Slashdot Mirror
Cash Might Be King, but They Don't Care (nytimes.com)
In Midtown and some other neighborhoods across New York City, cashless is fast on its way to becoming normal, The New York Times reports, sharing anecdotes where merchants have refused to accept bills from customers (the link may be paywalled). From the report: Cashless businesses were once an isolated phenomenon, but now, similarly jarring experiences can be had across the street at Sweetgreen, or two blocks up at Two Forks, or next door to Two Forks at Dos Toros, or over on 41st Street at Bluestone Lane coffee. In the future, when dollar bills are found only in museum display cases, we will look back on this moment of transition and confusion with the same head-shaking smile with which we regard customs on the Isle of Yap in Micronesia, where giant stone discs are still accepted as payment for particularly big-ticket items. Some people already live in this cashless future. They find nothing strange about paying for a pack of gum with a swipe of a card. If you are one of these people and you are still somehow reading this article, you may be thinking, "What on earth is the big deal?" At Two Forks on 40th Street, where the lunch offerings have cheery names like Squash Goals, Kristin Junco, a 34-year-old auditor for the state Education Department, said she had not used cash for about a week and much prefers a cashless establishment to its opposite. "We travel a lot for work," she said, gesturing to a colleague, "and if they don't take credit cards that makes things difficult." [...] Not surprisingly, the credit card companies, who make a commission on every credit card purchase, applaud the trend. Visa recently offered select merchants a $10,000 reward for depriving customers of their right to pay by the method of their choice. A Visa executive described this practice to CNN as offering shoppers "freedom from carrying cash."
I have been carrying more cash lately since is seems to speed transactions over credit cards with the embedded chip.
For me Android pay is now unusable. For some reason the Marshmallow update causes the phone to hound me for the administrative password before it will let the transaction go through. All kinds of people complain about it, and as far as I know nobody has ever gotten any kind of a straight answer as to why or what it takes to fix this.
For the most part I just use cash for small transactions.
Of course, NYC assumes their experience is typical. But where I'm at, EVERYONE still uses cash. It actually annoys me, because it takes time to make change. I'm actually surprised when I see someone else (like myself) paying with a debit card. Cash is still king here.
At least it's not as bad as it was in the 1980's in Miami, though. Back then, with all the drug smugglers, *everything* in that city ran on cash. People bought cars and mansions with suitcases full of cash (and banks, realtors, and car dealerships never asked where it came from, of course). It was a very strange place to be.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
We have a big problem with cashless businesses. Where I live you can't go swimming or take the bus with cash.
I think it's a shame. You should be careful to preserve the cash option. First of all it's good for kids to learn the value of money, you don't get the same sense of spending if you don't lose something physical. Second of all, if your bank screws up you're supposed to be able to take out your money and walk out of the bank. If you can't use the cash you take out the banks' power increases a lot.
I've been wondering how much the Salvation Army bell ringers have been hurting since less and less people carry cash with them.
The rich don't have free cards either. There are still yearly or monthly fees involved, just as with a bank account.
I very much doubt that. I am by no means wealthy, and none of my credit cards carry an annual fee.
Obviously, I'd pay interest if I carried a balance from month to month, but that is true of any debt. As long as I pay my bill on time, I don't pay a penny more than what I would have paid in cash.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
However, if there are very few cash customers and they think the $10k is worth more than the lost cash business, they will do it.
Exactly. In other words, Visa will have CORRUPTED the free market through this cheating tactic by paying off / colluding with / restricting the behavior of players who would otherwise act in their own best interests, and ELIMINATED government-backed cash as a competitor: Without the bribe, the markets would likely succeed and the merchants would still take cash --- because It is in their best interests to trade with everyone they can make a profitable trade with, but WITH the bribe, the free markets will fail perhaps, because in many venues there might not be quite $10k a year spent in CASH FORM, AND establishments that take in $20k or $30k in cash might go negotiate their own private deals with Visa to get a % point taken off their fees or something in addition to the $10k.
Don't like the merchant's practice, shop somewhere else.
That's not an adequate answer to address the corruption of the marketplace.
Point 1. being "Shop somewhere else" is not an acceptable resolution -- this places far too much burden on the consumer and threatens the viability of these government-backed notes, which the public has not affirmatively agreed to.
Point 2 is.... the people who are cardless through no real fault of their own OR don't want to pay Visa an extra free for a prepaid cashcard of some sort don't even have a choice.
