6 ms·

> The problem IS businesses refusing cash. The public really does not benefit I benefit quite a lot from not having to use cash. I pay all my bills with credit

by pdonis 5y ago

> The problem IS businesses refusing cash. The public really does not benefit I benefit quite a lot from not having to use cash. I pay all my bills with credit cards. That means I can do it remotely, taking a few minutes a month, without having to leave my house. Having to pay each bill in person, in cash, would be a huge cost to me in time and effort. And if the companies I'm paying those bills to had to have the personnel and infrastructure to support all or most of their customers paying in person, in cash, the costs of the things I'm actually paying them for would go way up. Sure, if you're going out for coffee and you'd rather pay with cash, it's a hassle if the coffee shop doesn't accept it. But that just means you go and find another coffee shop that does. That's a very different issue than the issue of cutting off people's access to non-cash methods of payment, which is what the article under discussion is talking about.

throwaway22032 5y ago
Nah, you're just not thinking about it. Trivial solution: I walk to bank some day once a month, give them cash, give them account numbers, sent. It'd be done in all of ten minutes. Does it exist where you live? Maybe, maybe not. Hell, if I knew you I'd do it for you, I'd enjoy obfuscating my accounts. And no-one is saying that literally every transaction has to be done in cash, just that it should be _possible_ to do so. The idea that cash is this hilariously inconvenient thing is a complete fabrication and I frankly tire of that discussion. You're talking about moving small physical things, it's a solved problem, everything around you right now is a small physical thing. edit: posters are responding about the businesses that exist in their area. by this token it's "inconvenient" for me to use cash because the japanese place down the road doesn't take it. well no, they're just being dicks, there's no _fundamental_ inconvenience.
- bgirard 5y ago
  I care barely drive to a bank within 10 minutes, which isn't the bank I have an account with. It's only open during my work hours (9-5pm M-F), or I have to go on a Saturday. The wait time to see a clerk alone are often 10 minutes or more. And the clerk can't help me make certain payments that require me to use a web portal or mail a cheque. > The idea that cash is this hilariously inconvenient thing is a complete fabrication. That's a strong statement without considering that your experience might not match others'.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bugbuddy 5y ago
    >> The idea that cash is this hilariously inconvenient thing is a complete fabrication. >That's a strong statement without considering that your experience might not match others'. IMHO, both the original statement and the respond are opinions. It may well be the case that cash is universally not “hilariously inconvenient.” Without some empirical evidence, it is just a shouting match. In my opinion, cash is actually very convenient to use and encourages reflections on spending habits.
    - throwaway22032 5y ago
      Nah, we're just not talking about the same thing. He's saying that using cash is inconvenient because no-one uses cash where he is. I'm saying that it's not because at its' core it's fundamentally just handing over a bit of paper. It's not a statement about how many people accept cash where I am. I can't easily pay my mortgage with cash directly either. The point is that it's not an insurmountably difficult thing. There also seems to be this bonkers strawman thing going on whereby loads of people seem to think I'm saying "don't ever make a non-cash transaction" which is bloody stupid. It's like, _a priori obvious_ that it's stupid. I hate this aspect of online discourse - if the thing you think I'm saying logically makes no sense, then I probably am not actually saying that thing.
      - pdonis 5y ago
        > He's saying that using cash is inconvenient because no-one uses cash where he is. No, I'm not. I'm saying using cash is inconvenient for me for things like paying my monthly bills because it would require me to physically go to each individual company I pay bills to and pay them in person. Whereas with a credit card I can pay all my monthly bills in a few minutes from my desk at home. Even if my utility company, for example, would accept cash in payment (as they probably would since most companies offering basic services like that are required by law to accept cash), I wouldn't do it because of the huge increase it would be in time and effort every month. I have better things to do with my time than schlep around all over the place to pay bills in person. > I can't easily pay my mortgage with cash directly either. The point is that it's not an insurmountably difficult thing. You're shifting your ground. Before you were saying that using cash wasn't inconvenient. Now you're saying it is for some things, like paying your mortgage. Which is exactly my point.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > Trivial solution: I walk to bank some day once a month, give them cash, give them account numbers, sent. It'd be done in all of ten minutes. I've never heard of any bank offering that service. > no-one is saying that literally every transaction has to be done in cash, just that it should be _possible_ to do so. Agreed. But it should also be recognized that there are many people who have good reasons to use payment methods other than cash in many situations. > The idea that cash is this hilariously inconvenient thing is a complete fabrication No one is claiming that cash is always inconvenient. Just that for many people in many situations, it is. > You're talking about moving small physical things If I have to go pay my bills in person, I have to move me, not just some pieces of paper. And if I pay my bills electronically while I'm sitting at my desk at home, I don't have to move anything at all.
  - ddingus 5y ago
    >No one is claiming that cash is always inconvenient. Just that for many people in many situations, it is. So don't use it. Non issue right? Otherwise, dealing with the public comes with some costs. The benefit is being able to do business and turn a profit. Picking and choosing is an abuse of the public.
  - throwaway22032 5y ago
    Sure, if you sit at your desk all month, never visit a high street, and also can't use a postbox, this is an unsolvable problem. Got me. I'm out yo, physical interactions are better than this GPT-3 shite.
    - bgirard 5y ago
      We don't have high streets here. All my adjacent banks are in the middle of a parking lot not near anything else I'd want to interact with during my precious Saturday except maybe the grocery store. Sure that's a bad design and I'd prefer to live near UK high streets but that's beyond my control here. This has nothing to do with sitting at my desk. Using cash would mean spending my Saturday at one of the least interesting location I can think of.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
freedomben 5y ago
Just because a business has to accept cash, does not mean every transaction must be cash.
AdrianB1 5y ago
> I benefit quite a lot from not having to use cash. And you lose nothing by having more options, including cash. Nobody said you need to pay only with cash.
zem 5y ago
there's a huge difference between not having to use cash and having not to use cash
ddingus 5y ago
Refusing cash is not the same as being able to not use a card. The shop refusing cash is not accepting legal tender for all debts public and private. I raised that issue and my local shop does now take cash.

