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

Walmart's effort to get customers to build up their savings accounts

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 222 posts

Re: Walmart's effort to get customers to build up their savings accounts

#141

Post by chrisseaton »

orf wrote: post #140
fefesafaea wrote: post #13

Kind of fucked up that the article doesn't mention the fees associated with these cards until like 3/4 of the way into the article. These cards charge 5 bucks a month, plus like 3 dollars to deposit cash, 3 dollars to withdraw cash, in addition to the 5-10 dollars up front for the card itself. Because of this, a person using this type of card can easily spend $100+ a year on fees. Not exactly a great way to save mone…

As someone from the UK I always find it astounding that Americans are used to paying money to.. withdraw or deposit their money. How did this become the norm? I find it a bit disgusting actually. The only cash machines that charge over here that I've seen are rented ones at packed events (clubs, concerts etc).

> I find it a bit disgusting actually

But withdrawing and depositing money is a service that costs the banks money to do doesn't it? I'm can see why you don't like but I can't see it as morally 'disgusting'.

Would you look after someone else's meagre current account for them, and give it back on demand, for free? I wouldn't.

I don't really know who covers that cost in the UK. It's certainly not interest they earn lending out our savings is it? Especially this type of customer since they have no savings because the point of the card is to encourage them to do so, and since interest rates are so low.

Who is paying to cover the costs of a basic bank account of someone who doesn't save? I've no idea.

Re: Walmart's effort to get customers to build up their savings accounts

#142

Post by nightcracker »

chrisseaton wrote: post #141
orf wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone from the UK I always find it astounding that Americans are used to paying money to.. withdraw or deposit their money. How did this become the norm? I find it a bit disgusting actually. The only cash machines that charge over here that I've seen are rented ones at packed events (clubs, concerts etc).

> I find it a bit disgusting actually But withdrawing and depositing money is a service that costs the banks money to do doesn't it? I'm can see why you don't like but I can't see it as morally 'disgusting'. Would you look after someone else's meagre current account for them, and give it back on demand, for free? I wouldn't. I don't really know who covers that cost in the UK. It's certainly not interest they earn len…

Those are the costs associated with running a bank. It's paid for by giving them access to our capital, that they can use to invest.

Have we forgotten what a bank is for? It's to conveniently and safely store money. Part of that convenience is to withdraw and store money at many locations. If a bank didn't offer that they wouldn't get my money.

Re: Walmart's effort to get customers to build up their savings accounts

#143

Post by orf »

chrisseaton wrote: post #141
orf wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone from the UK I always find it astounding that Americans are used to paying money to.. withdraw or deposit their money. How did this become the norm? I find it a bit disgusting actually. The only cash machines that charge over here that I've seen are rented ones at packed events (clubs, concerts etc).

> I find it a bit disgusting actually But withdrawing and depositing money is a service that costs the banks money to do doesn't it? I'm can see why you don't like but I can't see it as morally 'disgusting'. Would you look after someone else's meagre current account for them, and give it back on demand, for free? I wouldn't. I don't really know who covers that cost in the UK. It's certainly not interest they earn len…

> But withdrawing and depositing money is a service that costs the banks money to do doesn't it?

It's literally their job. It's their function. Why am I reimbursing them? I'm giving them my money essentially to invest, why am I also paying them to support basic business functions on my money, with my money, while they make money using my money?

It's easy to say "hurr durr why are you paying them for a service they provide, who does that??" but that's missing the point. Banks are a special case.

> I can't see it as morally 'disgusting'.

It disproportionately affects the poor, and for no real reason than 'I can charge this so I will'. Apparently some places charge you to even check your balance? What the hell.

> I don't really know who covers that cost in the UK

The big, fat, rich banks do. Because the total cost of running all their ATM's is a fraction of a rounding error on their yearly turnover.

Re: Walmart's effort to get customers to build up their savings accounts

#144

Post by chrisseaton »

nightcracker wrote: post #142
chrisseaton wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it a bit disgusting actually But withdrawing and depositing money is a service that costs the banks money to do doesn't it? I'm can see why you don't like but I can't see it as morally 'disgusting'. Would you look after someone else's meagre current account for them, and give it back on demand, for free? I wouldn't. I don't really know who covers that cost in the UK. It's certainly not interest they earn len…

Those are the costs associated with running a bank. It's paid for by giving them access to our capital, that they can use to invest. Have we forgotten what a bank is for? It's to conveniently and safely store money. Part of that convenience is to withdraw and store money at many locations. If a bank didn't offer that they wouldn't get my money.

> It's paid for by giving them access to our capital, that they can use to invest.

What capital? The people referred to in this article don't have any savings. Many working class people have no savings at all, and only a few thousand in their current accounts.

