By Jay King | Special to California Black Media Partners
Jay King
It’s no secret that too many Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. What appears to be a secret is that an industry that is casting lifelines to those in need is being blocked by state and federal regulators.
The industry in question is Earned Wage Access (EWA). EWA is an innovative fintech solution that empowers workers and helps them pay bills on time by accessing wages they’ve already earned. A 2021 study found that EWA services often prevent consumers from missing bill payments and slipping further into debt.
Despite the many benefits and the fact that businesses all across the country, including Paychex, now offer EWA to employees, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) recently issued guidance that could effectively wipe out this tool and, in the process, let struggling families, already in jeopardy, drown even deeper in debt.
The numbers tell the story. According to a recent study, 66% of Americans report living paycheck to paycheck, while 40% report being unable to afford a $400 emergency expense. They face hardship paying bills, covering financial emergencies, and otherwise making ends meet. These aren’t just workers with minimum-wage jobs either; half of those U.S. consumers facing hardship earn more than $100,000 per year.
This dynamic is especially pernicious in the Black community. According to recent figures, Black Californians currently have the lowest household income of any major racial or ethnic group in the state. Research also indicates that nearly a third of Black families are late paying their debts and 42% use credit cards just for basic living expenses while half do so to send their kids to college.
EWA is ready to support these individuals, yet the CFPB seems to think these services are just loans masquerading as something new. Not only is this wrong, but the agency’s interpretive guidance reverses their previous guidance and contradicts the established language and interpretation of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). It also directly conflicts with multiple states’ regulations on EWA.
Giving people access to their wages is not lending and EWA services do not have the hallmarks of loans — there are no mandatory fees, no interest, no impact on credit ratings, and no debt collection. Regulators should support responsible innovation to meet needs – not try to maintain the status quo.
This change could have a devastating impact on the very people it purports to protect. By categorizing EWA as loans, the CFPB would impose unnecessary regulations that stifle innovation and could drive consumers back toward high-cost payday lenders.
As I mentioned, the numbers tell the story, and EWA has an impressive track record. A recent study from Citizens Bank found that seven in 10 middle-market companies currently offer EWAs to employees, with more planning to do so in years to come. As it happens, few states better illustrate the value, and excellent ROI, of EWAs than California. Californians employed by Walgreens, Home Depot, FedEx Office and other businesses have accessed more than $1.67 billion in wages through EWA. Equally promising, more than half of consumers who tap into EWA can now afford a $400 emergency.
EWA services have always proven to serve the greater good, particularly in supporting underserved communities like the Black community, which is disproportionately affected by financial instability. The CFPB should take advantage of this opportunity to make sure they continue to do so, rather than creating obstacles that could undermine their effectiveness.
I urge the CFPB to rethink this misguided guidance. The agency must prioritize fairness and innovation to protect both consumers and the businesses that employ them.
About the Author
Jay King is CEO of the California Black Chamber of Commerce.
