I live in Oakland and it's getting more and more popular here in order to avoid theft. SF I think requires you to take cash as legal tender though so it's not allowed there.
> SF I think requires you to take cash as legal tender though so it's not allowed there.
I don't know anything specifically about SF, but just to note that the term "legal tender" specifically refers to payment for a debt. Since most retail business require payment before giving customers their goods, no debt is actually incurred. Table-service restaurants are a common exception to this, where you eat first and then pay, but counter-server restaurants often require you to pay up front when you make your order.
I can definitely name a few in Seattle off the top of my head that don't accept cash. 2 because they stopped during covid and never started back up. One because of robberies and break ins, so they've stopped keeping cash on site as a deterrent.
On the flip side, it has never been easier to become banked in the US.
Chime & Co. have lowered the entry difficulty for fundamental banking services for the poor. And loading cash is trivial, walk into any number of thousands of stores (such as Walgreens which charges no fee). You see these cards commonly used by poorer Americans across all of retail now.
Chime is not a bank; it’s a financial services company. This distinction is important: people who depend solely on bank-adjacent financial services are more likely to lack access to ordinary banking services for the reasons mentioned in the article.
That's well and good but isn't the article about the impact of businesses going cashless? I talk to a lot of homeless and other low income people through some work I do and they generally have a Venmo card or something like that and don't have an issue with cashless transactions.
I think there’s a reasonable observation to be made that these kinds of services companies have filled a historically underserved niche.
At the same time, they are fundamentally not banks and are not subject to a whole slew of consumer protection regulations that ensure reliable access to funds. Venmo and PayPal are both infamous for their capricious account suspension policies (which I have personally experienced).
That’s a long way of saying that it isn’t nothing, but is also not the best we can do. It also doesn’t necessarily guarantee service users access to retail (since the cards that come with these financial providers are typically tied to banks and accompanying KYC controls).
Chime isn't a bank... but they provide bank accounts via bank partners "Chime is a financial technology company, not a bank. Banking services are provided by The Bancorp Bank, N.A. or Stride Bank, N.A., Members FDIC". These bank accounts are still subject to all of the same regulations as any other bank account. Venmo and PayPal don't always store funds in real bank accounts, so they may have some different regulations for those funds, but they still have to comply with many of the same regulations.
Yep, that's the point in the last sentence: many of these financial services companies end up partnering with banks, but not for the "wallet" component of their services. The "wallet" part remains a relatively under-regulated financial product, while the debit card is only accessible to those who can pass KYC or otherwise meet the underlying bank's requirements.
To flip that flipside around again, the proliferation of MFA has disenfranchised folks who try to manage such accounts online. In order to login to an online service, you could sign up for a public computer in a library. But you'll also need your "Obamaphone" (that's charged, has service, and its screen is legible) to receive the security code.
It's more of a broad fear of change/technology/the modern age in Germany. Homeopathy is considered real medicine there even today. Physical paperwork for all of the bureaucracy, and of course the bureaucracy there is legendary. Credit cards fall under a similar umbrella.
Card-based transactions becoming so pervasive has made me wonder if countries should start redirecting their efforts to building nationalised payment infrastructure that would allow citizens to transact electronically with zero fees, rather than their main function being managing and printing physical currency. Maybe some countries have done this already, but in Australia at least we're basically building our entire payment infrastructure on top of Visa and Mastercard.
I know that; real-time interbank settlement is the first and necessary step for real-time consumer settlement. ACH, our current interbank system, is incapable of real-time settlement.
> ACH, our current interbank system, is incapable of real-time settlement.
This might be nitpicky given the outcome is the same, but: That was once true but is no longer the case. Nearly-instant and same-day ACH are available now, but not widely and not typically available directly to consumers.
Worse, is that Visa/MC/Paypal are "private" companies which can impose whatever religious slant they want, on whatever transactions they want, and your recourse as a consumer is "use the free market to pick a different payment processor".
Cash doesn't care if you're buying groceries or porn. Visa very much does.
Most things people assume the US government "does" is performed by contractors. Even program management may be outsourced to specialty firms. The more first-hand knowledge I gain about any department, the more I believe this is universal.
