I was ready to be annoyed at government blocking popular progressive changes, but this changed my mind:
>In New York City, the majority of the nearly 12 percent of unbanked and 25 percent underbanked residents are people of color. Close to 17 percent of black New Yorkers and 14 percent of Latinx New Yorkers are unbanked, compared to just 3 percent of white New Yorkers.
I had no idea that many people didn't use banking services, which probably says more about me than anything.
Not to get too political, but this reminds me a lot of the coal vs renewables debate. I'm 100% on the side of transitioning away from coal, towards renewables, the same as I am in favor of ditching cash. But people who still depend on the coal industry, and using cash, can't just be forgotten about because "cashless is better".
Places should be forced to accept cash until everyone can go cashless (within reason obviously, there needs to be some sort of line drawn here, but those percentages show we're not there yet), and the government should support/retrain coal miners who lose their jobs due to energy transitions.
> Places should be forced to accept cash until everyone can go cashless
But if places are forced to accept cash, people who haven't adhered to cashless forms of payments have no incentive to swap.
If it is a significant part of the market, then cash-accepting places should still out-compete cashless. If being cashless is such an advantage that the reverse is true, then people should be given incentives to change. This feels to me like a government action that goes against economic interests (whether or not it should still be done is another question, but I'd personally vote against this regulation if given the option).
I find a more interesting argument against this to be the fact that cashless payments actually depend on a corporation or third party entity doing the payment for you. Which, lacking appropriate regulation, would give them the power to ban certain people or business from doing transactions altogether (think China social credit systems).
edit: Regarding the first point, I just mean the government seems to be taking action in the wrong area just for appearances, when the issue would be investigating why people don't have cashless payment options and promoting change there
Cashless would be nice if it weren't for the fact that it comes with a 2+% tax to the CC makers. And they decide if you are permitted to do business. Make porn? CC companies often decide you don't get to do business. Can the CC companies decide a person may no longer do any trade by denying them all access to the cashless society's goods?
The cashless society represents a fundamental danger to liberty.
As a private business owner I should be able to choose what products are sold and how I wish to receive payment of those products. This is purely heavily government overstep without giving the people who run and own the businesses and services the right to choose. This isn’t going to help the “under banked” but rather just give them a crutch and a bandaid. Giving people the right to choose and helping those that don’t have bank account be able to get one is a far better option in terms of time, resources, and efficiency of combating this issue. When a government begins to use force for non health related issues you know longer began to have a free society.
The question is, why are they un or under banked? What or who creates those conditions? One doesn't see much diversity in or competition in banking products or terms, so it's not likely that anything is going to change.
If I showed you that a greater percentage of $BELEAGUERED_GROUP liked to go around without a shirt/shoes, would that be a convincing argument for prohibiting stores from having a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policy?
Yeah but be careful with that comparison. Using coal harms the well-being of the billions of the humans that aren't coal miners. If anyone, credit cards only harm the people who use them.
Even if you take out the racial view (which is totally valid), it just doesn't seem right that you can walk in somewhere in the US with US Dollars in your pocket but be turned down, and I say that as someone who very rarely makes purchases with paper money. As much as I hate "slippery slope" arguments, I do also worry that this is the first step in the direction of businesses dictating how you buy things. Starting with no cash may not seem that bad, but I don't wont to end up in a world where different stores require me to check out using their own e-wallet or a specific brand of credit card they've partnered with.
The whole thing reminds me a little bit of that 30 Rock episode where Liz Lemon gets stuck with a 50 dollar bill and gets into a shouting match with a convenience store clerk when he wont accept it, saying something along the lines of "this is legal tender, you have to accept it!" Not the same situation as what is being discussed here, Liz's sentiment still applies.
Yep. The only equitable way forward is if we make a national debit card, that runs on a national payment network where everyone is allowed to have an account.
Say- take Discover (which is a bank and payment provider network) and recharter them as a government owned corporation or make them wholely owned by the Federal Reserve. Then, give the USPS the ability to act as a simple bank frontend for these accounts- giving you overnight a national footprint that everyone can access. Make the transaction fee on this network near Zero, and allow anyone to have an account with you. Get rid of the credit ability, and you get a true alternative to cash.
Anything less is Visa/Mastercard forming a chokehold on out financial lives. I would love to ditch my credit cards for cash, but right now I'm being bribed with the great benefits that Visa/Amex are forcing merchants to pay for.
