6 ms·

The answer to that is to help your citizens so they don't need to rob a Shake Shack, not to exclude even more people from enjoying Shake Shack while going surve

The answer to that is to help your citizens so they don't need to rob a Shake Shack, not to exclude even more people from enjoying Shake Shack while going surveillance mode on everyone's calorie intake

lotsofpulp 3y ago
That is not viable nor the responsibility of an individual business.
- noduerme 3y ago
  Businesses have a legal obligation to not discriminate against lots of recognized classes. Those without credit cards should be protected as well, because living in this country should not require you to participate in a debt-based system. If it did, it would be government of banks, not a democracy. Forcing people to have a bank account or a credit card to buy food enforces a monopoly on money.
  - jeltz 3y ago
    There are debit cards too.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    >Forcing people to have a bank account or a credit card to buy food enforces a monopoly on money. And allowing businesses to not accept cash allows them to streamline operations and offering products/services at a lower price. What does monopoly on money mean? Why didn’t Washington DC go out and invest in infrastructure to take cash from people and give them debit cards? Because that would leave the politicians more liable and the costs are easily visible. Much easier for them to punt the responsibility and costs to a small portion of the voting populace.
  - cycrutchfield 3y ago
    It’s an expensive burger restaurant, not a grocery store. Having a bank account and a debit card doesn’t mean “participating in a debt-based system”.
    - noduerme 3y ago
      Yea, both of those things mean participating in a debt-based system. If your money is all on loan from your credit card company, or in a bank that charges you fees to get it out, you literally have nothing. I don't give a flying fuck how expensive the hamburger is, the same thing applies to Dollar General or to tickets to the opera. A company FORCING consumers to use their money through a middle man bank creates a private currency that undermines the full faith and credit of the US government which itself is the only bulwark against mafias taking a piece of every transaction... and is only so because we have some say in its constitution. The government's assertion that we have a right to trade with its currency as opposed to that of a private bank is the assertion of our rights as citizens, not slaves to any given mafia or corporate power.
      - cycrutchfield 3y ago
        You must be using the wrong banks.
        noduerme 3y ago
        Are there retail banks in America which aren't run for profit? I wasn't aware. Should citizens be forced to keep their money with privately run institutions, which decide when and how and if they can access their money, in order to transact on the most basic level, in order to buy food? If so, the government effectively renounces its exclusive control of the currency. Why do countries print currency? For the settlement of debts public and private. It's not merely a civil rights issue. It's a core governmental function to provide a public and universally accepted instrument of trade. Governments which partner with privately run banks and coerce citizens into using those banks are inherently corrupt.
        cycrutchfield 3y ago
        This is like complaining that you need to buy a wallet or pants with pockets in order to carry cash, therefore the government has relinquished exclusive control over currency. No, they have not.
  - Ferret7446 3y ago
    There is no "forcing". If there is sufficient demand for paying with cash, then someone will start a business that accepts cash and charges more, thus making more profit. More people will start such businesses, driving down the price until the price accurately affects the additional risk plus market demand. If no such business exists, it is because the cost of the risk/hassle of dealing in cash is too high compared to the low market demand.
