A little like my student loan thing, where this company explicitly used my high-ranking school to justify a significantly lower interest rate than the government had given me (stupid Grad Plus).

It's more like how the old company store model worked, but without the folk music.

2 is where I went with it. Work 16 hours, and what do you get?

Dang, that should have been the post title!

I thought it was 16 tons.

Reminds me of stories I heard growing up near Camp Pendleton, CA. All the car dealerships in Oceanside would give brand-new Marines absurdly good rates on huge loans for sweet new Mustangs etc given an agreement that they could go straight to their CO / base command if payments weren't steadily arriving.

2 and 3: I feel like that's how my health insurance works. I'm on a Tim's now, but my the plan I can get through my employer incentivizes my getting care from my employer. And there are so many people (e.g. people evaluating our depression outcomes) who have a legitimate reason to be in records that you just have no idea who at work know what about you.

4: oh right. Good thing that wasn't the post title!

It's about bulk orders and packaging them for Amazon.

Seriously, I think the reason there wouldn't be demand for this is that credit card companies provide consumer credit at rates people by and large accept, even if they may be more than they reasonably need to pay (the whole "regular payers-in-full = deadbeats" thing). And the credit rating system will take employment into account - maybe not in the sense of giving lower credit card rates to people with steady jobs, but at least avoiding shutting out people with steady employment. (And regular employment certainly makes you more able to obtain a home mortgage or larger consumer loan, so that's similar.)

I feel like the context of this conversation would help. Were people speaking in praise of financial innovation or something?

The payday loan system largely serves those without credit cards and this would presumably target the same market.

10: People are hoping to be bank side of things, and then presumably take the debt, slice it and dice it and repackage it and make a credit default swap or whatever from the financial crisis.

like, "listen to this cool new opportunity at my job!"

Employers would be reluctant to try this because they couldn't expect repayment from an employee who had been fired or laid off. An employee who owes the boss money has job protection, practically speaking. Employers hate job protection.

Having said that, I understand that costs of some kinds of trade schools are advanced by future employers, to be repaid from earnings down the road. I'm not clear on the details, but it may be limited to curriculums not eligible for federal higher education loans. Commercial truck driving school is done this way,

I am intrigued by the series of Heebie's hypothetical economic arrangement posts, some involving landlord/tenant, others employer/employee. The common thread is that they increase reciprocal obligations between superiors and subordinates, that will last for long periods of time. In other words, a return to feudalism. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

14: sometimes (not often but sometimes) feudalism seems superior, because the superiors are bound by obligations to their subordinates.

I feel certain that these contracts would make every effort to ensure that laborers have extraordinary legal obligations to stay in their jobs while their debt remains unpaid.

Basically, they're trying to rebuild indentured servitude. Feels on-brand for 21st century America.

People won't be able to switch jobs for higher wages because they'll be in debt to a former employer. That's the company store model.

The payday loan system largely serves those without credit cards and this would presumably target the same market.

Yeah, but the same people are probably disproportionately in insecure wage employment that wouldn't be much security for lenders. Plus, 14.1.

The point isn't to get paid back. The point is to indenture someone so they can never be free of the obligation to you.

14: it just means I make up shit when my mind drifts. Besides this one - this one is due to a familial obligation.

That the guy probably won't be able to pay off the loan is a feature, nor a problem.

Not a problem.

16: I'm not sure this qualifies as feudalism. I do agree we are talking about indentured servitude in this case.

What if your employer built a sweet little housing development for you and your coworkers? You could live in this town and have all the company you want!

23: The more applicable term is peonage, which I think is generally viewed as non-feudal.

This sounds a lot like Lex Greensill before it turned out he was going to jail. It would be interesting if his company was involved.

These are actually a big thing in Italy, presumably because enforcing debts is otherwise so slow and difficult there. They are a lot cheaper than ordinary consumer loans. I'd have to check but my memory is up to half the rate, definitely several percentage points.

I should say, it's not the employer making the loan, but the lender gets to garnish your wage/pension. Maybe the employer gets a cut?

Well, you can't expect an employer to facilitate getting their employees on the hook for debt without having a piece of the action.