It makes some businesses much more worth pursuing. For example, there's a self-serve key duplication vending machine that only takes credit card. Does that business care about what color of their customers' skin is? Definitely not. They care about the extra complexity and problems that come along with a cash/change system.
I thought it was also impressive to see them get rid of receipt paper. If you need it, they can send you an email or text. Very streamlined and cost effective.
An example aside from self serve is that I know someone who just opened a tap room and is doing very well. He only accepts credit cards, and I didn't need to ask why. Not only do you no longer need to worry about cashiers skimming a little off the top, but back office / deposits become a trivial task.
I look at it as another way that cost is getting squeezed out through automation. As long as the industry stays competitive, consumers will benefit from that.
That situation will need to be handled by the law. Let's say stores are required to accept cash. Are they allowed to charge more for someone who pays in cash? Will they be required to provide change? If they run out of change, would they be subject to a fine?
If stores wanted to weasel around this law, they could keep their supply of coins and dollar bills low so customers are forced to either leave or pay without getting change back.
I hear/see why business do it, but I think this quote from the councilman sponsoring the bill is the right take: “In the end, I think the need for equity outweighs the efficiency gains of a cashless business model. Human rights takes precedence over efficiency gains.”
Our young technocratic elite can be so clueless sometimes.
Aside from helping to build our future surveillance dystopia, they promote cashless retail as more 'futuristic', and make fun of cheques and cash.
I don't understand a culture that promotes volunteering your own surveillance data (social media, smartphones)[1] and surrendering your anonymity as trendy core values.
Philadelphia just did this as well. With a higher percentage in poverty there. I see this as beneficial. There are a number of areas where people for various reasons can't get a checking/bank account.
I find it partially annoying that some of the cash only stores I go into. Gouge with a 5$ ATM fee, then I have to hold change. But again not everyone has access to a bank.
What I found interesting is the gloss over of the Septa Key (new transit card) system, during this discussion. While it was botched. It was initially positioned as a debit card for those who couldn't get a bank account. Available to load with cash at any kiosk and making it a master card debit card. It actually saved me when I had fraud on one of my cards. I switched to it as my primary payment method while awaiting a new card.
Amazon was trying something similar. Provide cash at I think CVS or somewhere else. Then it goes into your Amazon gift balance.
In the end. I think these cashless laws are good. Even if the above work perfectly. Some people don't want a strong history attached with their purchases.
Legally speaking, cash is, and will remain, valid tender for settling debts, and creditors in general may not refuse it for an outstanding debt.
However a seller is generally allowed to refrain from selling (bar certain specific protections), and thus the seller is allowed to not create the debt in the first place. This is why, while cash remains legal tender, one could legally end up in situation where it's virtually impossible to buy certain goods or services for cash.
Nb., I support the general idea of this legislation, specifically for reasons of privacy and practicality.
Legal tender is a tricky thing. I've spent some time a while ago trying to understand how it works, here's my conclusion:
"Legal tender" must be accepted for settling the debt.
That's it.
It means a bartender may refuse to pour you beer if you intend to pay in the form he doesn't like. But once he poured you the beer you have entered the debt for settling of which a bartender must accept your cash.
Disclaimer: don't try it in the only bar in your village.
you are only required to accept legal tender for the purpose of settling a debt - if you’re buying something, you’re actually making an offer for trade. indeed, many places in the UK are cashless only establishments.
I don't get how this is racial discrimination or even how they get to this conclusion.
Example:
We have 3 groups:
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
There are 2 types of services:
Service A
Service B
3% of group 1 can't use Service A
14% of group 2 can't use Service A
13% of group 3 can't use Service A
Does Service A racially discriminate against any of these group?
No, it does not. It just can't accepts business from people who use Service A. So people who can't or won't use Service A have to go to another business that does accept Service B.
But okay let's play pretend.
Let's say it is discrimination then it's only potentally more effective against certain groups by 10%.
I say potentially because how many in this group would go to a this specific chain? probably less then that 10%.
I'd wager the actual percentage affected falls in the area of margin of error. AKA sucks to be you but it's a free country so cross the street to somewhere they do accept your cash.
I agree that -- all things being equal -- the market could probably sort these things out. But, the point is that things aren't equal.
I could definitely see a situation where a company uses a cash ban as a facade to reject a certain clientele (namely, poor people that can't afford the technology or don't have the means to get a credit card).
I think this is good because it doesn't force customers to use cashless payment. Research has shown that when people don't see physical money being spent that people tend to spend more.
