
New York City considering legislation to ban cashless retailers - Geekette
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/03/cashless-cash-free-ban-bill-new-york-retail-discrimination/584203/
======
nck4222
I was ready to be annoyed at government blocking popular progressive changes,
but this changed my mind:

>In New York City, the majority of the nearly 12 percent of unbanked and 25
percent underbanked residents are people of color. Close to 17 percent of
black New Yorkers and 14 percent of Latinx New Yorkers are unbanked, compared
to just 3 percent of white New Yorkers.

I had no idea that many people didn't use banking services, which probably
says more about me than anything.

Not to get too political, but this reminds me a lot of the coal vs renewables
debate. I'm 100% on the side of transitioning away from coal, towards
renewables, the same as I am in favor of ditching cash. But people who still
depend on the coal industry, and using cash, can't just be forgotten about
because "cashless is better".

Places should be forced to accept cash until everyone can go cashless (within
reason obviously, there needs to be some sort of line drawn here, but those
percentages show we're not there yet), and the government should
support/retrain coal miners who lose their jobs due to energy transitions.

~~~
mbostleman
The question is, why are they un or under banked? What or who creates those
conditions? One doesn't see much diversity in or competition in banking
products or terms, so it's not likely that anything is going to change.

~~~
metalliqaz
I think it's a combination of factors. Distrust of the system, lack of steady
cash flow, lack of local offerings.

~~~
gerbilly
High cost (fees are proportionally much more expensive), shady practices[1],
accounts frozen by creditors.

Poor people are making completely rational decisions when choosing not to
trust banks, and it's patronizing to assume they simply don't know better.

[1] banks re-ordering transactions to maximise overdraft fees.

~~~
mbostleman
So there's an opportunity it sounds like. Why are no services stepping in to
capture all those potential customers?

~~~
gerbilly
Oh there are, all those cheque cashing places for example, and they're under-
regulated, so not too great either.

Still paying a larger fee to cash a cheque sure beats having all your assets
frozen entirely.

~~~
mbostleman
Check cashing isn't banking though. I mean why aren't there banks that can be
sustainable without overdraft fees? I get the idea of a fee if they cover a
charge in which funds aren't available. But can't a debit card simply decline
if no funds are available - hence the bank never covers an unfunded charge and
thus never charges overdraft fees? Are there not other ways to monetize
banking for low cash flow individuals?

~~~
drivingmenuts
Banks don’t really exist to help people save money anymore. For the most part,
they exist to extract fees from people who keep money there and from
borrowers.

------
el_cujo
Even if you take out the racial view (which is totally valid), it just doesn't
seem right that you can walk in somewhere in the US with US Dollars in your
pocket but be turned down, and I say that as someone who very rarely makes
purchases with paper money. As much as I hate "slippery slope" arguments, I do
also worry that this is the first step in the direction of businesses
dictating how you buy things. Starting with no cash may not seem that bad, but
I don't wont to end up in a world where different stores require me to check
out using their own e-wallet or a specific brand of credit card they've
partnered with.

The whole thing reminds me a little bit of that 30 Rock episode where Liz
Lemon gets stuck with a 50 dollar bill and gets into a shouting match with a
convenience store clerk when he wont accept it, saying something along the
lines of "this is legal tender, you have to accept it!" Not the same situation
as what is being discussed here, Liz's sentiment still applies.

~~~
lykr0n
Yep. The only equitable way forward is if we make a national debit card, that
runs on a national payment network where everyone is allowed to have an
account.

Say- take Discover (which is a bank and payment provider network) and
recharter them as a government owned corporation or make them wholely owned by
the Federal Reserve. Then, give the USPS the ability to act as a simple bank
frontend for these accounts- giving you overnight a national footprint that
everyone can access. Make the transaction fee on this network near Zero, and
allow anyone to have an account with you. Get rid of the credit ability, and
you get a true alternative to cash.

Anything less is Visa/Mastercard forming a chokehold on out financial lives. I
would love to ditch my credit cards for cash, but right now I'm being bribed
with the great benefits that Visa/Amex are forcing merchants to pay for.

------
chadmhorner
I hear/see why business do it, but I think this quote from the councilman
sponsoring the bill is the right take: “In the end, I think the need for
equity outweighs the efficiency gains of a cashless business model. Human
rights takes precedence over efficiency gains.”

~~~
sadris
But not having a bank account is a choice. It's not about "rights."

------
gerbilly
Our young technocratic elite can be so clueless sometimes.

Aside from helping to build our future surveillance dystopia, they promote
cashless retail as more 'futuristic', and make fun of cheques and cash.

I don't understand a culture that promotes volunteering your own surveillance
data (social media, smartphones)[1] and surrendering your anonymity as trendy
core values.

[1] [https://privacysos.org/blog/nsa-calls-the-iphone-using-
publi...](https://privacysos.org/blog/nsa-calls-the-iphone-using-public-
zombies-who-pay-for-their-own-surveillance/)

------
soulnothing
Philadelphia just did this as well. With a higher percentage in poverty there.
I see this as beneficial. There are a number of areas where people for various
reasons can't get a checking/bank account.

I find it partially annoying that some of the cash only stores I go into.
Gouge with a 5$ ATM fee, then I have to hold change. But again not everyone
has access to a bank.

What I found interesting is the gloss over of the Septa Key (new transit card)
system, during this discussion. While it was botched. It was initially
positioned as a debit card for those who couldn't get a bank account.
Available to load with cash at any kiosk and making it a master card debit
card. It actually saved me when I had fraud on one of my cards. I switched to
it as my primary payment method while awaiting a new card.

Amazon was trying something similar. Provide cash at I think CVS or somewhere
else. Then it goes into your Amazon gift balance.

In the end. I think these cashless laws are good. Even if the above work
perfectly. Some people don't want a strong history attached with their
purchases.