Re: Walmart's effort to get customers to build up their savings accounts

#145

Post by [deleted] »

orf wrote: post #143
chrisseaton wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it a bit disgusting actually But withdrawing and depositing money is a service that costs the banks money to do doesn't it? I'm can see why you don't like but I can't see it as morally 'disgusting'. Would you look after someone else's meagre current account for them, and give it back on demand, for free? I wouldn't. I don't really know who covers that cost in the UK. It's certainly not interest they earn len…

> But withdrawing and depositing money is a service that costs the banks money to do doesn't it? It's literally their job. It's their function. Why am I reimbursing them? I'm giving them my money essentially to invest, why am I also paying them to support basic business functions on my money , with my money , while they make money using my money ? It's easy to say "hurr durr why are you paying them for a service they…

[deleted]

Re: Walmart's effort to get customers to build up their savings accounts

#146

Post by chrisseaton »

orf wrote: post #143
chrisseaton wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it a bit disgusting actually But withdrawing and depositing money is a service that costs the banks money to do doesn't it? I'm can see why you don't like but I can't see it as morally 'disgusting'. Would you look after someone else's meagre current account for them, and give it back on demand, for free? I wouldn't. I don't really know who covers that cost in the UK. It's certainly not interest they earn len…

> But withdrawing and depositing money is a service that costs the banks money to do doesn't it? It's literally their job. It's their function. Why am I reimbursing them? I'm giving them my money essentially to invest, why am I also paying them to support basic business functions on my money , with my money , while they make money using my money ? It's easy to say "hurr durr why are you paying them for a service they…

> I'm giving them my money essentially to invest

But what about those people who aren't giving the bank any meaningful capital to invest? What is the bank getting in return in that case?

Or are you arguing that banks should be forced to provide it as a kind of social service even if they don't earn anything? I can understand that kind of point of view.

Re: Walmart's effort to get customers to build up their savings accounts

#147

Post by orf »

chrisseaton wrote: post #146
orf wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But withdrawing and depositing money is a service that costs the banks money to do doesn't it? It's literally their job. It's their function. Why am I reimbursing them? I'm giving them my money essentially to invest, why am I also paying them to support basic business functions on my money , with my money , while they make money using my money ? It's easy to say "hurr durr why are you paying them for a service they…

> I'm giving them my money essentially to invest But what about those people who aren't giving the bank any meaningful capital to invest? What is the bank getting in return in that case? Or are you arguing that banks should be forced to provide it as a kind of social service even if they don't earn anything? I can understand that kind of point of view.

The answer to "not enough people are giving banks capital to invest" is not "charge people more", it's to work out why nobody is putting their money in banks. Could the charges be a factor? Or a paycheck-to-paycheck economy?

The people not giving the bank any meaningful capital are going to cost them much/anything,because it's not as if Joe Bloggs with $500 in his account is going to be doing a thousand withdrawals and balance checks a month.

The point is the banking fees hit those who can least afford to pay them the most. It doesn't have to be like that, and I can understand a kind of point of view that supports it.

Re: Walmart's effort to get customers to build up their savings accounts

#148

Post by theklub »

orf wrote: post #140
fefesafaea wrote: post #13

Kind of fucked up that the article doesn't mention the fees associated with these cards until like 3/4 of the way into the article. These cards charge 5 bucks a month, plus like 3 dollars to deposit cash, 3 dollars to withdraw cash, in addition to the 5-10 dollars up front for the card itself. Because of this, a person using this type of card can easily spend $100+ a year on fees. Not exactly a great way to save mone…

As someone from the UK I always find it astounding that Americans are used to paying money to.. withdraw or deposit their money. How did this become the norm? I find it a bit disgusting actually. The only cash machines that charge over here that I've seen are rented ones at packed events (clubs, concerts etc).

I don't think it is the norm. Only time I've paid fees is at the ATM.

Re: Walmart's effort to get customers to build up their savings accounts

#149

Post by CaptainZapp »

orf wrote: post #140
fefesafaea wrote: post #13

Kind of fucked up that the article doesn't mention the fees associated with these cards until like 3/4 of the way into the article. These cards charge 5 bucks a month, plus like 3 dollars to deposit cash, 3 dollars to withdraw cash, in addition to the 5-10 dollars up front for the card itself. Because of this, a person using this type of card can easily spend $100+ a year on fees. Not exactly a great way to save mone…

As someone from the UK I always find it astounding that Americans are used to paying money to.. withdraw or deposit their money. How did this become the norm? I find it a bit disgusting actually. The only cash machines that charge over here that I've seen are rented ones at packed events (clubs, concerts etc).

I was amused about cash machines at major English banks blurting out:

FREE CASH

Of course that unfortunately only means that you're not charged for the withdrawel, but the cash doesn't really come free.

Re: Walmart's effort to get customers to build up their savings accounts

#150

Post by CaptainZapp »

chrisseaton wrote: post #146
orf wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But withdrawing and depositing money is a service that costs the banks money to do doesn't it? It's literally their job. It's their function. Why am I reimbursing them? I'm giving them my money essentially to invest, why am I also paying them to support basic business functions on my money , with my money , while they make money using my money ? It's easy to say "hurr durr why are you paying them for a service they…

> I'm giving them my money essentially to invest But what about those people who aren't giving the bank any meaningful capital to invest? What is the bank getting in return in that case? Or are you arguing that banks should be forced to provide it as a kind of social service even if they don't earn anything? I can understand that kind of point of view.

  Or are you arguing that banks should be forced to provide it as a kind of social service even if they don't earn anything?
Since banks, especially systemic critical, large banks make a shit ton of money based on an implicit guarantee by the tax payer, yes, I'd argue exactly that.
Post reply on HN