I am very familiar with this news. Probably, I have read it somewhere over the internet. I really find it confusing why do New York is based on restos and hotels are not accepting hard cash any more. They have to understand that not all of the people are reliant on cashless transactions. Some of the people who still stay in cash transactions might be the people who were scammed, hacked by the digital crooks before and started having traumas using their cashless payment methods. Nevertheless, their approval for this law is really a very helpful one. Traditional cash must always be in present even as the alternative.
It seems to me that this question can be answered first of all from the point of view of the possibility of public use of the Internet, high technologies, as well as digital assets. A significant part of humanity consists of elderly people who not only do not have the desire to comprehend everything that the “young generation” is sick with today, but also does not have a definite opportunity for this. In addition, you need to take into account the periphery, where people live the old fashioned way and civilization is still very weakly touched such lands. But basically, I believe that the situation will change only after the next generational change. 
Topic: New York City Stores Must Accept Cash Council Says (Read 605 times)
You cannot just exclude those people out , cash has been there for ages and it is right only to keep it in the following future because let's be honest guys 7.53 billion is the population and only 3.1 billion active smartphones are registered (considering how one person can own as many as they want) so more likely more than half of the people on Earth still live by the old times.
You know what's interesting with statistics, that you can play it how you want with numbers.
For example, you have shown how 3.4 billion people don't have a smartphone and that would put everything on hold...
But if we were to exclude India from this, the number would drop to 2.4 billion, and you have to admit that nobody is thinking India will go cashless first.
In western countries, the smartphone penetration rate to nearly 80%, and if we take into consideration the natural change in population structure every year around 1.3% of the old population is no more and is replaced by a new generation. And besides, the new technologies don't care about what's happening in poor countries, do you see electronics manufactures stopping the production of coffee makers, microwaves, air conditioners because half of Africa is not affording one?
Yeah, right now, banning cash would be a problem even in advanced countries but in 10-20 years your kids will laugh at you how you were counting piece of paper when buying bread and the cashier was counting your change and you were walking with metal scaps in your pockets
The same happened with cars around here, nobody believes you're going to have that many old people living in the countryside and owning a car, then it was the internet, my grandma would probably laugh right now if she could see her daughter (my mom!) checking the weather on an app and not by looking at the sky.
Some of the people who still stay in cash transactions might be the people who were scammed, hacked by the digital crooks before and started having traumas using their cashless payment methods.
With a card, you always have the option of a chargeback.
Getting mugged in an alley or a bus station....there is nothing you can do.
I wonder what's more traumatic, seeing that somebody bought 2000$ of sex toys with your card and you have to call the bank to cancel the charge or having a knife at your throat and losing all your rent money.
I am very familiar with this news. Probably, I have read it somewhere over the internet. I really find it confusing why do New York is based on restos and hotels are not accepting hard cash any more. They have to understand that not all of the people are reliant on cashless transactions. Some of the people who still stay in cash transactions might be the people who were scammed, hacked by the digital crooks before and started having traumas using their cashless payment methods. Nevertheless, their approval for this law is really a very helpful one. Traditional cash must always be in present even as the alternative.
I think this is also about status, those business may not like to take cash because they think too highly of themselves and they see taking cash as something beneath them, I know it does not make too much sense since money is money regardless of its from but there are people that think like that, so I am fine with this law that is going to make those business to accept cash again, however I am not so sure how successful it is going to be as most people that I know seem to prefer to use their credit cards instead of cash.
I am very familiar with this news. Probably, I have read it somewhere over the internet. I really find it confusing why do New York is based on restos and hotels are not accepting hard cash any more. They have to understand that not all of the people are reliant on cashless transactions. Some of the people who still stay in cash transactions might be the people who were scammed, hacked by the digital crooks before and started having traumas using their cashless payment methods. Nevertheless, their approval for this law is really a very helpful one. Traditional cash must always be in present even as the alternative.
The problem is advancement is necessary but at the same time you are supposed to consider the needs of the people , some are not that advanced to use the online application for payment , considering my personal experience my father still don't understand the concept of mobile banking.
You cannot just exclude those people out , cash has been there for ages and it is right only to keep it in the following future because let's be honest guys 7.53 billion is the population and only 3.1 billion active smartphones are registered (considering how one person can own as many as they want) so more likely more than half of the people on Earth still live by the old times.
You cannot just exclude those people out , cash has been there for ages and it is right only to keep it in the following future because let's be honest guys 7.53 billion is the population and only 3.1 billion active smartphones are registered (considering how one person can own as many as they want) so more likely more than half of the people on Earth still live by the old times.
It is said that usually credit cards are being hacked, maybe that is the reason.
Though this would be hard for some since people usually do not want to bring any cash with them so they can travel without worrying with it. It might be the case but they need to follow this new law. It is not that they are not open to new technologies but there is a problem at hand.
It does not matter what any individual thinks or feels reliable but once the government applies any laws and regulations, each citizen have to follow those or they might even need to pay for violating these laws.Though this would be hard for some since people usually do not want to bring any cash with them so they can travel without worrying with it. It might be the case but they need to follow this new law. It is not that they are not open to new technologies but there is a problem at hand.
