6 ms·

So, basically the same reason we have bad everything. Our institutions and regulations are outdated relative to the rest of the world, so we get stuck with shit

So, basically the same reason we have bad everything. Our institutions and regulations are outdated relative to the rest of the world, so we get stuck with shitty stuff.

bsimpson 6y ago
For instance: payments. Europe and Asia got chip cards and tap-to-pay decades before we did, even though Mastercard and Visa took part in their invention. America had credit card infrastructure first, so our payment networks were stuck with it, while other countries could start off with better stuff. Without the consumer demand that Google/Apple Pay (and later coronavirus) created, we still probably wouldn't have widespread tap-to-pay.
- kolinko 6y ago
  And also instant free wire transfers. Paypal would probably never happened if US had a banking system like the one in some European countries.
  - Slartie 6y ago
    For fairness one must say that our free run-of-the-mill wire transfers being instant is a relatively recent development. They used to take multiple days in pre-SEPA-days, and international payments were a hassle (and also usually not free). And even today not all transfers are instant, as both banks must support this feature. But the processing time for the non-instant ones is down to one day across the board at least, so that improved.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      It was never a technical reason to begin with that transfers took so long (i.e. multiple days), rather that banks made some side money by treating the transferred money as free loan. Similar to stuff like the common free international roaming, SEPA is something that the EU massively fought for the consumers against the entrenched players.
    - rimliu 6y ago
      Not sure where they took multiple days. Same bank: couple of minutes. Different bank: depends of the time of the day. If you missed the last clearing, the transfer will happen next day. Otherwise clearing was done 3-4 times per day. So the only way for the payment to be delayed for days would be making on Firday evening. Country-specific thing, most likely.
    - ajuc 6y ago
      Depends on the country. Poland had intra-day free interbank transfer system called Elixir since 1994. Basically it pays to be backward with these things - you skip many bad solutions and can learn from others. Our bank system was reconstructed almost from scratch in early 90s so it's quite modern now.
    - corford 6y ago
      SEPA really is great. Would be awesome if more of the world (including the US) adopted IBAN - maybe it would lead to a similarly cheap and fast global payment area.
- FractalParadigm 6y ago
  As a Canadian it's almost incredible to see how far ahead even we are compared to the US in terms of payment options. A lot of the debit machines were tap-compatible over 10 years ago, and even then it took banks several years to implement and supply cards. In fact I remember getting my first tap-capable card in high school and had to go to the bank to activate the feature, and it wasn't long after that when my friends and I were running hacked Android Pay apk's to enable NFC payments here. Even with regards to "chip and PIN," I'd wager most machines built in the last 10 years have never had a card swiped through them, and even if they have, the payment will almost never go through until you try again with the chip. I honestly can't remember the last time I actually used my debit card to buy anything. With tap limits of $100 per transaction and $200 per day, 99% of my regular purchases can be made through my phone. It's very rare I take my wallet out of the car.
- mdoing 6y ago
  Banks in the US are very risk aversive when it comes to new technology about 6-7 years ago I was working with a team in the US and the next project that they were doing was implementing chip and pin for a single type of card for a bank. One person was trying to move to another team to avoid it. We had chip and pin in my country for years at this stage. I used just think that they were worried about the new technology but now that I am older I think that the business wanted to implement something new without investing in existing systems. I left the company shortly afterwards so no idea what happened. According to our sales guys who say that US banks are the worst when it comes to new technology, Australian banks are the best apparently. Apparently there were some government initiatives to force the banks to use new technology, some really leaned into it and even changed entire management layers.
  - Havoc 6y ago
    >Banks in the US are very risk aversive when it comes to new technology But are somehow fine with crappy magstripe easily cloned cards. Bit odd how they judge risk
    - jacobush 6y ago
      They make the customers pay for that via VISA fees
    - mdoing 6y ago
      I think fear of the unknown is classified as a risk in some places, they completely changed management style and structures after I left so maybe the company changed as well.
- csomar 6y ago
  This gets thrown a lot but I think the reason the U.S. didn't move from the swipe system to the PIN is the speed of processing your card. With the swipe, the cashier just swipe your card and you're done. With the chip, I have to wait and then enter my PIN and then wait. It's just a hustle.
