14 ms·

New York City considering legislation to ban cashless retailers

65 points by Geekette 8y ago

superkuh 8y ago
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.
- gcatalfamo 8y ago
  What? 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)
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
  - Vaskivo 8y ago
    "Cashless" does not mean "moneyless". Cashless means that it doesn't accept physical money, paper bills and metal coins. It only accepts credit or debit cards. Or any other kind of electronic medium.
    - gerbilly 8y ago
      If I give 5$ to a homeless person and he then tries to go buy a coffee at a cashless coffee shop, what do you think will happen? After all he has money, right?
  - hourislate 8y ago
    I try to use cash as much as I possibly can. It is no ones business to track what I buy, when I buy it, how often I buy it, etc. In the event of an emergency (environmental, energy, etc), how do you propose using a credit card to purchase anything? The biggest problem I face is tellers that can no longer do simple math and have problems counting.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    OK. Let's say this is true. How would financial nonpersons be serviced in a cashless society? (i.e. homeless or home insecure persons, bad credit, and other judges of financial risk on humans established by non-governmental authority)
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
  - dexen 8y ago
    > We would live better without [cash] While I love the ease of use of electronic payments of all stripes, your assertion runs counter to my general knowledge and judgement. Can you support the assertion somehow? In my understanding the ease and safety of use of either cash or electronic payments is pretty much ensured by the easy and safety of the other alternative. Competition FTW.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - heavymark 8y ago
    When you mention you can't imagine a single negative aspect, I presume that you are not a low income minority without a credit/debit card? Cash is more convenient for many (especially nearly the entire demographic of Hacker News), but the point of the article as you may have noticed is about how a large percentage of low income people and minorities do not have bank accounts and thus are not able to shop at these establishments. Hopefully someday states can help solve these underlying issues and then we can live in a world where payments are more convenient for all.
- DiffEq 8y ago
  Racism? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — Inigo Montoya,
  - superkuh 8y ago
    Since dang/etc have manually slid this off the frontpage and it's just us who've already posted now I'll respond to individual comments. Yes, it is racism. There's far more difference between a corporate person and a human person than between any of the human persons. Corporate persons are of a very different race and receive a lot of preferential treatment from retail businesses.
    - vonmoltke 8y ago
      Only natural humans have "race", and thus only discrimination or bias between natural humans can be considered racism. "Persons" (in the legal sense) do not have "race".
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jdhn 8y ago
As long as cash is legal tender, you shouldn't be able to ban its use, especially if it's being exchanged for legal goods.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Cash is already disallowed for pretty much every payment you can’t make in person. And good luck sending Amazon a check either.
  - jdhn 8y ago
    The article is talking about making purchases you make in person, not online purchases.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      Yes. I can read. My point is that, for better, or worse you already can’t use cash for a great many payments.
  - cosmie 8y ago
    Amazon allows you to use a checking account for payment. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201132710 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
- dexen 8y ago
  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.
  - frosted-flakes 8y ago
Whatevers 8y ago
> racism Wut.
- diamondlovesyou 8y ago
  You are being downvoted because this is not Reddit.
- ahoy 8y ago
  Poor people, and especially poor non-whites, are much less likely to have a credit or debit card. I think it's important to understand "racist" as an effect, not as an opinion. The decision to not accept cash probably wasn't made with racist intentions, but it can very well have racist outcomes.
  - superkuh 8y ago
    I meant it literally. There are corporate persons and there are human persons. When you pay with a credit card a corporate person is paying. When you pay with cash a human person is paying.
  - Whatevers 8y ago
    That's not the issue s/he brought up though.
  - rand0mbits 8y ago
    >> I think it's important to understand "racist" as an effect, not as an opinion. I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. If as a white person you punch a black person because you don't like the car the person is driving, that's not racism, that's just some weird aggression. It's not based on the concept of race. But if you punch them because they're black, that's obviously racism. Same thing here. If you're taking an action that indirectly causes harm to mostly non-whites (more specifically to poor people, some of whom are white) without the intent of causing harm, that's not racist. It's only racist if you feel that the group that's being harmed is racially/ethnically inferior to your group and that that justifies your actions. That isn't to say that knowingly causing harm to people, even without any racism involved, is OK. It's not. But it's the intent that defines racism.
chadmhorner 8y ago
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.”
- sadris 8y ago
  But not having a bank account is a choice. It's not about "rights."
cozzyd 8y ago
The next step will be only being able to pay via mobile app.
- AdmiralAsshat 8y ago
  There are a number of restaurants I've been to where you can only make a reservation via their stupid mobile app. Like, even if I'm at the front desk of the restaurant asking me to pencil them in.
99052882514569 8y ago
