Suppose I go into a restaurant, order a meal and eat it. Bill is presented and I offer case. If they refuse to accept it, I walk out. Now what? As far as I can see the only way a business could avoid such a problem is to make like a car rental agency and demand a credit card first.
But I think it is discrimitory; it discriminates against people too poor to have credit cards. Or people with poor or no credit. At one point, I was considering moving to the US. One potential problem I thought a bit about was that until I established a credit history (and how would I do that?) I would not have a CC. I would have a debit card (I already do, actually), but I don’t like to use it routinely since it is not as safe as a credit card; it gives direct access to my bank account.
There are readily available cards that you can, for a fee, buy with cash and use from then on. “Green dot” is one of many prepaid credit cards available at convenience stores and most grocery stores.
I think it would only work in a place where you pay first. Airlines, for example, do not accept cash–only credit or debit cards. If you want food on a plane, they charge your card first, then hand you your food. No card? No food for you!
I don’t think it’s productive to use the word ‘discrimination’ when you really mean things which just don’t have the same effect on everybody. It carries too much baggage as meaning deliberate discrimination based on race (principally). Some people like to use the righteousness of the Civil Rights cause as an engine to propel other causes. They might do it with good intentions, even be convinced that their own analogies and extensions of the idea of deliberate racial discrimination are valid. But I think it’s become quite and quite clearly counter productive in some cases.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t a compelling public interest to make stores accept certain forms of payment. I’m just objecting to tying it back to the concept of discrimination and the US social connotation of that word.
I don’t actually believe this situation meets the (what I think should be high) bar for collectively forcing economic actors to do things they don’t find to be in their economic interest. Nor would I ever support federal mandates for stuff like this. States and localities IMO should have to compete. Which is not a ‘race to the bottom’. It’s a useful self-regulating mechanism that places that go too far with govt interference hurt themselves economically and may eventually realize it. Whereas if it proves not really going too far, fine. In a lot of cases it’s useful to see what has negative side effects or not by trying different things, rather than insisting one already knows.
As to who ‘cashlessness’ affects as in the other recent thread on this (yeah there was a very similar one) I think income is overemphasized and technophobia under emphasized. Which doesn’t solve the question, but I think it’s about age and education as much as income. Younger poorer people don’t usually think smartphones are luxuries. And younger people realize it’s actually not particularly expensive to adopt various forms of electronic payment. Bank accounts and check cashing places are not the only two ways to go.
And all of that may be true - but it doesn’t follow that “It makes no logical sense to carry cash in today’s society unless you are up to something nefarious.”
Is there an actual problem with the poor in Philadelphia not being able to shop because of stores not accepting cash, or is this some sort of answer to a non-problem?
I wonder because the only card-only businesses I’ve ever come across are small/hipstery/boutique, relatively expensive sorts of things.
Yup, it’s the same here in NYC. The only cashless businesses I’ve seen have been small upscale places like a fancy salad store and a place that only sells cupcakes. Cry me a river someone too poor for a credit card or a phone app can’t buy a $15 salad. :rolleyes:
Not true. I bank at a small, local bank. My gf needed cash one day and asked me if she could borrow $200. I gave it to her. She fiddled with her phone, then smiled and said, “ok, I paid you back”.
I assumed she PayPaled me. I have PayPal and assumed she did now as well. I looked at my phone and saw I had an email from Zell, which I’d never heard of. I downloaded the Zell app, then discovered that it wasn’t that simple using a bank not on their list. I needed to give them info on my debit card but I didn’t have, need, or want a debit card.
It turned out that my bank had issued me a debit card at one time, but I destroyed it. I had to pay $10 to get a new card issued. By the time I had the damned card the Zell transfer had expired. Actually, the first Zell had expired and then my gf resent it and the second coming had expired. I deleted the stupid Zell app and put the debit card in my bank safe deposit box in case I want to use it in the future.
I still don’t have my $200 and don’t want to mention it to my gf since we both have hard feelings over the situation.
I’m very surprised it isn’t legally required for local stores to accept cash.
The whole purpose of the Treasury is to issue currency used in all states. Under the Articles of Confederation, states issued their own money and it was one screwed up mess. That was fixed under the new Constitutional gov.
AFAIK a US store can’t say we only take pesos or francs. They take the official US currency.
They’re still taking payments in U.S. dollars. They simply aren’t taking physical currency, which is a completely different issue.
