5 ms·

A thing I try to keep as a through line in discussing legacy infrastructure, and checks in the U.S. are definitely legacy infrastructure, is both a) how we ende

A thing I try to keep as a through line in discussing legacy infrastructure, and checks in the U.S. are definitely legacy infrastructure, is both a) how we ended up here despite later-generation systems getting to leapfrog off what earlier-ones learned and b) why people still use wlog checks instead of going with other methods that they could also choose to use, in 2024. For example, in this issue, a major reason why some people don't do value transfer through banks directly is the banks don't really like them (for reasons), the feeling is mutual (for reasons), and other people who do not have the same POV re: banks want to give those people money in a scaled fashion, which (unless they orient their operations around a solution) will frequently involve sending out checks.

ggm 3y ago
"for reasons" is doing all the heavy lifting here. I think the whole point of this series is to lift the tablecloth a bit and look at the dust bunnies underneath.
- Swizec 3y ago
  Just in case you didn't notice: patio11, author of the comment you're replying to, is also the author behind BitsAboutMoney, the source of this article/series.
  - ggm 3y ago
    Thank you I did not realise. But, noting that I don't think it alters the intent of my comment much. For reasons
  - adolph 3y ago
    Heh, I didn’t notice it was him but when scanning through the comment noticed the “(for reasons)” and was wondering if that was some subcultural or regional dialect that so perfectly mimicked patio11.
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  He does that. He's simply eliding the explanation in his comment here, because he explained both of those things in the article. The "reasons" he elided are: * Banks don't want to do business with these particular people because they know them to be a bad business risk. They often know, via credit reporting methods, that the specific individual human standing before them has a history of cashing bad checks/committing fraud/whatever it is. Therefore, they decline to work with that person. * The people who are bad risks for banks get rather tired of dealing with banks, both because constant rejection is tiresome and because bank employees make it very clear (though unspoken explicitly) that they are persona non grata there. By contrast, the people at the check cashing shop treat them better, so they would rather take their financial business there. I get why you want the explanations and not just "for reasons", but both of these points are quite clearly spelled out in the article. So I don't really think the author deserves the grief you're giving him in this case.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    >They often know, via credit reporting methods, that the specific individual human standing before them has a history of cashing bad checks/committing fraud/whatever it is. This wouldn't even be an issue if America didn't still rely on the utterly archaic check scheme for transferring money.
    - JoshTriplett 3y ago
      > This wouldn't even be an issue if America didn't still rely on the utterly archaic check scheme for transferring money. It still will be for as long as many people cannot get and maintain a free bank account that is usable for transferring funds via whatever scheme you envision replacing checks. And the property that checks have, namely that some percentage of them get unwound for various reasons and that percentage varies substantially by customer, is very hard to get rid of. As long as that property exists, access to a bank account that provides that mechanism will be an extension of credit and thus not universally available. It's possible that a system for instant payment clearance, like FedNow, might reduce the problem of insufficient funds and similar clearance issues. However, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of bad/fraudulent/etc checks, just reduce it.
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  But the dust bunnies are with cheques. There is no bounce risk with a bank transfer. There is no identity risk. The money goes or it doesn’t. There is fraud risk, money laundering and terrorism etc. “risk” (airquotes because, HSBC) But most of the shit it is gone with a bank transfer. The problem is poor people would need to pay for their bank (as banks need to make money other ways and from the middle class that will be credit cards and mortgages etc.)
Terr_ 3y ago
> why people still use wlog [?] checks instead of going with other methods that they could also choose to use, in 2024. Anecdotally, I wrote a check to my landlord yesterday, because a few months back they claimed they never got the automatic bill-pay from my bank, and my bank said it was already sent, and weeks later my bank said the recipient refused to take it... Anyway, no party was ever able to tell me why an automated process that worked unattended for months suddenly stopped working for no discernible reason.
- bigstrat2003 3y ago
  I write checks to my handyman, because he takes either check or Venmo. And Venmo refuses to validate my bank account. I never see the test deposit show up, and on the Venmo side it just says "try again later". So, checks it is. Say what you will about writing checks, but they are reliable in a way that digital payments aren't.
- supertrope 3y ago
  Bill pay adds several middlemen. Before there was each party’s bank and the postal service. Now there’s the bank’s bill pay department which is sometimes contracted out. The actual printing and mailing of the check is usually contracted out. The bill pay service sometimes tries to be smart about binding an address to a name and sometimes autocorrects to the wrong address. Finally checks always have human error on the part of the two meat bags that are the payer and payee (threw out envelope or let it fall off their table and under a couch).
  - niij 3y ago
    Bill Pay systems just mail checks?
    - ZekeSulastin 3y ago
      That's usually the fallback method in case they can't find some way to do an electronic transfer.
    - JoshTriplett 3y ago
eep_social 3y ago
The banks didn’t do themselves any favors with Zelle either. All they had to do was make a nice copy of paypal/venmo/cashapp/etc but they inexplicably did not, and now we have the meme that Zelle is mostly fraud. In my experience the implementations are horrific and don’t integrate with anything else my bank is doing so I do t feel comfortable pushing people to use it rather than paypal or venmo.
- bombcar 3y ago
  As a payment method approaches irreversibility it attracts more and more fraud. The main thing Zelle gives us normal plebs is the ability to pay via routing numbers to businesses without incurring fees. Possible before, easy now.

ggm 3y ago

"for reasons" is doing all the heavy lifting here. I think the whole point of this series is to lift the tablecloth a bit and look at the dust bunnies underneath.

