4 ms·

There are plenty of things business could do to cut costs, but wouldn't be in the public interest. Not comply with sanitation requirements? Not bother to have f

There are plenty of things business could do to cut costs, but wouldn't be in the public interest. Not comply with sanitation requirements? Not bother to have fire suppression? No customer washrooms? But NYC is allowed to put bylaws in place that may harm businesses, but are for the greater good. This is one of them -- for the reasons mentioned in the article, and the privacy implications -- and I fully support it. That's just my opinion though. My original point is that trying to be clever with "$2 bills only... see we still accept cash" isn't going to work out. And for the record... I've paid with $100s plenty of times at places with "no $100 bills" signs. It's more of a suggestion, and they rarely enforce it unless you look super shady.

horsawlarway 7y ago
> Not comply with sanitation requirements? Not bother to have fire suppression? No customer washrooms? I'm laughing. These are all things companies DO in order to cut costs. The most obvious and legal being the washrooms. I'll admit, most of my points are playing devil's advocate - This regulation has basically zero impact on me, and I don't strongly favor either side. I don't really want to lose the option to pay in cash (as a customer it can be convenient), but I also don't really buy the arguments being made here for privacy/inequity. It's entirely possible to buy a preloaded card in the US without an ID (somewhat ironically - this requires using cash in a store and it's not possible to reload afterwards due to KYC, so it's hardly perfect). It's also arguably not that different to plan out going to the bank to get cash vs planning out buying a prepaid before hitting the stores. And the prepaids make money from the store, not by charging the customer, so it's not any additional financial burden. Basically - I see these movements as politicians virtue signaling in cities with large wealth disparities.
- amscanne 7y ago
  > I'm laughing. These are all things companies DO in order to cut costs. The most obvious and legal being the washrooms. In most places the requirement to have washrooms depends on the kind of business, how much seating you have, etc. So e.g. it might be legal to have no washroom if you have no seating, but if you have seating for ten people then you must have a washroom.

horsawlarway 7y ago

> Not comply with sanitation requirements? Not bother to have fire suppression? No customer washrooms? I'm laughing. These are all things companies DO in order to cut costs. The most obvious and legal being the washrooms. I'll admit, most of my points are playing devil's advocate - This regulation has basically zero impact on me, and I don't strongly favor either side. I don't really want to lose the option to pay in cash (as a customer it can be convenient), but I also don't really buy the arguments being made here for privacy/inequity. It's entirely possible to buy a preloaded card in the US without an ID (somewhat ironically - this requires using cash in a store and it's not possible to reload afterwards due to KYC, so it's hardly perfect). It's also arguably not that different to plan out going to the bank to get cash vs planning out buying a prepaid before hitting the stores. And the prepaids make money from the store, not by charging the customer, so it's not any additional financial burden. Basically - I see these movements as politicians virtue signaling in cities with large wealth disparities.

amscanne 7y ago
> I'm laughing. These are all things companies DO in order to cut costs. The most obvious and legal being the washrooms. In most places the requirement to have washrooms depends on the kind of business, how much seating you have, etc. So e.g. it might be legal to have no washroom if you have no seating, but if you have seating for ten people then you must have a washroom.