~~~
cozzyd
Ah yes, the CTA transit cards can also act as (predatory) debit cards.

------
jdhn
As long as cash is legal tender, you shouldn't be able to ban its use,
especially if it's being exchanged for legal goods.

~~~
ghaff
Cash is already disallowed for pretty much every payment you can’t make in
person. And good luck sending Amazon a check either.

~~~
jdhn
The article is talking about making purchases you make in person, not online
purchases.

~~~
ghaff
Yes. I can read. My point is that, for better, or worse you already can’t use
cash for a great many payments.

------
rootshelled
I don't get how this is racial discrimination or even how they get to this
conclusion.

Example: We have 3 groups: Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

There are 2 types of services: Service A Service B

3% of group 1 can't use Service A 14% of group 2 can't use Service A 13% of
group 3 can't use Service A

Does Service A racially discriminate against any of these group? No, it does
not. It just can't accepts business from people who use Service A. So people
who can't or won't use Service A have to go to another business that does
accept Service B.

But okay let's play pretend. Let's say it is discrimination then it's only
potentally more effective against certain groups by 10%. I say potentially
because how many in this group would go to a this specific chain? probably
less then that 10%. I'd wager the actual percentage affected falls in the area
of margin of error. AKA sucks to be you but it's a free country so cross the
street to somewhere they do accept your cash.

~~~
hacym
I agree that -- all things being equal -- the market could probably sort these
things out. But, the point is that things aren't equal.

I could definitely see a situation where a company uses a cash ban as a facade
to reject a certain clientele (namely, poor people that can't afford the
technology or don't have the means to get a credit card).

------
numbsafari
NYC is playing follow-the-leader here: we just banned this here in
Philadelphia.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/philadelphia-is-first-u-s-
city-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/philadelphia-is-first-u-s-city-to-ban-
cashless-stores-11551967201)

------
tmm84
I think this is good because it doesn't force customers to use cashless
payment. Research has shown that when people don't see physical money being
spent that people tend to spend more.

However, I live in a country and with lots of non-bank related cashless
payment options. Commuter pass, branch chain store money card, point card,
gift check or payment by smartphone service? Ok. Best part of all those
options is that I have every single one but the last and never had to show
personal identification to use them.

The real downside to cashless is that you can't just transfer some to a friend
without it going through a company and paying some kind of "fee" or being
"spied on". The only real upside to cashless for companies is that employees
can't really steal hard cash anymore and they can take out cashiers from the
payroll. Most of the cashless business in the country I live in have done away
with cashiers and added personel to other parts of the company. I think it
improves some companies while others need a human to handle transactions.

------
NathanKP
I get salads at Sweetgreen (one of the referenced cashless retailers)
periodically. On two separate occasions I've been behind some stranger in line
who didn't realize the place was card only, so I paid for their salad with my
card and they gave me the cash. It is a weird policy, but I understand why
they don't want to deal in cash.

Interestingly the flip side of this is cash only places. New York is also a
huge user of Venmo for those times when you only have a card, but the place is
cash only. Often if you don't want to have to leave to find an ATM and pay an
ATM fee someone else will pay your bill in cash if you Venmo them the money.
The problem of a cash free, or cash only place is easily solved in both cases
with a little cooperation with your fellow New Yorkers.

~~~
nerflad
I love that New York still runs so heavily on cash. Cash is an absolute
necessity for a free society. It represents every person's freedom to
voluntarily exchange goods and services without (easily) being tracked,
monitored or mediated. It's a bit shocking to me how so many tech types
underestimate or fail to see this.

------
dev_north_east
I don't know about the US but around where I live, there's at least two
establishments which don't take cash. I can see all the advantages from their
POV.

Personally I'd think it laughable if the government attempted to force them to
accept cash.

What next, make them accept cheques?!

~~~
metalliqaz
There's no "what next". The government only has one official currency.

~~~
dev_north_east
Not where I live :D

> In most countries of the world the issue of banknotes is handled exclusively
> by a single central bank or government, but in the United Kingdom seven
> retail banks have the right to print their own banknotes in addition to the
> Bank of England; sterling banknote issue is thus not automatically tied in
> with one national identity or the activity of the state.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterlin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling)

For instance if I were to go further south, any Scottish notes I have would
not be accepted in a load of places. More generally using banknotes from
Northern Ireland in Britain will get you funny looks and a near 100% refusal.

------
debt
“Going cashless” is a form of class warfare.

