I am not one to argue that technology solves the problems of the poor. But, there are lots of holes in this argument:
1. The unbanked already exist in a world that expects them to be banked. Almost all jobs in America are paid in checks or direct deposit. Checks are useless to people without bank accounts. They then have to spend time and money getting the check turned into cash at a check cashing place, like Amscot.
So moving to electronic banking would actually HELP these people. If you really rely on cash, then you are at a disadvantage since most jobs dont pay in cash.
Yes, there are real obstacles in the way of these people getting bank accounts. Education, time, documentation, etc. But everyday someone continues to remain unbanked, they are inconveniencing themselves in many ways.
2. Cash is already dead to a lot of people (in 1st world countries), so surveillance is already possible. Governments, banks, and payment processors ALREADY have access to this information for a large number of people. If this is a large concern, the author should be tackling the fact that this is on-going, not that it might happen in the future.
But it does seem true that killing cash will open up new demographics to the same surveillance.
3. Bankruptcy is not a tool used by very poor people. Its often used by middle class and upper class people who deal with the finance world. I think this article has a very poor understanding of what "poor" means, even in a 1st world context.
4. This whole article is based off of bad solutions. Keeping cash around so that some people will be saved by withdrawing their money in the next financial crisis is NOT the solution to financial crises. Better regulation, management, and transparency is.