Cash transactions are the easiest ones but I feel like those are a lot outdated. There have been such advanced means of payments and why are we yet using cash payments everywhere? Perhaps this might be good in parts of countries where population is in excess amount as there would be a need of quick payments in these situations and I guess New York comes under the same. This might be the reason why government made cash compulsory in these parts of nation.
And the government are not that ready for that kind of system.
There is a problem and the fact that they can't quickly find a way or a solution to end that problem, we can conclude that they are still not ready. We can't force anything even though they are easy and efficient. If that will be giving a problem to people and the government, then it is a risk that a leader would think should be lessen or stopped.
It is said that usually credit cards are being hacked, maybe that is the reason.
Though this would be hard for some since people usually do not want to bring any cash with them so they can travel without worrying with it. It might be the case but they need to follow this new law. It is not that they are not open to new technologies but there is a problem at hand.
It does not matter what any individual thinks or feels reliable but once the government applies any laws and regulations, each citizen have to follow those or they might even need to pay for violating these laws.Though this would be hard for some since people usually do not want to bring any cash with them so they can travel without worrying with it. It might be the case but they need to follow this new law. It is not that they are not open to new technologies but there is a problem at hand.
Cash transactions are the easiest ones but I feel like those are a lot outdated. There have been such advanced means of payments and why are we yet using cash payments everywhere? Perhaps this might be good in parts of countries where population is in excess amount as there would be a need of quick payments in these situations and I guess New York comes under the same. This might be the reason why government made cash compulsory in these parts of nation.
It is actually alright that cash has to be accepted, but we need more options, cash is fine, credit cards and debit cards are fine, back in the day there was check (or cheque, don't know how people write it, but that piece of paper you write money and give to others to withdraw), nowadays we have to actually improve that number and add in crypto to that as well, I know there can't be a law that says "you have to accept bitcoin" because it is both new and governments really don't really care about the bitcoins situation but in order for adoption to increase there needs to be some sort of incentive as well.
Why would a shop that is forced to accept cash would just feel like they should offer option of bitcoin if they don't know what bitcoin is properly? We need to increase bitcoin as an option and not focus on diminishing dollar.
Actually the globe is getting digital. Cash payments are traditional means of payments but now, they are been overruled by several online applications which of course are centralized and gives the ease to the customer to pay with just a few clicks. PayPal might be the one of those digital platforms which have made payments easier.Why would a shop that is forced to accept cash would just feel like they should offer option of bitcoin if they don't know what bitcoin is properly? We need to increase bitcoin as an option and not focus on diminishing dollar.
Use of such digital wallets should first dominate the markets and after this era, we could start implying crypto payments into the monetary systems as people would come to know that being digital in terms of sending and receiving payments can actually be easier and beneficial. Let the world first experience this with the centralized digital wallets.
It is actually alright that cash has to be accepted, but we need more options, cash is fine, credit cards and debit cards are fine, back in the day there was check (or cheque, don't know how people write it, but that piece of paper you write money and give to others to withdraw), nowadays we have to actually improve that number and add in crypto to that as well, I know there can't be a law that says "you have to accept bitcoin" because it is both new and governments really don't really care about the bitcoins situation but in order for adoption to increase there needs to be some sort of incentive as well.
Why would a shop that is forced to accept cash would just feel like they should offer option of bitcoin if they don't know what bitcoin is properly? We need to increase bitcoin as an option and not focus on diminishing dollar.
Why would a shop that is forced to accept cash would just feel like they should offer option of bitcoin if they don't know what bitcoin is properly? We need to increase bitcoin as an option and not focus on diminishing dollar.
It is said that usually credit cards are being hacked, maybe that is the reason.
Though this would be hard for some since people usually do not want to bring any cash with them so they can travel without worrying with it. It might be the case but they need to follow this new law. It is not that they are not open to new technologies but there is a problem at hand.
Though this would be hard for some since people usually do not want to bring any cash with them so they can travel without worrying with it. It might be the case but they need to follow this new law. It is not that they are not open to new technologies but there is a problem at hand.
It seems to me that the rejection of cash will be rushed. I have nothing against it. But there are many other people who do not have the opportunity to have a debit card.
But I agree that cash is a bit outdated. Therefore, I think that in the near future, people will use stablecoins. Bitcoin is not quite suitable for this because of the changing price.
But I agree that cash is a bit outdated. Therefore, I think that in the near future, people will use stablecoins. Bitcoin is not quite suitable for this because of the changing price.
Cashless societies being progressive leftist movements. It is curious to see one of the most progressive and left leaning states in the entire USA adopt policies which buck the trend. Ditto with leftist progressive california mirroring these anti cashless society paradigms.
I don't suppose they're doing this to make life easier for illegal immigrants who may not have access to debit cards or bank accounts?
No - they're banning cashless retailers because of the very real risk that if credit card terminals are hacked, or the electricity grid is hacked, the whole economy goes down.
