San Francisco Bans Cashless Stores (sfexaminer.com) 269
Following Philadelphia's lead, San Francisco became the second major U.S. city to ban cashless businesses in a Tuesday vote by the city Board of Supervisors. The legislation ends a practice widely viewed as discriminatory against low income residents. San Francisco Examiner reports: There are currently only a handful of businesses that do not accept cash in San Francisco, requiring payment through smart phone applications tied to a person's bank account or credit card. The number, however, was increasing. Those without bank accounts or credit are unable to purchase goods in these types of stores.
"The City must remain vigilant in ensuring its economy is inclusionary and accessible to Everyone," the legislation states. "The purpose of this [law]is to ensure that all City residents -- including those who lack access to other forms of payment are able to participate in the City's economic life by paying cash for goods and many services." Businesses argue going cashless creates a safer work environment and more efficient service. Under the legislation, repeat violations would constitute a misdemeanor and carry a fine of up to $1,000. The law applies to brick-and-mortar businesses, those with a fixed location. It does not impact food trucks, ride hail services or temporary "pop up" retail.
"The City must remain vigilant in ensuring its economy is inclusionary and accessible to Everyone," the legislation states. "The purpose of this [law]is to ensure that all City residents -- including those who lack access to other forms of payment are able to participate in the City's economic life by paying cash for goods and many services." Businesses argue going cashless creates a safer work environment and more efficient service. Under the legislation, repeat violations would constitute a misdemeanor and carry a fine of up to $1,000. The law applies to brick-and-mortar businesses, those with a fixed location. It does not impact food trucks, ride hail services or temporary "pop up" retail.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
And aside from the poorer demographic not having smartphones/cards, cash allows everyone purchasing privacy in that the bank doesn't know what you've bought. All the tech hipsters who evangelise a cashless society are nothing more than shills for the banks who'd be quite happy to ditch cash and the processing expense that goes with it + having their customers by the balls (no access to bank account? No buying food etc) and to track them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly this, in many countries bank accounts are available to anyone who is in the country legally, and they are available for free. If you've no credit history then you won't get credit, but you can always deposit cash into the bank account and pay up to the balance present in your account. Most employers also prefer to make salary payments directly into bank accounts. These banks will also typically provide you a free debit card with mastercard or visa that can be used almost anywhere. For most people and most circumstances there are significant benefits to using card payments.
If they're going to ban cashless stores, then they should also ban cash-only stores for the same reason.
They should also require that region-specific payment methods are not the only option accepted.
These are unnecessary hassles for travellers, and discourage tourism. I've frequently visited countries where various retailers will only accept some local payment method which i've never heard of, am probably not eligible to use, and might not have any information available in a language that i can read.
When i travel i will massively prefer retailers which take the common international card types and don't penalise me for using them... I don't have access to local-only payment methods and it would be impractical to do so for all the various locations i visit, and cash is just hugely inconvenient when you travel...
Re: (Score:2)
If they're going to ban cashless stores, then they should also ban cash-only stores for the same reason.
If you're banning cash-only stores then you should also ban cash discounts or extra fees for the transaction being a credit card. Those behaviors are just companies saying, "We want your business but we want you to pay the extra expense for us to obtain it."
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite different from a cash-only store, which allows you to pay your debt with legally mandated means. Credit or debit cards might be convenient, but there is no legal way to force someone to accept the
Re: (Score:2)
You don't incur any debt until a transaction takes place. A shop owner simply refuses to transact if you wont use acceptable to them payment terms.
Re: (Score:3)
every debt you have, can be paid of with legal tender
This does not mean that merchants must accept cash for any kind of business
All of this depends on whether you pay the good before or after you consume it or bring it out of the store.
If you pay before you have the goods, it's not a debt at that point yet, and the merchant has the right to ask you to just leave whatever you are intending to buy in the store if you don't use his preferred payment methods.
It only is a debt if leaving the goods behind is not possible, i.e. you ate them already (restaurant),
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the rest of your post:
If they're going to ban cashless stores, then they should also ban cash-only stores for the same reason.
This makes sense, exactly why?
Cash is legal tender ... cashless is not ... on what legal base would you ban a cash only store in any country?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this, in many countries bank accounts are available to anyone who is in the country legally
Why not to anyone living in the country illegally?
In the UK, for example, the Home Office can just declare that you are in the country illegally, fully intending to create a hostile environment - whether you are there legally or not.