by pdonis 5y ago

throwaway22032 5y ago

Nah, you're just not thinking about it. Trivial solution: I walk to bank some day once a month, give them cash, give them account numbers, sent. It'd be done in all of ten minutes. Does it exist where you live? Maybe, maybe not. Hell, if I knew you I'd do it for you, I'd enjoy obfuscating my accounts. And no-one is saying that literally every transaction has to be done in cash, just that it should be _possible_ to do so. The idea that cash is this hilariously inconvenient thing is a complete fabrication and I frankly tire of that discussion. You're talking about moving small physical things, it's a solved problem, everything around you right now is a small physical thing. edit: posters are responding about the businesses that exist in their area. by this token it's "inconvenient" for me to use cash because the japanese place down the road doesn't take it. well no, they're just being dicks, there's no _fundamental_ inconvenience.

bgirard 5y ago
I care barely drive to a bank within 10 minutes, which isn't the bank I have an account with. It's only open during my work hours (9-5pm M-F), or I have to go on a Saturday. The wait time to see a clerk alone are often 10 minutes or more. And the clerk can't help me make certain payments that require me to use a web portal or mail a cheque. > The idea that cash is this hilariously inconvenient thing is a complete fabrication. That's a strong statement without considering that your experience might not match others'.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bugbuddy 5y ago
  >> The idea that cash is this hilariously inconvenient thing is a complete fabrication. >That's a strong statement without considering that your experience might not match others'. IMHO, both the original statement and the respond are opinions. It may well be the case that cash is universally not “hilariously inconvenient.” Without some empirical evidence, it is just a shouting match. In my opinion, cash is actually very convenient to use and encourages reflections on spending habits.
  - throwaway22032 5y ago
    Nah, we're just not talking about the same thing. He's saying that using cash is inconvenient because no-one uses cash where he is. I'm saying that it's not because at its' core it's fundamentally just handing over a bit of paper. It's not a statement about how many people accept cash where I am. I can't easily pay my mortgage with cash directly either. The point is that it's not an insurmountably difficult thing. There also seems to be this bonkers strawman thing going on whereby loads of people seem to think I'm saying "don't ever make a non-cash transaction" which is bloody stupid. It's like, _a priori obvious_ that it's stupid. I hate this aspect of online discourse - if the thing you think I'm saying logically makes no sense, then I probably am not actually saying that thing.
    - pdonis 5y ago
      > He's saying that using cash is inconvenient because no-one uses cash where he is. No, I'm not. I'm saying using cash is inconvenient for me for things like paying my monthly bills because it would require me to physically go to each individual company I pay bills to and pay them in person. Whereas with a credit card I can pay all my monthly bills in a few minutes from my desk at home. Even if my utility company, for example, would accept cash in payment (as they probably would since most companies offering basic services like that are required by law to accept cash), I wouldn't do it because of the huge increase it would be in time and effort every month. I have better things to do with my time than schlep around all over the place to pay bills in person. > I can't easily pay my mortgage with cash directly either. The point is that it's not an insurmountably difficult thing. You're shifting your ground. Before you were saying that using cash wasn't inconvenient. Now you're saying it is for some things, like paying your mortgage. Which is exactly my point.
pdonis 5y ago
> Trivial solution: I walk to bank some day once a month, give them cash, give them account numbers, sent. It'd be done in all of ten minutes. I've never heard of any bank offering that service. > no-one is saying that literally every transaction has to be done in cash, just that it should be _possible_ to do so. Agreed. But it should also be recognized that there are many people who have good reasons to use payment methods other than cash in many situations. > The idea that cash is this hilariously inconvenient thing is a complete fabrication No one is claiming that cash is always inconvenient. Just that for many people in many situations, it is. > You're talking about moving small physical things If I have to go pay my bills in person, I have to move me, not just some pieces of paper. And if I pay my bills electronically while I'm sitting at my desk at home, I don't have to move anything at all.
- ddingus 5y ago
  >No one is claiming that cash is always inconvenient. Just that for many people in many situations, it is. So don't use it. Non issue right? Otherwise, dealing with the public comes with some costs. The benefit is being able to do business and turn a profit. Picking and choosing is an abuse of the public.
- throwaway22032 5y ago
  Sure, if you sit at your desk all month, never visit a high street, and also can't use a postbox, this is an unsolvable problem. Got me. I'm out yo, physical interactions are better than this GPT-3 shite.
  - bgirard 5y ago
    We don't have high streets here. All my adjacent banks are in the middle of a parking lot not near anything else I'd want to interact with during my precious Saturday except maybe the grocery store. Sure that's a bad design and I'd prefer to live near UK high streets but that's beyond my control here. This has nothing to do with sitting at my desk. Using cash would mean spending my Saturday at one of the least interesting location I can think of.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

freedomben 5y ago

Just because a business has to accept cash, does not mean every transaction must be cash.

AdrianB1 5y ago

> I benefit quite a lot from not having to use cash. And you lose nothing by having more options, including cash. Nobody said you need to pay only with cash.

zem 5y ago

there's a huge difference between not having to use cash and having not to use cash

ddingus 5y ago

Refusing cash is not the same as being able to not use a card. The shop refusing cash is not accepting legal tender for all debts public and private. I raised that issue and my local shop does now take cash.