2 ms·

>The FDIC calls people without a bank account “the unbanked.” People with a bank account but who primarily rely on alternative services such as check cashing ou

by NaOH 3y ago

>The FDIC calls people without a bank account “the unbanked.” People with a bank account but who primarily rely on alternative services such as check cashing outlets are called “the underbanked.” >The next time you see a sign in a shop or restaurant window stating “No cash accepted,” you’re really looking at a business excluding many unbanked and underbanked people. Speaking of the US, I would like to know how much overlap there is between businesses that don't accept cash and people who are unbanked or underbanked. My limited exposure to no-cash businesses suggests these establishments are not losing/excluding customers as these were not places that would be patronized by un/underbanked consumers. But I'm not confident where I live and where I have seen this practice is indicative of generalizations.

karlgkk 3y ago
You're basically suggesting that underbanked or unbanked people shouldn't be able to shop somewhere just because they're not likely to. The bigger problem is that this may lead to a trend of haves and have nots, and if you have a fee heavy banking system that can choose to "fire" a customer, then you've got a serious issue where people can potentially be excluded from modern life _against their choice_. There are three reasonable fixes for this that are bandied about - Require industry to offer no-fee and no-overdraft checking accounts to low income residents. This is onerous for a lot of reasons, a main one being that it would force a lot of institutions to take on break-even customers. It would possibly manifest in the form of a single low-cost bank that the industry funds just for compliance. - Simple federal consumer banking services (in many countries, done through the post office). This would look like a simple checking account and debit card, with very few amenities or services. Many countries have had something like this, and although a lot of them have privatized since, they have strict regulations that view these services as a public good. - Require all businesses to take cash. I think this is the worst option, but that's a matter of opinion I suppose.

by NaOH 3y ago

karlgkk 3y ago

You're basically suggesting that underbanked or unbanked people shouldn't be able to shop somewhere just because they're not likely to. The bigger problem is that this may lead to a trend of haves and have nots, and if you have a fee heavy banking system that can choose to "fire" a customer, then you've got a serious issue where people can potentially be excluded from modern life _against their choice_. There are three reasonable fixes for this that are bandied about - Require industry to offer no-fee and no-overdraft checking accounts to low income residents. This is onerous for a lot of reasons, a main one being that it would force a lot of institutions to take on break-even customers. It would possibly manifest in the form of a single low-cost bank that the industry funds just for compliance. - Simple federal consumer banking services (in many countries, done through the post office). This would look like a simple checking account and debit card, with very few amenities or services. Many countries have had something like this, and although a lot of them have privatized since, they have strict regulations that view these services as a public good. - Require all businesses to take cash. I think this is the worst option, but that's a matter of opinion I suppose.