Re: (Score:3)
Except for the fact with the Credit system, people can pay for more then what they have. So these people who get into such trouble, are punished for being poor, and not having resources to avoid paying for timely services a different way.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No...
These people are being "punished" for not being able to do basic addition and subtraction. This has nothing to do with being poor, it means they don't have or aren't using the extremely basic math skills required to be an adult in our society, to know when they are out of money and when to quit spending.
Yes, you have freedom, but that also
Re: (Score:3)
If you read back up through the thread, you'll see the person I'm originally replying to.
No one is talking about how much a person makes, we're talking about anyone spending MORE than they have, living beyond their means using a Credit Card.
And you're right, being poor does not make you dumb and you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Fake news!
They instantly repealed that after your last visit.
Re: (Score:2)
...San Francisco has MANDATED everyone wear assless chaps, considering how this is the Towne of Faggotry.
That's hot...
All the money comes from tourists and exports (Score:2)
If you buy something from your neighbor, or your neighbor buys something from you, obviously the amount of money in the community hasn't changed.
When you or your neighbor buys something from Amazon (oe any other company outaide your city) money leavea your community ans goes to the far-away business. Every time you buy something from a non-local business, the amount of money in your community is reduced.
Your community would quickly run out of money, everyone would be broke, unless you sell things to people
Re: (Score:2)
It is easy to open an account in the US too, but you need an account AND a smartphone. People need to wake up: not everyone has that stuff and not everyone is even interested in having those. Tech companies are just being greedy at this point. No one wants cashless stores. It is just another toy for the tech companies to make because they have run out of interesting ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> And why do you need a smartphone?
A lot of these cashless stores - specifically Amazon's - operate through a smartphone app linked to a card/bank account to negotiate payment.
Also, some (not all) US Banks have a minimum balance/deposit requirement to open an account. It may depend on the type of account as well.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they give you a card reader? What is that for?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting.
I've never seen such a thing for home use. Then again, I've never had a debit card. A couple of times my bank mistakenly tri
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, lemme be a bit more concise for you.
Why would a normal person (not a business) ever need a credit card / debit card reader?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think I've ever seen a garage sale that was anything BUT hard cash...even recently.
Are you talking about outside the US or something?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I wish both sides would stop strawmanning each-other so much. It is possible and I'd say even more likely to have a nuanced opinion on such things rather than going full planned economy or deregulate all the things. Some things have to be regulated because people are assholes, but other things don't because governments are intrinsically bad at managing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct; as always, it's the middle-to-lower classes that get the shaft, especially in the USA and Europe.
Meanwhile, the hyper-rich, organized & smart criminals and "terrorists / fighters for democracy" seem to have absolutely no trouble shifting large sums around.
There are some hold-outs however; for instance the Swiss government, which continues to print the 1000 Franc bill, (roughly 980 bucks).
Nice quote from them...'the central bank believes that “the size of a banknote had no impact on effort
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be so worried about the banks as the government. The financial system needs the ability to abuse depositers during the next crisis without them being able to run away to hard currency. Just look at what happened in Greece and Malta - the ECB locked down withdrawls and haircutted deposits. There is no bank run if the government traps your money in the bank.
The beauty of cash in a free-market banking model, is that it served as the ultimately regulator to banks. If banks don't look after your money
Re: Good (Score:2)
It was Cyprus not Malta. The haircutting only applied to uninsured deposits and was never implemented. Perhaps you think the ECB should've just given Cyprus the money with no conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
... banks who'd be quite happy to ditch cash and the processing expense that goes with it .....
If I pay cash to buy a widget from Smith, and then Smith uses my cash to buy a gizmo from Jones, and then Jones uses that cash to buy a gadget from Brown, etc, the bank does not have any processing expense. That's the point - the bank wants to be involved in transactions (and the processing expense) because each time they do they take a fee, which more than covers any processing expense.
They want to ban cash because they want a % of every transaction, and they can't take that when two people exchange c
Re: (Score:2)
Any sane business hands the cash at the end of the day to a bank for safekeeping.
The next morning they go there to get change, all of this is more expensive than electronic payments.
Re: (Score:2)
Such cash transactions are a drop in the ocean but the banks want a part of them anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Of cause the bank got a processing fee there. They get paid each time a company delivery money to them.
