of LP albums, cassette stereo, and landline phones (Internet? What's that?) he had the phone bill in his apartment in his name.  His roommates, after graduation, stayed on another month and promised to pay the bill and have the phone disconnected.   They lied.

So the phone bill went to the empty apartment, and eventually the phone was disconnected and then the phone company reported the unpaid bill to the credit reporting agencies.  The only way we found out about it was by applying for a mortgage.   A check for the amount due and cover letter sent to the phone company cleared things up.  But it illustrated how opaque the system was back then.  There was no "annualcreditreport.com" back then, as there was no "dot com" back then.  At best, as I recall, you could write a letter to the credit reporting agencies, requesting a copy of your credit report for a small fee, I believe.   Your credit score?  That was a closely guarded state secret and "intellectual property" of the reporting agencies.

Maybe a friendly car salesman or mortgage broker might let you look at your credit report, but again, they would remind you that they were not allowed to do so and were breaking the rules by doing so and thus they would not make you a copy.

How times have changed.  First, annualcreditreport.com made it possible to get copies of your credit report from all three agencies, free, once a year.  And as a helpful reader pointed out, if you space these out every four months, you can monitor your credit three times a year at even intervals.

Then came credit freezes, which cost a few dollars at first, but today are largely free.  Other "credit locking" services have been introduced as well.  And then the almighty credit score, once a closely guarded secret, was let out all over the place.   I get updates of my credit score from Bank of America, Capital One, and Credit Karma - to name just a few.   Some of these are not "official" Fair Issac (who, if you think about it, is really an unfair guy) scores, but scores that approximate the official FICO score - or one of them, as there are several, as I discovered over time.

So, the system has been improved and the consumer now can monitor their credit and see how their behavior affects their score, have erroneous information removed, and be aware if someone has tried to open credit in their name.  So, for sure, credit scores must be going up and credit reports must be improving, right?

Well, yes and no.  As the chart above illustrates, more than half the people in the USA have less than "exceptional" credit.  If you want that nothing-down zero-interest deal they advertise on the radio (and then explain the terms at hyper-speed) you need a 770 or better score in most cases.  Few people have such scores - about a quarter of the population.   But what's worse, a similar quarter of the population have abysmal scores.   These are folks who, if they are borrowing money (and they probably are, hence the poor scores) are doing so on the worst terms imaginable.   It makes one want to weep.

But there is good news!  In the last ten years, FICO scores have been going up, an average of a 1-3 points a year.   Of course, this is in the post-recession era, so they don't talk about FICO scores before 2010.  Sort of like the charts Motley Fool uses, which show stock prices steadily rising, since 1929.  Going back further, we see the overall trend has been upward, however, there was a bit of a hiccup back in 2009.

So maybe this is good news.  A reader writes that he doesn't believe we are heading toward recession, but perhaps a post-pandemic boom, as people do have money these days, and certainly better credit scores to borrow money with - and interest rates are at all-time lows (and housing prices at all-time highs - funny how that works!).

So perhaps awareness of credit score and credit reports (and in this day and age, how can one not be aware?) have resulted in improved credit scores, as people pay more attention to credit reports, and since they get almost immediate feedback about their score changes, can improve their score by improving their habits.

Or, something else.   It could also be that as our country ages, and people retire and pay off debts, their scores go up.  Since I am debt-free, my score is always over 800, hitting a "perfect" 850 at one point.  Lately it has sagged because the "age of oldest account" has decreased because older accounts "fall off" the report over time, once they are closed.  Should have kept that Sears charge card account I opened at age 21, active!  Oh wait, they are out of business.   Trying to work the system, as I have noted before, might gain you a dozen points at best - which might make the difference between 760 and 770 - but on the other hand, just paying your bills on time and not carrying too much debt does far more.

There may also be other explanations.  Scores are going up in the last ten years simply because people have recovered from the recession of 2008.  And those who walked away from mortgages or bankruptcy have had their slate wiped clean, largely, after seven years.  Scores will go up over time, after a major recession.

I suspect it is a combination of the three - people monitoring their scores more, people getting older, and people recovering from the recession.  A bull market seems to have helped too.

But even with all that, the top chart tells a sad tale about the average or median American - who still doesn't qualify for that premier financing with a lousy 711 score.  And of course, the problem is, there are still horrific deals out there that the unwary step into - lease deals loaded with turn-in fees, credit cards with staggering interest rates, payday loans, title pawn loans, buy-here-pay-here used cars, timeshares, and so on and so forth.  And entire industry has sprung up to service the "bad credit, no credit" customer because they make up more than half the country.

Even Mr. and Mrs. Middle-class can step into this dogshit, lured in by an airline miles card with a 25% interest rate.  If you fail to pay off the balance one month, it becomes impossible to pay it off the next month.  And eventually, it becomes impossible to make the minimum payment, at which point the "penalty interest" rates kick in.  So they refinance the house - on onerous terms, because their credit is already dinged - and start the whole thing over again, this time with a hefty mortgage payment and an underwater house.

Like I said, credit card crises is a game anyone can play at any income level.  And I suspect everyone has one credit card crises at least once in their life.

I got snookered by this trap, and learned a valuable lesson. I shy away from "rewards" cards, and the one I do have, I pay off the balance daily, because I know what can happen, if at the end of the month, there isn't enough cash in the kitty to pay it off.  I treat credit cards like loaded handguns ready to go off, and no, I don't consider a "privilege" to borrow money, but an onerous obligation that could easily ruin me.

And maybe that is another reason scores are going up over time.   Maybe people are wising up and paying attention to finances for a change, because in the era we live in, you are free to ruin yourself financially, starting at age 18 with that first student loan document you sign.  Banks today realize they can make more money by ruining their customers than by working with them.  Maybe Americans are wising up to the idea that debt is not natural or perpetual nor desirable and that there is another way to live.

Maybe, but I doubt it!