Meanwhile, in the 21st century[1]... [1] "Why Sweden is close to becoming a cashless economy", https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41095004 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41095004
- ddorian43 8y ago
  It's ok. They can be the guinea pig.
- Geekette 8y ago
  Except, they're changing their minds: Swedes turn against cashlessness https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/being-cash-free-puts-us-at-risk-of-attack-swedes-turn-against-cashlessness https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/being-cash-fre...
dev_north_east 8y ago
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. What next, make them accept cheques?!
- 0x445442 8y ago
  > I can see all the advantages from their POV 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.
  - dev_north_east 8y ago
    From my limited view of it all. Having no cash means a reduced risk of robbery, burglary, stealing cash by staff, not having to do bank runs, getting change in etc. I don't know the costs or anything, but it must make sense for these businesses at least?
    - 0x445442 8y ago
      Does it make sense? Do the things you list add up to 2.5% - 3% of their revenue? I don't know.
      - dev_north_east 8y ago
        I don't think they're that high. I did a brief search and both locations mentioned are using the iZettle in the following link (1.75%) - https://merchantmachine.co.uk/contactless/ https://merchantmachine.co.uk/contactless/
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  There's no "what next". The government only has one official currency.
debt 8y ago
“Going cashless” is a form of class warfare.
- awakeasleep 8y ago
  You're getting downvoted but this seems completely true to me. It bars the homeless and poor from the establishment! Can anyone that disagrees explain the opposing take?
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    I don't disagree with you, but... > It bars the homeless and poor from the establishment! That's probably a big benefit to people who own certain establishments.
  - tantalor 8y ago
    Here are some reasons a business might not take cash, * Eliminates robbery: no cash to take * Reduces expenses: no cash register or bill machine * Saves time: no change or trips to the bank https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vSYg17HD94 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vSYg17HD94
    - debt 8y ago
      Yeah in a bubble. But most establishments that suffer form this aren't going to be able to afford to "go cashless". Doing as such as a concept thrown around by establishments that can afford to do it like Blue Bottle.
0x445442 8y ago
Ahhhh, intersectionalists and libertarians make strange bed fellows. What's even stranger is most of these politicians fighting for the rights of the "unbanked" embrace the surveillance state win that comes from cashless.
nck4222 8y ago
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.
- mbostleman 8y ago
  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.
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    I think it's a combination of factors. Distrust of the system, lack of steady cash flow, lack of local offerings.
    - gerbilly 8y ago
      High cost (fees are proportionally much more expensive), shady practices[1], accounts frozen by creditors. Poor people are making completely rational decisions when choosing not to trust banks, and it's patronizing to assume they simply don't know better. [1] banks re-ordering transactions to maximise overdraft fees.
      - 8y ago
numbsafari 8y ago
NYC is playing follow-the-leader here: we just banned this here in Philadelphia. https://www.wsj.com/articles/philadelphia-is-first-u-s-city-to-ban-cashless-stores-11551967201 https://www.wsj.com/articles/philadelphia-is-first-u-s-city-...
phkahler 8y ago
I find that interesting simply because NYC is home to the financial industry which is the largest beneficiary of cashless transactions. On a personal note, I prefer cash and appreciate the places that give me a discount for using it.
Someone1234 8y ago
I can see NYC's point on this one. 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.
soulnothing 8y ago
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.
- cozzyd 8y ago
  Ah yes, the CTA transit cards can also act as (predatory) debit cards.
gerbilly 8y ago
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. [1] https://privacysos.org/blog/nsa-calls-the-iphone-using-public-zombies-who-pay-for-their-own-surveillance/ https://privacysos.org/blog/nsa-calls-the-iphone-using-publi...
scandox 8y ago
Cash is a huge freedom we take for granted. I would back this totally.
AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
I absolutely, passionately hate when the traders do not accept cash, but I firmly believe they must be in their full right to do so.
- hacym 8y ago
  Why? This means that the US Government, which issues the currency, basically has less power than Visa and Mastercard. It's the currency of the nation... They should be required to take it unless they have a legitimate reason not to.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    > This means that the US Government, which issues the currency, basically has less power than Visa and Mastercard. How's that? Nobody is required to accept Visa or Mastercard either.
  - AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
    I think the US Government shares the sentiment: in most cases you cannot pay Uncle Sam in cash. Checks, money orders, credit cards - anything, but cash. You still can pay your taxes in cash, but they do everything they can to discourage you from it.
rootshelled 8y ago
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.
- hacym 8y ago
  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).
el_cujo 8y ago
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.
- lykr0n 8y ago
  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.
- defertoreptar 8y ago
  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.
dang 8y ago
Philadelphia was discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19328547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19328547
NathanKP 8y ago
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.
- nerflad 8y ago
  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.
tmm84 8y ago
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.