That's certainly the case. The problem is the legal and social framework hasn't caught up with the times. It wasn't that long ago that the government was small enough to be funded entirely by tariffs. Everything has been outsourced but it's still treated as not a government action so we get all sorts of nasty things like unaccountable private prisons.
This is the fundamentally most important issue. You should not be forced to use the services of any private company to get through the basics of life. It should be an option to choose between many, but also the option to choose none.
Cash is issues by the government, it's the same for all of use, anyone is free to use it. It can't be suspended or remotely wiped, cash transactions cannot be supervised (and thus sometimes blocked) by a third party.
You can grow your own food, or trade with a neighbor or buy at farmers markets etc. Also, there are thousands of options where to buy food so there is no corporation oligopoly that can ban you from buying food.
Same for clothing. Housing you pretty much always buy from a private individual, never from a corporation.
Contrast these to a dystopian world where you're only allowed to make transaction with a credit card but visa & mastercard (private megacorporations) decide to ban you. That's it, you're basically not part of society anymore. (Sure there's discover and amex but their acceptance in most places is low.)
Don't forget that Australia has EFTPOS and most debit cards are co-branded. The RBA is pushing for transactions to be routed over EFTPOS when possible [1].
And obviously, NPP continues to be rolled out: Osko is now widely available and PayTo [2] will be rolled out throughout 2024.
> if countries should start redirecting their efforts to building nationalised payment infrastructure that would allow citizens to transact electronically with zero fees
Already done in China, India, and Brazil, but they also largely sidestepped the Credit Card revolution.
Part of the problem with that is the lions' share of fees go towards managing a lot of fraud and contested payments. So it's one thing to build a payment infrastructure, but if you don't actively manage it to protect users then it's going to be a massive cesspool of abuse.
> A recent Bankrate survey shows basic monthly service fees range between $5 and $15. Beyond these steady fees, banks earn $4 to $5 each time people withdraw cash from an ATM or need services like getting cashier’s checks. Unexpected bills can result in overdraft fees of about $25 each time an account is overdrawn.
are there no free bank accounts in the US?
in the UK you can pay to be ripped off and have a "premium" bank account with added benefits such as crappy breakdown/mobile phone insurance
but most have a free bank account with no monthly fee
withdrawing from almost all ATMs is free (non-bank owned ones charge everyone, e.g. in an airport)
all but very large transfers (>£1 million) are free and instant
overdrafts are optional and it's difficult (but not impossible) to go overdrawn without one
There’s plenty of free bank accounts. Almost every bank offers them, too, or they’re free with stuff that the “average” person would do (ie, have 2 direct deposits per month).
Overdrafts are another story, many bank accounts allow overdrafts and even do predatory things to increase the amount of overdraft fees. Bank of America got sued for this behavior.
Even if they limit it to $3, which is much better, you can still do slimy things like process the large transaction first (say, a mortgage payment), then process all the little transactions afterwards, stacking overdraft fees for each one. This is what BofA got sued for. Can turn a $3 charge into $45 pretty quickly.
There are a multitude of banks (and Fintechs that offer accounts through bank partners) that have no overdraft fees. Many of these organizations don't care about ChexSystems/credit reports because they don't allow overdrafts to begin with and don't allow writing checks so you can't overdraw they account.
I am struggling to see a scenario where anyone in America doesn't have a bank account today out side of 1) They just don't want one. 2) The relatively rare, but devastating case of getting caught up in some overbearing AML/Government regulation that makes banks not want to open an account for you. 3) Lack of knowledge about what is available. 4) Maybe some one who has no smartphone, as many of these organizations require some kind of device to interface with them, as they don't have many physical branches... but cheap Android smartphones are readily available to most Americans...
In Germany, all banks have to offer you a girokonto regardless of your credit status or your occupancy - a basic account where you can deposit money, receive/send money and make payments from.
I want to highlight an adjacent point: The Bank Secrecy act was established in 1970 and the $10k back then had the same buying power as $78k now. Its fucking bullshit that this law has not been repealed. With crazy inflation over the past few years $10k of cash is a fairly trivial sum. In SF, if you paid 2 months of rent in advance your landlord would have to go through extra acrutiny.
Many have proposed having government-provided small-scale banking as an option, administered through the post office. It's a government office, with branches in every town, that already handles things like money orders.
