6 ms·

>Yet for many Germans, the convenience of electronic payment is beside the point. Rather, the use of cash has, to a surprising extent, become a proxy for profou

>Yet for many Germans, the convenience of electronic payment is beside the point. Rather, the use of cash has, to a surprising extent, become a proxy for profound concerns about trust, privacy, and the role of the state. I've been banging my head against the table since moving to Germany about the lack of convenience with cash payments and the need to constantly visit the ATM. Yet the economy is doing just fine.

raverbashing 8y ago
Yes, it is annoying. At least they have their money purses in restaurants and give you change in an instant instead of fumbling it like in other places. They are as efficient as cash allows it to be. (And most places that cards only take German cards)
TulliusCicero 8y ago
Germany has a bunch of things going for it, and a bunch of things against. This one of the "against" things, but I don't think it's a huge factor.
CogitoCogito 8y ago
Personally I find the push in Sweden to only use card much more annoying. Cash tends to fail much more rarely for me than cards. Of course there's no reason why they can't coexist but since much of the official point of cashless is tracking, cash will always be bad for those pushing for increased surveillance. Incidentally when I lived in Berlin I used to only use cash and I never found it a bother. My bank had ATMs in many places and it really wasn't very hard to keep cash around. I've always found it a little odd when people talk about ATMs as being inconvenient when historically they're probably as convenient as they've ever been. Of course it is always easier not to have to go to an ATM, but today it really isn't that hard unless you have some tiny ATM network. Regardless, having both cash and cashless is definitely the best of both worlds. Convenience, redundancy, autonomy. I wish people would stop unnecessarily view the two methods as incompatible when they complement each other so well.
- chatmasta 8y ago
  I don’t think the view is that they are incompatible with each other, but rather that cash is incompatible with the motives of payment processors and banks.
  - petre 8y ago
    Add to that the motives of state institutions who can freely put their fingers in the honey jar (your bank account).
- michaelt 8y ago
  If the benefit of cashless is that you don't have to carry around a pocket full of cash, they're incompatible in the sense that if you use both, you lose that benefit.
  - CogitoCogito 8y ago
    If a store takes cash and card why do you need to carry cash? There is no incompatibility whatsoever. Having both only gives you more options.
- mrweasel 8y ago
  >Cash tends to fail much more rarely for me than cards. It's the same in Denmark. The payment processing networks are really stable, just not stable enough to eliminate or not always carry enough cash to pay for groceries. When payment processing have 100% uptime for five years, then maybe we can debate eliminating cash in some places.
- kungtotte 8y ago
  There's also the security angle. You can't rob a cashless place of business. This is the official reason given by many businesses here in Sweden as to why they're going cashless, and many who don't go cashless use lockbox systems where the cashier can't access the cash at all. The machine dispenses correct change as part of a transaction, but otherwise it's locked tight. I'd be interested to see any data collected regarding this; whether or not armed robbery against things like restaurants and grocery stores has decreased after the move to cashless.
kara_jade 8y ago