In the UK, we've had several instances of banking IT going down, which means no-one can use the cards from the bank. If you have no cash at hand, you can't pay for food and petrol during the downtime.
You must always build fail-safes into a system - and cash is a fail safe.
It is true that some other countries or places, prefer a cashless transaction because they think that it is more secured and safe. Although it is faster and reliable, you can use it whenever and wherever you want if a certain company or shop allows you to access your accounts and use it as a form of payment. That's not even impossible because our technologies are continuously developing for years and we have nothing to do about it. We need to adopt from the advantages of being millennial that all things in our surroundings are easier to use, means "high-tech". But you've said that the only problem in a digital currency is that it is prone in being hacked. You should also make safe transactions and plans to prevent yourself from being scammed while using a card.
But tangible cash is still required because digital money or wallet can be hacked easily if the security of that account is weak. People is required to keep their account highly secured so that people will be comfortable using digital money. The digital and tangible cash have cons like it is both can be stole by another people, it is very hard to safe if what is the most preferable way of transacting money. It is good that New York make some way like accepting only digital money, but it is unfair for those people who live in that and used to pay with cash. The thing they do will only benefit the immigrants who have nothing to do to convert their money.
This probably has more to do in terms of trying to preserve the legal tender status of fiat that underlies its value more than anything else.
We're seeing similar things in China as society edges closer and closer towards a completely cashless one. The government and central banks are reluctant to give up control in terms of the operation of monetary policy, which can be severely hindered by many private providers of remittance services.
So it's certainly not surprising news by any measure. In fact, it's quite expected.
We're seeing similar things in China as society edges closer and closer towards a completely cashless one. The government and central banks are reluctant to give up control in terms of the operation of monetary policy, which can be severely hindered by many private providers of remittance services.
So it's certainly not surprising news by any measure. In fact, it's quite expected.
That might have something to do with the fed coming down on them for killing off any trends. The federal reserve is a business of making this paper so I'm sure they have every reason to lean on people that support moving away from paper. I mean that is there business model so no doubt they will curb moving away from it.
Cash is here to stay for a long time. And i dont undestand hate around it, let people decide what to use
Most of the time the hate comes from the governments themselves, if all transactions were made using a digital medium then they will have a way to monitor everything that you do, this particular news about New York saying that stores needs to give the option to accept cash as well to their customers is very interesting because it goes against decades of efforts to try to push people to use digital options and it could be the beginning of a new tendency.
Well it's good that the argument they made is that it discriminates against the poor, that will make it harder for businesses to argue against it since they'll be called anti-poor.
Businesses in general would prefer that all purchases are made using credit cards and other electronic payment - no money that can be stolen by staff or robbers and no need for them to physically deposit the earnings in the bank.
In the meantime, this meant the few people who are paranoid of cash disappearing would still be able to use them.
Businesses in general would prefer that all purchases are made using credit cards and other electronic payment - no money that can be stolen by staff or robbers and no need for them to physically deposit the earnings in the bank.
In the meantime, this meant the few people who are paranoid of cash disappearing would still be able to use them.
This is precisely the same law as in my country (and in any other countries CMIIW). Stores must accept the national currency (in this case, dollar). Since the dollar has two forms, i.e., paper cash and digital, stores must take both as payment.
Thou shalt not reject the dollar!
It's kind of sad how this is going on right now. Most officials see cryptocurrencies, even digital currencies in general as a nemesis of the state. They see this modes of payments as something that could cause an economic collapse that is why they're trying everything in their power to stop it's progress. They're trying to ban these innovative currencies indirectly or directly empowering the 1% of people that are on top of the money ladder. Thou shalt not reject the dollar!
Cash is here to stay for a long time. And i dont undestand hate around it, let people decide what to use
Most of the time the hate comes from the governments themselves, if all transactions were made using a digital medium then they will have a way to monitor everything that you do, this particular news about New York saying that stores needs to give the option to accept cash as well to their customers is very interesting because it goes against decades of efforts to try to push people to use digital options and it could be the beginning of a new tendency.
Technology is good and cryptocurrency is good and they make things to be really fast. But seriously, I don’t know why some people here are fond of posting hate topics about cash. You have chosen to make use of cryptocurrency and no one is disturbing you or saying about it and you’re using it freely, why then is it a pain in your ass that others have decided to be making use of cash?
You should focus on what’s best for you and stop minding what others wants to be using, it’s simply none of your business, same way what you are using is none of their business. Among me and my friends and family, I am the only that’s making use of cryptocurrency, because they are not interested in it. I don’t say anything about it to them and they also don’t care what I use, and yes they all know about cryptocurrency but they are just not interested. As simple as that.
You should focus on what’s best for you and stop minding what others wants to be using, it’s simply none of your business, same way what you are using is none of their business. Among me and my friends and family, I am the only that’s making use of cryptocurrency, because they are not interested in it. I don’t say anything about it to them and they also don’t care what I use, and yes they all know about cryptocurrency but they are just not interested. As simple as that.