~~~
awakeasleep
You're getting downvoted but this seems completely true to me.

It bars the homeless and poor from the establishment!

Can anyone that disagrees explain the opposing take?

~~~
tantalor
Here are some reasons a business might not take cash,

* Eliminates robbery: no cash to take

* Reduces expenses: no cash register or bill machine

* Saves time: no change or trips to the bank

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vSYg17HD94](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vSYg17HD94)

~~~
debt
Yeah in a bubble. But most establishments that suffer form this aren't going
to be able to afford to "go cashless". Doing as such as a concept thrown
around by establishments that can afford to do it like Blue Bottle.

------
scandox
Cash is a huge freedom we take for granted. I would back this totally.

------
phkahler
I find that interesting simply because NYC is home to the financial industry
which is the largest beneficiary of cashless transactions.

On a personal note, I prefer cash and appreciate the places that give me a
discount for using it.

------
dang
Philadelphia was discussed yesterday:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19328547](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19328547)

------
Someone1234
I can see NYC's point on this one.

The problem with credit cards isn't the concept (which I like) it is that
they're rent-seekers that seem to want an ever increasing slice of the pie. We
currently pay 2.5% of most purchases to these companies, with plans to
increase that further.

The problem is that their costs should be falling, since their volumes have
increased massively but instead of passing on those cost reductions they're
trying to leverage their duopoly harder.

Cash is the only leverage society has to keep credit card processing fees low.
If it disappears and there remains an uncompetitive market, we'll all suffer
as a result.

------
AlexTWithBeard
I absolutely, passionately hate when the traders do not accept cash, but I
firmly believe they must be in their full right to do so.

~~~
hacym
Why?

This means that the US Government, which issues the currency, basically has
less power than Visa and Mastercard. It's the currency of the nation... They
should be required to take it unless they have a legitimate reason not to.

~~~
vonmoltke
> This means that the US Government, which issues the currency, basically has
> less power than Visa and Mastercard.

How's that? Nobody is required to accept Visa or Mastercard either.

------
99052882514569
Meanwhile, in the 21st century[1]...

[1] "Why Sweden is close to becoming a cashless economy",
[https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41095004](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41095004)

~~~
Geekette
Except, they're changing their minds:

 _Swedes turn against cashlessness_
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/being-cash-
fre...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/03/being-cash-free-puts-us-
at-risk-of-attack-swedes-turn-against-cashlessness)

------
cozzyd
The next step will be only being able to pay via mobile app.

~~~
AdmiralAsshat
There are a number of restaurants I've been to where you can _only_ make a
reservation via their stupid mobile app. Like, even if I'm at the front desk
of the restaurant asking me to pencil them in.

------
superkuh
This is excellent news. I hope other municipalities and states follow. Only
accepting corporate or institutional payments is racism against non-corporate
persons (humans). Racism in this retail context is already illegal.

Cash must be accepted. It is the only form of payment (besides
cryptocurrencies) where the individual does the payment. Other forms are
merely large corporations/institutions using their financial clout to signal
that they will pay for something in the future. Those corporations always have
perverse incentives to both sell your purchasing history to anyone that wants
it as well and to enact financial embargoes against arbitrary people/companies
whenever even slight political or social pressure is applied.

Additionally, work-arounds for the law of having to accept cash for all debts
should be addressed. Many retail or food service companies will only take your
business initially if you present a credit card.

~~~
gcatalfamo
What?

Cash is the bane of society. We would live better without it on every single
aspect imaginable. (including but not limited to health, environment, crime)

~~~
Vaskivo
"Cashless" does not mean "moneyless".

Cashless means that it doesn't accept physical money, paper bills and metal
coins. It only accepts credit or debit cards. Or any other kind of electronic
medium.

~~~
gerbilly
If I give 5$ to a homeless person and he then tries to go buy a coffee at a
cashless coffee shop, what do you think will happen?

After all he has money, right?

------
Whatevers
> racism

Wut.

~~~
ahoy
Poor people, and especially poor non-whites, are much less likely to have a
credit or debit card.

I think it's important to understand "racist" as an effect, not as an opinion.
The decision to not accept cash probably wasn't made with racist intentions,
but it can very well have racist outcomes.

~~~
rand0mbits
>> I think it's important to understand "racist" as an effect, not as an
opinion.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. If as a white person you punch a
black person because you don't like the car the person is driving, that's not
racism, that's just some weird aggression. It's not based on the concept of
race. But if you punch them because they're black, that's obviously racism.

Same thing here. If you're taking an action that indirectly causes harm to
mostly non-whites (more specifically to poor people, some of whom are white)
without the intent of causing harm, that's not racist. It's only racist if you
feel that the group that's being harmed is racially/ethnically inferior to
your group and that that justifies your actions.

That isn't to say that knowingly causing harm to people, even without any
racism involved, is OK. It's not. But it's the intent that defines racism.

------
0x445442
Ahhhh, intersectionalists and libertarians make strange bed fellows. What's
even stranger is most of these politicians fighting for the rights of the
"unbanked" embrace the surveillance state win that comes from cashless.