Missed my point. My example of cash passing between Smith -> Jones -> Brown etc did not involve any money being delivered to the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
How quaint thinking if you are paying for cash your privacy is being protected.
Because such a large percentage of people pay with cards, the fact you are paying for cash becomes the identifier.
Now the real problem is in the banking system. Where the poorer you are the more you pay for banking services.
Oh look your account is below such a balance we are going to charge you for that.
It seems like you have paid a bit too much before your payday so that $3.00 over charge will be an additional $30.00
When you ha
Re: (Score:3)
And aside from the poorer demographic not having smartphones/cards, cash allows everyone purchasing privacy in that the bank doesn't know what you've bought. All the tech hipsters who evangelise a cashless society are nothing more than shills for the banks who'd be quite happy to ditch cash and the processing expense that goes with it + having their customers by the balls (no access to bank account? No buying food etc) and to track them.
I came here to post basically this. San Francisco is at least staving off complete takeover by the banks. Once you go cashless, they indeed have you by the balls.
Re: (Score:2)
Well cash handling is expense for retailers as well. There are lot security issues around it. They is fact that it has to be taken an deposited daily. (Big real tail drives a lot of revenue of interest) If money sits in the store safe over night that represents a loss.
I am not in favor of cashless society but I do appreciate the savings; which today are largely passed on to customers with good credit and good credit cards with rewards.
Re: (Score:2)
All the tech hipsters who evangelise a cashless society are nothing more than shills for the banks
Yeah, the guys who run the crypto-only shops are totally minions of the banksters. /s
If you force them to also take Federal Reserve Notes, which are literally issued by an organization entirely run by the biggest (member) banks in the world, you are literally forcing them to use bankster money instead of free-market alternatives.
If you can't follow this simple description of how the monetary system works, set
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's being pushed onto us because it's power. The power to see every single transaction people make. And eventually the power to instantly cut you off when you do something those in charge don't like. This has already happened with certain companies (Visa/MC/Paypal/NatWest) suddenly and arbitrarily stopping service to customers because of political or ethical disagreements.
All that power is too great a honeypot to resist by those who think they can reach it. And human nature being what it is, that power wi
Great news (Score:5, Insightful)
Credit card companies game the system, to allow them to profit from sellers, whilst providing very little in return.
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite to cash is not credit card. There's many payment systems in between.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
AFAIK, international payment cards such as Visa were originally credit-only, probably due to technical limitations. Visa Debit requires a realtime connection to verify the account balance. So it's no wonder that many people associate payment cards with credit cards.
The old Finnish debit cards were interesting in that they did not offer credit, but they also didn't require a realtime link. So in practice you could have some credit over a few days. There weren't any hard conditions besides 18 years of age
Re:Great news (Score:5, Informative)
The opposite to cash is not credit card. There's many payment systems in between.
Indeed. WePay and AliPay in China, and Swish in Sweden, have gone the furthest in creating a cashless society, and none of them are based on credit cards.
I was in Shanghai for six weeks last fall, and didn't use cash a single time. Even the homeless beggars on the street accept e-payments. You just use your phone to scan the QR-code on their sign.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the homeless beggars on the street [in Shanghai] accept e-payments. You just use your phone to scan the QR-code on their sign.
So you left a link between yourself and your bank on the one hand, and a homeless beggar and quite likely his minders on the other. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Very little? (Score:2)
If credit card companies offered very little in return, sellers wouldn't accept credit cards as payment.
Cash is a pain in the ass for businesses. They need to worry about making change, employee theft, and counterfeiting. Plus the additional expense of an armored car service and higher insurance costs, due to being a target for theft if there's a large amount of cash on the premises.
Debit cards solve the above problems. But credit cards have an additional benefit: customers spend more. When people don't thi
Re: (Score:2)
If credit card companies offered very little in return, sellers wouldn't accept credit cards as payment.
What taking credit card payments offers to sellers is the fact that many potential customers will turn away and find another seller who does, given that many people do not carry enough cash for their purchases. It is avoiding a negative rather than gaining a positive : they can't buck the trend.
Credit cards offer benefits to sellers, otherwise SF wouldn't have needed to pass a law to keep cash as an option.
The advantage for the sellers there is to keep the riff-raff out of their store to present a more up-market ambience.