Cash is here to stay for a long time. And i dont undestand hate around it, let people decide what to use
Most of the time the hate comes from the governments themselves, if all transactions were made using a digital medium then they will have a way to monitor everything that you do, this particular news about New York saying that stores needs to give the option to accept cash as well to their customers is very interesting because it goes against decades of efforts to try to push people to use digital options and it could be the beginning of a new tendency. 
Same news broke out in China as well if I am not wrong a few times back, or it could be some other country, I don't see this as something bad. New York is known for their hard regulations on crypto and that is why not many crypto related places are based in New York (there are few of course) but reality is that you should not reject cash payments is something done against cards more than crypto.
There are plenty of places that accept just debit/credit cards nowadays and not take any cash, we have that here in our nation as well, they don't accept cash and I was walking around with a lot of money because I wanted to buy a computer and those usually cost a lot of dollars, they rejected it and made me go to an ATM, put it on my card and comeback to buy it which was weird, it is good that cash is an option that is forced for those cases.
There are plenty of places that accept just debit/credit cards nowadays and not take any cash, we have that here in our nation as well, they don't accept cash and I was walking around with a lot of money because I wanted to buy a computer and those usually cost a lot of dollars, they rejected it and made me go to an ATM, put it on my card and comeback to buy it which was weird, it is good that cash is an option that is forced for those cases.
Exactly. That population is by no means negligible. Some people beg for their meals or collect pocket change, and how are they supposed to pay for things if society goes completely cashless?
They might actually be better off with a cashless society.
I found myself sometimes willing to give a few euros to some beggers which were clearly not "professional" ones but I didn't have small change, so:
And it's not just China or Sweden but also the UK
Not only is it cheaper for the merchant but it's sometimes more convenient for some people, plus you have to deal with problems like the power going out or not being able to connect to the payment processor. What do you do in situations like that--not make sales? That's crazy.
Let me see how can I reply to shit without making one novel out of it.
Both systems are a pain in the ass !!!
My family has kept s a small shop for out products (meat) because of the ambition of my father to still sell to the average joe customer and not only to a big reseller
Of course, since most of the customers in that small shop are elderly people who want to buy fresh products they deal obviously with cash, and here comes the shitload of problems.
You must ensure that you have change and a lot of change because if it's the first month after the pension payments you will get only big bills so be ready to have small bills equivalent to almost all your merchandise.
Second, you need a camera because always there will be at least two or three arguings that they didn't receive the right change or you might end with the cashier taking a few bills (not even mentioning if she takes all the money at the end of the shift, and yeah that shit happened and imagine in one day losing close to 2000 euros, having to file police complaints, having to see a judge, a prosecutor and then closing shop till you find a new cashier...)
And, if you think you're avoiding banks, no you must deposit all the income for the day to a bank or if you don't want your employee to wonder to the other side of town with that bunch of bills get ready for a 200euro/month plan for cash pick-up.
Yeah, without cash probably we would close it down altogether with at best 10% of the clients switching to a card but no, dealing with cash is not as easy as it might seem.
No - they're banning cashless retailers because of the very real risk that if credit card terminals are hacked, or the electricity grid is hacked, the whole economy goes down.
If the electricity goes down you will stop selling even when dealing with cahs because your cash register will go down also and I would be risking a 5000 euros fine for selling without a receipt.
This is precisely the same law as in my country (and in any other countries CMIIW). Stores must accept the national currency (in this case, dollar). Since the dollar has two forms, i.e., paper cash and digital, stores must take both as payment.
Thou shalt not reject the dollar!
Thou shalt not reject the dollar!
Probably it is maybe because the hackers are getting more skilled and intelligent that they have scared the government. Robbers are might already around looking for the opportunity for their next victims, that is the reason why cashless payment really is more convenient in a way that you won't even need to carry your very heavy coins and your very fragile piece of fiat paper. However, if we will be looking at the other side, cashless payment methods can easily get hacked by the intelligent new era of thieves. That is why New York has a very good point with that.
Well, this is good - for now. I don't mind people paying with plastic, I myself do most of my shopping using cards. But the option to pay in cash should be kept. An establishment turning away cash is basically saying they don't want gov't minted-money. I can't see any way that should be legal.
Agreed, heard about a bank that did this, just forgot which one. Imagine actually locking your customer's money because you don't like their opinions. They should stick to doing business, not virtue signalling. Gillette should be a warning to them.
Who knew something "good" would come out of it. I'm assuming this is only for now that they still haven't distributed debit cards to their "constituents" where they can receive their welfare.
Once that gets going watch them be the first to encourage cashless only businesses under the guise that they'd be able to restrict people buying alcohol and stuff if they can only pay using card and they can't use cash to pay for drugs. Make no mistake though, once you step out of line your account will get cancelled.
As well do not forget, that if you are somehow politically incorrect, often banks/payment providers may refuse to provide services to you. If you have in such case no access to hard cash (or cryptocurrency wallet), you simply cannot live a normal life, as you will not be able to pay even for own groceries.
Agreed, heard about a bank that did this, just forgot which one. Imagine actually locking your customer's money because you don't like their opinions. They should stick to doing business, not virtue signalling. Gillette should be a warning to them.
