D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect • Hacker News Board

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#31

Post by noduerme » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 3:08 AM UTC

wly_cdgr wrote: post #22

fragmede wrote: post #3

Interesting. I get why you'd want to ban cashless business, but many business in a nearby town with a high crime rate are going cashless because you can't rob a Square reader quite as easily as a cash register.

The answer to that is to help your citizens so they don't need to rob a Shake Shack, not to exclude even more people from enjoying Shake Shack while going surveillance mode on everyone's calorie intake

Not to mention that it's immoral to punish people for have no bank credit, and even leaving aside the ethical implications it creates a split-level society that pushes part of the population further toward desperation and crime.

Banning cash to allegedly keep workers safe is the ultimate whitewashing of corporate greed at the expense of workers and the public. This is a good law.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#32

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 3:09 AM UTC

supertrope wrote: post #28

dools wrote: post #7

Instead of banning cashless businesses because it's discriminatory to the unbanked perhaps they should focus on reducing discrimination in the banking sector and providing a publicly run electronic payment system.

Make access to a bank account a right. Take all of the unbanked/unprofitable customers and assign them to banks weighted by each bank’s market share. No matter their Chexsystems report status.

Another move in the wrong direction. Why should private businesses be selectively shouldering the burden of society?

Mandate the USPS (federal government) to offer electronic money accounts to everyone.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#33

Post by olliej » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 3:09 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #30

SuperNinKenDo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the state should do more to alleviate the situation of being unbanked, but this is a major win for the unbanked that will offer immediate relief and comes with a number of other benefits for all different kinds of stakeholders. It's a non-brainer starting point even if your only goal was helping the unbanked

The first step to helping the unbanked is removing banks from the picture altogether. They are technically wholly unnecessary in the 21st century for the purposes of sending/receiving/keeping a running total of funds in an electronic database entry ascribed to an entity.

Uh huh, so we all keep money in a safe/home?

Or are you going to propose yet another wildly unworkable cryptoscam?

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#34

Post by jumpkick » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 3:10 AM UTC

Actually, paying with cash is a great way to avoid tipflation. Tip if you like, whatever amount you feel is an appropriate employment subsidy for the service rendered, but you won’t be awkwardly forced into it by an iPad.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#35

Post by noduerme » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 3:11 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #27

wly_cdgr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to that is to help your citizens so they don't need to rob a Shake Shack, not to exclude even more people from enjoying Shake Shack while going surveillance mode on everyone's calorie intake

That is not viable nor the responsibility of an individual business.

Businesses have a legal obligation to not discriminate against lots of recognized classes. Those without credit cards should be protected as well, because living in this country should not require you to participate in a debt-based system. If it did, it would be government of banks, not a democracy.

Forcing people to have a bank account or a credit card to buy food enforces a monopoly on money.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#36

Post by lotsofpulp » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 3:11 AM UTC

olliej wrote: post #33

lotsofpulp wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first step to helping the unbanked is removing banks from the picture altogether. They are technically wholly unnecessary in the 21st century for the purposes of sending/receiving/keeping a running total of funds in an electronic database entry ascribed to an entity.

Uh huh, so we all keep money in a safe/home? Or are you going to propose yet another wildly unworkable cryptoscam?

A bank does not keep your money in a safe. Cash is a very, very small portion of money. We are mostly just editing numbers in various databases over and over.

I would propose the federal government offer an inalienable electronic money account as a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#37

Post by philwelch » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 3:11 AM UTC

wly_cdgr wrote: post #22

fragmede wrote: post #3

Interesting. I get why you'd want to ban cashless business, but many business in a nearby town with a high crime rate are going cashless because you can't rob a Square reader quite as easily as a cash register.

The answer to that is to help your citizens so they don't need to rob a Shake Shack, not to exclude even more people from enjoying Shake Shack while going surveillance mode on everyone's calorie intake

Nobody needs to rob a Shake Shack anyway. Robberies are not a product of need.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#38

Post by olliej » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 3:14 AM UTC

joegibbs wrote: post #18

farzinadil wrote: post #8

Ridiculous. Why not also then force cash only businesses into taking card and mobile payments also?

Card payments are done through a middleman (Visa, MasterCard) and therefore require a surcharge that's going to a private company. They charge much more than it actually costs them, even including chargebacks etc, which is how they're able to offer things like credit card rewards. In my opinion it was justifiable back when it was new and not heavily used, but now that the economy revolves around it it's just parasiti…

So?

Taking cash costs money as well: more security, more auditing, more cash transport, higher insurance costs, etc

Even better, because of forced cash now every business incurs those costs even if the overwhelming majority of their transactions aren’t in cash.

The solution to “discrimination against homeless” is not forcing people to take cash, it’s forcing banks to allow homeless people to open bank accounts.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#39

Post by bsder » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 3:16 AM UTC

farzinadil wrote: post #8

Ridiculous. Why not also then force cash only businesses into taking card and mobile payments also?

Because not taking card or mobile payments doesn't directly harm people. It's a little less convenient, but you can still carry out your business.

By contrast, allowing direct businesses to not take cash harms a not small section of our society.

Re: D.C.'s ban on cashless businesses takes effect

#40

Post by jeltz » Wed, Oct 04, 2023, 3:17 AM UTC

noduerme wrote: post #35

lotsofpulp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not viable nor the responsibility of an individual business.

Businesses have a legal obligation to not discriminate against lots of recognized classes. Those without credit cards should be protected as well, because living in this country should not require you to participate in a debt-based system. If it did, it would be government of banks, not a democracy. Forcing people to have a bank account or a credit card to buy food enforces a monopoly on money.

There are debit cards too.