Theory vs Practice (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed the economy must be accessible (Score:5, Insightful)
Where are the laws requiring banks to offer free debit cards, where are the laws requiring internet connection and online shopping to be available for all?
You're banning cash for all the wrong reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The banks are the real problem in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem in the USA is that these people with limited funds can't open a bank account at all or if they can, the fees are so high its not worth doing.
Here in Australia its different. I have a bank account with a fairly large bank. When I opened that account I deposited just $1. And the only fees I have ever paid in the time I have had that account have been fees for making an overseas transaction on my Visa Debit card or fees for using certain ATMs that aren't from my bank (generic ATMs at places like convenience stores or that have been hired for events or the like charge a fee and certain banks charge fees to people who aren't with that bank).
Fix the banking system so that anyone can get a bank account easily and without high fees (oh and get rid of the ridiculous notion that writing figures on special bits of paper and then signing those bits of paper is a good way to pay people in 2019) and stores that don't take cash are no longer a problem.
Such a move would also help put the greedy scumbags that run the check cashing places out of business (since more people would be able to have their pay and other payments deposited directly into the bank or walk into the bank with the check and deposit it instead of needing to go to a check cashing place)
Re: (Score:2)
We have Credit Unions in the US which work as you say, as well as neighborhood banks. The problem is, the banks that everyone knows the name of are also the ones where you need some crazy minimum balance (or minimum direct deposit) to avoid paying monthly/annual fees.
I had an interesting problem in Australia, I could not figure out how to top up my Opal card without using the only credit card I had with a PIN (and the bank that issued it was later bought by a bigger bank which doesn't do PIN, so that won't
Re: (Score:2)
.... unnecessary snacks...
The tradition here is that snacks are all necessary by definition
Re: (Score:2)
Such a move would also help put the greedy scumbags that run the check cashing places out of business (since more people would be able to have their pay and other payments deposited directly into the bank or walk into the bank with the check and deposit it instead of needing to go to a check cashing place)
You can already do that in the US, go hit a credit union. Check-cashing places are a sign that wages aren't keeping apace with the cost of living, so the person is usually "borrowing" at a high interest rate against future pay to make ends meet. I'm going to point out that the last time here in the west that there was a huge influx of places like that, it was just before the hyperinflation spike and deflationary spiral that hit in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The US was very close to that back in 20
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem in the USA is that these people with limited funds can't open a bank account at all or if they can, the fees are so high its not worth doing.
You're holding it wrong ;) Don't use banks then.
You can open a credit union account with little money, and no fees. Heck, my mostly jobless (because still young) kids did. I think the minimum balance was $50.
If you can't manage to deposit $50, then let's get real; you are going to be using a different kind of card (and yes, that's all by electronic card now too).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually think there's a different reason why some people don't use a bank account. They "kept off the grid" to avoid paying things like alimony, child support, taxes, and court settlements from previous debts. If they open an account and deposit anything it'll be taken. I've heard that welfare is protected from being garnished but I'm not sure how that works; but I doubt many of the recipients do either.
The check cashing places is a different issue but I totally agree with you. You can cash most checks a
Re: (Score:2)
The banks are the problem if these free accounts can't be used to pay for stuff unless you have a suitable smartphone.
Like I said, I have a free account that lets me pay for stuff using just my card (no phone required). 90% of my spending is done via my card and I dont even have a phone that supports phone payment.
If US banks wont give customers of free accounts a way to pay for stuff in stores without the account holder having to pay fees for the privilage and without needing any kind of phone or tech devi
Re: (Score:2)
It's nothing to do with the banks; it's the STORES that are deciding to only take smartphone payments.
The store owners are just taking the cheap way out: the equipment to accept phone payments is dirt cheap, and if that is the only way you accept payments your process for managing sales becomes simple and streamlined, so everything becomes simpler. If you accept cash, you have to have a till, and those are NOT cheap, and then you have to manage multiple billing systems etc.
Re: (Score:2)
So there are stores that are taking smartphone payment and dont do regular card payment? That is definitely something that should be restricted I agree.
But if a store wants to stop taking cash and only take cards, that's different.
Re: (Score:2)
Or get shot for not having a till.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
Yes they do.
I have an old phone, so good (Score:5, Interesting)
My phone is an old samsung galaxy 3 mini. It does what I want, it cost $100, i can replace the battery. I dont want to spend $1000 on a phone even though I could. As a result I do not have RFID or apple cash or all this other crap I do not need. If a hipster store assumes I buy a new phone every year then they lose my business. But if this becomes mainestream it affects my choice of not filling apples bank account.
