4 ms·

I certainly would not mind similar provisions in law in the US.

reaperducer 3y ago
I certainly would not mind similar provisions in law in the US. I agree. Every time I see a sign that says "We're cashless!" I read it as "We're racist!" If the very minimal burden of handling cash is going to ruin your business, you're not a business. You're a hobby.
- bruce511 3y ago
  It'll vary from place to place, but dealing with cash can be quite an expensive exercise. There are costs to depositing it for example. Plus there's a whole layer of security that happens when you have cash on the premises. If you have employees, cash also makes it much (much) easier for theft, fraud, tax evasion, and so on. It's pretty easy for employees to skim cash if it's coming and going. If the "cash" part of the business is small compared to the rest then it makes (business) sense to simply eliminate that. I agree with you though that it has an unequal effect on different groups of people. And yes, the un-banked (and that typically means the poorer segment of society) tend to be the most affected.
  - reaperducer 3y ago
    And yet millions of businesses have figured out how to make it work for the last thousand years. Cashless advocates are always talking about how "expensive" cash is, but never quantify it. Is handling cash more expensive than credit card fees, for example? If it were, businesses like supermarkets that operate on 1-2% margins wouldn't take cash. But they do. Some near me take cash freely, but charge extra to use debit cards. (For some reason, credit cards incur no fee.) It's like the banks have used fear to institutionalize extortion. "Think of all these horrible things that might possibly happen to your business. Damed shame if one of these exceedingly unlikely things was to happen. Now if you give us 3% off your sales, we can make all that disappear..."
    - peterfirefly 3y ago
      Are businesses allowed to defend themselves in all states in the US these days? What will happen to thieves -- will they be released by the courts? will the police even bother to come and collect them if the businesses have caught them?
      - reaperducer 3y ago
        Regardless of what internet-addicted fear mongers might have you believe, the United States has not evolved into a state of lawlessness. A quick look at any local court docket shows that thieves still get caught, prosecuted, and imprisoned. Real life is very different from sensationalist internet blogspam headlines.
        twiddling 3y ago
        It depends on the value of cash/goods stolen in some states.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        Cash registers are essentially a vault and all an employee has to do to protect the money inside is to close the drawer. Self-checkout machines are even better, because there is no "drawer" and they only spit out money as change, which is never more than the amount you put in.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
      I'm going to make a really shitty analogy because I'm bored. Cash = chamber pot / outhouse Electronic payments = modern plumbing People shat for millennia without modern plumbing. Installing and maintaining modern plumbing often requires external expertise who will wish to be paid for their services. In developed countries, the modern plumbing also needs to connect to public infrastructure and comply with a variety of regulations. By choosing modern plumbing over chamber pots, we got rid of some issues pretty much entirely (monetary analogies in parentheses)... - No one has to empty the shit bucket / shovel dirt in the hole (the business does not need to send an employee to the bank with a money bag) - No one has to smell the shit of the previous user/customer (no one has to handle physical objects that may have had an interesting and/or disgusting journey prior [0] [1]) - Massive reduction in fecal-borne illnesses (reduced employee theft, fraud potential) Day to day, I'm sure the outhouse is "cheaper" than toilets. I'll take all the benefits of modern plumbing. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9aM_dT5VMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9aM_dT5VMI [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency
- arlcode 3y ago
  What Europe has since a few year though is a right to a bank account. Banks must offer basic accounts to anybody (at nondiscriminatory pricing) and unless it's used for fraud or if the fee cannot be paid isn't allowed to close it. That certainly helps.
  - BiteCode_dev 3y ago
    It helps with accessibility, not with the problem that cashless is dangerous for democracy. Everytime you pay anything with something else than cash, it is recorded: the amount, the time, the place, and the nature of the thing you buy. There is no way to go to a gay bar (or another place loaded with consequences) without a trace. And this is needed for human dignity. There is way to support a controversial political movement without a trace. And this is necessary for new idea to come up. There is not way for kids to do dumb things without a trace. And this is necessary for growing. There is no way to pay for something when electricity or network goes down. And this is necessary to deal with crisis. Basically, cash buys humanity margin of maneuver, and a fallback against any decaying societal or technical system.
    - mdp2021 3y ago
      Yes but some points have priorities: -- "Every exchange will leave a full track - where, when, what" already should raise a "you'd better be joking". -- Failsafe fallback: a system depending on running infrastructure (electricity, internet, servers etc.) is badly conceived.
    - reaperducer 3y ago
      There is no way to pay for something when electricity or network goes down. And this is necessary to deal with crisis. I've noticed that the loudest voices in favor of getting rid of cash usually seem to live in places that have few, if any, natural disasters.
      - mdp2021 3y ago
        > natural disasters Infrastructure does not fail only because of natural disasters.
- cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
  It's more like "We don't serve homeless people or the unbanked." It is correlated with race but it's unlikely to be a dogwhistle for racism as many cashless establishments are neuvo liberal. An example is downtown Austin there's a popular cashless place called "Local Foods" that's more hipster than hobby.
  - klntsky 3y ago
    I see no contradiction here. A hipster place certainly would not want to let the homeless in to ruin the vibe.
- forgotusername6 3y ago
  As a counter to this, every time I see a sign saying "cash only", I think they are dodging tax. Though to your point on handling cash being a cost, surely credit card charges are more than the cost of handling cash?
  - tmn 3y ago
    Taxes (illegal) and transaction processing fees (legal)

I certainly would not mind similar provisions in law in the US. I agree. Every time I see a sign that says "We're cashless!" I read it as "We're racist!" If the very minimal burden of handling cash is going to ruin your business, you're not a business. You're a hobby.

bruce511 3y ago
It'll vary from place to place, but dealing with cash can be quite an expensive exercise. There are costs to depositing it for example. Plus there's a whole layer of security that happens when you have cash on the premises. If you have employees, cash also makes it much (much) easier for theft, fraud, tax evasion, and so on. It's pretty easy for employees to skim cash if it's coming and going. If the "cash" part of the business is small compared to the rest then it makes (business) sense to simply eliminate that. I agree with you though that it has an unequal effect on different groups of people. And yes, the un-banked (and that typically means the poorer segment of society) tend to be the most affected.
- reaperducer 3y ago
  And yet millions of businesses have figured out how to make it work for the last thousand years. Cashless advocates are always talking about how "expensive" cash is, but never quantify it. Is handling cash more expensive than credit card fees, for example? If it were, businesses like supermarkets that operate on 1-2% margins wouldn't take cash. But they do. Some near me take cash freely, but charge extra to use debit cards. (For some reason, credit cards incur no fee.) It's like the banks have used fear to institutionalize extortion. "Think of all these horrible things that might possibly happen to your business. Damed shame if one of these exceedingly unlikely things was to happen. Now if you give us 3% off your sales, we can make all that disappear..."
  - peterfirefly 3y ago
    Are businesses allowed to defend themselves in all states in the US these days? What will happen to thieves -- will they be released by the courts? will the police even bother to come and collect them if the businesses have caught them?
    - reaperducer 3y ago
      Regardless of what internet-addicted fear mongers might have you believe, the United States has not evolved into a state of lawlessness. A quick look at any local court docket shows that thieves still get caught, prosecuted, and imprisoned. Real life is very different from sensationalist internet blogspam headlines.
      - twiddling 3y ago
        It depends on the value of cash/goods stolen in some states.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      Cash registers are essentially a vault and all an employee has to do to protect the money inside is to close the drawer. Self-checkout machines are even better, because there is no "drawer" and they only spit out money as change, which is never more than the amount you put in.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 3y ago
    I'm going to make a really shitty analogy because I'm bored. Cash = chamber pot / outhouse Electronic payments = modern plumbing People shat for millennia without modern plumbing. Installing and maintaining modern plumbing often requires external expertise who will wish to be paid for their services. In developed countries, the modern plumbing also needs to connect to public infrastructure and comply with a variety of regulations. By choosing modern plumbing over chamber pots, we got rid of some issues pretty much entirely (monetary analogies in parentheses)... - No one has to empty the shit bucket / shovel dirt in the hole (the business does not need to send an employee to the bank with a money bag) - No one has to smell the shit of the previous user/customer (no one has to handle physical objects that may have had an interesting and/or disgusting journey prior [0] [1]) - Massive reduction in fecal-borne illnesses (reduced employee theft, fraud potential) Day to day, I'm sure the outhouse is "cheaper" than toilets. I'll take all the benefits of modern plumbing. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9aM_dT5VMI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9aM_dT5VMI [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency
arlcode 3y ago
What Europe has since a few year though is a right to a bank account. Banks must offer basic accounts to anybody (at nondiscriminatory pricing) and unless it's used for fraud or if the fee cannot be paid isn't allowed to close it. That certainly helps.
- BiteCode_dev 3y ago
  It helps with accessibility, not with the problem that cashless is dangerous for democracy. Everytime you pay anything with something else than cash, it is recorded: the amount, the time, the place, and the nature of the thing you buy. There is no way to go to a gay bar (or another place loaded with consequences) without a trace. And this is needed for human dignity. There is way to support a controversial political movement without a trace. And this is necessary for new idea to come up. There is not way for kids to do dumb things without a trace. And this is necessary for growing. There is no way to pay for something when electricity or network goes down. And this is necessary to deal with crisis. Basically, cash buys humanity margin of maneuver, and a fallback against any decaying societal or technical system.
  - mdp2021 3y ago
    Yes but some points have priorities: -- "Every exchange will leave a full track - where, when, what" already should raise a "you'd better be joking". -- Failsafe fallback: a system depending on running infrastructure (electricity, internet, servers etc.) is badly conceived.
  - reaperducer 3y ago
    There is no way to pay for something when electricity or network goes down. And this is necessary to deal with crisis. I've noticed that the loudest voices in favor of getting rid of cash usually seem to live in places that have few, if any, natural disasters.
    - mdp2021 3y ago
      > natural disasters Infrastructure does not fail only because of natural disasters.
cvccvroomvroom 3y ago
It's more like "We don't serve homeless people or the unbanked." It is correlated with race but it's unlikely to be a dogwhistle for racism as many cashless establishments are neuvo liberal. An example is downtown Austin there's a popular cashless place called "Local Foods" that's more hipster than hobby.
- klntsky 3y ago
  I see no contradiction here. A hipster place certainly would not want to let the homeless in to ruin the vibe.
forgotusername6 3y ago
As a counter to this, every time I see a sign saying "cash only", I think they are dodging tax. Though to your point on handling cash being a cost, surely credit card charges are more than the cost of handling cash?
- tmn 3y ago
  Taxes (illegal) and transaction processing fees (legal)