However, I live in a country and with lots of non-bank related cashless payment options. Commuter pass, branch chain store money card, point card, gift check or payment by smartphone service? Ok. Best part of all those options is that I have every single one but the last and never had to show personal identification to use them.
The real downside to cashless is that you can't just transfer some to a friend without it going through a company and paying some kind of "fee" or being "spied on". The only real upside to cashless for companies is that employees can't really steal hard cash anymore and they can take out cashiers from the payroll. Most of the cashless business in the country I live in have done away with cashiers and added personel to other parts of the company. I think it improves some companies while others need a human to handle transactions.
I get salads at Sweetgreen (one of the referenced cashless retailers) periodically. On two separate occasions I've been behind some stranger in line who didn't realize the place was card only, so I paid for their salad with my card and they gave me the cash. It is a weird policy, but I understand why they don't want to deal in cash.
Interestingly the flip side of this is cash only places. New York is also a huge user of Venmo for those times when you only have a card, but the place is cash only. Often if you don't want to have to leave to find an ATM and pay an ATM fee someone else will pay your bill in cash if you Venmo them the money. The problem of a cash free, or cash only place is easily solved in both cases with a little cooperation with your fellow New Yorkers.
I love that New York still runs so heavily on cash.
Cash is an absolute necessity for a free society. It represents every person's freedom to voluntarily exchange goods and services without (easily) being tracked, monitored or mediated. It's a bit shocking to me how so many tech types underestimate or fail to see this.
I don't know about the US but around where I live, there's at least two establishments which don't take cash. I can see all the advantages from their POV.
Personally I'd think it laughable if the government attempted to force them to accept cash.
Advantages of cashless? Is the cost of handling cash really greater than the percentage paid to the payment processors? It's an honest question and I'd be interested in some real studies on this because it would seem to be a hard metric to measure.
The problem with credit cards isn't the concept (which I like) it is that they're rent-seekers that seem to want an ever increasing slice of the pie. We currently pay 2.5% of most purchases to these companies, with plans to increase that further.
The problem is that their costs should be falling, since their volumes have increased massively but instead of passing on those cost reductions they're trying to leverage their duopoly harder.
Cash is the only leverage society has to keep credit card processing fees low. If it disappears and there remains an uncompetitive market, we'll all suffer as a result.
This is excellent news. I hope other municipalities and states follow. Only accepting corporate or institutional payments is racism against non-corporate persons (humans). Racism in this retail context is already illegal.
Cash must be accepted. It is the only form of payment (besides cryptocurrencies) where the individual does the payment. Other forms are merely large corporations/institutions using their financial clout to signal that they will pay for something in the future. Those corporations always have perverse incentives to both sell your purchasing history to anyone that wants it as well and to enact financial embargoes against arbitrary people/companies whenever even slight political or social pressure is applied.
Additionally, work-arounds for the law of having to accept cash for all debts should be addressed. Many retail or food service companies will only take your business initially if you present a credit card.
Cash is the bane of society. We would live better without it on every single aspect imaginable. (including but not limited to health, environment, crime)
[+] [-] nck4222|7 years ago|reply
>In New York City, the majority of the nearly 12 percent of unbanked and 25 percent underbanked residents are people of color. Close to 17 percent of black New Yorkers and 14 percent of Latinx New Yorkers are unbanked, compared to just 3 percent of white New Yorkers.
I had no idea that many people didn't use banking services, which probably says more about me than anything.
Not to get too political, but this reminds me a lot of the coal vs renewables debate. I'm 100% on the side of transitioning away from coal, towards renewables, the same as I am in favor of ditching cash. But people who still depend on the coal industry, and using cash, can't just be forgotten about because "cashless is better".
Places should be forced to accept cash until everyone can go cashless (within reason obviously, there needs to be some sort of line drawn here, but those percentages show we're not there yet), and the government should support/retrain coal miners who lose their jobs due to energy transitions.
[+] [-] luiscleto|7 years ago|reply
But if places are forced to accept cash, people who haven't adhered to cashless forms of payments have no incentive to swap. If it is a significant part of the market, then cash-accepting places should still out-compete cashless. If being cashless is such an advantage that the reverse is true, then people should be given incentives to change. This feels to me like a government action that goes against economic interests (whether or not it should still be done is another question, but I'd personally vote against this regulation if given the option).
I find a more interesting argument against this to be the fact that cashless payments actually depend on a corporation or third party entity doing the payment for you. Which, lacking appropriate regulation, would give them the power to ban certain people or business from doing transactions altogether (think China social credit systems).
edit: Regarding the first point, I just mean the government seems to be taking action in the wrong area just for appearances, when the issue would be investigating why people don't have cashless payment options and promoting change there
[+] [-] kevin_b_er|7 years ago|reply
The cashless society represents a fundamental danger to liberty.