Re: (Score:2)
technically I think it's NFC, not RFID, isn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
Cool story. That stops you from using a debit card how?
Good for Tourists Too (Score:4, Interesting)
When I went to Europe last year I reverted back to cash only because the exchange rates on the credit cards are terrible. I got good rates on exchanging my money and had no issues. It was an interesting change because back home I use my credit card for everything. Keeping the option open for tourists should also be important to project a welcoming image.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... Different countries in Europe are different.
Beware of exchange offices and ATM machines in some more touristy parts of Europe, that charge stupid exchange rates
Prague, for instance, is infamous for them.
If you come here to Sweden, many stores and cafe's are cashless. Actually, the law does not allow cashless, but there is a loophole that is being used and abused, and often straight ignored because the law is not enforced.
Swedes are submissive and raising your voice and speaking your mind is frowned
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shit! Common sense! (Score:2)
In California no less!
IN SAN FRANCISCO NO LESS!
GOD that must have hurt their little heads.
Considering that we now have BANKS and payment processors like Mastercard "refusing to do business" with certain people, this kind of protection is kinda necessary.
"This note is legal tender for all debts.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."
But in many places, notably fast food restaurants, you have to pay before you receive any goods or services, so no debt is involved.
Convenient for foreign travellers, ... not :-/ (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from the reasons the city mentions... (Score:3)
Cash doesn't "go down". If the power is out for days, such as in an earthquake, you can still accept cash.
Requiring retail operations to accept cash and remain familiar with handling it isn't just egalitarian. It's good disaster prep.
Poor a protected class? (Score:3, Interesting)
When did being poor become a protected class that you can't discriminate against?
Is Tiffany's discriminating against me because I can't afford anything in there?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's put it that way, I live in a country that is basically run by banks. Actually, one of the country's largest banks pretty much owns the ruling party.
And even here "cashless society" is far from a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe we are going for a cashless society with all the advantages...
What about the disadvantages, such as dictatorships, which have existed in western Europe (to say nothing of eastern) in living memory, who would have loved to be able to track where every Euro went, especially of opposition parties or suspectd resistance?
Nah, that's safely in the past and freedom is iron clad today.
Re: Idiots (Score:2)
Yeah because it's happing in part of the EU means the UK is required to do it, just like we were forced to join the Euro and Schengen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only do you need a no cost payment method, it needs to be a universal method that is available on the same terms to everyone.
So something like how casinos run? (Score:2)
Take cash to machine, get a chit (card/ticket/tokens). Use chit for transactions, if there's any balance left, go back to machine or cashier and get remaining money back.
Doesn't address the issue of the business not wanting to have cash on premises, but that's a different thing entirely and something that these laws are (reasonably) not concerned with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably illegal in most states/countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting stuck in line behind the crazy old lady digging around in her coin purse. No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually illegal to possess in some of the less-free countries...
Re: (Score:2)
Gold is useless as a currency anyway. It's bulky, not easily sub-divided, difficult to verify the purity (and thus real value), and currently it's too expensive to make most mundane transactions with.
There's also the problem of not being able to easily turn around and spend yourself. The biggest functional aspect of a good currency is the expectation that I can take it from you in one transaction and immediately use it in another transaction, which is only possible if the vast majority of people accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a bigger threat: What do you think people do who can't buy food?
Hint: They won't peacefully lie down and just die.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all bad things are socialism (Score:2)
Socialism is a system in which you aren't allowed to open a store. Only the politicians can own a business.
You can certainly point out some disadvantages of this legislation. Perhaps you can argue that on balance, it's a bad idea. Even if it were a bad idea, that wouldn't make it socialism. Socialism is one *particular* idea that always turns out bad. Not all bad ideas are socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Socialism is where everyone is forced to use a traceable form of currency.
Re: (Score:2)
Being poor is not necessarily not the same thing as not providing meaningful contributions to society. Many very meaningful, necessary jobs are paying low salaries. And vice versa, of course: there are rich people who don't contribute.
If you make things harder on the poor, then you also hold them down from rising up. They will have to spend more time and money on things that are unnecessary.
Do I really have to spell this out for you? Couldn't you have figured this out for yourself? It's friggin common sense