4 ms·

How are there so many comments that don't seem to understand you can have both. YOU can keep using cards for literally everything. Cash just need to exist and b

How are there so many comments that don't seem to understand you can have both. YOU can keep using cards for literally everything. Cash just need to exist and businesses should be forced to take it. That doesn't mean YOU have to use cash. YOU can live happily without it and use cards but the less well off should still have the right to use cash. But just because they may sometimes use cash that doesn't mean that YOU will be forced to carry cash. If cash exists that doesn't mean you have to use it. Why does it need to go into a permanent record that I gave my friend $10? Just to reiterate one last time... you can keep ignoring cash and live happily even if cash is around.

Nursie 5y ago
As a small business owner, why do I need to deal with the extra expense of taking cash? I need to hold a float, take security measures to protect it, take time to count up, take time to go to a physical bank to deposit, all sorts of extra costs in staffing or just plain time. And all for a fraction of a percentage of my customer base. It just doesn't make sense and I don't see why I should carry that burden.
- drsnow 5y ago
  It is a matter of principle.
  - undersuit 5y ago
    As a small business owner, why do I need to deal with the extra expense of accepting handicapped customers? I need to build a ramp, take preemptive measures to make it accessible in the weather, take time to wait for them to wheel across the office, take time to teach my employees how to be accommodating of them, all sorts of extra costs in staffing or just plain time. And all for a fraction of a percentage of my customer base. It just doesn't make sense and I don't see why I should carry that burden.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      And if we put 'black people' in there you could make me look like a racist too! Wow. There are many reasons your allegory doesn't apply - 'people who want to pay cash' are not a protected class. Serving people with disabilities doesn't put me at risk of theft either, nor does it increase my banking costs. You're going to have to show some pretty good evidence of a positive social outcome to make this persuasive, because it is adding a big burden to business. (And unbanked figures in the US are not that - US society is very backward in its attitudes to banking and payments, and in giving access to banking to everyone)
      - sneak 5y ago
        All protected classes are protected classes because society agreed that they should be and codified those beliefs into law. The argument that is being made is that people who want to pay cash should be a protected class, with their ability to transact protected in law, so that every participant in society may benefit from those rights should they ever be needed.
        Nursie 5y ago
        Indeed, and I'm saying there should be a damned good reason to force business to do it. Those others are damned good reasons. I'm not seeing it here.
      - undersuit 5y ago
        If you're not going to service black people I might just have to think you are a racist. Just like if you refuse to serve the handicapped or LGBTQ I might think you are bigoted. And if you refuse to service people that use cash I might also make some further assumptions.
        Nursie 5y ago
        Unspecified ones that aren't anything like those other categories then? Seems about right.
      - 5y ago
- zuzun 5y ago
  So cash not only grants people freedom and anonymity, it also creates local jobs instead of moving money as arbitrary transaction fees into the pockets of a credit card duopoly? Sounds terrible.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    No, it increases costs on business, which reduces the number of jobs available.
    - hamilyon2 5y ago
      Something just short-circuited here. So, plain act of talking money from your customer is... inefficiency? What kind of business are you thinking about? Online-only?
      - ausbah 5y ago
        I mean yes? the extra costs of handling cash when most business is digital are pretty easy to imagine
      - Nursie 5y ago
        > So, plain act of talking money from your customer is... inefficiency? Hey, bit of a late reply, but yes. You need to keep a float to provide change, you need security measures around your float and your takings. You have to count and reconcile the cash at the beginning and end of the day. Someone has to take it to the bank. Banks charge businesses for handling cash deposits. You need a cash register too! Which implies space as well as expense. There are many costs around a business taking cash. Clearly, taking cards isn't free either, but it's often missed when people moan about card fees that sure, if someone gives you the cash for your goods, you have the cash now. But you don't just stuff it in your pocket forever, and credit card fees often come in cheaper than the cash handling costs mentioned above. People like to say that hiding card fees is evil, and cash customers are subsidizing credit card prices, but often it's the reverse that's true. While there may not be a per-transaction charge you can point to, overall costs to a business for cash are non-negligible. Apparently this was a major driver behind the "Cashback" model in the UK in the 1990s when supermarkets started to be able to perform a cash withdrawal as part of your food purchasing transaction - it saved you a trip to the ATM, but more importantly for them it cut their handling costs and security requirements. I've interacted with a few IRL businesses that don't do cash at all. Many food vans in London when I worked there were operating with a phone and a square reader only. This morning I bought a doughnut from a new doughnut shop here in Western Australia, and they run the business from an iPad on a stand and a similar reader. Any lost business from not taking cash is clearly not important enough for them to take on the added costs and problems.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Nursie 5y ago