    - noduerme 3y ago
      This is akin to saying that if there were sufficient demand for free speech rights, privacy, or the abolition of slavery, markets would provide for those things - and that their removal is simply an economic function. Like, if enough people want handjobs from non-sex-trafficked sex workers, surely some massage parlors will open to cater to ethical customers, right? Markets do not guarantee civil rights, and they shouldn't be relied upon to do so. Moreover, their failure to do so should not be construed as a proof that broad enforcement of those rights would not improve both individual businesses and the wider economy. Nor should the economic impact be the sole reason for society to choose whether those rights are worth defending. By your logic, businesses can choose to refuse service on the basis of race because a certain race is poorer on average - and people from that race just have to hope they will be served by another business that comes along to hoover up their money. We as a civilization have decided that we don't want the market or a collection of individual businesses to make those sorts of decisions. Protecting people from predatory discrimination is the role of civil society and government, and why we make businesses conform to certain standards, whether they like it or not.
      - cycrutchfield 3y ago
        That’s a lot of words built on top of a rather flimsy assertion that using cash is a civil rights issue, which I don’t think any court has actually ruled on. It seems like a right that people have invented from thin air. The answer to people being unbanked is to make banking easier and less discriminatory. Not to force everybody to accept cash.
        3y ago
noduerme 3y ago
Not to mention that it's immoral to punish people for have no bank credit, and even leaving aside the ethical implications it creates a split-level society that pushes part of the population further toward desperation and crime. Banning cash to allegedly keep workers safe is the ultimate whitewashing of corporate greed at the expense of workers and the public. This is a good law.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  It's very strange that developing countries can go cashless, with everyone paying for everything on their smartphones, but a developed country like the US somehow can't.
  - dvngnt_ 3y ago
    the USD is much more important
  - noduerme 3y ago
    Countries with weak control over mostly worthless currencies reach a point where it's more profitable for their government ministers to take kickbacks from the banks providing cashless services than it is for them to run a printing press anymore. It's hardly progress. The US still hasn't hit quite that level of corruption, and still has some control over its monetary policy.
philwelch 3y ago
Nobody needs to rob a Shake Shack anyway. Robberies are not a product of need.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  If the perp needs fent and Shake Shack has cash that can be used to purchase fent, the robbery is a product of need.
  - bagels 3y ago
    Nobody needs fentanyl.
    - blackshaw 3y ago
      You do understand what the word "addiction" means, right?
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      They definitely “think” they need fent.
- lobf 3y ago
  What are robberies a product of?
  - telotortium 3y ago
    Greed.
    - lobf 3y ago
      Why are they correlated with low-income areas then? Surely greed is more or less evenly distributed in the population… do you think there might be a reason why robberies aren’t?
      - 3y ago
chii 3y ago
Shake Shack does not have the capacity to help a society. They do the only thing they can to in their power - remove the incentive for stealing. It is up to the gov't to enact policies (carrot or stick) to prevent robberies.
- wly_cdgr 3y ago
  I actually largely agree, although it is of course total nonsense that a highly successful business like Shake Shack does not have the capacity to help a society. However your observation is irrelevant.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