65 points by Geekette 8y ago

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.

gcatalfamo 8y ago
What? 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)
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
- Vaskivo 8y ago
  "Cashless" does not mean "moneyless". Cashless means that it doesn't accept physical money, paper bills and metal coins. It only accepts credit or debit cards. Or any other kind of electronic medium.
  - gerbilly 8y ago
    If I give 5$ to a homeless person and he then tries to go buy a coffee at a cashless coffee shop, what do you think will happen? After all he has money, right?
- hourislate 8y ago
  I try to use cash as much as I possibly can. It is no ones business to track what I buy, when I buy it, how often I buy it, etc. In the event of an emergency (environmental, energy, etc), how do you propose using a credit card to purchase anything? The biggest problem I face is tellers that can no longer do simple math and have problems counting.
- SolaceQuantum 8y ago
  OK. Let's say this is true. How would financial nonpersons be serviced in a cashless society? (i.e. homeless or home insecure persons, bad credit, and other judges of financial risk on humans established by non-governmental authority)
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
- dexen 8y ago
  > We would live better without [cash] While I love the ease of use of electronic payments of all stripes, your assertion runs counter to my general knowledge and judgement. Can you support the assertion somehow? In my understanding the ease and safety of use of either cash or electronic payments is pretty much ensured by the easy and safety of the other alternative. Competition FTW.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- heavymark 8y ago
  When you mention you can't imagine a single negative aspect, I presume that you are not a low income minority without a credit/debit card? Cash is more convenient for many (especially nearly the entire demographic of Hacker News), but the point of the article as you may have noticed is about how a large percentage of low income people and minorities do not have bank accounts and thus are not able to shop at these establishments. Hopefully someday states can help solve these underlying issues and then we can live in a world where payments are more convenient for all.
DiffEq 8y ago
Racism? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." — Inigo Montoya,
- superkuh 8y ago
  Since dang/etc have manually slid this off the frontpage and it's just us who've already posted now I'll respond to individual comments. Yes, it is racism. There's far more difference between a corporate person and a human person than between any of the human persons. Corporate persons are of a very different race and receive a lot of preferential treatment from retail businesses.
  - vonmoltke 8y ago
    Only natural humans have "race", and thus only discrimination or bias between natural humans can be considered racism. "Persons" (in the legal sense) do not have "race".
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jdhn 8y ago

As long as cash is legal tender, you shouldn't be able to ban its use, especially if it's being exchanged for legal goods.

ghaff 8y ago
Cash is already disallowed for pretty much every payment you can’t make in person. And good luck sending Amazon a check either.
- jdhn 8y ago
  The article is talking about making purchases you make in person, not online purchases.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Yes. I can read. My point is that, for better, or worse you already can’t use cash for a great many payments.
- cosmie 8y ago
  Amazon allows you to use a checking account for payment. https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201132710 https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=...
dexen 8y ago
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.
- frosted-flakes 8y ago

Whatevers 8y ago

> racism Wut.

diamondlovesyou 8y ago
You are being downvoted because this is not Reddit.
ahoy 8y ago
Poor people, and especially poor non-whites, are much less likely to have a credit or debit card. I think it's important to understand "racist" as an effect, not as an opinion. The decision to not accept cash probably wasn't made with racist intentions, but it can very well have racist outcomes.
- superkuh 8y ago
  I meant it literally. There are corporate persons and there are human persons. When you pay with a credit card a corporate person is paying. When you pay with cash a human person is paying.
- Whatevers 8y ago
  That's not the issue s/he brought up though.
- rand0mbits 8y ago
  >> I think it's important to understand "racist" as an effect, not as an opinion. I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. If as a white person you punch a black person because you don't like the car the person is driving, that's not racism, that's just some weird aggression. It's not based on the concept of race. But if you punch them because they're black, that's obviously racism. Same thing here. If you're taking an action that indirectly causes harm to mostly non-whites (more specifically to poor people, some of whom are white) without the intent of causing harm, that's not racist. It's only racist if you feel that the group that's being harmed is racially/ethnically inferior to your group and that that justifies your actions. That isn't to say that knowingly causing harm to people, even without any racism involved, is OK. It's not. But it's the intent that defines racism.

chadmhorner 8y ago

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.”

sadris 8y ago
But not having a bank account is a choice. It's not about "rights."

cozzyd 8y ago

The next step will be only being able to pay via mobile app.

AdmiralAsshat 8y ago
There are a number of restaurants I've been to where you can only make a reservation via their stupid mobile app. Like, even if I'm at the front desk of the restaurant asking me to pencil them in.