[+] [-] codeddesign|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gerbilly|7 years ago|reply
Places should be forced to accept cash AND I'd suggest people never go cashless.
Once people surrender the right to anonymity, we might never get it back.
[+] [-] mbostleman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SilasX|7 years ago|reply
If I showed you that a greater percentage of $BELEAGUERED_GROUP liked to go around without a shirt/shoes, would that be a convincing argument for prohibiting stores from having a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policy?
[+] [-] metalliqaz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eeeeeeeeeeeee|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] el_cujo|7 years ago|reply
The whole thing reminds me a little bit of that 30 Rock episode where Liz Lemon gets stuck with a 50 dollar bill and gets into a shouting match with a convenience store clerk when he wont accept it, saying something along the lines of "this is legal tender, you have to accept it!" Not the same situation as what is being discussed here, Liz's sentiment still applies.
[+] [-] lykr0n|7 years ago|reply
Say- take Discover (which is a bank and payment provider network) and recharter them as a government owned corporation or make them wholely owned by the Federal Reserve. Then, give the USPS the ability to act as a simple bank frontend for these accounts- giving you overnight a national footprint that everyone can access. Make the transaction fee on this network near Zero, and allow anyone to have an account with you. Get rid of the credit ability, and you get a true alternative to cash.
Anything less is Visa/Mastercard forming a chokehold on out financial lives. I would love to ditch my credit cards for cash, but right now I'm being bribed with the great benefits that Visa/Amex are forcing merchants to pay for.
[+] [-] defertoreptar|7 years ago|reply
I thought it was also impressive to see them get rid of receipt paper. If you need it, they can send you an email or text. Very streamlined and cost effective.
An example aside from self serve is that I know someone who just opened a tap room and is doing very well. He only accepts credit cards, and I didn't need to ask why. Not only do you no longer need to worry about cashiers skimming a little off the top, but back office / deposits become a trivial task.
I look at it as another way that cost is getting squeezed out through automation. As long as the industry stays competitive, consumers will benefit from that.
[+] [-] chelical|7 years ago|reply
If stores wanted to weasel around this law, they could keep their supply of coins and dollar bills low so customers are forced to either leave or pay without getting change back.
[+] [-] chadmhorner|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sadris|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gerbilly|7 years ago|reply
Aside from helping to build our future surveillance dystopia, they promote cashless retail as more 'futuristic', and make fun of cheques and cash.
I don't understand a culture that promotes volunteering your own surveillance data (social media, smartphones)[1] and surrendering your anonymity as trendy core values.
[1] https://privacysos.org/blog/nsa-calls-the-iphone-using-publi...
[+] [-] soulnothing|7 years ago|reply
I find it partially annoying that some of the cash only stores I go into. Gouge with a 5$ ATM fee, then I have to hold change. But again not everyone has access to a bank.
What I found interesting is the gloss over of the Septa Key (new transit card) system, during this discussion. While it was botched. It was initially positioned as a debit card for those who couldn't get a bank account. Available to load with cash at any kiosk and making it a master card debit card. It actually saved me when I had fraud on one of my cards. I switched to it as my primary payment method while awaiting a new card.
Amazon was trying something similar. Provide cash at I think CVS or somewhere else. Then it goes into your Amazon gift balance.
In the end. I think these cashless laws are good. Even if the above work perfectly. Some people don't want a strong history attached with their purchases.
[+] [-] cozzyd|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdhn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dexen|7 years ago|reply
However a seller is generally allowed to refrain from selling (bar certain specific protections), and thus the seller is allowed to not create the debt in the first place. This is why, while cash remains legal tender, one could legally end up in situation where it's virtually impossible to buy certain goods or services for cash.
Nb., I support the general idea of this legislation, specifically for reasons of privacy and practicality.
[+] [-] AlexTWithBeard|7 years ago|reply
"Legal tender" must be accepted for settling the debt. That's it.
It means a bartender may refuse to pour you beer if you intend to pay in the form he doesn't like. But once he poured you the beer you have entered the debt for settling of which a bartender must accept your cash.
Disclaimer: don't try it in the only bar in your village.
[+] [-] ghaff|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tantalor|7 years ago|reply
This topic is not about banning cash... it's about banning refusal to accept cash.