That is not viable nor the responsibility of an individual business.

noduerme 3y ago
Businesses have a legal obligation to not discriminate against lots of recognized classes. Those without credit cards should be protected as well, because living in this country should not require you to participate in a debt-based system. If it did, it would be government of banks, not a democracy. Forcing people to have a bank account or a credit card to buy food enforces a monopoly on money.
- jeltz 3y ago
  There are debit cards too.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  >Forcing people to have a bank account or a credit card to buy food enforces a monopoly on money. And allowing businesses to not accept cash allows them to streamline operations and offering products/services at a lower price. What does monopoly on money mean? Why didn’t Washington DC go out and invest in infrastructure to take cash from people and give them debit cards? Because that would leave the politicians more liable and the costs are easily visible. Much easier for them to punt the responsibility and costs to a small portion of the voting populace.
- cycrutchfield 3y ago
  It’s an expensive burger restaurant, not a grocery store. Having a bank account and a debit card doesn’t mean “participating in a debt-based system”.
  - noduerme 3y ago
    Yea, both of those things mean participating in a debt-based system. If your money is all on loan from your credit card company, or in a bank that charges you fees to get it out, you literally have nothing. I don't give a flying fuck how expensive the hamburger is, the same thing applies to Dollar General or to tickets to the opera. A company FORCING consumers to use their money through a middle man bank creates a private currency that undermines the full faith and credit of the US government which itself is the only bulwark against mafias taking a piece of every transaction... and is only so because we have some say in its constitution. The government's assertion that we have a right to trade with its currency as opposed to that of a private bank is the assertion of our rights as citizens, not slaves to any given mafia or corporate power.
    - cycrutchfield 3y ago
      You must be using the wrong banks.
      - noduerme 3y ago
        Are there retail banks in America which aren't run for profit? I wasn't aware. Should citizens be forced to keep their money with privately run institutions, which decide when and how and if they can access their money, in order to transact on the most basic level, in order to buy food? If so, the government effectively renounces its exclusive control of the currency. Why do countries print currency? For the settlement of debts public and private. It's not merely a civil rights issue. It's a core governmental function to provide a public and universally accepted instrument of trade. Governments which partner with privately run banks and coerce citizens into using those banks are inherently corrupt.
        cycrutchfield 3y ago
        This is like complaining that you need to buy a wallet or pants with pockets in order to carry cash, therefore the government has relinquished exclusive control over currency. No, they have not.
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  There is no "forcing". If there is sufficient demand for paying with cash, then someone will start a business that accepts cash and charges more, thus making more profit. More people will start such businesses, driving down the price until the price accurately affects the additional risk plus market demand. If no such business exists, it is because the cost of the risk/hassle of dealing in cash is too high compared to the low market demand.
  - noduerme 3y ago
    This is akin to saying that if there were sufficient demand for free speech rights, privacy, or the abolition of slavery, markets would provide for those things - and that their removal is simply an economic function. Like, if enough people want handjobs from non-sex-trafficked sex workers, surely some massage parlors will open to cater to ethical customers, right? Markets do not guarantee civil rights, and they shouldn't be relied upon to do so. Moreover, their failure to do so should not be construed as a proof that broad enforcement of those rights would not improve both individual businesses and the wider economy. Nor should the economic impact be the sole reason for society to choose whether those rights are worth defending. By your logic, businesses can choose to refuse service on the basis of race because a certain race is poorer on average - and people from that race just have to hope they will be served by another business that comes along to hoover up their money. We as a civilization have decided that we don't want the market or a collection of individual businesses to make those sorts of decisions. Protecting people from predatory discrimination is the role of civil society and government, and why we make businesses conform to certain standards, whether they like it or not.
    - cycrutchfield 3y ago
      That’s a lot of words built on top of a rather flimsy assertion that using cash is a civil rights issue, which I don’t think any court has actually ruled on. It seems like a right that people have invented from thin air. The answer to people being unbanked is to make banking easier and less discriminatory. Not to force everybody to accept cash.
      - 3y ago

noduerme 3y ago

Not to mention that it's immoral to punish people for have no bank credit, and even leaving aside the ethical implications it creates a split-level society that pushes part of the population further toward desperation and crime. Banning cash to allegedly keep workers safe is the ultimate whitewashing of corporate greed at the expense of workers and the public. This is a good law.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
It's very strange that developing countries can go cashless, with everyone paying for everything on their smartphones, but a developed country like the US somehow can't.
- dvngnt_ 3y ago
  the USD is much more important
- noduerme 3y ago
  Countries with weak control over mostly worthless currencies reach a point where it's more profitable for their government ministers to take kickbacks from the banks providing cashless services than it is for them to run a printing press anymore. It's hardly progress. The US still hasn't hit quite that level of corruption, and still has some control over its monetary policy.

philwelch 3y ago

Nobody needs to rob a Shake Shack anyway. Robberies are not a product of need.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
If the perp needs fent and Shake Shack has cash that can be used to purchase fent, the robbery is a product of need.
- bagels 3y ago
  Nobody needs fentanyl.
  - blackshaw 3y ago
    You do understand what the word "addiction" means, right?
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    They definitely “think” they need fent.
lobf 3y ago
What are robberies a product of?
- telotortium 3y ago
  Greed.
  - lobf 3y ago
    Why are they correlated with low-income areas then? Surely greed is more or less evenly distributed in the population… do you think there might be a reason why robberies aren’t?
    - 3y ago

chii 3y ago

Shake Shack does not have the capacity to help a society. They do the only thing they can to in their power - remove the incentive for stealing. It is up to the gov't to enact policies (carrot or stick) to prevent robberies.

wly_cdgr 3y ago
I actually largely agree, although it is of course total nonsense that a highly successful business like Shake Shack does not have the capacity to help a society. However your observation is irrelevant.