99052882514569 8y ago

Meanwhile, in the 21st century[1]... [1] "Why Sweden is close to becoming a cashless economy", https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41095004 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41095004

ddorian43 8y ago
It's ok. They can be the guinea pig.
Geekette 8y ago
Except, they're changing their minds: Swedes turn against cashlessness https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/being-cash-free-puts-us-at-risk-of-attack-swedes-turn-against-cashlessness https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/being-cash-fre...

dev_north_east 8y ago

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. What next, make them accept cheques?!

0x445442 8y ago
> I can see all the advantages from their POV 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.
- dev_north_east 8y ago
  From my limited view of it all. Having no cash means a reduced risk of robbery, burglary, stealing cash by staff, not having to do bank runs, getting change in etc. I don't know the costs or anything, but it must make sense for these businesses at least?
  - 0x445442 8y ago
    Does it make sense? Do the things you list add up to 2.5% - 3% of their revenue? I don't know.
    - dev_north_east 8y ago
      I don't think they're that high. I did a brief search and both locations mentioned are using the iZettle in the following link (1.75%) - https://merchantmachine.co.uk/contactless/ https://merchantmachine.co.uk/contactless/
metalliqaz 8y ago
There's no "what next". The government only has one official currency.

debt 8y ago

“Going cashless” is a form of class warfare.

awakeasleep 8y ago
You're getting downvoted but this seems completely true to me. It bars the homeless and poor from the establishment! Can anyone that disagrees explain the opposing take?
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  I don't disagree with you, but... > It bars the homeless and poor from the establishment! That's probably a big benefit to people who own certain establishments.
- tantalor 8y ago
  Here are some reasons a business might not take cash, * Eliminates robbery: no cash to take * Reduces expenses: no cash register or bill machine * Saves time: no change or trips to the bank https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vSYg17HD94 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vSYg17HD94
  - debt 8y ago
    Yeah in a bubble. But most establishments that suffer form this aren't going to be able to afford to "go cashless". Doing as such as a concept thrown around by establishments that can afford to do it like Blue Bottle.

0x445442 8y ago

Ahhhh, intersectionalists and libertarians make strange bed fellows. What's even stranger is most of these politicians fighting for the rights of the "unbanked" embrace the surveillance state win that comes from cashless.

nck4222 8y ago

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.

mbostleman 8y ago
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.
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  I think it's a combination of factors. Distrust of the system, lack of steady cash flow, lack of local offerings.
  - gerbilly 8y ago
    High cost (fees are proportionally much more expensive), shady practices[1], accounts frozen by creditors. Poor people are making completely rational decisions when choosing not to trust banks, and it's patronizing to assume they simply don't know better. [1] banks re-ordering transactions to maximise overdraft fees.
    - 8y ago

numbsafari 8y ago

NYC is playing follow-the-leader here: we just banned this here in Philadelphia. https://www.wsj.com/articles/philadelphia-is-first-u-s-city-to-ban-cashless-stores-11551967201 https://www.wsj.com/articles/philadelphia-is-first-u-s-city-...

phkahler 8y ago

I find that interesting simply because NYC is home to the financial industry which is the largest beneficiary of cashless transactions. On a personal note, I prefer cash and appreciate the places that give me a discount for using it.

Someone1234 8y ago

I can see NYC's point on this one. 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.

soulnothing 8y ago

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.

cozzyd 8y ago
Ah yes, the CTA transit cards can also act as (predatory) debit cards.

gerbilly 8y ago

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. [1] https://privacysos.org/blog/nsa-calls-the-iphone-using-public-zombies-who-pay-for-their-own-surveillance/ https://privacysos.org/blog/nsa-calls-the-iphone-using-publi...

scandox 8y ago

Cash is a huge freedom we take for granted. I would back this totally.

AlexTWithBeard 8y ago

I absolutely, passionately hate when the traders do not accept cash, but I firmly believe they must be in their full right to do so.

hacym 8y ago
Why? This means that the US Government, which issues the currency, basically has less power than Visa and Mastercard. It's the currency of the nation... They should be required to take it unless they have a legitimate reason not to.
- vonmoltke 8y ago
  > This means that the US Government, which issues the currency, basically has less power than Visa and Mastercard. How's that? Nobody is required to accept Visa or Mastercard either.
- AlexTWithBeard 8y ago
  I think the US Government shares the sentiment: in most cases you cannot pay Uncle Sam in cash. Checks, money orders, credit cards - anything, but cash. You still can pay your taxes in cash, but they do everything they can to discourage you from it.

rootshelled 8y ago

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.

hacym 8y ago
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).

el_cujo 8y ago

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.

lykr0n 8y ago
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.
defertoreptar 8y ago
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.

dang 8y ago

Philadelphia was discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19328547 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19328547

NathanKP 8y ago

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.

nerflad 8y ago
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.

tmm84 8y ago

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.