n the non-prime consumer, it posted a gainof $18.71 billion. Credit card companies target young students, ripping their lives from them before theyeven have time to start a career. Paul Richard who states that Credit-card companies arepreying on students who are financially naive. (Hickey, 2000). Hickey investigates the matterand reports that creditors use campuses as sign up sites and offer gifts to students for applying.By using lures, creditors are receiving funds of ill-gotten gain from innocent students. Forexample, according to Hickey, an unfortunate young student dashed his education and hisdreams of medical school to pay off his debts. Furthermore, Vickers (1999), reports a tragicstory of a student who acquired debt because the student fell for the fallacy that he would paythem off when he graduated, but he was not able to make his minimum monthly payments andhad to work three part time jobs, in addition, his parents had to assist. Nellie Mae, a nonprofitprovider of student loans, states that 10% of students are carrying balances of more than 7000dollars. (Hickey 2000). Credit card companies have become willing to grant credit to poor underprivilegedconsumers to make a profit. One of the saddest facts concerning the recent greed of creditors, isthe carelessness that they use when they issue a low income family credit. Unfortunately, it isthis class that is hit the hardest. In contrast, baby boomers are able to pay off their debts inentirety each month, thereby boomers obtain lower interest rates (Weber & Palmer, 2000).However, fat creditors do not target the baby boomers, instead they freeload credit to the poor. Edward Bird and others, completed a study that accessed in 1989 17% of poor families owned acredit card. In contrast, by 1995, 36% of poor families owned credit cards. Moreover, in therecession of 1990-1991 poor families increased their credit expenditures, while middle classfamilies brought their spending habits...