Maybe I like unique food this restaurant has for sale. When the Civil Rights act passed; we as a society decided that places of public accommodation are important enough that some groups cannot be discriminatorily denied access "Cardless not welcome in our restaurant" simply should not fly.
Government wants a cashless world. It's about control. When you no longer have any tangible assets, they can take whatever money they want (ask Greece). Or, they can control/monitor your purchases. Outlaw cash...then make a law about healthcare tied to what you spend. Go into a fast food establishment...order a cheeseburger, fries and a coke....BZZZZZZZ sorry, your last healthcare checkup says your BMI is too high. Try to buy a sports car...BZZZZZZZ...sorry, your driving record shows too many speeding tickets. DON'T think it can't happen!
Oh yes. How novel. Lose your transit pass AND your credit card.
What could possibly go wrong?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
... cards are *expensive*. They're about 3%. It doesn't take 3% of our gross revenue to handle cash. Nowhere close to that.
These businesses who can afford to throw away 3% of their gross right off the top are doing so because either:
- Their products are severely overpriced, and they don't mind giving 3% to Visa/MC
- They're being run by very inept people.
I use cash everywhere possible. It's easy. It's cheap. It's anonymous.
I don't respond to AC's.
This is more likely the test case.
Is the point of cash only to exclude the unbanked?
Do the unbanked in the area skew by race?
If those two things are determined to be true, this would likely be an example of racial exclusion (which legally doesn't need to be the intention, only the outcome of policy).
The flip side is that if safety of employees and speed of transactions can be demonstrated to be the reasons, it likely would stand as legal.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Bullshit. Tips, as reported to the IRS, are higher when CCs were used (and there is a paper trail). What a surprise.
Even when paying with a CC, I tip in cash. Assuming it's value is stretched by the servers marginal tax rate.
It's everybody's job to 'starve the beast'. Cash is king.
I don't know, facilitating tax fraud isn't something I am particularly comfortable with. I would prefer that the tax base be as large as possible, so making it more difficult for people to avoid their legal tax burden (or making it easier for people to track their legal tax burden if that framing is more pleasant) is a good thing in my opinion.
I am sympathetic to the reality that restaurant staff are not particularly well paid, and that making it harder for the wealthy to avoid taxes is probably a better thing to focus my attention on, but paying everything with plastic is also more convenient for me personally, so I have little inclination to deal with cash for a portion of the transaction.
The statement on the bill was so that no-one could refuse it during the "Great Rebellion", as the American Revolution was called at the time. A citation from 1869 is typical: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/...
At that time, the government did not wish to give person the option of refusing the (new) U.S. Dollar and demanding gold or silver before completing a transaction with the government or private individuals.
The Department of the Treasure has stated a legal opinion that the law does not apply to a large class of private transactions, on the grounds that a "debt" does not exist until the transaction is complete.
There is case law on paying the debt in cash as opposed to gold and silver, but Google Scholar doesn't report anything on refusal to accept cash for a non-debt.
An arguement can be made that the intention of the US founding fathers was to give "debt" its broadest possible reading, and that the position of the Treasury is pilpul, and requires authorizing legislation, such as (Canada's) "Currency Act"
This, of course, does not speak to other parts of the criminal code. For example, it may well be illegal to refuse to sell a necessity to a minor if they only have cash.
davecb@spamcop.net
Unless you run to the bank daily,
This is a major issue.
I have a fiend who used to run a primarily cash business. He could easily do $10K or $15K of sales a day. And he didn't like having that much cash on hand. So he'd send the store manager to the bank a couple times a day with a $5K deposit. Until some federal agents paid him a visit. Multiple daily deposits under the reporting limit triggered a "money laundering" investigation. Never mind that he had a legitimate business, documented his receipts and he didn't really care if the bank made the requisite reports based on his daily total receipts. It was cash and an excuse to hassle a business into cutting back on cash.
Cash has gone from legal tender to probable cause of criminal activity in this country. And in some cases, just having too much cash is a crime in and of itself. No more 'innocent until proven guilty'. The feds will just make your life hell if you look 'wrong'.
Have gnu, will travel.
Little bit of a hipster ourselves, aren't we?
When I was younger and a single parent, my grandmother gave us $20. We dressed up and I took my daughter to a good restaurant. I paid with that cash.
How pompous does one have to be to exclude someone visiting a nice establishment appropriately dressed just because they have a low income?