Stated in another way: Do you have the right to pay in cash? Are business obligated to accept cash?
[+] [-] foxhill|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rootshelled|7 years ago|reply
Example: We have 3 groups: Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
There are 2 types of services: Service A Service B
3% of group 1 can't use Service A 14% of group 2 can't use Service A 13% of group 3 can't use Service A
Does Service A racially discriminate against any of these group? No, it does not. It just can't accepts business from people who use Service A. So people who can't or won't use Service A have to go to another business that does accept Service B.
But okay let's play pretend. Let's say it is discrimination then it's only potentally more effective against certain groups by 10%. I say potentially because how many in this group would go to a this specific chain? probably less then that 10%. I'd wager the actual percentage affected falls in the area of margin of error. AKA sucks to be you but it's a free country so cross the street to somewhere they do accept your cash.
[+] [-] hacym|7 years ago|reply
I could definitely see a situation where a company uses a cash ban as a facade to reject a certain clientele (namely, poor people that can't afford the technology or don't have the means to get a credit card).
[+] [-] numbsafari|7 years ago|reply
https://www.wsj.com/articles/philadelphia-is-first-u-s-city-...
[+] [-] tmm84|7 years ago|reply
However, I live in a country and with lots of non-bank related cashless payment options. Commuter pass, branch chain store money card, point card, gift check or payment by smartphone service? Ok. Best part of all those options is that I have every single one but the last and never had to show personal identification to use them.
The real downside to cashless is that you can't just transfer some to a friend without it going through a company and paying some kind of "fee" or being "spied on". The only real upside to cashless for companies is that employees can't really steal hard cash anymore and they can take out cashiers from the payroll. Most of the cashless business in the country I live in have done away with cashiers and added personel to other parts of the company. I think it improves some companies while others need a human to handle transactions.
[+] [-] NathanKP|7 years ago|reply
Interestingly the flip side of this is cash only places. New York is also a huge user of Venmo for those times when you only have a card, but the place is cash only. Often if you don't want to have to leave to find an ATM and pay an ATM fee someone else will pay your bill in cash if you Venmo them the money. The problem of a cash free, or cash only place is easily solved in both cases with a little cooperation with your fellow New Yorkers.
[+] [-] nerflad|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dev_north_east|7 years ago|reply
Personally I'd think it laughable if the government attempted to force them to accept cash.
What next, make them accept cheques?!
[+] [-] metalliqaz|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0x445442|7 years ago|reply
Advantages of cashless? Is the cost of handling cash really greater than the percentage paid to the payment processors? It's an honest question and I'd be interested in some real studies on this because it would seem to be a hard metric to measure.
[+] [-] debt|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awakeasleep|7 years ago|reply
It bars the homeless and poor from the establishment!
Can anyone that disagrees explain the opposing take?
[+] [-] scandox|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] phkahler|7 years ago|reply
On a personal note, I prefer cash and appreciate the places that give me a discount for using it.
[+] [-] dang|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone1234|7 years ago|reply
The problem with credit cards isn't the concept (which I like) it is that they're rent-seekers that seem to want an ever increasing slice of the pie. We currently pay 2.5% of most purchases to these companies, with plans to increase that further.
The problem is that their costs should be falling, since their volumes have increased massively but instead of passing on those cost reductions they're trying to leverage their duopoly harder.
Cash is the only leverage society has to keep credit card processing fees low. If it disappears and there remains an uncompetitive market, we'll all suffer as a result.
[+] [-] AlexTWithBeard|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 99052882514569|7 years ago|reply
[1] "Why Sweden is close to becoming a cashless economy", https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41095004
[+] [-] Geekette|7 years ago|reply
Swedes turn against cashlessness https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/being-cash-fre...
[+] [-] ddorian43|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cozzyd|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superkuh|7 years ago|reply
Cash must be accepted. It is the only form of payment (besides cryptocurrencies) where the individual does the payment. Other forms are merely large corporations/institutions using their financial clout to signal that they will pay for something in the future. Those corporations always have perverse incentives to both sell your purchasing history to anyone that wants it as well and to enact financial embargoes against arbitrary people/companies whenever even slight political or social pressure is applied.
Additionally, work-arounds for the law of having to accept cash for all debts should be addressed. Many retail or food service companies will only take your business initially if you present a credit card.
[+] [-] DiffEq|7 years ago|reply
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — Inigo Montoya,
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gcatalfamo|7 years ago|reply
Cash is the bane of society. We would live better without it on every single aspect imaginable. (including but not limited to health, environment, crime)