And, as has been pointed out in this thread, and in the earlier thread, the bit about cash being “legal tender for all debts” apparently doesn’t come into play for a purchase at a store, since you, as the customer, haven’t yet incurred a debt to the vendor.
Everyone’s still paying in US Dollars, but just not via pieces of paper and discs of metal.
I’m still not convinced this is an issue- is there any proof that lower income non-banked-up people are having issues purchasing ANYTHING because some small number of businesses have gone cashless?
I’m thinking that this is a non-issue, and will remain so, and this Philadelphia law and other noise about this is just a sort of neo-Luddite virtue signaling by politicians.
It cost’s between $3.47 & $4.95 to reload (add cash) to one of those cards* at the major national retailers. Wal-mart is the cheapest, but there aren’t many in the inner city; therefore, you’re using one of the more expensive drug stores that’s on just about every corner. If you’re loading $500 that’s not too bad, but if you’re a day laborer making $50 that’s 10% of your deposit.
I know these amounts because of work; have never personally used them.
Philadelphia has one of the highest rates of poverty for a [del]big[/del] city in the nation; therefore, I presume more unbanked/underbanked than elsewhere, too.
It may not be more than a handful of businesses doing it now, but the trend is that more & more may go that way. The minimum-wage office cleaner who had some expensive medical issue in their past (& therefore the credit problems that prevent opening of a ‘normal’ bank account) who forgot their ‘lunch’ & already has limited options because there aren’t many sandwich shops open at 8pm would be royally screwed.
BTW, Amazon had a hand in the language of this bill; their new checkoutless stores were going to be exempt.
Right now, it’s only a few businesses. Starbucks has experimented with only cc in a few locations.
The concern is it may spread to the big franchises. McDonald’s already has started kiosk ordering in some locations. They could eliminate the cashier if they only charged cc or App.
I can easily see cash getting harder and harder to use within the next decade.
BTW, the nice thing about the big franchises is that there are so many stores, you can run experiments. Take the Starbucks store at one intersection and make it credit card-only and leave the one at the opposite corner continuing to accept cash. Do you see any drop in business? Any complaints?
I’m betting the people whom it discriminates against would disagree.
Businesses are required to abide by a host of regulations for public safety, market reliability and anti-discrimination purposes.
People who live in marginalized situations are the ones who most need our protection. If a business is trying to drive some marginal profit by cutting out a payment method that discriminates against the poor, it’s up to the government to weigh the impact of this discrimination and decide if it is significant enough to enact laws to protect those impacted.
An incredibly stupid law that fixes a problem that isn’t there. No, it’s not at all discriminatory to refuse cash. I’d like to see more places go card/app only. In fact, I despise places that are cash only or have a minimum. There’s a Mexican restaurant near me that I’d eat at more often if they didn’t have the $10 credit card minimum (it’s a take out place and all the food is priced under $10)
The USA needs to join the rest of the world and make contactless card and phone payments common for low dollar transactions and going to a chip and pin system for credit card transactions over a certain dollar amount.
Sure, but that doesn’t also necessarily mean that they’re going to go to that hardcore either.
I mean, I could see these companies doing that in some upper-middle class suburb where the median income is like 80k, but not in lower-income locations. We already see location-specific product mixes and location-specific things like lower-income Wal-Marts not having self-checkout due to theft. Cash use will be very similar I suspect.
We already see something similar going on with checks; Whole Foods just put the kibosh on that recently. But I’ll bet that in areas with a lot of old geezers, there will still be places that happily take checks at least until the geezers are gone. (they’re the ONLY people I ever see writing checks anymore).
I just don’t see it being an issue- if people want to pay cash, there will be someone out there willing to sell stuff for it. At worst, it may be something of a force to move the un-banked into having bank accounts, if there’s a markup or surcharge for using cash.
And by the same token, if it becomes a necessary thing to have a card of some kind and/or bank account, someone will engineer one that works with the low income customer base. They don’t have a lot of money individually, but in the aggregate there’s still a lot of money there to be had.
dalej42; I’m not sure what you’re getting at; few people have to pay cash for anything these days, at least not in larger cities. I mean, I can go into 7-Eleven and get a 75 cent Big Gulp and pay with my card- I have to enter my PIN, but that’s it. Lots of places do the phone payments/contactless cards, but thus far, there hasn’t been any real advantage to using it vs. chip-and-pin. If anything it takes longer since the store staff are unfamiliar with it.