Swizec 3y ago
Just in case you didn't notice: patio11, author of the comment you're replying to, is also the author behind BitsAboutMoney, the source of this article/series.
- ggm 3y ago
  Thank you I did not realise. But, noting that I don't think it alters the intent of my comment much. For reasons
- adolph 3y ago
  Heh, I didn’t notice it was him but when scanning through the comment noticed the “(for reasons)” and was wondering if that was some subcultural or regional dialect that so perfectly mimicked patio11.
bigstrat2003 3y ago
He does that. He's simply eliding the explanation in his comment here, because he explained both of those things in the article. The "reasons" he elided are: * Banks don't want to do business with these particular people because they know them to be a bad business risk. They often know, via credit reporting methods, that the specific individual human standing before them has a history of cashing bad checks/committing fraud/whatever it is. Therefore, they decline to work with that person. * The people who are bad risks for banks get rather tired of dealing with banks, both because constant rejection is tiresome and because bank employees make it very clear (though unspoken explicitly) that they are persona non grata there. By contrast, the people at the check cashing shop treat them better, so they would rather take their financial business there. I get why you want the explanations and not just "for reasons", but both of these points are quite clearly spelled out in the article. So I don't really think the author deserves the grief you're giving him in this case.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  >They often know, via credit reporting methods, that the specific individual human standing before them has a history of cashing bad checks/committing fraud/whatever it is. This wouldn't even be an issue if America didn't still rely on the utterly archaic check scheme for transferring money.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    > This wouldn't even be an issue if America didn't still rely on the utterly archaic check scheme for transferring money. It still will be for as long as many people cannot get and maintain a free bank account that is usable for transferring funds via whatever scheme you envision replacing checks. And the property that checks have, namely that some percentage of them get unwound for various reasons and that percentage varies substantially by customer, is very hard to get rid of. As long as that property exists, access to a bank account that provides that mechanism will be an extension of credit and thus not universally available. It's possible that a system for instant payment clearance, like FedNow, might reduce the problem of insufficient funds and similar clearance issues. However, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of bad/fraudulent/etc checks, just reduce it.
quickthrower2 3y ago
But the dust bunnies are with cheques. There is no bounce risk with a bank transfer. There is no identity risk. The money goes or it doesn’t. There is fraud risk, money laundering and terrorism etc. “risk” (airquotes because, HSBC) But most of the shit it is gone with a bank transfer. The problem is poor people would need to pay for their bank (as banks need to make money other ways and from the middle class that will be credit cards and mortgages etc.)

Terr_ 3y ago

> why people still use wlog [?] checks instead of going with other methods that they could also choose to use, in 2024. Anecdotally, I wrote a check to my landlord yesterday, because a few months back they claimed they never got the automatic bill-pay from my bank, and my bank said it was already sent, and weeks later my bank said the recipient refused to take it... Anyway, no party was ever able to tell me why an automated process that worked unattended for months suddenly stopped working for no discernible reason.

bigstrat2003 3y ago
I write checks to my handyman, because he takes either check or Venmo. And Venmo refuses to validate my bank account. I never see the test deposit show up, and on the Venmo side it just says "try again later". So, checks it is. Say what you will about writing checks, but they are reliable in a way that digital payments aren't.
supertrope 3y ago
Bill pay adds several middlemen. Before there was each party’s bank and the postal service. Now there’s the bank’s bill pay department which is sometimes contracted out. The actual printing and mailing of the check is usually contracted out. The bill pay service sometimes tries to be smart about binding an address to a name and sometimes autocorrects to the wrong address. Finally checks always have human error on the part of the two meat bags that are the payer and payee (threw out envelope or let it fall off their table and under a couch).
- niij 3y ago
  Bill Pay systems just mail checks?
  - ZekeSulastin 3y ago
    That's usually the fallback method in case they can't find some way to do an electronic transfer.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago

eep_social 3y ago

The banks didn’t do themselves any favors with Zelle either. All they had to do was make a nice copy of paypal/venmo/cashapp/etc but they inexplicably did not, and now we have the meme that Zelle is mostly fraud. In my experience the implementations are horrific and don’t integrate with anything else my bank is doing so I do t feel comfortable pushing people to use it rather than paypal or venmo.

bombcar 3y ago
As a payment method approaches irreversibility it attracts more and more fraud. The main thing Zelle gives us normal plebs is the ability to pay via routing numbers to businesses without incurring fees. Possible before, easy now.