Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 508 posts

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

#181

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

noduerme wrote: post #31
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

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.

It's very strange that developing countries can go cashless, with everyone paying for everything on their smartphones, but a developed country like the US somehow can't.

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

#182

Post by sambazi »

makeitdouble wrote: post #178
nonrandomstring wrote: post #162

Almost every comment is about politics, choice, privacy, rights, markets and percentages. There's a completely different take; Civic resilience From an operational and strategic security POV, cash is a vastly superior technology. It doesn't need electricity, a network of cables, satellites and routers. Therefore cash in circulation acts as a buffer that provides economic stability and continuity of operations. Also,…

> It doesn't need electricity, a network of cables, satellites and routers. But most businesses do. The main issue is there: why should a business be forced by law to accept cash if they absolutely need electricty and cables to work as a business ? It's one step below forcing them to accept hand written checks. Those are also extremely resilient, you just need a pen and paper. But god no I wouldn't want to deal with…

cashless has a lot of negative externalities hence a business should have a _very good_ reason to not accept the legal tender.

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

#183

Post by usr1106 »

ma_advertising wrote: post #154
lacker wrote: post #135

I've noticed recently more of the food truck or farmers' market type businesses aren't officially cashless, which is illegal in California AFAIU. They just don't have change for a $20. It's a real problem that some people cannot afford the fees on a bank account, but I would prefer that we find some way to provide everyone with minimum banking services. Like a no-fee government-provided debit card. I know, the govern…

like what European Union did with the basic bank account

I understand those are more expensive than normal accounts on commercial basis, bad value for the money. It's only that the bank cannot refuse to open a basic account because they don't like the customer's business. I doubt a debit card is included. Those accounts are needed because all wages and even social benefits are only paid by bank transfer in most EU countries.

Disclaimer: Haven't checked the details now.

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

#184

Post by okokwhatever »

AllegedAlec wrote: post #138
rendaw wrote: post #85

In India, even rural farmers have easy cashless mobile payments. In D.C., the capital of the US, nobody has easy cashless mobile payments, and even card payments are too difficult, with the government finally giving up and enshrining cash.

Good luck when a bank decides to freeze your account because you called a politician a fat pig.

Anonymization is the next big think. And I'm not joking

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

#185

Post by sambazi »

yftsui wrote: post #180
nonrandomstring wrote: post #162

Almost every comment is about politics, choice, privacy, rights, markets and percentages. There's a completely different take; Civic resilience From an operational and strategic security POV, cash is a vastly superior technology. It doesn't need electricity, a network of cables, satellites and routers. Therefore cash in circulation acts as a buffer that provides economic stability and continuity of operations. Also,…

Cash is a superior technology for security -> Huh? The bullet proof glass cage protecting the cashiers is the “technology”.

that's right

and it's superior because it usually cannot be circumvented with math or will accumulate known insecurities over time.

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

#186

Post by basisword »

closewith wrote: post #159
basisword wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> It's a real problem that some people cannot afford the fees on a bank account, but I would prefer that we find some way to provide everyone with minimum banking services. Like a no-fee government-provided debit card. The government shouldn’t even need to get involved here. In the UK accounts have no standard charge and come with free debit card. There’s no reason banks in the US can’t offer this other than the fac…

> The government shouldn’t even need to get involved here. In the UK accounts have no standard charge and come with free debit card. Well, in the UK, fee-free basic bank accounts are the result of government regulation(1). It was part of the UK's implementation of Directive 2014/92/EU (2), which mandated access to basic bank accounts across the EU (of which the UK was then a part). (1) https://www.gov.uk/government/n…

I worded my message badly. When I said 'the government shouldn't need to get involved' I meant in a direct way. Either I've misread the parent comment or they've edited it but I thought they proposed the government offering accounts - that I thought was unnecessary. Regulation I'm fine with.

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

#188

Post by okokwhatever »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #41

In my city, cash businesses are the first to be knocked over for drug money, so increasingly more and more businesses are forced to go cashless. By forcing all businesses to accept cash, this would re-spread the risk of armed robbery or burglary around.

Illegal stuff exists with and without legal pressure. I mean, if you're a bad guy believe me that a cashless society isn't going to stop you.

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

#189

Post by makeitdouble »

qup wrote: post #6
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.

I know a business that went cash-only for the same reason in reverse: the thieves were doing it via chargebacks saying they never heard of the place. Couldn't win disputes even with video evidence. They put in an ATM, can't charge that back.

Card in the machine transactions can't be charged back like that. Try explaining that you lost your card and someone with your PIN paid with it, or you got mugged but never declared the theft and want your $10 back. That won't happen.

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

#190

Post by okokwhatever »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #97
olliej wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Forcing banks to allow homeless people to open bank accounts only "works" if someone is going to compensate the banks for all the costs associated with those clients. Banks only "work" because they can earn interest on deposits. Homeless people will likely not have enough deposits to make it worth serving them, and they will likely also cost more in support and fraud. If you compensate them too little, banks will do…

A homeless person is not a client, it´s a human being trapped in a desperate situation that us (lucky people) cannot understand. Cashless society represents a trap for many people that are simply out of the rat race.
Post reply on HN