As a small business owner, why do I need to deal with the extra expense of taking cash? I need to hold a float, take security measures to protect it, take time to count up, take time to go to a physical bank to deposit, all sorts of extra costs in staffing or just plain time. And all for a fraction of a percentage of my customer base. It just doesn't make sense and I don't see why I should carry that burden.

drsnow 5y ago
It is a matter of principle.
- undersuit 5y ago
  As a small business owner, why do I need to deal with the extra expense of accepting handicapped customers? I need to build a ramp, take preemptive measures to make it accessible in the weather, take time to wait for them to wheel across the office, take time to teach my employees how to be accommodating of them, all sorts of extra costs in staffing or just plain time. And all for a fraction of a percentage of my customer base. It just doesn't make sense and I don't see why I should carry that burden.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    And if we put 'black people' in there you could make me look like a racist too! Wow. There are many reasons your allegory doesn't apply - 'people who want to pay cash' are not a protected class. Serving people with disabilities doesn't put me at risk of theft either, nor does it increase my banking costs. You're going to have to show some pretty good evidence of a positive social outcome to make this persuasive, because it is adding a big burden to business. (And unbanked figures in the US are not that - US society is very backward in its attitudes to banking and payments, and in giving access to banking to everyone)
    - sneak 5y ago
      All protected classes are protected classes because society agreed that they should be and codified those beliefs into law. The argument that is being made is that people who want to pay cash should be a protected class, with their ability to transact protected in law, so that every participant in society may benefit from those rights should they ever be needed.
      - Nursie 5y ago
        Indeed, and I'm saying there should be a damned good reason to force business to do it. Those others are damned good reasons. I'm not seeing it here.
    - undersuit 5y ago
      If you're not going to service black people I might just have to think you are a racist. Just like if you refuse to serve the handicapped or LGBTQ I might think you are bigoted. And if you refuse to service people that use cash I might also make some further assumptions.
      - Nursie 5y ago
        Unspecified ones that aren't anything like those other categories then? Seems about right.
    - 5y ago
zuzun 5y ago
So cash not only grants people freedom and anonymity, it also creates local jobs instead of moving money as arbitrary transaction fees into the pockets of a credit card duopoly? Sounds terrible.
- Nursie 5y ago
  No, it increases costs on business, which reduces the number of jobs available.
  - hamilyon2 5y ago
    Something just short-circuited here. So, plain act of talking money from your customer is... inefficiency? What kind of business are you thinking about? Online-only?
    - ausbah 5y ago
      I mean yes? the extra costs of handling cash when most business is digital are pretty easy to imagine
    - Nursie 5y ago
      > So, plain act of talking money from your customer is... inefficiency? Hey, bit of a late reply, but yes. You need to keep a float to provide change, you need security measures around your float and your takings. You have to count and reconcile the cash at the beginning and end of the day. Someone has to take it to the bank. Banks charge businesses for handling cash deposits. You need a cash register too! Which implies space as well as expense. There are many costs around a business taking cash. Clearly, taking cards isn't free either, but it's often missed when people moan about card fees that sure, if someone gives you the cash for your goods, you have the cash now. But you don't just stuff it in your pocket forever, and credit card fees often come in cheaper than the cash handling costs mentioned above. People like to say that hiding card fees is evil, and cash customers are subsidizing credit card prices, but often it's the reverse that's true. While there may not be a per-transaction charge you can point to, overall costs to a business for cash are non-negligible. Apparently this was a major driver behind the "Cashback" model in the UK in the 1990s when supermarkets started to be able to perform a cash withdrawal as part of your food purchasing transaction - it saved you a trip to the ATM, but more importantly for them it cut their handling costs and security requirements. I've interacted with a few IRL businesses that don't do cash at all. Many food vans in London when I worked there were operating with a phone and a square reader only. This morning I bought a doughnut from a new doughnut shop here in Western Australia, and they run the business from an iPad on a stand and a similar reader. Any lost business from not taking cash is clearly not important enough for them to take on the added costs and problems.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]