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

331–340 of 508 posts

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

#331

Post by FredFS456 »

mdgrech23 wrote: post #327
jdietrich wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. If the power goes out, I can't get any cash. I don't keep any meaningful amount cash on hand and neither does anyone I know, including my elderly relatives. Most of the stores I shop at won't actually be able to sell me anything, because none of the products…

In a true shit hit the fans situation cash is you what you need to bribe the official to get you on the boat/plane/train out of the disaster area.

In that case you would often need gold, not cash.

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

#332

Post by makeitdouble »

blackshaw wrote: post #257
makeitdouble wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Let's think about who wouldn't be fine in a cashless economy: * Elderly people who struggle with technology. * People fleeing coercive situations like domestic abuse where their abuser controls their finances. * People with mental disabilities, for whom cash might be the only thing they know how to use. * Homeless people, who might literally rely on cash to survive. * Poorer people who prefer cash because it helps th…

From my comment

> Sure cash should be accepted in shops selling essential goods. But other shops should have the choice.

That basically covers you whole list, except if your argument is that gaming PC parts shop should absolutely accomodate cash in case homeless people need an RTX3060 over the weekend.

Also fundamdentally a bank account should be a legal right (it is in many countries, if it's not in yours it's a more critical debate than cash), and with it should come a debit card. Sure some people won't be able to use it for a reason or another, but they can get help. The same way not everyone benefits from cash.

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

#333

Post by macintux »

QuarterReptile wrote: post #246
didntcheck wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new "meta" seems to be charging you a tax for not using their loyalty card. Items at Tesco are now significantly more expensive if you don't scan a Clubcard. I suppose it is easier to rotate those than bank cards though

Can you just type in a phone number? In the US, you can always type in the rickroll phone number as a reward card. If it doesn't work, it's incumbent upon you to set up the profile for that store to keep the system going.

Up until about 10 years ago one local grocery chain required you to enter only the last 4 digits of a phone number. I have no idea who thought that was a good idea.

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

#334

Post by datadrivenangel »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #306
Xylakant wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a broad space between "a single shop" and "an entire country". Entire cities or states being hit by a technical glitch or a natural desaster (flooding , storms, ...) happens on a moderatly regular basis. Backbone connnections failing and taking certain areas or chunks of the internet population offline is also moderately common. Banks having issues with payouts happens, too. There are a lot of scenarios where…

There's not enough cash in D.C. for D.C. to function anywhere near normally in a not-short, total blackout. I don't think it makes sense to argue we should all use cash in case some small section of D.C. loses power for 10 weeks. The advantages to the cashless society far outweigh that small benefit to the average person.

But there is enough cash to partially function.

And partial function is better than no function.

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

#335

Post by blackshaw »

makeitdouble wrote: post #332
blackshaw wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's think about who wouldn't be fine in a cashless economy: * Elderly people who struggle with technology. * People fleeing coercive situations like domestic abuse where their abuser controls their finances. * People with mental disabilities, for whom cash might be the only thing they know how to use. * Homeless people, who might literally rely on cash to survive. * Poorer people who prefer cash because it helps th…

From my comment > Sure cash should be accepted in shops selling essential goods. But other shops should have the choice. That basically covers you whole list, except if your argument is that gaming PC parts shop should absolutely accomodate cash in case homeless people need an RTX3060 over the weekend. Also fundamdentally a bank account should be a legal right (it is in many countries, if it's not in yours it's a mor…

Who are you to decide what other people should consider essential?

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

#336

Post by blackshaw »

howLongHowLong wrote: post #312
blackshaw wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, is it common in the US for brick-and-mortar businesses to charge you extra if you pay by card? That doesn't happen in the UK.

Very common, in small, independent shops, though it often seems to be as much about avoiding taxes as avoiding the fee for the credit machine

Interesting. I don't think I've ever seen it here in Britain. Some smaller businesses might insist on a £5 minimum spend if you're not paying cash, but even that has become very rare since the pandemic.

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

#337

Post by vel0city »

jdietrich wrote: post #291
Chris2048 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't just for infra failure. When your credit card provider cuts you off for "unusual activity" that they won't go into detail about, and you realise they are free to refuse you business as they feel like - you'll appreciate cash while rushing to find a new provider as existing debts still loom.

I'm not even sure if it's possible to pay most bills in cash in my country. I have had a bank account frozen due to identity theft; it took me less than 10 minutes to open a new account and get a new debit card in my Google Wallet. The bank transferred my funds within a couple of hours and all of my recurring payments were automatically switched within a couple of days. Maybe my experiences are atypical, but my impre…

Your experience could be done here in the US as well. Doing a transfer within the same bank is usually pretty instant. I could get a new account at my bank and a digital card to add to Google Wallet in a similar timeframe.

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

#338

Post by arp242 »

didntcheck wrote: post #179
kxrm wrote: post #19

I live in DC and support this law not just from an accessibility standpoint but also from a privacy standpoint. I am tired of every retail/restaurant establishment building a profile of me.

The new "meta" seems to be charging you a tax for not using their loyalty card. Items at Tesco are now significantly more expensive if you don't scan a Clubcard. I suppose it is easier to rotate those than bank cards though

> I suppose it is easier to rotate those than bank cards though

When I asked for a Clubcard a few months ago they said they're not giving out any and you have to use the app.

Funny enough just after I asked I found one on the floor; I'm using that one.

I wouldn't go to Tesco if it wasn't for that, because the price differences are just insane. Before you had the points and whatnot but not the strong discounts (IIRC), then I didn't go to Tesco for a few years on account of being in a different country, and now it's a €3 "regular price" and "€1.50 club card price" for half the stuff I buy. wtf?!

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

#339

Post by plagiarist »

FredFS456 wrote: post #331
mdgrech23 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a true shit hit the fans situation cash is you what you need to bribe the official to get you on the boat/plane/train out of the disaster area.

In that case you would often need gold, not cash.

By the time the infrastructure and economy is fucked enough by disaster that currency is worthless, the gold will be worthless as well.

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

#340

Post by sbuttgereit »

OK... naturally this is a political discussion; but I find the politics of this interesting and maybe even amusing. I don't live in DC and at don't really have a horse in this race but I sense a contradiction.

I think many would consider Washington D.C. to be governed solidly by American progressives. While the rationale for this law fits solidly within their views on egalitarianism, I wonder why no one is discussing another proclaimed progressive area of concern environmental impact and climate?

I have to think in this case cash must be significantly environmentally more impactful than the electronic payments. Cash requires a surprising amount of raw materials to produce, not all of which I expect to be environmentally friendly. Cash requires specialized transport, not just of the actual cash to and fro, but also of those raw materials. Sure electronic payments require power to operate, but I assure you hard cash is just as counted electronically as electronic payments. Disposal of used cash I expect to have its own unique environmental impacts.

In essence making each unit of currency physically real rather than electronic would seem to have unaccounted for negative externalities, something my more progressive friends go on and on about when convenient, which I don't even see getting lip service in relation to this law. Or maybe in the eyes of the progressive establishment enacting these laws climate just isn't nearly so important as equity/social justice?

Again, not my fight, and I think the vast majority of "negative externality" arguments are made for rhetorical points rather than referring to some well considered analysis not to be ignored... but I would be curious to understand how progressives decide which priorities are of greater urgency than environment and climate given how those issues are typically couched.

Post reply on HN