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

No Shirt, No Swipe, No Service

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: No Shirt, No Swipe, No Service

#111

Post by [deleted] »

electroSurveil wrote: post #28
orangechairs wrote: post #18

To echo what others have said, cashless systems -- especially in fast food chains -- are a quick way to discriminate against a whole population of the underbanked. I was in Dos Toros (burrito chain mentioned early in the article) about a month ago, and the woman in line ahead of me didn't have a card. She got so embarrassed at the register despite having ample cash to pay for her meal. I paid for her with my card, sh…

I feel weird spending at places like this at all. Not just because of what it does to other people, but also how it modifies my own behavior. What if it had been me? I can't leave the house with just a twenty in my pocket? That's not good enough? I have to stop, wait, find my wallet, make sure it has a card with a balance on it, know what that balance is, make sure the card isn't damaged (demagnetized, scuffed chip c…

[deleted]

Re: No Shirt, No Swipe, No Service

#112

Post by knfzn »

solatic wrote: post #91
electroSurveil wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel weird spending at places like this at all. Not just because of what it does to other people, but also how it modifies my own behavior. What if it had been me? I can't leave the house with just a twenty in my pocket? That's not good enough? I have to stop, wait, find my wallet, make sure it has a card with a balance on it, know what that balance is, make sure the card isn't damaged (demagnetized, scuffed chip c…

> Why would a restaurant prefer anything over cash? Because there is a dramatic reduction in costs from going completely cashless. You don't have to pay for security for cash-on-hand. You don't have to pay for an armored car to transport cash to a bank. If you don't want to pay for an armored car, you don't have to pay (and trust) an employee to do it for you, else paying with your time by doing it yourself. You can…

Every now and then this will backfire on the business. For instance, what happens if the system goes down?

I was recently in a cashless place that suddenly lost internet access as the cashier(?) was ringing up my food. With no way to charge me I was given my lunch for free and everyone in the line behind me was forced to wait.

Re: No Shirt, No Swipe, No Service

#113

Post by knfzn »

ac29 wrote: post #51
orangechairs wrote: post #18

To echo what others have said, cashless systems -- especially in fast food chains -- are a quick way to discriminate against a whole population of the underbanked. I was in Dos Toros (burrito chain mentioned early in the article) about a month ago, and the woman in line ahead of me didn't have a card. She got so embarrassed at the register despite having ample cash to pay for her meal. I paid for her with my card, sh…

The question to me is, why does this population exist in such great numbers? I understand not having good credit, but having access to a checking account with a debit card doesn't seem like it should be insurmountable. The last checking account I opened just took $5 to open the account (technically a "membership" fee at a credit union). No any proof of employment, income, ar assets was needed [0], and I left with a d…

I work in NYC and it sounds weird, but a lot of people still don't trust banks.

Re: No Shirt, No Swipe, No Service

#114

Post by wilsonnb2 »

zaarn wrote: post #83

I don't really understand the american need for a credit card. In germany, I pay almost everything either in cash or via bank transfer, usually pull. I got a prepaid card a while ago, mostly to pay for american services (seriously, I only ever pay to american corporations with it). My debit card (EC card) is almost universal and directly connected to the bank account, no credit needed. CC is barely supported, EC is a…

Credit cards are an excellent tool as long as you don't accrue debt with them.

I get 1.5%-2% cash back with everything purchased with it. I'd be losing money by using a debit card instead. Not to mention the $500 they gave me just for signing up for it.

I also don't to worry about when I get paid. I might only have $100 left in my checking account when I need to buy groceries if the day I get paid falls at a weird time. I don't have to worry about that sort of thing with a credit card, although it is much less of an issue now that I actually have savings than it was when I was in college.

If someone steals my debit card or my cash and uses it, my money is gone. My bank would probably refund me the stolen money if my debit card was used fraudulently, but until that happens I'm still out however much of my own money.

If they steal my credit card, who cares? I'll call the bank and cancel it and in the mean time, none of my actual money has been touched.

> If I need more I go to the Bank's ATM and get more. Easy.

Not having to go to an ATM is even easier than having to go to an ATM.

Re: No Shirt, No Swipe, No Service

#115

Post by toast0 »

ac29 wrote: post #51
orangechairs wrote: post #18

To echo what others have said, cashless systems -- especially in fast food chains -- are a quick way to discriminate against a whole population of the underbanked. I was in Dos Toros (burrito chain mentioned early in the article) about a month ago, and the woman in line ahead of me didn't have a card. She got so embarrassed at the register despite having ample cash to pay for her meal. I paid for her with my card, sh…

The question to me is, why does this population exist in such great numbers? I understand not having good credit, but having access to a checking account with a debit card doesn't seem like it should be insurmountable. The last checking account I opened just took $5 to open the account (technically a "membership" fee at a credit union). No any proof of employment, income, ar assets was needed [0], and I left with a d…

Many bank accounts are really expensive if you can't manage to reach the free tier. One of my local banks will take $6/month if you don't leave $100 in there. And if you're having trouble leaving $100 in your account, it can be pretty easy for a delayed transaction to trigger an overdraft, and then you've got even bigger fees. Do that enough times and either you'll swear off banks, or they'll blacklist you in chexsystems or both.