How exactly is it inconvenient? I can't really think of anything. For example, proponents of cashless payments often like to claim that paying with cash takes more time than paying with a card, but the opposite is true. [1] And if you have "the need to constantly visit the ATM", then perhaps it would be a good idea to withdraw more money to last you longer? My bank actually doesn't allow withdrawals of less than 50 Euros, but even before that was introduced I simply withdrew the money I needed for a month at the beginning of a month -- and that was it. [1] http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/meine-finanzen/geld-ausgeben/was-ist-schneller-bargeld-oder-kartenzahlung-14546519.html?printPagedArticle=true http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/meine-finanzen/geld-ausg... (German)
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  How is cash inconvenient? Well: - instead of just going to a shop, I now need to go to a bank, and then to a shop - I mean that's pretty obviously and undeniably less convenient for a start - I have to carry a lot of little bits of valuable paper around with me - enough for an entire month of expenses in your opinion! - when I pay I have to wait for them to count the money, gather up the change, return the change, which I then have to count, compared to just tapping my card and going - I get no protections such as insurance for my purchases I can't how understand how anyone can argue cash is more convenient! And how can you possibly argue cash is faster? Paying by card takes 0.5 seconds - I don't have to even look at what I'm doing I just wave my card and go. Your articles talks about arcane things like inserting your card, paper printouts, signing with a pen - you haven't needed to do that with cards for a decade or more.
  - mpweiher 8y ago
    > I now need to go to a bank, and then to a shop Hmmm...if you go to a bank to withdraw cash every tine you go to a shop I could see your point, but I would suggest that "you're holding it wrong". > I have to carry a lot of little bits of valuable paper around with me Which are limited in terms of risk, whereas a card can withdraw...whatever your limit. Carrying the bits of paper (and coins) has the big benefit of being tangible, that is we get to use all our senses to understand something otherwise very abstract. > when I pay I have to wait [..] Err...sorry, cash transactions are invariably much quicker than card transactions around here. > I get no protections such as insurance You mean you don't have ridiculous services bundled together for no reason whatsoever. > I can't how understand how anyone can argue cash is more convenient! And I can't understand how anyone can argue that cards are more convenient, when they clearly are not. >And how can you possibly argue cash is faster? Paying by card takes 0.5 seconds - Where? Around here, card transactions always take longer. > arcane things like inserting your card, paper printouts, signing with a pen [..] decade or more. Actually, having to sign on EC payments has become a thing recently, it used to be exclusively PIN. And sometimes it's PIN, sometimes it's signature, in the same shop, with the same card. They payment processor seems to choose by some randomized algorithm.
tnolet 8y ago
I moved from the Netherlands (one of the most cashless countries in Europe) to Berlin 3 years ago. I invite anyone doubting the convenience of cards, specifically contacless ones, over cash to join me for a regular morning of shopping groceries in Berlin and then in my hometown in NL. You will be cured.
- mpfundstein 8y ago
  i totally agree. I live in Amsterdam since 7 years and everytime I visit my family in Munich , I am surprised a backwards they are. And how inconvenient cash is.