Because banks aren't just "store houses of money", they play important roles in the flow and quantity of money. (Each time they lend money they create money money out of thin air.)
Which means there is risk in being a bank, as you probably remember from when a few banks failed a little while ago.
But if the fed was a bank, it would be risk free (how could the fed fail?). Which cause all sorts of trouble. The fed could take actions (loan risky money) without worry. Or they would not be permitted to loan money - but that would cause even bigger problems because it would restrict the money supply.
It's a neat historical anomaly but it is not very practical for most people to bank at. You have to be a North Dakota resident, they have one physical office in Bismarck North Dakota, and they do not provide online banking.
> Because of our unique structure as a state-owned bank, it is the Bank’s policy not to compete with the private sector for retail deposits. Therefore, convenience products such as debit cards, credit cards or online bill pay are not offered. BND has one location at 1200 Memorial Highway in Bismarck, North Dakota.
>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.
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.
I mean bank account get stolen by the government. They at least need lapdogs of the state to stomp their jackboots on the ground to take a bill out of your pocket.
Why? Because handling cash is expensive. You need to make trips to the bank (takes time + risk) to deposit, or you pay some company to do it for you (cost).
Positives: You don't need to deal with any of that.
Negatives: You can't take business from people who only have cash, but depending on what you're selling that might not really matter.
But that's what business is, work and risk... I'm surprised more American cities haven't outright banned the practice for businesses serving their public since it's so clearly a form of discrimination.
Cash is a nuisance for a small business. You're going to lose/miscount some not-insignificant percentage, and spend a lot of time and effort counting and storing it.
The benefit of accepting cash is, besides there being no processing costs, is that it makes it really easy to... uhhhh, fudge your revenue numbers. I've had a few cash transactions where I ask for a receipt from the business and the owner scowls at me.
> Other then 6 million people across the united states cannot buy from your shop.
Depending on the type of business you run, I can almost assure you these customers are not going to be in your target demographic.
> Depending on the type of business you run, I can almost assure you these customers are not going to be in your target demographic.
Don't be so sure. I'm plenty "banked" and will out of principle never buy anything from a place that does not take my cash.
Privacy is one of the most important freedoms we have and cash is absolutely vital to maintain that freedom.
The other vital freedom enabled by cash is the right to participate in commerce. With a third-party gated electronic payment, said third party (sometimes multiple third parties in the same transaction) all have a say on whether you get to spend your money or not. With cash, it's your money you spend it as you wish.
If privacy is important to you, prepaid debit cards are not a bad option.
I've also seen the extreme - in the part of the country I live it's not uncommon for people to pay for things like cars and houses with cash that they keep buried in their yards.
There is a lot of labor involved in counting and tracking cash in a retail business. You need to manage change, many businesses worry about cashiers stealing from the registers and thus have separate cash drawers for each cashier. Cash has to be secured against theft, you need to make deposits. All of this is much easier with electronic transactions.
If you ever work at a 7-11 in the US, you will get to experience a gun pointed at you so they can rob you for less than $30 because that is all that is allowed in the cash register at any time.
Man, this is a nightmare. I spent my freshman year of college homeless because I had bad credit (thanks, former roommates!). I couldn't even get a checking account to get a debit card...the bank would only give me a cash in / cash out account.
We have to mandate that sellers of essential goods (grocery, fuel) must always accept cash.
Obvious that this will be used against "anti government forces" in the future... which will grow over time to encompass everyone. CBDC discussions already market their ability to limit what/when/how you can use your "money".
The thing they are not telling you in this article is that the "unbanked" rate has fallen nearly in half in the last decade - down to just 4.5%. Unbanked people still use prepaid cards, online payment portals, and money transfers at very high rates. And that the number one source of unbanked people getting a bank account is... getting a job.
I think the concern is a bit overstated. Most prepaid cards (including the cited Walmart card) have no fees or waive them entirely.
On the one hand, buying online without a credit card or debit card has become a bit easier as Amazon/Paypal/Ebay/Sony/Microsoft/Uber etc have gift cards that you can buy in stores with cash and purchase with. (Dunno if the accounts work without an attached card at all though).
On the other, I'm also seeing fewer "self-checkouts" capable of accepting cash. While I generally prefer staffed check-out, retailers focus a lot on making sure the staffed checkout always has a bigger line than the self-checkout.