Cash culture aside, it's not surprising to see places like SF and NYC enacting cashless bans. There is a progressive angle: the argument is these businesses discriminate against the unbanked/underbanked, which disproportionately affects the poor, communities of color, immigrants, etc.
Who knew something "good" would come out of it. I'm assuming this is only for now that they still haven't distributed debit cards to their "constituents" where they can receive their welfare.
Once that gets going watch them be the first to encourage cashless only businesses under the guise that they'd be able to restrict people buying alcohol and stuff if they can only pay using card and they can't use cash to pay for drugs. Make no mistake though, once you step out of line your account will get cancelled.
Cashless societies being progressive leftist movements. It is curious to see one of the most progressive and left leaning states in the entire USA adopt policies which buck the trend. Ditto with leftist progressive california mirroring these anti cashless society paradigms.
We Americans love our cash. It gets pretty weird:
Quote
More than one in four Americans--27%--reports they hide their money in the freezer. 19% of residents “sock” their green away while 11% sleep well at night with their cash stuffed under their mattress.
Cash culture aside, it's not surprising to see places like SF and NYC enacting cashless bans. There is a progressive angle: the argument is these businesses discriminate against the unbanked/underbanked, which disproportionately affects the poor, communities of color, immigrants, etc.
If I understand this correctly,the City stores cannot REFUSE to accept cash,according to the Council's decision.They can still accept credit/debit cards and mobile app payments.They just don't have to right to deny cash payments.I think this is a good decision.A 100% cashless society means less freedom of choice.
I'm not a fiat supporter but the people have to choose what payment method to use.Their choice shouldn't be limited.
I'm not a fiat supporter but the people have to choose what payment method to use.Their choice shouldn't be limited.
Do stores not have the right or the preference to accept any kind of payment for as long as they are legal?
If you read the full OP, you'll understand what's the reason. I assume the store has some responsibility to follow the rules so this is where they'd debate which is their 'right' and which one is their 'obligation'.
Cash is indeed convenient to use. And it will stay for a long while before it is totally replaced with online payments and digital currencies. But does it have to be made into an explicit policy stating that stores must accept them? Do stores not have the right or the preference to accept any kind of payment for as long as they are legal?
Cashless societies being progressive leftist movements. It is curious to see one of the most progressive and left leaning states in the entire USA adopt policies which buck the trend. Ditto with leftist progressive california mirroring these anti cashless society paradigms.
I don't suppose they're doing this to make life easier for illegal immigrants who may not have access to debit cards or bank accounts?
Digital, physical, what's the difference, if they would still be in control of the money supply?
Quote
If such is the case, someone could design and rollout a cryptocurrency which makes life for illegal immigrants easier. It could end up being the most quickly adopted crypto of all time, no matter how much electricity it utilized, how many animals were harmed or the ecological disasters it might have caused in the process.
Use Bitcoin! Why suggest a creation of another "cryptocurrency", which would be under their control? What are we here for?
Let the use of cash and cashless mode of payment be options that the people can choose from. Let it be the choice of the people. I quite understand that the retailers feel the need to propel people into the digital era and think the cashless mode of payment is safer for them. But, forcing people to go cashless isn’t a good way to go about it. How will the people who have no access to cashless mode of payment cope? Let it be a choice.
With digital ear and technology become most popular I think digital payment currency is most priority is some bigger city, its available when have bigger store only accepted using digital currency payment and not allowed for receiving with cash money transaction, we now on bigger era of payment digital currency. 
It is quite ironic that there must be a law passed demanding that the consuming public be given the opportunity to pay in cash if they wanted to and not being imposed with only cashless options. Well, we are in the era where the world is turned upside so this is nothing special anymore to me. While I understand that cashless choices can even be more convenience to many shops and merchants, I am supporting this move to legally require businesses that open right for anybody to use cash. However, they also require them to accept Bitcoin though this can just be another "punch the moon" wish.
Let the use of cash and cashless mode of payment be options that the people can choose from. Let it be the choice of the people. I quite understand that the retailers feel the need to propel people into the digital era and think the cashless mode of payment is safer for them. But, forcing people to go cashless isn’t a good way to go about it. How will the people who have no access to cashless mode of payment cope? Let it be a choice.
This is interesting to me, as there are at least two businesses right near me that only accept cash because apparently they don't want to deal with payment processors like Visa & Mastercard and the fees that are involved. I don't know of any businesses in my state that won't take your paper money or coins. That seems very odd to me--whatever happened to "cash is king"? Why would any merchant not accept cash?
They dont want to deal with cash because possible robbers. When you deal with cash and your revenue is low. You need to have enough change stored. Dealing only with credit cards is simple, since they can pay exactly as it is needed and no need to give them change back.
This is interesting to me, as there are at least two businesses right near me that only accept cash because apparently they don't want to deal with payment processors like Visa & Mastercard and the fees that are involved. I don't know of any businesses in my state that won't take your paper money or coins. That seems very odd to me--whatever happened to "cash is king"? Why would any merchant not accept cash?