raverbashing 8y ago

Yes, it is annoying. At least they have their money purses in restaurants and give you change in an instant instead of fumbling it like in other places. They are as efficient as cash allows it to be. (And most places that cards only take German cards)

TulliusCicero 8y ago

Germany has a bunch of things going for it, and a bunch of things against. This one of the "against" things, but I don't think it's a huge factor.

CogitoCogito 8y ago

Personally I find the push in Sweden to only use card much more annoying. Cash tends to fail much more rarely for me than cards. Of course there's no reason why they can't coexist but since much of the official point of cashless is tracking, cash will always be bad for those pushing for increased surveillance. Incidentally when I lived in Berlin I used to only use cash and I never found it a bother. My bank had ATMs in many places and it really wasn't very hard to keep cash around. I've always found it a little odd when people talk about ATMs as being inconvenient when historically they're probably as convenient as they've ever been. Of course it is always easier not to have to go to an ATM, but today it really isn't that hard unless you have some tiny ATM network. Regardless, having both cash and cashless is definitely the best of both worlds. Convenience, redundancy, autonomy. I wish people would stop unnecessarily view the two methods as incompatible when they complement each other so well.

chatmasta 8y ago
I don’t think the view is that they are incompatible with each other, but rather that cash is incompatible with the motives of payment processors and banks.
- petre 8y ago
  Add to that the motives of state institutions who can freely put their fingers in the honey jar (your bank account).
michaelt 8y ago
If the benefit of cashless is that you don't have to carry around a pocket full of cash, they're incompatible in the sense that if you use both, you lose that benefit.
- CogitoCogito 8y ago
  If a store takes cash and card why do you need to carry cash? There is no incompatibility whatsoever. Having both only gives you more options.
mrweasel 8y ago
>Cash tends to fail much more rarely for me than cards. It's the same in Denmark. The payment processing networks are really stable, just not stable enough to eliminate or not always carry enough cash to pay for groceries. When payment processing have 100% uptime for five years, then maybe we can debate eliminating cash in some places.
kungtotte 8y ago
There's also the security angle. You can't rob a cashless place of business. This is the official reason given by many businesses here in Sweden as to why they're going cashless, and many who don't go cashless use lockbox systems where the cashier can't access the cash at all. The machine dispenses correct change as part of a transaction, but otherwise it's locked tight. I'd be interested to see any data collected regarding this; whether or not armed robbery against things like restaurants and grocery stores has decreased after the move to cashless.

kara_jade 8y ago

How exactly is it inconvenient? I can't really think of anything. For example, proponents of cashless payments often like to claim that paying with cash takes more time than paying with a card, but the opposite is true. [1] And if you have "the need to constantly visit the ATM", then perhaps it would be a good idea to withdraw more money to last you longer? My bank actually doesn't allow withdrawals of less than 50 Euros, but even before that was introduced I simply withdrew the money I needed for a month at the beginning of a month -- and that was it. [1] http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/meine-finanzen/geld-ausgeben/was-ist-schneller-bargeld-oder-kartenzahlung-14546519.html?printPagedArticle=true http://www.faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/meine-finanzen/geld-ausg... (German)

chrisseaton 8y ago
How is cash inconvenient? Well: - instead of just going to a shop, I now need to go to a bank, and then to a shop - I mean that's pretty obviously and undeniably less convenient for a start - I have to carry a lot of little bits of valuable paper around with me - enough for an entire month of expenses in your opinion! - when I pay I have to wait for them to count the money, gather up the change, return the change, which I then have to count, compared to just tapping my card and going - I get no protections such as insurance for my purchases I can't how understand how anyone can argue cash is more convenient! And how can you possibly argue cash is faster? Paying by card takes 0.5 seconds - I don't have to even look at what I'm doing I just wave my card and go. Your articles talks about arcane things like inserting your card, paper printouts, signing with a pen - you haven't needed to do that with cards for a decade or more.
- mpweiher 8y ago
  > I now need to go to a bank, and then to a shop Hmmm...if you go to a bank to withdraw cash every tine you go to a shop I could see your point, but I would suggest that "you're holding it wrong". > I have to carry a lot of little bits of valuable paper around with me Which are limited in terms of risk, whereas a card can withdraw...whatever your limit. Carrying the bits of paper (and coins) has the big benefit of being tangible, that is we get to use all our senses to understand something otherwise very abstract. > when I pay I have to wait [..] Err...sorry, cash transactions are invariably much quicker than card transactions around here. > I get no protections such as insurance You mean you don't have ridiculous services bundled together for no reason whatsoever. > I can't how understand how anyone can argue cash is more convenient! And I can't understand how anyone can argue that cards are more convenient, when they clearly are not. >And how can you possibly argue cash is faster? Paying by card takes 0.5 seconds - Where? Around here, card transactions always take longer. > arcane things like inserting your card, paper printouts, signing with a pen [..] decade or more. Actually, having to sign on EC payments has become a thing recently, it used to be exclusively PIN. And sometimes it's PIN, sometimes it's signature, in the same shop, with the same card. They payment processor seems to choose by some randomized algorithm.

tnolet 8y ago

I moved from the Netherlands (one of the most cashless countries in Europe) to Berlin 3 years ago. I invite anyone doubting the convenience of cards, specifically contacless ones, over cash to join me for a regular morning of shopping groceries in Berlin and then in my hometown in NL. You will be cured.

mpfundstein 8y ago
i totally agree. I live in Amsterdam since 7 years and everytime I visit my family in Munich , I am surprised a backwards they are. And how inconvenient cash is.