4 ms·

I thought this was a parody at first. Is this really what banking looks like in the US?

hathawsh 5y ago
This is how banking looks in the US if you can't maintain a balance of at least around $1500. This video is eye-opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLwRZibUqL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLwRZibUqL0
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  Yeah, most of those problems (with the arguable exception of the food deserts, at least in urban areas) exist down under too, or at least did until the banking Royal Commission a couple of years back. That video reminds me too much of my wife's experience before we got settled down. I wonder why nobody's solved this problem by now.
  - thinkharderdev 5y ago
    I think part of it is that we've had near-zero interest rates for the last dozen or so years. So banks can't make any money from small balance checking accounts, hence the ubiquity of minimum account balances. The traditional business model of factional reserve retail banking just doesn't work that well with super-low interest rates.
  - micromacrofoot 5y ago
    >I wonder why nobody's solved this problem by now. You can extend this thought to poverty in general. Very little would need to change to eliminate it entirely.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      >You can extend this thought to poverty in general. Very little would need to change to eliminate it entirely. To be fair, many of the "rough edges" of poverty have been sanded down over the past 100 years or so in most developed countries. Poor people no longer face debtor's prison, starvation, lack of access to health care (with the exception of one notable country), a complete lack of education, lack of plumbing/utilities etc. In addition to this, much of Asia and parts of Africa and South America have graduated from dirt poor to middle or high income nations. That's not to say we couldn't do more, but the trend seems to be favouring the elimination or at least a sharp reduction in (absolute) poverty for the forseeable future, both in developing and developed nations.
jrmg 5y ago
The US ‘banking’ system is incredibly regressive. Poor people pay for check cashing, while rich people get free bank accounts and 2% off everything by using free ‘rewards’ credit cards.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  What is that even supposed to mean? Businesses compete for profitable customers. Are banks not supposed to do that?
  - moate 5y ago
    To many people, the overall system feels to be designed as a whole to extract wealth from the masses and funnel it upwards towards those already capable of funding their continued existence. To those people, the idea that "obtaining the money you are owed from your job costs you a fee" is a gross abuse of the system. Penalizing poor people doesn't seem great.
  - Thrymr 5y ago
    It can be rational from the perspective of individual businesses and still be "incredibly regressive" and net negative for society.
  - burkaman 5y ago
    They are supposed to, that's what's causing the problem.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Wait til we tell you about our health and education systems. It's like John Galt in a china shop.

This is how banking looks in the US if you can't maintain a balance of at least around $1500. This video is eye-opening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLwRZibUqL0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLwRZibUqL0

AussieWog93 5y ago
Yeah, most of those problems (with the arguable exception of the food deserts, at least in urban areas) exist down under too, or at least did until the banking Royal Commission a couple of years back. That video reminds me too much of my wife's experience before we got settled down. I wonder why nobody's solved this problem by now.
- thinkharderdev 5y ago
  I think part of it is that we've had near-zero interest rates for the last dozen or so years. So banks can't make any money from small balance checking accounts, hence the ubiquity of minimum account balances. The traditional business model of factional reserve retail banking just doesn't work that well with super-low interest rates.
- micromacrofoot 5y ago
  >I wonder why nobody's solved this problem by now. You can extend this thought to poverty in general. Very little would need to change to eliminate it entirely.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    >You can extend this thought to poverty in general. Very little would need to change to eliminate it entirely. To be fair, many of the "rough edges" of poverty have been sanded down over the past 100 years or so in most developed countries. Poor people no longer face debtor's prison, starvation, lack of access to health care (with the exception of one notable country), a complete lack of education, lack of plumbing/utilities etc. In addition to this, much of Asia and parts of Africa and South America have graduated from dirt poor to middle or high income nations. That's not to say we couldn't do more, but the trend seems to be favouring the elimination or at least a sharp reduction in (absolute) poverty for the forseeable future, both in developing and developed nations.

jrmg 5y ago

The US ‘banking’ system is incredibly regressive. Poor people pay for check cashing, while rich people get free bank accounts and 2% off everything by using free ‘rewards’ credit cards.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
What is that even supposed to mean? Businesses compete for profitable customers. Are banks not supposed to do that?
- moate 5y ago
  To many people, the overall system feels to be designed as a whole to extract wealth from the masses and funnel it upwards towards those already capable of funding their continued existence. To those people, the idea that "obtaining the money you are owed from your job costs you a fee" is a gross abuse of the system. Penalizing poor people doesn't seem great.
- Thrymr 5y ago
  It can be rational from the perspective of individual businesses and still be "incredibly regressive" and net negative for society.
- burkaman 5y ago
  They are supposed to, that's what's causing the problem.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

Wait til we tell you about our health and education systems. It's like John Galt in a china shop.