  - phinnaeus 6y ago
    Why would we move to chip when it's already obviated by tap?
    - galvin 6y ago
      For security reasons, contactless card payments are limited to small transactions and can only be used a certain number of times between chip and pin transactions. Since it lacks a second authentication factor the compromise is to limit how much can be spent if the card is stolen. The US could skip chip and pin if it switched directly to contactless mobile payments.
      - pas 6y ago
        It's tap and PIN for higher amounts. The same thing, just wirelessly.
  - AnssiH 6y ago
    Don't you need to sign after a swipe?
  - praestigiare 6y ago
    This process is nearly instant in every country I have used it in except for the US, where it inexplicably takes 20 seconds of waiting both pre and post pin entry.
- OJFord 6y ago
  The back of my card wasn't signed until I went to America. Then the 'clerk' 'rang me up' and asked me to sign the back of my card so that she could check it against the receipt I just signed. (Really!) I'm not old enough to have had to do that anywhere else - 'Chip & PIN' was required in the UK from 14 Feb 2006; I'm not sure how long before that it became available/widely used.
  - bsimpson 6y ago
    I was born in the US. It's very rare for clerks to look at the signature, and we all recognize the absurdity of making someone sign it on the spot. Some places used to check IDs though.
- nemo44x 6y ago
  Yeah that’s mainly correct I believe. The USA had an earlier electronic system well established by the time chip and pin was available. The costs to switch would have been greater than the amount of fraud prevented. We see this in other systems like NYC’s metrocard VS London’s Oyster. Metrocard was an early system that works reasonably well. Now the MTA is deploying a new modern system as metro gets near its planned lifetime. I think the USA has been far more innovative with credit cards that give rewards. Many of my EU friends complain they can’t get more airline points, etc with their cards.
  - Nursie 6y ago
    >The USA had an earlier electronic system well established by the time chip and pin was available. So did many other places. > I think the USA has been far more innovative with credit cards that give rewards. US credit card schemes charge merchants massively more, so yes, these fees can then be used to give "rewards". EU cards have lower rewards because the fees are limited by law. It's not something to be proud of. You're paying higher prices as a result.
    - nemo44x 6y ago
      I guess USA citizens tend to have higher incomes than Western Europeans which could maybe explain why Americans pay higher prices. But I’m not sure we do. It’s weird though that 3x as many Western Europeans move to the USA than the other way around.
      - Nursie 6y ago
        Americans pay higher prices than they would otherwise pay for the same goods because of the card reward schemes, not necessarily higher prices than Europeans pay. Taxes are very different, for a start. I think you do have higher incomes, generally, and a lower tax burden. Fewer government services too of course. Not sure that's much to do with credit card reward schemes though :)
- Nursie 6y ago
  > America had credit card infrastructure first, so our payment networks were stuck with it The UK had well developed credit card infrastructure before Chip and Pin too. This is not the reason. The US market was just massively more resistant to change, and was able to put a stop to the banks' liability shift tactics.
- cuddlybacon 6y ago
  My country, Canada, has chip cards and tap-to-pay. Whenever we get interns/new hires that grew up in China they remind us that even this is behind the times. Apparently they pay with their phone. They scan a QR code and get the bill on their phone... or something. I've never experienced it myself.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    ...there are phone payment options in canada, using NFC. Can confirm having done it on a pixel 3a and a iphone 8+. Usually through your bank or visa provider app.
    - cuddlybacon 6y ago
      I was counting NFC based things as tap-to-pay. I use Apple Pay for most of my purchases. But they always say that doesn't count. And I see why. You still gotta wave down a waiter, ask them to go fetch a machine, wait for them to come back, potentially sending them back because they split it incorrectly. That's not the same as scanning a QR code on the table, having it load up your bill, splitting it if needed, and making the payment. If that works as well as I imagine it to, that could all be done in the time it takes to wave down the waiter.
      - LegitShady 6y ago
        There's no difference. A qr code is more hassle than NFC. Splitting the bill happens on the POS system, and no qr code is required.
fastball 6y ago
The problem is actually that America was innovating / standardizing first, and there is still inertia with those old systems. Meanwhile, newer institutions like the EU have the benefit of hindsight by looking at what America did without having the downside of momentum with old tech.