Re: No Shirt, No Swipe, No Service

#116

Post by erik_seaberg »

rimliu wrote: post #47
electroSurveil wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel weird spending at places like this at all. Not just because of what it does to other people, but also how it modifies my own behavior. What if it had been me? I can't leave the house with just a twenty in my pocket? That's not good enough? I have to stop, wait, find my wallet, make sure it has a card with a balance on it, know what that balance is, make sure the card isn't damaged (demagnetized, scuffed chip c…

In Denmark and Sweden it is simple: you are likely to have your phone with you, and thats enough. MobilePay and Swish respectively are wildly popular solutions.

In the US this isn't reliable. I just got a new phone and learned the hard way it doesn't support NFC, and even if it did a lot of merchants disabled their NFC readers waiting for more merchant-friendly rails to reach the market.

Re: No Shirt, No Swipe, No Service

#117

Post by NeedMoreTea »

bena wrote: post #99
NeedMoreTea wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having to deal with the elderly or disabled adds overhead from employee time or premises adaptations. All that changes is the disenfranchised group. All should be considered discrimination. Maybe it's the European perspective but I welcomed it when the UK required all premises to be wheelchair accessible, even though I am able bodied. I'd equally welcome making accepting the country's currency mandatory as I don't be…

Not taking cash is not the same as not serving the disabled or elderly. Even in the statements after you said we should go back to "the customer is always right" you said "a business was supposed to serve the customer's needs and did what was necessary to achieve that". Which runs counter to your later statement that you only care about the "core" idea. Corn is useful. People want corn. You can trade corn for other t…

Debate is impossible if you're going to be merely absurdly argumentative.

You can be a customer if you have the money part of the exchange, otherwise you're clearly not a customer.

Re: No Shirt, No Swipe, No Service

#118

Post by amluto »

bena wrote: post #94
valleyer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks could easily simply reject overdrafts instead of allowing them while charging fees.

Not if I write a check. And from what I recall, when you make a purchase, they don't check against your projected balance at that time, but your actual balance. So if I have $100 in my account and a pending debit of $50, if I try to make a purchase of $60, it'll get approved because I have $100 in my account. Now, there are potential things it could do, like treat pending debits like cleared debits. I mean, when I ch…

> That’s not really relevant. If a bank wants to offer, in plain English, a credit service in which overdrafts turn into loans, fine. But part of the problem with the unbanked/underbanked is that people can be quite justifiably worried that the bank will take away their money by nickel-and-diming them.

Anyone should be able to open a bank account without a credit check or abusive fees. A checking account is not credit. Allowing overdrafts to become abusing loads is credit, under terms that could easily be seen as usurious.

Re: No Shirt, No Swipe, No Service

#119

Post by bena »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #117
bena wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not taking cash is not the same as not serving the disabled or elderly. Even in the statements after you said we should go back to "the customer is always right" you said "a business was supposed to serve the customer's needs and did what was necessary to achieve that". Which runs counter to your later statement that you only care about the "core" idea. Corn is useful. People want corn. You can trade corn for other t…

Debate is impossible if you're going to be merely absurdly argumentative. You can be a customer if you have the money part of the exchange, otherwise you're clearly not a customer.

I'm being absurdly argumentative? Because I don't agree with your vague waffling when you are confronted with the implications of your ideas.

If you don't mean X, then don't say X.

You can't be a customer if I don't let you be a customer.

When you walk up to a counter and say "I would like to buy these things" you are not a customer yet. You are giving an "invitation to treat". An invitation the establishment may decline.

Many establishments have signs that say "No shoes, no service", "No hoods or hats may be worn in the building", "Tie required", etc. Each one as equally discriminating. But you are railing against the one that applies to you. "We refuse to deal in cash".

If anyone is being absurd, it's you. You've actually admitted to it several times. Refusing to acknowledge that electronic payments are still exchanging money, just not in the form you like.

Re: No Shirt, No Swipe, No Service

#120

Post by TheCoelacanth »

bena wrote: post #94
valleyer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banks could easily simply reject overdrafts instead of allowing them while charging fees.

Not if I write a check. And from what I recall, when you make a purchase, they don't check against your projected balance at that time, but your actual balance. So if I have $100 in my account and a pending debit of $50, if I try to make a purchase of $60, it'll get approved because I have $100 in my account. Now, there are potential things it could do, like treat pending debits like cleared debits. I mean, when I ch…

Banks don't have to accept overdrafts on checks either. That's what happened when someone says that a check "bounced". The person you wrote the check to won't be pleased because they don't get their money, but the account won't get overdrafted.

Allowing overdrafts because of pending debits is also just a decision that the bank makes. They don't have to do that.

Post reply on HN