I totally get that people love paying for things with plastic or their smartphone, but there should always be an option to pay for things with physical money IMO. Not only is it cheaper for the merchant but it's sometimes more convenient for some people, plus you have to deal with problems like the power going out or not being able to connect to the payment processor. What do you do in situations like that--not make sales? That's crazy.
I'm not a New Yorker and rarely go there anymore, but this is a good move on their part I think.
I totally get that people love paying for things with plastic or their smartphone, but there should always be an option to pay for things with physical money IMO. Not only is it cheaper for the merchant but it's sometimes more convenient for some people, plus you have to deal with problems like the power going out or not being able to connect to the payment processor. What do you do in situations like that--not make sales? That's crazy.
I'm not a New Yorker and rarely go there anymore, but this is a good move on their part I think.
However, going completely cashless does create a problem for poor people that don’t have phones or computers or even credit cards.
Exactly. That population is by no means negligible. Some people beg for their meals or collect pocket change, and how are they supposed to pay for things if society goes completely cashless? 
Cash is here to stay for a long time. And i dont undestand hate around it, let people decide what to use
Exactly the government should made it mandatory for every business to make cash their foremost and preferred payment for their products and services and if the customers don't have cash then they should use other payment options. Lots of money are spent by the government to print physical money for businesses to say they won't accept them.
I actually think it makes sense to allow cash as an option as long as it is legal money. It’s government printed money so it seems that it would have to be acceptable. The government could stop printing money and then we could switch over.
However, going completely cashless does create a problem for poor people that don’t have phones or computers or even credit cards.
However, going completely cashless does create a problem for poor people that don’t have phones or computers or even credit cards.
i wonder,how beggars can survive there ?
new york must be a dynamic city,with no traditional market there and full of internet connection everywhere.
seems pretty easy to do such thing there.
but the point, how security there will be ?
well, yes, it can be, but in this case, these people still need a bank account too for cashing out, i dont think daily needs can be completely overcome by crypto.
new york must be a dynamic city,with no traditional market there and full of internet connection everywhere.
seems pretty easy to do such thing there.
but the point, how security there will be ?
If such is the case, someone could design and rollout a cryptocurrency which makes life for illegal immigrants easier. It could end up being the most quickly adopted crypto of all time, no matter how much electricity it utilized, how many animals were harmed or the ecological disasters it might have caused in the process.
well, yes, it can be, but in this case, these people still need a bank account too for cashing out, i dont think daily needs can be completely overcome by crypto.
Cashless societies being progressive leftist movements. It is curious to see one of the most progressive and left leaning states in the entire USA adopt policies which buck the trend. Ditto with leftist progressive california mirroring these anti cashless society paradigms.
I don't suppose they're doing this to make life easier for illegal immigrants who may not have access to debit cards or bank accounts?
No - they're banning cashless retailers because of the very real risk that if credit card terminals are hacked, or the electricity grid is hacked, the whole economy goes down.
In the UK, we've had several instances of banking IT going down, which means no-one can use the cards from the bank. If you have no cash at hand, you can't pay for food and petrol during the downtime.
You must always build fail-safes into a system - and cash is a fail safe.
It is true that some other countries or places, prefer a cashless transaction because they think that it is more secured and safe. Although it is faster and reliable, you can use it whenever and wherever you want if a certain company or shop allows you to access your accounts and use it as a form of payment. That's not even impossible because our technologies are continuously developing for years and we have nothing to do about it. We need to adopt from the advantages of being millennial that all things in our surroundings are easier to use, means "high-tech". But you've said that the only problem in a digital currency is that it is prone in being hacked. You should also make safe transactions and plans to prevent yourself from being scammed while using a card.
Cashless societies being progressive leftist movements. It is curious to see one of the most progressive and left leaning states in the entire USA adopt policies which buck the trend. Ditto with leftist progressive california mirroring these anti cashless society paradigms.
I don't suppose they're doing this to make life easier for illegal immigrants who may not have access to debit cards or bank accounts?
No - they're banning cashless retailers because of the very real risk that if credit card terminals are hacked, or the electricity grid is hacked, the whole economy goes down.
In the UK, we've had several instances of banking IT going down, which means no-one can use the cards from the bank. If you have no cash at hand, you can't pay for food and petrol during the downtime.
You must always build fail-safes into a system - and cash is a fail safe.
Cashless societies being progressive leftist movements.
I don't suppose they're doing this to make life easier for illegal immigrants who may not have access to debit cards or bank accounts?
If such is the case, someone could design and rollout a cryptocurrency which makes life for illegal immigrants easier. It could end up being the most quickly adopted crypto of all time, no matter how much electricity it utilized, how many animals were harmed or the ecological disasters it might have caused in the process.
As well do not forget, that if you are somehow politically incorrect, often banks/payment providers may refuse to provide services to you. If you have in such case no access to hard cash (or cryptocurrency wallet), you simply cannot live a normal life, as you will not be able to pay even for own groceries.