So, basically the same reason we have bad everything. Our institutions and regulations are outdated relative to the rest of the world, so we get stuck with shitty stuff.

bsimpson 6y ago

For instance: payments. Europe and Asia got chip cards and tap-to-pay decades before we did, even though Mastercard and Visa took part in their invention. America had credit card infrastructure first, so our payment networks were stuck with it, while other countries could start off with better stuff. Without the consumer demand that Google/Apple Pay (and later coronavirus) created, we still probably wouldn't have widespread tap-to-pay.

kolinko 6y ago
And also instant free wire transfers. Paypal would probably never happened if US had a banking system like the one in some European countries.
- Slartie 6y ago
  For fairness one must say that our free run-of-the-mill wire transfers being instant is a relatively recent development. They used to take multiple days in pre-SEPA-days, and international payments were a hassle (and also usually not free). And even today not all transfers are instant, as both banks must support this feature. But the processing time for the non-instant ones is down to one day across the board at least, so that improved.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    It was never a technical reason to begin with that transfers took so long (i.e. multiple days), rather that banks made some side money by treating the transferred money as free loan. Similar to stuff like the common free international roaming, SEPA is something that the EU massively fought for the consumers against the entrenched players.
  - rimliu 6y ago
    Not sure where they took multiple days. Same bank: couple of minutes. Different bank: depends of the time of the day. If you missed the last clearing, the transfer will happen next day. Otherwise clearing was done 3-4 times per day. So the only way for the payment to be delayed for days would be making on Firday evening. Country-specific thing, most likely.
  - ajuc 6y ago
    Depends on the country. Poland had intra-day free interbank transfer system called Elixir since 1994. Basically it pays to be backward with these things - you skip many bad solutions and can learn from others. Our bank system was reconstructed almost from scratch in early 90s so it's quite modern now.
  - corford 6y ago
    SEPA really is great. Would be awesome if more of the world (including the US) adopted IBAN - maybe it would lead to a similarly cheap and fast global payment area.
FractalParadigm 6y ago
As a Canadian it's almost incredible to see how far ahead even we are compared to the US in terms of payment options. A lot of the debit machines were tap-compatible over 10 years ago, and even then it took banks several years to implement and supply cards. In fact I remember getting my first tap-capable card in high school and had to go to the bank to activate the feature, and it wasn't long after that when my friends and I were running hacked Android Pay apk's to enable NFC payments here. Even with regards to "chip and PIN," I'd wager most machines built in the last 10 years have never had a card swiped through them, and even if they have, the payment will almost never go through until you try again with the chip. I honestly can't remember the last time I actually used my debit card to buy anything. With tap limits of $100 per transaction and $200 per day, 99% of my regular purchases can be made through my phone. It's very rare I take my wallet out of the car.
mdoing 6y ago
Banks in the US are very risk aversive when it comes to new technology about 6-7 years ago I was working with a team in the US and the next project that they were doing was implementing chip and pin for a single type of card for a bank. One person was trying to move to another team to avoid it. We had chip and pin in my country for years at this stage. I used just think that they were worried about the new technology but now that I am older I think that the business wanted to implement something new without investing in existing systems. I left the company shortly afterwards so no idea what happened. According to our sales guys who say that US banks are the worst when it comes to new technology, Australian banks are the best apparently. Apparently there were some government initiatives to force the banks to use new technology, some really leaned into it and even changed entire management layers.
- Havoc 6y ago
  >Banks in the US are very risk aversive when it comes to new technology But are somehow fine with crappy magstripe easily cloned cards. Bit odd how they judge risk
  - jacobush 6y ago
    They make the customers pay for that via VISA fees
  - mdoing 6y ago
    I think fear of the unknown is classified as a risk in some places, they completely changed management style and structures after I left so maybe the company changed as well.
csomar 6y ago
This gets thrown a lot but I think the reason the U.S. didn't move from the swipe system to the PIN is the speed of processing your card. With the swipe, the cashier just swipe your card and you're done. With the chip, I have to wait and then enter my PIN and then wait. It's just a hustle.
