3 ms·

The right move here would be to force banks to accept them and/or as a society pay for a system where they get access to electronic money. Basically make the e

The right move here would be to force banks to accept them and/or as a society pay for a system where they get access to electronic money. Basically make the effort to move forward, not make the pledge to stay behind forever.

throw0101b 2y ago
> The right move here would be to force banks to accept them and/or as a society pay for a system where they get access to electronic money. It's not just about forcing banks, but also about the people trusting banks and institutions, which have historically not been kind to (say) black people. Lots of folks could perhaps (e.g.) not be able to keep minimum balances that would avoid monthly service fees, then you get dinged for NSF, but of course you can pay for overdraft coverage. It's why some suggest (government) post office accounts are a useful tool for dealing with this: profit is not a motive, so all of these hoops can hopefully be avoided.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  On the trust of the institutions part, this is sadly true, there's a lot of baggage. In this day and age I think that ship has sailed, in that it's hell to try to live without a smart phone and online payment. Missing a payment because they needed to go pay cash on friday evening and couldn't make it, phoning around to find on duty doctor on a saturday night etc. are things that will become more and more of a hurdle as vulnerable people make the move to the more beneficial online equivalents. Too many critical things are already impractical to deal with the old ways. Some EU countries force banks to provide minimum service to anyone with a valid identity. The good part is these accounts have no checking service nor overdraft possibility (any action is done in real time towards the actual account balance, there's no payment coming it two days after the fact with no money to clear it, and anything that bounced is just unpaid, with no additional punishment on the bank side). The bad part is the service provided is really minimal and online banking will often not be included, and at best will be an extra fee depending on the bank.

throw0101b 2y ago

> The right move here would be to force banks to accept them and/or as a society pay for a system where they get access to electronic money. It's not just about forcing banks, but also about the people trusting banks and institutions, which have historically not been kind to (say) black people. Lots of folks could perhaps (e.g.) not be able to keep minimum balances that would avoid monthly service fees, then you get dinged for NSF, but of course you can pay for overdraft coverage. It's why some suggest (government) post office accounts are a useful tool for dealing with this: profit is not a motive, so all of these hoops can hopefully be avoided.

makeitdouble 2y ago
On the trust of the institutions part, this is sadly true, there's a lot of baggage. In this day and age I think that ship has sailed, in that it's hell to try to live without a smart phone and online payment. Missing a payment because they needed to go pay cash on friday evening and couldn't make it, phoning around to find on duty doctor on a saturday night etc. are things that will become more and more of a hurdle as vulnerable people make the move to the more beneficial online equivalents. Too many critical things are already impractical to deal with the old ways. Some EU countries force banks to provide minimum service to anyone with a valid identity. The good part is these accounts have no checking service nor overdraft possibility (any action is done in real time towards the actual account balance, there's no payment coming it two days after the fact with no money to clear it, and anything that bounced is just unpaid, with no additional punishment on the bank side). The bad part is the service provided is really minimal and online banking will often not be included, and at best will be an extra fee depending on the bank.