Cash is here to stay for a long time. And i dont undestand hate around it, let people decide what to use
Quote
New York lawmakers passed a bill that puts New York at the forefront of a national movement to ban cashless businesses.
From a cup of coffee to a car ride, mobile devices or plastic cards are becoming the preferred, and sometimes exclusive, methods of payment in many parts of the world.
But being forced to pay that way, rather than having the option of using cash, may soon be illegal in New York City.
The City Council approved legislation on Thursday that prohibits stores, restaurants and other retail outlets from refusing to accept hard currency.
The measure puts New York at the forefront of a national movement to rein in so-called cashless businesses: New Jersey, Philadelphia and San Francisco all approved such bans last year, and several other cities are considering similar moves. Massachusetts has had a law requiring retailers to accept cash and credit since 1978.
But New York City officials have also targeted ride-sharing and meal-delivery apps, as well as facial recognition for building entries — all in an effort to blunt the impact of advancing technology on those who are unable to use it because of financial circumstances, unwilling to for philosophical reasons or vulnerable to its darker aspects.
“Consumers should have the right to choose if they want to pay in cash or not,” said Councilman Ritchie Torres, the bill’s lead sponsor. “We are reining in the excesses of the digital economy.”
Under the bill, businesses that refuse cash face fines of $1,000 for a first violation and $1,500 for each subsequent offense. Businesses with devices that convert cash to cards, like those found in many laundromats, are exempt under certain conditions, including a provision that there be no fee for such cards.
One large New York business that provides cash-conversion machines and would therefore be exempt is the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, where many, though not all, concession stands do not accept cash.
With 23 of Mr. Torres’s colleagues signing on as sponsors, the bill, which he first introduced in 2018, passed the City Council by a 43-3 margin on Thursday. A spokeswoman for Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Wednesday that he supported “the intent” of the legislation, but that his administration still planned to review it.
Kalman Yeger, a Democratic councilman from Brooklyn, criticized those who voted for the measure of “overreaching.”
“We are inserting ourselves in the business of business in a way that we don’t have the right to,” he said.
The move to protect the use of cash comes amid a worldwide trend toward electronic payments that is being driven by various factors.
For many people, it is simply more convenient to buy something with a swipe or a tap. Businesses that refuse cash say it is faster and easier for workers to process digital payments and keep customer lines moving. Fans of the cashless approach also say it spares employees from mundane tasks like counting money and limits the danger of robbery and theft.
But critics of cashless businesses say they discriminate against people who lack bank accounts and credit cards, while also raising the specter of hackers stealing personal data tied to digital transactions.
The city’s Department of Consumer Affairs said last year that one in nine New York households did not have a bank account, and that one in five were “underbanked,” meaning they had a checking or savings account but relied on something other than a bank to cash a check. Bronx households, the agency said, were around twice as likely not to have a bank account.
“I worry about the real-world discriminatory effect that cashless business can have on New Yorkers, especially in communities of color,” Mr. Torres, a Bronx Democrat, said.
The prospect of the Council prohibiting businesses from refusing cash appeared to go over well with Maren Berthelsen and Lucia Burns, two friends who were having lunch on Thursday at Mulberry & Vine on Warren Street in Manhattan. A sign near the restaurant’s register informed customers that cash was not accepted, and neither woman was happy about it.
“I think it’s incredibly discriminatory not to accept cash because some people can’t get credit,” said Ms. Berthelsen, a teaching artist.
Ms. Burns, a program coordinator, agreed.
“It is exclusionary,” she said, “because people without means are less likely to have a credit card.”
The National Retail Federation, a trade group, has taken the position that “retailers should have the right to choose which payments to accept and to decide for themselves whether going cashless makes sense for their businesses,” according to a statement by Stephanie Martz, the group’s general counsel.
Beyond that, Ms. Martz said, measures like the one to be voted on in New York City were “a solution in search of a problem since cashless stores are fairly uncommon.” Still, a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco cited by the federation showed the portion of transactions made in cash falling to 30 percent in 2017 from 40 percent in 2012.
The salad chain Sweetgreen was among the businesses with New York City outlets that had gone cashless. The company reversed course last year, saying that limiting how customers could pay “had the unintended consequence of excluding those who prefer to pay or can pay only with cash.”
Another restaurant chain that operates in New York City and does not accept cash, Dos Toros Taqueria, declined to comment on the passage of the cashless-store ban.
In City Council testimony last year, Leo Kremer, a Dos Toros founder, expressed opposition to the prohibition. He said that since moving entirely to electronic payments, the company had, among other things, cut down on firing or otherwise punishing workers over cash discrepancies.
Mr. Kremer also said that in considering expanding beyond New York, Dos Toros had picked Chicago over Boston in part because of the Massachusetts law.
Chicago is among the cities that are now considering their own bans on cashless businesses.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/nyregion/nyc-cashless-ban.html
From a cup of coffee to a car ride, mobile devices or plastic cards are becoming the preferred, and sometimes exclusive, methods of payment in many parts of the world.
But being forced to pay that way, rather than having the option of using cash, may soon be illegal in New York City.