- phinnaeus 6y ago
  Why would we move to chip when it's already obviated by tap?
  - galvin 6y ago
    For security reasons, contactless card payments are limited to small transactions and can only be used a certain number of times between chip and pin transactions. Since it lacks a second authentication factor the compromise is to limit how much can be spent if the card is stolen. The US could skip chip and pin if it switched directly to contactless mobile payments.
    - pas 6y ago
      It's tap and PIN for higher amounts. The same thing, just wirelessly.
- AnssiH 6y ago
  Don't you need to sign after a swipe?
- praestigiare 6y ago
  This process is nearly instant in every country I have used it in except for the US, where it inexplicably takes 20 seconds of waiting both pre and post pin entry.
OJFord 6y ago
The back of my card wasn't signed until I went to America. Then the 'clerk' 'rang me up' and asked me to sign the back of my card so that she could check it against the receipt I just signed. (Really!) I'm not old enough to have had to do that anywhere else - 'Chip & PIN' was required in the UK from 14 Feb 2006; I'm not sure how long before that it became available/widely used.
- bsimpson 6y ago
  I was born in the US. It's very rare for clerks to look at the signature, and we all recognize the absurdity of making someone sign it on the spot. Some places used to check IDs though.
nemo44x 6y ago
Yeah that’s mainly correct I believe. The USA had an earlier electronic system well established by the time chip and pin was available. The costs to switch would have been greater than the amount of fraud prevented. We see this in other systems like NYC’s metrocard VS London’s Oyster. Metrocard was an early system that works reasonably well. Now the MTA is deploying a new modern system as metro gets near its planned lifetime. I think the USA has been far more innovative with credit cards that give rewards. Many of my EU friends complain they can’t get more airline points, etc with their cards.
- Nursie 6y ago
  >The USA had an earlier electronic system well established by the time chip and pin was available. So did many other places. > I think the USA has been far more innovative with credit cards that give rewards. US credit card schemes charge merchants massively more, so yes, these fees can then be used to give "rewards". EU cards have lower rewards because the fees are limited by law. It's not something to be proud of. You're paying higher prices as a result.
  - nemo44x 6y ago
    I guess USA citizens tend to have higher incomes than Western Europeans which could maybe explain why Americans pay higher prices. But I’m not sure we do. It’s weird though that 3x as many Western Europeans move to the USA than the other way around.
    - Nursie 6y ago
      Americans pay higher prices than they would otherwise pay for the same goods because of the card reward schemes, not necessarily higher prices than Europeans pay. Taxes are very different, for a start. I think you do have higher incomes, generally, and a lower tax burden. Fewer government services too of course. Not sure that's much to do with credit card reward schemes though :)
Nursie 6y ago
> America had credit card infrastructure first, so our payment networks were stuck with it The UK had well developed credit card infrastructure before Chip and Pin too. This is not the reason. The US market was just massively more resistant to change, and was able to put a stop to the banks' liability shift tactics.
cuddlybacon 6y ago
My country, Canada, has chip cards and tap-to-pay. Whenever we get interns/new hires that grew up in China they remind us that even this is behind the times. Apparently they pay with their phone. They scan a QR code and get the bill on their phone... or something. I've never experienced it myself.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  ...there are phone payment options in canada, using NFC. Can confirm having done it on a pixel 3a and a iphone 8+. Usually through your bank or visa provider app.
  - cuddlybacon 6y ago
    I was counting NFC based things as tap-to-pay. I use Apple Pay for most of my purchases. But they always say that doesn't count. And I see why. You still gotta wave down a waiter, ask them to go fetch a machine, wait for them to come back, potentially sending them back because they split it incorrectly. That's not the same as scanning a QR code on the table, having it load up your bill, splitting it if needed, and making the payment. If that works as well as I imagine it to, that could all be done in the time it takes to wave down the waiter.
    - LegitShady 6y ago
      There's no difference. A qr code is more hassle than NFC. Splitting the bill happens on the POS system, and no qr code is required.

fastball 6y ago

The problem is actually that America was innovating / standardizing first, and there is still inertia with those old systems. Meanwhile, newer institutions like the EU have the benefit of hindsight by looking at what America did without having the downside of momentum with old tech.