3 ms·

I cannot get paid by my company without a bank account. No company would pay me my salary in cash. A bank account is no longer optional if you want to live a no

I cannot get paid by my company without a bank account. No company would pay me my salary in cash. A bank account is no longer optional if you want to live a normal life.

SllX 3y ago
If they issue you a check you can take it to the banking institution listed on the check and they will honor it. The downside is, now you’re dealing with cash (and some companies went DD only a long time ago).
- toast0 3y ago
  Most banks (in the US) will charge the presenter a fee to cash a check drawn on an account they service. [1] It's reasonable to demand that your employer make your whole pay (less withholdings) available to you, and if you are unable to maintain a bank account, and their bank charges a fee to honor checks, that's not really reasonable if you are paid by check. [1] https://www.mybanktracker.com/news/check-cashing-fees-top-banks https://www.mybanktracker.com/news/check-cashing-fees-top-ba...
- robocat 3y ago
  For the moment. New Zealand doesn't have cheques any more. Banks here totally phased them out a couple of years back. The USA will also make checks obsolete over time. Plus cash is disliked at many retailers and cash is not acceptable at some locations (e.g. my skifield only accepts cards - I was told it is because the nearest small-town bank won't accept cash deposits from the skifield). I suspect our government will slowly discourage cash 1. to prevent tax evasion (cash jobs), and 2. to prevent illegal purchases (e.g. weed). Those are the main uses for cash that I personally see others use cash for (I use cash because I like using it and I like privacy).
  - SllX 3y ago
    I wouldn’t necessarily expect us to follow New Zealand’s example. We’ve accumulated a lot of methods for exchanging money without really discarding any in particular. New Zealand is a small country way out in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean 2.5K miles (or over 4K kilometers) away from its nearest neighbor and with a population smaller than NYC. The United States is 50 stubborn ass States plus the Fed’s occupation in southern Maryland. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand has an address in Wellington, is owned by the New Zealand government and answerable to Parliament. The Federal Reserve system isn’t even a single bank with a single board of directors, isn’t wholly owned by the US Government and isn’t directly answerable to Congress. There’s no easy way to make a lazy comparison between us and have it be convincing. Parts of the Federal Government would likely love to see the United States become a cashless society but they don’t always get what they want.
    - robocat 3y ago
      > with a population smaller than NYC Australia has a population bigger than NYC and "Australia is set to be a cheque-less society by the end of the decade, if the federal government has its way." Zealand has a population and land area similar to Oregon. Might as well say NZ has a much bigger population than Wyoming - NYC is irrelevant. Cheques have slowly disappeared because of economic reasons: the transaction costs/risks involved, and because electronic transfers have benefits. The economic forces are likely similar in the states. I believe the change has little to do with the NZ government nor the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
      - SllX 3y ago
        Kinda missing the forest for the trees here. What I’m driving at is that New Zealand and the United States are not easily comparable and just because New Zealand is doing a thing it does not follow that the United States also shall successfully pursue and accomplish the same policy objectives. Even a straight comparison between Australia and New Zealand is difficult and both their system of government and their banking system are closer in form with each other than with the United States, and there's a lot fewer people in a lot fewer places to just straight up disagree and subvert the efforts and policy objectives of the Federal Government, no matter what they may be. If a Presidential candidate ever did make it a platform issue, you could probably expect his opponents to take the opposite approach. What the United States lacks is the kind of central control that a Westminster-style of government can exercise, even over cash money and checks, and there are a lot more institutions with some say over the continued prevalence of cash so even as its usage declines it is unlikely to completely disappear even in our lifetimes. Even if Chase stops giving their customers checkbooks, it doesn’t mean M&T will, and even if M&T does, it doesn’t mean there won’t be a bank that makes it a point to offer free checkbooks as a value add to small business owners that want to continue issuing paper checks to their employees. The form money takes here tends to be additive, and it is rare for a system to ever completely disappear. I mean next on the chopping block is probably Zelle followed by ACH of all things now that we have FedNow, and even that’s not necessarily going to happen.
        3y ago
sneak 3y ago
If a company wants to hire you, they will figure out a way to pay you. That’s an implementation detail. Paychecks are still a thing.
- macintux 3y ago
  Most people are not so desirable that a company will bend over backwards to work around something like this. Especially since they would likely assume that the person earned this punishment and thus is a risk to employ.
- ajb 3y ago
  A company may 'want' to hire you, but most companies also want their employees to be at least somewhat fungible. If you're too difficult to hire, they will look again.
Beijinger 3y ago
I vaguely remember this guy: https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/employers-gold-silver-payroll-standard-may-bring-hard-time/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/employers-gold-silver-pay...
PKop 3y ago
Even if they did, you would need to store that cash somewhere.