But the store gets to say "we still accept cash" while making it more difficult to spend it there.
> The latest FDIC data shows almost 6 million unbanked and 19 million underbanked U.S. households. Given that 2.5 people live in the average household, this means there are over 15 million people living in a home with no connection to banks, and 48 million more in homes with only a tenuous connection to banks.
I think it is a big assumption that the 6 million unbanked are living in an “average household”.
I was about to say that this would be illegal in Australia, but I'm wrong. There is no law against a business refusing to accept cash for goods and services:
On a main drag here, with concentration of nightlife, and also a concentration of street people, one upscale fast-food place started going cash-free at night.
I don't know whether that was because they were concerned about robberies, or because they didn't want any of the street people sitting in there and making it less attractive. (Like in another nearby fast-food place.)
Cash-free can be a conscious way to avoid serving much of a socioeconomic demographic you don't want to serve. A bit like the past practice of refusing to serve certain racial/ethnic groups, and posting signs stating that.
> while another one-third said they simply “don’t trust banks.”
I don't blame the poor people who mistrust banks. Surprise bank fees can be downright predatory and devastating.
At a time when I had to live off credit cards, a major bank started charging me $15/month for my checking account with ATM/debit card, because my balance was too low. Which seems minor now, but was painfully worth a lot of frugal groceries at the time. And I was so afraid of closing the account and possibly disrupting the credit cards that were the only thing keeping me from being homeless, that I kept paying the fee.
Then there's the overdraft fees. (I've seen $50 for one instance!) Combined with the bank ordering transactions for the day, highest-to-lowest, to maximize the instances of overdraft fees. Overdrafts can happen without your awareness, such as when a service erroneously pulls from your account.
Then there's credit cards. Accidentally late on one payment (IIRC, an e-bill didn't come through), and I had 29.99% APR penalty rate kick in, compounded monthly. When I could least afford that, and was in no position to pay it off.
Banks aren't all bad, I appreciate their services, and I generally like my bank branch people. And there might be additional reasons that some unbanked people avoid banks. But I understand if poor people mistrust banks, since surprise predatory fees or other problems can make the difference between barely squeaking by, and no longer squeaking by.
Credit Union.
It's not magic or all that much cheaper, but the fundamental incentives are better aligned.
(I recognize that you no longer have this problem needing a solution)
Banks now have to order transactions / clearing in the way most beneficial to the consumer. One of the big items that passed under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Buried on page 6. We need to remember to upvote posts and comments, not only post our comment.
> 169. 'No cash accepted' signs are bad news for unbanked Americans (theconversation.com) 40 points by bikenaga 1 hour ago | unvote | flag | hide | 76 comments
Today, many different payment methods, virtual wallets, banking applications, and payment systems have been created. Some of them work all over the world. For example, I use Google Pay a lot, and I read here https://casinosanalyzer.com/online-casinos/google-pay that it can be used to pay almost everywhere. And although I mostly use cards and apps, I don't want to give up cash completely, I would like to be able to pay with both cash and cards.
97 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 151 ms ] thread[1]: https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/consumers/Prohibition-of-Cashle...
[2]: https://nypost.com/2021/12/04/nyc-businesses-told-to-pay-up-...
I don't know anything specifically about SF, but just to note that the term "legal tender" specifically refers to payment for a debt. Since most retail business require payment before giving customers their goods, no debt is actually incurred. Table-service restaurants are a common exception to this, where you eat first and then pay, but counter-server restaurants often require you to pay up front when you make your order.
- Many hotels no longer accept cash (this was gradual; it was formerly an increasingly large deposit to stay with cash)
- Many vending machines will not take cash; either by design or due to disrepair on the bill feeder.
- Specific areas where you can find out ahead of time that cash will not be accepted: (music festivals, airplane flights &c.)
I have only seen a few traditional stores with no-cash, but I expect it to accelerate.
Chime & Co. have lowered the entry difficulty for fundamental banking services for the poor. And loading cash is trivial, walk into any number of thousands of stores (such as Walgreens which charges no fee). You see these cards commonly used by poorer Americans across all of retail now.
Was 'homeless'. Bank say no bueno, could be terrorist. I can legally carry gun no problem without papers in bank though, lmao.
At the same time, they are fundamentally not banks and are not subject to a whole slew of consumer protection regulations that ensure reliable access to funds. Venmo and PayPal are both infamous for their capricious account suspension policies (which I have personally experienced).
That’s a long way of saying that it isn’t nothing, but is also not the best we can do. It also doesn’t necessarily guarantee service users access to retail (since the cards that come with these financial providers are typically tied to banks and accompanying KYC controls).
This might be nitpicky given the outcome is the same, but: That was once true but is no longer the case. Nearly-instant and same-day ACH are available now, but not widely and not typically available directly to consumers.
Cash doesn't care if you're buying groceries or porn. Visa very much does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
Cash is issues by the government, it's the same for all of use, anyone is free to use it. It can't be suspended or remotely wiped, cash transactions cannot be supervised (and thus sometimes blocked) by a third party.
How do I buy food/clothing/shelter from the government? We are already discussing the actions of private businesses.
Same for clothing. Housing you pretty much always buy from a private individual, never from a corporation.
Contrast these to a dystopian world where you're only allowed to make transaction with a credit card but visa & mastercard (private megacorporations) decide to ban you. That's it, you're basically not part of society anymore. (Sure there's discover and amex but their acceptance in most places is low.)
And obviously, NPP continues to be rolled out: Osko is now widely available and PayTo [2] will be rolled out throughout 2024.
[1] https://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/debit-car... [2] https://payto.com.au
[1] https://www.bcb.gov.br/en/financialstability/pixstatistics
Already done in China, India, and Brazil, but they also largely sidestepped the Credit Card revolution.
are there no free bank accounts in the US?
in the UK you can pay to be ripped off and have a "premium" bank account with added benefits such as crappy breakdown/mobile phone insurance
but most have a free bank account with no monthly fee
withdrawing from almost all ATMs is free (non-bank owned ones charge everyone, e.g. in an airport)
all but very large transfers (>£1 million) are free and instant
overdrafts are optional and it's difficult (but not impossible) to go overdrawn without one
and no overdraft means no credit check needed
Like everything else, there are a multitude of experiences.
Some places have fees. Some don't. Some pay better interest than others. Some have better web options.
Source: I've never paid a fee and have had a checking and savings account for ~ 4 decades.
Overdrafts are another story, many bank accounts allow overdrafts and even do predatory things to increase the amount of overdraft fees. Bank of America got sued for this behavior.
Should be opt in and charged as an APR.
I am struggling to see a scenario where anyone in America doesn't have a bank account today out side of 1) They just don't want one. 2) The relatively rare, but devastating case of getting caught up in some overbearing AML/Government regulation that makes banks not want to open an account for you. 3) Lack of knowledge about what is available. 4) Maybe some one who has no smartphone, as many of these organizations require some kind of device to interface with them, as they don't have many physical branches... but cheap Android smartphones are readily available to most Americans...
I seem to remember that was a compromise of the government forcing companies to pay wages via electronic transfer
Which means there is risk in being a bank, as you probably remember from when a few banks failed a little while ago.
But if the fed was a bank, it would be risk free (how could the fed fail?). Which cause all sorts of trouble. The fed could take actions (loan risky money) without worry. Or they would not be permitted to loan money - but that would cause even bigger problems because it would restrict the money supply.
There's no good economic way to do it.
We had one [1]. It was considered redundant to private banking. I'm surprised no states have attempted this.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Postal_Savings_S...
It's state-owned but functions as a typical retail bank that takes deposits, makes mortgages, business loans, etc.
> Because of our unique structure as a state-owned bank, it is the Bank’s policy not to compete with the private sector for retail deposits. Therefore, convenience products such as debit cards, credit cards or online bill pay are not offered. BND has one location at 1200 Memorial Highway in Bismarck, North Dakota.
https://bnd.nd.gov/public/
This is utterly reasonable. It's a public service, after all.
> and they do not provide online banking
I see an account login button on the top right. You have to open accounts in person. But again, utterly reasonable as an anti-fraud measure.
>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.
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.
What are the positives and negatives of accepting cash for businesses? Other then 6 million people across the united states cannot buy from your shop.
I can guess at reasons for both but I do not run a business.
It's expensive to store and transport. It gets stolen, by employees and robbers. You get handed bad bills.
Positives: You don't need to deal with any of that.
Negatives: You can't take business from people who only have cash, but depending on what you're selling that might not really matter.
and you likely need a safe on premises too when their floats under/overflow, and controls around that
cash is a huge pain in the ass
Also, needing to keep cash in small bills in the drawer to make change is a big pain in the ass.
But that's what business is, work and risk... I'm surprised more American cities haven't outright banned the practice for businesses serving their public since it's so clearly a form of discrimination.
The benefit of accepting cash is, besides there being no processing costs, is that it makes it really easy to... uhhhh, fudge your revenue numbers. I've had a few cash transactions where I ask for a receipt from the business and the owner scowls at me.
> Other then 6 million people across the united states cannot buy from your shop.
Depending on the type of business you run, I can almost assure you these customers are not going to be in your target demographic.
Don't be so sure. I'm plenty "banked" and will out of principle never buy anything from a place that does not take my cash.
Privacy is one of the most important freedoms we have and cash is absolutely vital to maintain that freedom.
The other vital freedom enabled by cash is the right to participate in commerce. With a third-party gated electronic payment, said third party (sometimes multiple third parties in the same transaction) all have a say on whether you get to spend your money or not. With cash, it's your money you spend it as you wish.
I've also seen the extreme - in the part of the country I live it's not uncommon for people to pay for things like cars and houses with cash that they keep buried in their yards.
Agreed it's an option, but why bother adding a level of indirection and extra effort, I'd rather just pay cash.
We have to mandate that sellers of essential goods (grocery, fuel) must always accept cash.
Obvious that this will be used against "anti government forces" in the future... which will grow over time to encompass everyone. CBDC discussions already market their ability to limit what/when/how you can use your "money".
Killing cash is just step one. Watch this space.
https://www.fdic.gov/analysis/household-survey/2021execsum.p...
The thing they are not telling you in this article is that the "unbanked" rate has fallen nearly in half in the last decade - down to just 4.5%. Unbanked people still use prepaid cards, online payment portals, and money transfers at very high rates. And that the number one source of unbanked people getting a bank account is... getting a job.
I think the concern is a bit overstated. Most prepaid cards (including the cited Walmart card) have no fees or waive them entirely.
On the other, I'm also seeing fewer "self-checkouts" capable of accepting cash. While I generally prefer staffed check-out, retailers focus a lot on making sure the staffed checkout always has a bigger line than the self-checkout.
But the store gets to say "we still accept cash" while making it more difficult to spend it there.
I think it is a big assumption that the 6 million unbanked are living in an “average household”.
https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-servic...
I don't know whether that was because they were concerned about robberies, or because they didn't want any of the street people sitting in there and making it less attractive. (Like in another nearby fast-food place.)
Cash-free can be a conscious way to avoid serving much of a socioeconomic demographic you don't want to serve. A bit like the past practice of refusing to serve certain racial/ethnic groups, and posting signs stating that.
I don't blame the poor people who mistrust banks. Surprise bank fees can be downright predatory and devastating.
At a time when I had to live off credit cards, a major bank started charging me $15/month for my checking account with ATM/debit card, because my balance was too low. Which seems minor now, but was painfully worth a lot of frugal groceries at the time. And I was so afraid of closing the account and possibly disrupting the credit cards that were the only thing keeping me from being homeless, that I kept paying the fee.
Then there's the overdraft fees. (I've seen $50 for one instance!) Combined with the bank ordering transactions for the day, highest-to-lowest, to maximize the instances of overdraft fees. Overdrafts can happen without your awareness, such as when a service erroneously pulls from your account.
Then there's credit cards. Accidentally late on one payment (IIRC, an e-bill didn't come through), and I had 29.99% APR penalty rate kick in, compounded monthly. When I could least afford that, and was in no position to pay it off.
Banks aren't all bad, I appreciate their services, and I generally like my bank branch people. And there might be additional reasons that some unbanked people avoid banks. But I understand if poor people mistrust banks, since surprise predatory fees or other problems can make the difference between barely squeaking by, and no longer squeaking by.
> 169. 'No cash accepted' signs are bad news for unbanked Americans (theconversation.com) 40 points by bikenaga 1 hour ago | unvote | flag | hide | 76 comments