I think there is a middle ground to be had. Instead of someone immediately going into debt as soon as they turn 18, they could take some time to get some kind of emergency fund in place, and dedicate a percentage of their income to savings. This doesn’t mean they will never spend money, it just means they will do it more responsibly and sustainably.

I didn’t get my first credit card until I was almost 30. I was still buying MacBook Pros, Playstations, iPhones, and TVs in my 20s… but was saving until I had the cash to afford them. And that savings was after contributing to my 401k and keeping a buffer of cash to avoid needing to lean into debt. My thought was, if I can’t pay for it today, what makes me think I’ll be able to make the payments on it next month. It seemed like a risky bet I didn’t want to take.

Obviously there are people who get a bad roll of the dice early in life, but with 80% in this situation, it’s a lot of bad money habits. I’m not saying never buy stuff, just wait and bit and be more selective, especially while young. Save then buy, instead of buying and then paying back. Stuff still gets bought.

Will this mean fewer trillion dollar companies? Perhaps. $1T in spending would be taken off the table vs what’s been done right now. But slower sustainable growth seems like it would be preferable to the exponential growth we’ve seen, and allow companies to focus more on the products and long term health of the company, rather than milking consumers for profit until things collapse in on themselves.

How are people supposed to buy more stuff when 100% of their income is going to pay off old debts and they can’t even afford to make all the minimum payments? Borrowing at 0% interest to make those payments kicks the can down the road and shifts more and more risk to the banks, and that can only last so long, as we saw in 2008. In this scenario, only those saving to buy will still be spending money.