I cannot get paid by my company without a bank account. No company would pay me my salary in cash. A bank account is no longer optional if you want to live a normal life.

SllX 3y ago

If they issue you a check you can take it to the banking institution listed on the check and they will honor it. The downside is, now you’re dealing with cash (and some companies went DD only a long time ago).

toast0 3y ago
Most banks (in the US) will charge the presenter a fee to cash a check drawn on an account they service. [1] It's reasonable to demand that your employer make your whole pay (less withholdings) available to you, and if you are unable to maintain a bank account, and their bank charges a fee to honor checks, that's not really reasonable if you are paid by check. [1] https://www.mybanktracker.com/news/check-cashing-fees-top-banks https://www.mybanktracker.com/news/check-cashing-fees-top-ba...
robocat 3y ago
For the moment. New Zealand doesn't have cheques any more. Banks here totally phased them out a couple of years back. The USA will also make checks obsolete over time. Plus cash is disliked at many retailers and cash is not acceptable at some locations (e.g. my skifield only accepts cards - I was told it is because the nearest small-town bank won't accept cash deposits from the skifield). I suspect our government will slowly discourage cash 1. to prevent tax evasion (cash jobs), and 2. to prevent illegal purchases (e.g. weed). Those are the main uses for cash that I personally see others use cash for (I use cash because I like using it and I like privacy).
- SllX 3y ago
  I wouldn’t necessarily expect us to follow New Zealand’s example. We’ve accumulated a lot of methods for exchanging money without really discarding any in particular. New Zealand is a small country way out in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean 2.5K miles (or over 4K kilometers) away from its nearest neighbor and with a population smaller than NYC. The United States is 50 stubborn ass States plus the Fed’s occupation in southern Maryland. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand has an address in Wellington, is owned by the New Zealand government and answerable to Parliament. The Federal Reserve system isn’t even a single bank with a single board of directors, isn’t wholly owned by the US Government and isn’t directly answerable to Congress. There’s no easy way to make a lazy comparison between us and have it be convincing. Parts of the Federal Government would likely love to see the United States become a cashless society but they don’t always get what they want.
  - robocat 3y ago
    > with a population smaller than NYC Australia has a population bigger than NYC and "Australia is set to be a cheque-less society by the end of the decade, if the federal government has its way." Zealand has a population and land area similar to Oregon. Might as well say NZ has a much bigger population than Wyoming - NYC is irrelevant. Cheques have slowly disappeared because of economic reasons: the transaction costs/risks involved, and because electronic transfers have benefits. The economic forces are likely similar in the states. I believe the change has little to do with the NZ government nor the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.
    - SllX 3y ago
      Kinda missing the forest for the trees here. What I’m driving at is that New Zealand and the United States are not easily comparable and just because New Zealand is doing a thing it does not follow that the United States also shall successfully pursue and accomplish the same policy objectives. Even a straight comparison between Australia and New Zealand is difficult and both their system of government and their banking system are closer in form with each other than with the United States, and there's a lot fewer people in a lot fewer places to just straight up disagree and subvert the efforts and policy objectives of the Federal Government, no matter what they may be. If a Presidential candidate ever did make it a platform issue, you could probably expect his opponents to take the opposite approach. What the United States lacks is the kind of central control that a Westminster-style of government can exercise, even over cash money and checks, and there are a lot more institutions with some say over the continued prevalence of cash so even as its usage declines it is unlikely to completely disappear even in our lifetimes. Even if Chase stops giving their customers checkbooks, it doesn’t mean M&T will, and even if M&T does, it doesn’t mean there won’t be a bank that makes it a point to offer free checkbooks as a value add to small business owners that want to continue issuing paper checks to their employees. The form money takes here tends to be additive, and it is rare for a system to ever completely disappear. I mean next on the chopping block is probably Zelle followed by ACH of all things now that we have FedNow, and even that’s not necessarily going to happen.
      - 3y ago

sneak 3y ago

If a company wants to hire you, they will figure out a way to pay you. That’s an implementation detail. Paychecks are still a thing.

macintux 3y ago
Most people are not so desirable that a company will bend over backwards to work around something like this. Especially since they would likely assume that the person earned this punishment and thus is a risk to employ.
ajb 3y ago
A company may 'want' to hire you, but most companies also want their employees to be at least somewhat fungible. If you're too difficult to hire, they will look again.

Beijinger 3y ago

I vaguely remember this guy: https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/employers-gold-silver-payroll-standard-may-bring-hard-time/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/employers-gold-silver-pay...

PKop 3y ago

Even if they did, you would need to store that cash somewhere.