The City Council approved legislation on Thursday that prohibits stores, restaurants and other retail outlets from refusing to accept hard currency.
The measure puts New York at the forefront of a national movement to rein in so-called cashless businesses: New Jersey, Philadelphia and San Francisco all approved such bans last year, and several other cities are considering similar moves. Massachusetts has had a law requiring retailers to accept cash and credit since 1978.
But New York City officials have also targeted ride-sharing and meal-delivery apps, as well as facial recognition for building entries — all in an effort to blunt the impact of advancing technology on those who are unable to use it because of financial circumstances, unwilling to for philosophical reasons or vulnerable to its darker aspects.
“Consumers should have the right to choose if they want to pay in cash or not,” said Councilman Ritchie Torres, the bill’s lead sponsor. “We are reining in the excesses of the digital economy.”
Under the bill, businesses that refuse cash face fines of $1,000 for a first violation and $1,500 for each subsequent offense. Businesses with devices that convert cash to cards, like those found in many laundromats, are exempt under certain conditions, including a provision that there be no fee for such cards.
One large New York business that provides cash-conversion machines and would therefore be exempt is the Barclays Center in Brooklyn, where many, though not all, concession stands do not accept cash.
With 23 of Mr. Torres’s colleagues signing on as sponsors, the bill, which he first introduced in 2018, passed the City Council by a 43-3 margin on Thursday. A spokeswoman for Mayor Bill de Blasio said on Wednesday that he supported “the intent” of the legislation, but that his administration still planned to review it.
Kalman Yeger, a Democratic councilman from Brooklyn, criticized those who voted for the measure of “overreaching.”
“We are inserting ourselves in the business of business in a way that we don’t have the right to,” he said.
The move to protect the use of cash comes amid a worldwide trend toward electronic payments that is being driven by various factors.
For many people, it is simply more convenient to buy something with a swipe or a tap. Businesses that refuse cash say it is faster and easier for workers to process digital payments and keep customer lines moving. Fans of the cashless approach also say it spares employees from mundane tasks like counting money and limits the danger of robbery and theft.
But critics of cashless businesses say they discriminate against people who lack bank accounts and credit cards, while also raising the specter of hackers stealing personal data tied to digital transactions.
The city’s Department of Consumer Affairs said last year that one in nine New York households did not have a bank account, and that one in five were “underbanked,” meaning they had a checking or savings account but relied on something other than a bank to cash a check. Bronx households, the agency said, were around twice as likely not to have a bank account.
“I worry about the real-world discriminatory effect that cashless business can have on New Yorkers, especially in communities of color,” Mr. Torres, a Bronx Democrat, said.
The prospect of the Council prohibiting businesses from refusing cash appeared to go over well with Maren Berthelsen and Lucia Burns, two friends who were having lunch on Thursday at Mulberry & Vine on Warren Street in Manhattan. A sign near the restaurant’s register informed customers that cash was not accepted, and neither woman was happy about it.
“I think it’s incredibly discriminatory not to accept cash because some people can’t get credit,” said Ms. Berthelsen, a teaching artist.
Ms. Burns, a program coordinator, agreed.
“It is exclusionary,” she said, “because people without means are less likely to have a credit card.”
The National Retail Federation, a trade group, has taken the position that “retailers should have the right to choose which payments to accept and to decide for themselves whether going cashless makes sense for their businesses,” according to a statement by Stephanie Martz, the group’s general counsel.
Beyond that, Ms. Martz said, measures like the one to be voted on in New York City were “a solution in search of a problem since cashless stores are fairly uncommon.” Still, a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco cited by the federation showed the portion of transactions made in cash falling to 30 percent in 2017 from 40 percent in 2012.
The salad chain Sweetgreen was among the businesses with New York City outlets that had gone cashless. The company reversed course last year, saying that limiting how customers could pay “had the unintended consequence of excluding those who prefer to pay or can pay only with cash.”
Another restaurant chain that operates in New York City and does not accept cash, Dos Toros Taqueria, declined to comment on the passage of the cashless-store ban.
In City Council testimony last year, Leo Kremer, a Dos Toros founder, expressed opposition to the prohibition. He said that since moving entirely to electronic payments, the company had, among other things, cut down on firing or otherwise punishing workers over cash discrepancies.
Mr. Kremer also said that in considering expanding beyond New York, Dos Toros had picked Chicago over Boston in part because of the Massachusetts law.
Chicago is among the cities that are now considering their own bans on cashless businesses.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/nyregion/nyc-cashless-ban.html
....
Cashless societies being progressive leftist movements. It is curious to see one of the most progressive and left leaning states in the entire USA adopt policies which buck the trend. Ditto with leftist progressive california mirroring these anti cashless society paradigms.
I don't suppose they're doing this to make life easier for illegal immigrants who may not have access to debit cards or bank accounts?
If such is the case, someone could design and rollout a cryptocurrency which makes life for illegal immigrants easier. It could end up being the most quickly adopted crypto of all time, no matter how much electricity it utilized, how many animals were harmed or the ecological disasters it might have caused in the process.
Jump to: