Weekend discussion topic: Cashless society

[madteaparty]

1 hour ago, Roadrunner said:

I feel ancient. Never heard of Venmo. 

You have, I’ve mentioned it to you😂

[Roadrunner]

Just now, madteaparty said:

You have, I’ve mentioned it to you😂

Only proves I am senile! ☺️😂

[Carrie12345]

1 hour ago, Spy Car said:

I hope we progress. But cutting out the means of economic participation from those who lack smartphones, bank accounts, or permanent addresses is about the most regressive action we as a society could take. It would be devastating to those individuals.

Hardly a "weird" argument at all. I don't think you've thought this through.

Bill

I highly doubt any poster is in favor of cutting out economic participation.

I do think that a government that can figure out how to supply stimulus debit cards and cards for assistance (regardless of our feelings about how those actual programs operate) could, if made to, provide access to those lacking banking access if not to all. Particularly with reduced printing/minting costs.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

Depending upon the restaurant - tips can add up to way more than a $15hr base salary.  (especially where expensive booze is served).   

We've had $15 an hour minimum wage for restaurant workers in certain areas for awhile - what they learned was they ended up with fewer hours and took home less money.

Yes, I know. My son worked in the service industry. But I don’t think the argument that it sometimes works out better to have tipping means tipping should be the main earning model for service industries. As a consumer, I loathe it. The price of a good meal or a hair cut should be the price. No, I do not think it works well if a few restaurants dabble in no tipping. It won’t work well unless/until that becomes the expected norm. 

Consider something else that used to work similarly: buying a car. Cars used to be priced up because that set a “high anchor” for the inevitable hours of dickering that eventually led to the customer getting a car at pretty much the price it should have been at the outset. Customer thinks they got a deal because they bargained for it, yet the dealer walked away smiling because the settled price was the “real” price anyway. Sometimes people would come in to buy a car and wouldn’t dicker at all, and that’s gravy. 

ETA: But some car dealers started operating on a no-haggle model. They stuck to that. I think Saturn was one of the first, but now many do operate that way. Carmax also has this model. And with the car vending machine concept, presumably that is the direction car sales are going, which includes no haggling whatsoever. 

Edited February 13, 2021 by Quill

[Bootsie]

58 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

I'm pretty sure in Star Trek, the prerequisite to a moneyless society was the solving of poverty, hunger, and homelessness. Once these were no longer a factor in society, it was a natural progress that since everyone had everything they needed and were focused on bettering themselves and being productive members of society, money was no longer needed. [Yes, I know that a cashless society is not the same as a moneyless society.]

In a similar way, I think that there are certain baseline requirements for a cashless society. I would propose:

• free public internet, with full or near-full coverage even of hard-to-go places where you find people
• everyone having a digital device. like, literally everyone, you're given one as a child or something.
• options to secure your balance "offline" somehow
• options to pay during power outages -- registers having their own power cell and connection, for example
• Bonus: a way to secure your balance from being lost. One of the biggest "risks" of cash is losing your wallet and then all of your money is gone, it can't be reclaimed or stopped like a debit or credit card. I think if the new model had something to prevent easy theft, it would be an incentive to have people move to it.

To be moneyless would mean to be priceless--this would have to go far beyond solving poverty, hunger, and homelessness, it would mean having no scarcity.  Scarcity doesn't equate to poverty, hunger, and homelessness.  No matter how wealthy  we are, we still face scarcity--only 24 hours in a day, a limited amount of land, a limited amount of water.  Prices allocate these scarce resources.  

[regentrude]

4 hours ago, MEmama said:

 

Last time we went to Europe we didn’t bother exchanging any cash. There’s just no need for it. Like a lot of us, I haven’t touched the cash in my wallet .

 

In Germany,  they are much further from a cashless society. Credit cards are less widely accepted (many stores won't take rhem, or only if you provide ID) and now come with additional hoops in form of transaction codes that make it almost impossible for someone who doesn't have online banking. 

[MEmama]

8 minutes ago, regentrude said:

In Germany,  they are much further from a cashless society. Credit cards are less widely accepted (many stores won't take rhem, or only if you provide ID) and now come with additional hoops in form of transaction codes that make it almost impossible for someone who doesn't have online banking. 

 My experience was just as a tourist, obviously. We never used cash in Germany, except to tip in the washrooms. 🙂 

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

Edited February 13, 2021 by MEmama

[bookbard]

Yeah, our country town is a long way from being cashless. There are money tins next to egg and fruit stands, there are plenty of tradesmen or day labourer types who get paid partly in cash (so they don't have to declare it for tax), and we get frequent blackouts due to lightning storms so having cash on hand is sensible. There are no actual banks for miles, so if something goes wrong with your card you might be cut off for a bit. 

I agree there are a lot of prerequisites for cashless. One would be a stable society who trust their government. Another would be a completely different attitude to poverty. So, it'll be a while. 

[MEmama]

1 hour ago, Spy Car said:

I hope we progress. But cutting out the means of economic participation from those who lack smartphones, bank accounts, or permanent addresses is about the most regressive action we as a society could take. It would be devastating to those individuals.

Hardly a "weird" argument at all. I don't think you've thought this through.

Bill

Once again you are mistaking my words. 🤷‍♀️
 

I will leave you now to your misplaced anger toward me. 

[Spy Car]

8 minutes ago, MEmama said:

Once again you are mistaking my words. 🤷‍♀️
 

I will leave you now to your misplaced anger toward me. 

I'm not the slightest bit angry with you. I trust you are a person of goodwill--and never thought otherwise.

On the issue of moving to a cashless economy I'm not not certain you are fully recognizing the harmful impact that move would have on many--the most disadvantaged.

Nothing personal here. I just see eliminating cash as a regressive policy that would cause great harm.

Bill

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, MEmama said:

 My experience was just as a tourist, obviously. We never used cash in Germany, except to tip in the washrooms. 🙂 

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

I find that surprising. My most recent trip to Germany and Austria included many places that would not accept credit card payment. Salzburg was about the worst and I had to withdraw cash twice because of it. 

The south of France was also somewhat bad about this, particularly in little cafes or flower shops. 

[Spy Car]

50 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

I highly doubt any poster is in favor of cutting out economic participation.

I do think that a government that can figure out how to supply stimulus debit cards and cards for assistance (regardless of our feelings about how those actual programs operate) could, if made to, provide access to those lacking banking access if not to all. Particularly with reduced printing/minting costs.

And I entirely disagree. I think moving cashless would be a disaster of unmitigated proportions for people who lack standard banking, smart phones, secure internet access, and homes (among other basic things that middle class people take for granted).

Things are bad enough now for economically disadvantaged people. Removing cash would be catastrophic for many.

Bill

 

[SKL]

How long have they been talking about eliminating pennies?  It still hasn't happened.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

How long have they been talking about eliminating pennies?  It still hasn't happened.

Right but there is actually a “coin shortage”. If I go to McDonalds, they ask to either pay with a card or use exact change or forego your change. 

[Bootsie]

2 hours ago, madteaparty said:

I believe it’s through an ap called wechat. I don’t know about fees as it was not available to me, I tried. 

The payment through WeChat in China is tied to a bank account, that is government controlled.  The government can decide at any moment that you can have no more than X yuan in your account and confiscate any yuan over that amount--basically preventing personal savings.  

 It is thought that much of the holdings of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are owned by Chinese who are attempting to find way to hold savings in a way that is not so much under government control

[madteaparty]

9 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The payment through WeChat in China is tied to a bank account, that is government controlled.  The government can decide at any moment that you can have no more than X yuan in your account and confiscate any yuan over that amount--basically preventing personal savings.  

 It is thought that much of the holdings of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are owned by Chinese who are attempting to find way to hold savings in a way that is not so much under government control

Yes, I know. I’m not losing sleep over the Chinese government influence in my life, I have sufficient worries about my own.

I did lose a couple minutes of life  expectancy though when I was trying to summon cash to pay a cab with my children in it and ATM after ATM would not work and then the cab disappeared(to find parking, it turns out), but there was a hysterical woman in Beijing running after cabs😂

 

Edited February 13, 2021 by madteaparty

[marbel]

9 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

This is something that may be shifting.  Younger people, who have more experience with “digital money” than “paper money” have been talking about having stronger emotional ties/awareness to the alerts and instant balances their phones supply them with than they do to cash bills.

Some of us older people may want to work on owning our personal habits/impulses/comfort zones and accept that the generations below us have different experiences. 

Don't worry, the old people who want to hold on to their cash money will be gone soon enough. 

But who do you think is creating apps like venmo, reloadable prepaid debit cards, etc?  It is the young people in the fintech industry. They are the people in making this happen and if they are not in charge of the banking industry now, they will be soon. Some of us are just concerned that they will remember the folks without banks, etc, who need access to money in whatever form. 

Most of us here (as in on this board) have probably found it easy to adjust to different ways of moving money. This group is mostly (fairly) affluent and well-educated. There are a lot of people out there without those advantages and their needs and limitations must be taken into consideration if the goal is a truly cashless society. That's all I am saying, and I think that's what people like Bill are saying too (though I apologize if I am wrongly presuming). "We are not ready" does not equal "we can/should never get there."  I believe we will, for better or worse. I probably won't live to see it, but I hope it's for better. 

 

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, marbel said:

Don't worry, the old people who want to hold on to their cash money will be gone soon enough. 

But who do you think is creating apps like venmo, reloadable prepaid debit cards, etc?  It is the young people in the fintech industry. They are the people in making this happen and if they are not in charge of the banking industry now, they will be soon. Some of us are just concerned that they will remember the folks without banks, etc, who need access to money in whatever form. 

Most of us here (as in on this board) have probably found it easy to adjust to different ways of moving money. This group is mostly (fairly) affluent and well-educated. There are a lot of people out there without those advantages and their needs and limitations must be taken into consideration if the goal is a truly cashless society. That's all I am saying, and I think that's what people like Bill are saying too (though I apologize if I am wrongly presuming). "We are not ready" does not equal "we can/should never get there."  I believe we will, for better or worse. I probably won't live to see it, but I hope it's for better. 

 

Why would a cashless society be a goal?  Whose goal would it be?  For what reasons?  

I have no problem with people who want to conduct most, or all, of their transactions without cash; but, I do not see why it would a goal to have others be cashless, also.  

[katilac]

1 hour ago, marbel said:

There are a lot of people out there without those advantages and their needs and limitations must be taken into consideration if the goal is a truly cashless society. That's all I am saying, and I think that's what people like Bill are saying too (though I apologize if I am wrongly presuming). "We are not ready" does not equal "we can/should never get there."  I believe we will, for better or worse. I probably won't live to see it, but I hope it's for better. 

 

Then I think that you and @Carrie12345are saying essentially the same thing, just expressing it differently. 

[Corraleno]

I don't think anyone on this thread is suggesting that a cashless society is a goal we should work towards ASAP, let alone that it should be government-mandated. Some people are just saying that it seems rather inevitable at some point, so it would be a good idea to begin planning now to ensure that poor people are not even more disadvantaged when the inevitable happens. And many of the issues that people are raising (lack of access to bank accounts, lack of internet access, etc.) are already significant problems for the poor, so clearly we should be addressing those right now, because the problem will only get worse as technology continues to evolve. 

I remember people insisting that digital photography would never replace film, or that there was no way they'd ever give up their CDs for downloads. I remember my now-88 yr old mother insisting she would never get a cell phone because it was so terrible that people could call you any place and any time, and now she can't imagine life without texting. There was a huge outcry and resistance to discontinuing analog TV. I'm sure there were people complaining about the original telephone and how it was so much worse than letters, and people who were sure that cars would never be the primary means of transportation because almost everyone has a horse but not many can afford a car. Surely at some point in history people were suspicious of the idea of "cash" itself and demanded to be paid directly in grain or goats instead of some odd little bits of metal that could allegedly be traded for grain and goats.

I do think we will be a cashless society at some point in the future — whether that's 10 years from now or 50, I have no idea. But ignoring the fact that it's almost certainly coming does not help the poor, either in the future or in the here-and-now.

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Corraleno
typos galore

[Spy Car]

2 hours ago, marbel said:

Don't worry, the old people who want to hold on to their cash money will be gone soon enough. 

But who do you think is creating apps like venmo, reloadable prepaid debit cards, etc?  It is the young people in the fintech industry. They are the people in making this happen and if they are not in charge of the banking industry now, they will be soon. Some of us are just concerned that they will remember the folks without banks, etc, who need access to money in whatever form. 

Most of us here (as in on this board) have probably found it easy to adjust to different ways of moving money. This group is mostly (fairly) affluent and well-educated. There are a lot of people out there without those advantages and their needs and limitations must be taken into consideration if the goal is a truly cashless society. That's all I am saying, and I think that's what people like Bill are saying too (though I apologize if I am wrongly presuming). "We are not ready" does not equal "we can/should never get there."  I believe we will, for better or worse. I probably won't live to see it, but I hope it's for better. 

 

I don't think we will get there, nor do I think having a cashless economy is something we should aspire to. Certainly not with the sort of financial inequalities that exist at present.

I also don't think the people who rely on cash are going to die off because they are old, or because they are Luddites. 

There is a world of difference between those of who enjoy the privilege of having nearby banks who compete for our patronage, who have computers, smartphones, tablets, internet access, and secure living conditions  as a matter of course and those who do not.

I'm sorry, but I think this is an example of many people here being blinded by their relative privilege combined with an unawareness of the realities of what it is like to be an economically marginalized person in this country.

The impact on people who already struggle of the bottom of the economic rung would be extreme.

Bill

 

 

[Spy Car]

14 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I don't think anyone on this thread is suggesting that a cashless society is a goal we should work towards ASAP, let alone that it should be government-mandated. Some people are just saying that it seems rather inevitable at some point, so it would be a good idea to begin planning now to ensure that poor people are not even more disadvantaged when the inevitable happens. And many of the issues that people are raising (lack of access to bank accounts, lack of internet access, etc.) are already significant problems for the poor, so clearly we should be addressing those right now, because the problem will only get worse as technology continues to evolve. 

I remember people insisting that digital photography would never replace film, or that there was no way they'd ever give up their CDs for downloads. I remember my now-88 yr old mother insisting she would never get a cell phone because it was so terrible that people could call you any place and any time, and now she can't imagine life without texting. There was a huge outcry and resistance to discontinuing analog TV. I'm sure there were people complaining about the original telephone and how it was so much worse than letters, and people who were sure that cars would never be the primary means of transportation because almost everyone has a horse but not many can afford a car. Surely at some point in history people were suspicious of the idea of "cash" itself and demanded to be paid directly in grain or goats instead of some odd little bits of metal that could allegedly be traded for grain and goats.

I do think we will be a cashless society at some point in the future — whether that's 10 years from now or 50, I have no idea. But ignoring the fact that it's almost certainly coming does not help the poor, either in the future or in the here-and-now.

 

 

What should be mandated is that cash should be considered legal tender for all debts public and private. The government can require that. And should.

How people acquire their music or take photos isn't relevant to ensuring those at the margins can participate in the economy and pay for goods and services. 

Eliminating cash would be catastrophic. It is something to stand foursquare against as a matter of social justice and not something to regard as inevitable in my opinion.

Bill

 

 

[Corraleno]

9 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

What should be mandated is that cash should be considered legal tender for all debts public and private. The government can require that. And should.

How people acquire their music or take photos isn't relevant to ensuring those at the margins can participate in the economy and pay for goods and services. 

Eliminating cash would be catastrophic. It is something to stand foursquare against as a matter of social justice and not something to regard as inevitable in my opinion.

Bill

Or we could ensure that poor people have access to banking and the internet like everyone else, since that lack of access already makes their lives more difficult in a multitude of ways.

Insisting that all businesses, landlords, employers, etc., must always provide a cash option forever and ever into the future, because that's what poor people need, assumes that poor people wouldn't actually prefer to have access to the same privileges and conveniences that the rest of us enjoy. Having one system for the poor and a separate and much more convenient system for everyone else is not "equality."

 

[Spy Car]

8 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Or we could ensure that poor people have access to banking and the internet like everyone else, since that lack of access already makes their lives more difficult in a multitude of ways.

Insisting that all businesses, landlords, employers, etc., must always provide a cash option forever and ever into the future, because that's what poor people need, assumes that poor people wouldn't actually prefer to have access to the same privileges and conveniences that the rest of us enjoy. Having one system for the poor and a separate and much more convenient system for everyone else is not "equality."

 

Great. When everyone in our society has access to banks, secure housing, internet access, computers and smartphones, and electricity and the ability to use such technologies then perhaps we can talk about it. 

Nothing about requiring businesses accept cash requires that those who prefer other means of payment over cash, use cash--that includes poor people. Let's not turn logic on its head here.

Bill

[Bootsie]

24 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Or we could ensure that poor people have access to banking and the internet like everyone else, since that lack of access already makes their lives more difficult in a multitude of ways.

Insisting that all businesses, landlords, employers, etc., must always provide a cash option forever and ever into the future, because that's what poor people need, assumes that poor people wouldn't actually prefer to have access to the same privileges and conveniences that the rest of us enjoy. Having one system for the poor and a separate and much more convenient system for everyone else is not "equality."

 

Some of the people I know who prefer to use cash and do NOT want to go to a cash-less society are some of the most wealthy people I know.  Not everyone finds cashless more convenient, for many reasons beyond their income or wealth level.  Others are concerned about privacy issues.  Still others do not want centralized control.  

Would anyone want to live in a situation that they could NOT go to the bank and withdraw cash in their bank--truly a cashless society?  I think when many people talk about a "cashless society" they are really talking about a situation in which they personally do not make many transactions using cash.  

[Roadrunner]

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Why would a cashless society be a goal?  Whose goal would it be?  For what reasons?  

Government would benefit I would think. Cash economy isn’t small, so if they can trace every transaction, they can tax it and make sure people aren’t hiding cash income. I have paid cash many times for random services rendered (hauling broken fridge, cutting grass....). Who knows if they report it as income. If it were processed electronically, there would be no way to hide from government. So I declare government a winner. Just saying.
Personally I like cash. I am slowly starting to understand how my grandmother felt about Internet as I try to navigate app world. 

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, Roadrunner said:

Government would benefit I would think. Cash economy isn’t small, so if they can trace every transaction, they can tax it and make sure people aren’t hiding cash income. I have paid cash many times for random services rendered (hauling broken fridge, cutting grass....). Who knows if they report it as income. If it were processed electronically, there would be no way to hide from government. So I declare government a winner. Just saying.
Personally I like cash. I am slowly starting to understand how my grandmother felt about Internet as I try to navigate app world. 

I agree the government could be the winner.  I think the average person needs to consider what all that would mean and entail before they decide it is desirable to go to a cashless society.    

[Teaching3bears]

I assume when people say cashless they are talking about cards or payment through phone or at home through computer.  That can get inconvenient because of passwords, having to log in and credit card fraud.  What about face recognition or fingerprint.  Will that be the next step?  I am not saying it is good or bad but just saying that we might go there in the farther future.

[Carrie12345]

9 hours ago, marbel said:

Don't worry, the old people who want to hold on to their cash money will be gone soon enough. 

But who do you think is creating apps like venmo, reloadable prepaid debit cards, etc?  It is the young people in the fintech industry. They are the people in making this happen and if they are not in charge of the banking industry now, they will be soon. Some of us are just concerned that they will remember the folks without banks, etc, who need access to money in whatever form. 

Most of us here (as in on this board) have probably found it easy to adjust to different ways of moving money. This group is mostly (fairly) affluent and well-educated. There are a lot of people out there without those advantages and their needs and limitations must be taken into consideration if the goal is a truly cashless society. That's all I am saying, and I think that's what people like Bill are saying too (though I apologize if I am wrongly presuming). "We are not ready" does not equal "we can/should never get there."  I believe we will, for better or worse. I probably won't live to see it, but I hope it's for better. 

 

Um. I was just trying to point out that the psychology of money isn’t universal in response to the long standing claim that people overspend with plastic. (Which may no longer be the majority or at least on the downward trend.)

I don’t think my ability to stick to a budget is a meaningful argument for or against societal change.  It’s a good idea for ME to change either way. 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Why would a cashless society be a goal?  Whose goal would it be?  For what reasons?  

I have no problem with people who want to conduct most, or all, of their transactions without cash; but, I do not see why it would a goal to have others be cashless, also.  

I have heard it posited that it is a governmental goal and the purpose would be total control of tax revenue. People couldn’t underreport their tips, never mention their cash computer service gig, and fail to report gifted funds if every means of money is digitally tracked. 

*I* don’t typically hold those mistrustful of government type views, but I know that is one belief circulating in the public. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Some of the people I know who prefer to use cash and do NOT want to go to a cash-less society are some of the most wealthy people I know.  Not everyone finds cashless more convenient, for many reasons beyond their income or wealth level.  Others are concerned about privacy issues.  Still others do not want centralized control.  

Would anyone want to live in a situation that they could NOT go to the bank and withdraw cash in their bank--truly a cashless society?  I think when many people talk about a "cashless society" they are really talking about a situation in which they personally do not make many transactions using cash.  

I mean, I don’t want it to be mandatory, as in, government edict to have no such thing as cash, but I think of it the way @Corraleno said: technology marches on. Holdouts eventually - in most cases - adapt to the new technology because the benefits are worth the PItA of learning how. Think of elderly people who have learned to Facetime, Zoom or Skype in the past year because it’s the only way to see people they love, participate in groups they enjoy, or watch a church service. 

Attrition is usually what happens to older methods. My YA do not use checks; they have never had them. They move money digitally and it is nothing but a big pain in their butts when someone will only take cash or a bank check. I doubt either of them, or their SOs, keep more than $20 cash on them on a regular basis and probably not even that. 

Personally, I do not remember the last time I withdrew cash from a bank, except when traveling in Europe. I have had a few hundred dollars in cash in my house for so long I literally had to go to the bank and have them exchanged for new bills because the anti-counterfeiting measures had changed and the cash would be unspendable if people were reluctant to take my funny-looking bills. 

I’m not saying it should be government-mandated to not use cash, but I will happily forego using cash myself because I find non-cash systems much easier to use and far superior. 

 

[SKL]

I am wondering why nobody seems concerned about the privacy issue.

Do you really want the government, vendors, hackers, and your mother to know about every purchase you will ever make?

I mean I live an extremely boring life, but I could envision having activities I wouldn't want the whole world to know about.

So if there were no cash, what would people use for transactions they wanted to keep private??  Think about that.

[Carrie12345]

18 minutes ago, SKL said:

I am wondering why nobody seems concerned about the privacy issue.

Do you really want the government, vendors, hackers, and your mother to know about every purchase you will ever make?

I mean I live an extremely boring life, but I could envision having activities I wouldn't want the whole world to know about.

So if there were no cash, what would people use for transactions they wanted to keep private??  Think about that.

I’m not going to say that I’m not concerned, but I do feel that that ship has sailed for me. I’ve made exactly one cash purchase in the past I Don know how long, and only because I didn’t have the patience to preorder drive-thru on the app for a tiny order. The interwebs have recorded every single other thing I’ve done, whether by charge or due to customer loyalty cards for over a year, and at least 90% in the years before that.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, SKL said:

I am wondering why nobody seems concerned about the privacy issue.

Do you really want the government, vendors, hackers, and your mother to know about every purchase you will ever make?

I mean I live an extremely boring life, but I could envision having activities I wouldn't want the whole world to know about.

So if there were no cash, what would people use for transactions they wanted to keep private??  Think about that.

I guess, for me personally, the privacy factor doesn’t bother me because that horse left the barn long ago. The number of things I buy that I feel very private about is infinitesimal. Maybe includes a book or two I wouldn’t list on my Goodreads and if I was buying something for use alone with dh. Thats basically it. And in those cases, I am almost certainly not buying from a physical store and paying with cash. (Actually, I would be more bothered to be spotted going into a XX bookstore/toystore or for my car to be seen there.) 

 

[Bootsie]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I guess, for me personally, the privacy factor doesn’t bother me because that horse left the barn long ago. The number of things I buy that I feel very private about is infinitesimal. Maybe includes a book or two I wouldn’t list on my Goodreads and if I was buying something for use alone with dh. Thats basically it. And in those cases, I am almost certainly not buying from a physical store and paying with cash. (Actually, I would be more bothered to be spotted going into a XX bookstore/toystore or for my car to be seen there.) 

 

You are not concerned about the privacy of anything that you want to purchase now.  But, is there any scenario in which that could change?  What if some of the books that you want to buy are banned?  What if someone wants to track the political causes you are donating money?    What if the government decides that you MUST purchase certain items? What if the government decides that you are not allowed to purchase from certain stores?  What if the government decides that certain stores are not allowed to sell items to particular groups of people?  

To me, one of the biggest concerns would be:  What if the government decides that you cannot hold more than $x dollars?  

If the government has a goal for us to be cashless, there are two possibilities:  (1) the government controls the accounting of individual income/wealth which is not something I think should be the role of government or (2) the government endorses a business to control for the accounting of individual income wealth which means that business has to charge a fee one way or another to cover its expenses, and I think that situation is a format for corruption.  

[YaelAldrich]

On 2/13/2021 at 11:15 AM, MEmama said:

I wonder why it largely works just fine in some countries—Iceland, for example, and someone mentioned China— yet Americans always think we are the  exception?

Last time we went to Europe we didn’t bother exchanging any cash. There’s just no need for it. Like a lot of us, I haven’t touched the cash in my wallet since March.

 

20 hours ago, regentrude said:

In Germany,  they are much further from a cashless society. Credit cards are less widely accepted (many stores won't take rhem, or only if you provide ID) and now come with additional hoops in form of transaction codes that make it almost impossible for someone who doesn't have online banking. 

I can chime in about Japan. Even until today people walk around with hundreds to thousands of yen (approximately 100 yen to the dollar) in their possession. We paid rent ($2-4000) in cash to ATM machines. I never go around without at least $200 in yen in my wallet. Banks have limited hours, ATMs also can have limited hours (convenience stores have better hours) and even close several days to a week during the year (that may have changed somewhat but we hoarded cash for the end of the year bank holidays).  Grocery stores take credit cards but most local stores (fruit and veggies, odds and ends) don't; only cash. 

Foreigners have a hard time getting a bank account established. And keeping it if you want to pop in and out of the country as we do is mostly impossible. 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

You are not concerned about the privacy of anything that you want to purchase now.  But, is there any scenario in which that could change?  What if some of the books that you want to buy are banned?  What if someone wants to track the political causes you are donating money?    What if the government decides that you MUST purchase certain items? What if the government decides that you are not allowed to purchase from certain stores?  What if the government decides that certain stores are not allowed to sell items to particular groups of people?  

To me, one of the biggest concerns would be:  What if the government decides that you cannot hold more than $x dollars?  

If the government has a goal for us to be cashless, there are two possibilities:  (1) the government controls the accounting of individual income/wealth which is not something I think should be the role of government or (2) the government endorses a business to control for the accounting of individual income wealth which means that business has to charge a fee one way or another to cover its expenses, and I think that situation is a format for corruption.  

I suppose I have more faith in the protections afforded by the US Bill of Rights and the US Constitution (or in some cass, my state’s constitution and statutes) that to think those things are something to seriously fear. IMO, the outgoing administration was the most corrupt of my lifetime by a lot and, while it’s scary how close we came to implosion, our system held. There are apparently *some* people in government who still abide by the rule of law. 

[Corraleno]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

I am wondering why nobody seems concerned about the privacy issue.

Do you really want the government, vendors, hackers, and your mother to know about every purchase you will ever make?

I mean I live an extremely boring life, but I could envision having activities I wouldn't want the whole world to know about.

So if there were no cash, what would people use for transactions they wanted to keep private??  Think about that.

 

Since I file taxes and own a house and a car, "the government" already knows where I live, how much I pay in property tax, what party I vote for, what kind of car I drive, how much money I make, and where that money is invested. Since I use a cell phone, anyone with access to that information can already track my movements if they're so inclined. And since I already do 99.99% of financial transactions electronically, various banks, credit card companies, businesses, and probably google and facebook already know how and where I spend my money. (I'm not sure how you think my mother would ever get any of that info, though.)

The only cash transactions I can think of in the past year were a cash tip to a delivery driver when there was no option to add a tip online, and an airport shuttle service that didn't accept credit or debit cards (and if I ever use them again I'll ask if they take venmo). Neither of my kids use cash at all — rent, utilities, and tuition are all paid online, purchases are via CC, debit card, or Apple Pay, and they pay each other with venmo. I'm pretty sure DS has had the same $20 bill in his wallet since freshman year. His university doesn't even give athletes their per diem in cash anymore, it's just automatically deposited in their accounts before road trips. Even the washers, dryers, and vending machines in his apartment building only take cards, no cash. He has zero use for cash and that same $20 bill will probably still be in his wallet when he graduates. I think older people may underestimate how many young adults are already cashless.

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

You are not concerned about the privacy of anything that you want to purchase now.  But, is there any scenario in which that could change?  What if some of the books that you want to buy are banned?  What if someone wants to track the political causes you are donating money?    What if the government decides that you MUST purchase certain items? What if the government decides that you are not allowed to purchase from certain stores?  What if the government decides that certain stores are not allowed to sell items to particular groups of people?  

To me, one of the biggest concerns would be:  What if the government decides that you cannot hold more than $x dollars?  

If the government has a goal for us to be cashless, there are two possibilities:  (1) the government controls the accounting of individual income/wealth which is not something I think should be the role of government or (2) the government endorses a business to control for the accounting of individual income wealth which means that business has to charge a fee one way or another to cover its expenses, and I think that situation is a format for corruption.  

I don't think a cashless economy is a government goal at all, any more than it was a government "goal" to make us all use digital cameras instead of film or drive cars instead of using horses. I think it's a function of technological innovation, not some nefarious government plot.

I don't really understand how cash helps if in some dystopian future "the government" decided that people couldn't own more than a certain amount of money — are you suggesting that people with more than that will be hiding their additional millions or billions in $20 bills in a closet-sized safe, or trying to leave the country with millions in cash hidden in the bottom of a suitcase? People with that kind of money have it invested, and any sale of stocks/bonds/etc. in order to cash out would leave an electronic trail anyway.

I have no intention of cheating on my taxes, so I don't need to hide income. I don't buy drugs or other illegal substances, so no need to hide purchases from "the government," and my bank and whatever businesses I buy from already have information about all my purchases. I think the fears of an evil Orwellian US government are unfounded (and in fact are designed to exert specific kinds of control over the current population versus providing prophetic warnings about the future), and I really don't care who knows that I bought a lamp from Target or that I ordered spinach from Whole Foods last week.

 

[Bootsie]

27 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I don't think a cashless economy is a government goal at all, any more than it was a government "goal" to make us all use digital cameras instead of film or drive cars instead of using horses. I think it's a function of technological innovation, not some nefarious government plot.

I don't really understand how cash helps if in some dystopian future "the government" decided that people couldn't own more than a certain amount of money — are you suggesting that people with more than that will be hiding their additional millions or billions in $20 bills in a closet-sized safe, or trying to leave the country with millions in cash hidden in the bottom of a suitcase? People with that kind of money have it invested, and any sale of stocks/bonds/etc. in order to cash out would leave an electronic trail anyway.

I have no intention of cheating on my taxes, so I don't need to hide income. I don't buy drugs or other illegal substances, so no need to hide purchases from "the government," and my bank and whatever businesses I buy from already have information about all my purchases. I think the fears of an evil Orwellian US government are unfounded (and in fact are designed to exert specific kinds of control over the current population versus providing prophetic warnings about the future), and I really don't care who knows that I bought a lamp from Target or that I ordered spinach from Whole Foods last week.

 

In North Korea in the past decade the government did decide the maximum cash people could hold.  People in China are thought be to trying to figure ways of getting their money in forms that they can spend outside China and have control over.  People were told by the government not to shop in certain stores in Austria less than a century ago.  Some people wanted wealth in a form that they could leave Germany less than a century ago.  I personally know people who participated in the Kwangju Uprising in South Korea in 1980--and those people want to maintain an ability to keep things private, although they trust their present government.  So, I do not think it is only in a dystopian future that these things can happen.  

I don't care if anyone knows I ordered spinach from Whole Foods last week, but at the same time, I do not think it is anyone else's business if for some reason I did want to keep that information private.  It isn't so much that I want to keep the info private now, it is that I do not want to be precluded from doing so, if I should decide to.  

[Miss Tick]

I am not interested in moving to a cashless society because of the lack of privacy. The thought makes me queasy. That said, I operate that way almost all the time. The problem is that we think of Big Government as threatening privacy in one big clumsy blow when the reality is that Goliath Corporation just buys it from us piecemeal. 😢

On 2/13/2021 at 10:26 AM, Excelsior! Academy said:

Girl Scout cookie stands in front of grocery store chains a bit more challenging

In our boy scout troop sales jumped back up a couple of years ago when they started accepting credit card via Square. Society is moving ahead without waiting for us to resolve our feelings on this issue. Corporate America is going to get us focused on whether or not we are comfortable paying with our phone or if we need to still have credit cards as separate, physical entities and meanwhile no one (not many people) will notice that they are withdrawing the cash option up their sleeves.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

In North Korea in the past decade the government did decide the maximum cash people could hold.  People in China are thought be to trying to figure ways of getting their money in forms that they can spend outside China and have control over.  People were told by the government not to shop in certain stores in Austria less than a century ago.  Some people wanted wealth in a form that they could leave Germany less than a century ago.  I personally know people who participated in the Kwangju Uprising in South Korea in 1980--and those people want to maintain an ability to keep things private, although they trust their present government.  So, I do not think it is only in a dystopian future that these things can happen.  

I don't care if anyone knows I ordered spinach from Whole Foods last week, but at the same time, I do not think it is anyone else's business if for some reason I did want to keep that information private.  It isn't so much that I want to keep the info private now, it is that I do not want to be precluded from doing so, if I should decide to.  

Well, I don’t live in North Korean or China. I do not see any likelihood of the US becoming communist in the near future (or actually even in the distant future). 

I am another who does not see what good a suitcase full of twenties would do if the government seized control of all us stupid citizens by strong-arming our digital accounts. If that were to happen, we’re screwed and a stockpile of dollars (or gold bars, or tubs of instant meals) is not going to help. If the government were able to do that, they would have already. 

[Moonhawk]

On 2/13/2021 at 2:15 PM, Bootsie said:

To be moneyless would mean to be priceless--this would have to go far beyond solving poverty, hunger, and homelessness, it would mean having no scarcity.  Scarcity doesn't equate to poverty, hunger, and homelessness.  No matter how wealthy  we are, we still face scarcity--only 24 hours in a day, a limited amount of land, a limited amount of water.  Prices allocate these scarce resources.  

I mean, I was referencing a sci-fi TV show and summarizing their "evolution" in 1-2 sentences, not giving an actual path to a moneyless society, lol.

My point was that in order for a cashless society to work, we would have to achieve a certain level of society where X things were assumed for every citizen. I do not see that we are remotely close to being there.

I see a cash-optional society being achievable relatively soon, maybe for certain strata it's already here, but when electricity is not yet a given assumption for every house, I don't think cashless is a possibility or priority on any level. 

 

[Carrie12345]

5 hours ago, Bootsie said:

You are not concerned about the privacy of anything that you want to purchase now.  But, is there any scenario in which that could change?  What if some of the books that you want to buy are banned?  What if someone wants to track the political causes you are donating money?    What if the government decides that you MUST purchase certain items? What if the government decides that you are not allowed to purchase from certain stores?  What if the government decides that certain stores are not allowed to sell items to particular groups of people?  

To me, one of the biggest concerns would be:  What if the government decides that you cannot hold more than $x dollars?  

If the government has a goal for us to be cashless, there are two possibilities:  (1) the government controls the accounting of individual income/wealth which is not something I think should be the role of government or (2) the government endorses a business to control for the accounting of individual income wealth which means that business has to charge a fee one way or another to cover its expenses, and I think that situation is a format for corruption.  

That degree of abuse doesn’t register in my brain. If we really want to imagine that far, they could just control wages, cash or no. 

What is more likely is that I will need the investment growth from my today income to survive in my later years. Putting it all in my mattress wouldn’t help very long in the dystopian scenario OR the realistic one. 

[ieta_cassiopeia]

Personal debt is at an all-time high. While this was aggravated by events of the last year, it is also true that more people are living further beyond their means than before. Budgeting is an issue that needs to be taken into account, and a reason I'd prefer multiple methods to pay for and save for things.

I know several small businesses that would go bust if society went cashless, because the prices they are charged for small-volume sales would be too high. Smartphones (on which much of this plan appears to hinge) have become less accessible for people with some disabilities over the 12-15 years they've existed, and that I know several adults who can't use a card due to their disabilities but can use cash (in at least one case, it's the difference between them being able to be independent and not). 20% of people in the UK do not have a smartphone, 14% don't have internet, and there's good reason to believe those statistics aren't going to change much in the near future (and if they do, it'll be fewer people with those things, rather than more, on account of their cost). Also, there are a fair number of people who are pretty much disconnected from government and wouldn't get assistance with navigating a cashless society for the same reason they don't get assistance now with a society that assumes people will have access to food, power and a roof over their heads.

Finally, I am very uncomfortable with the amount a cashless society makes theft against careful people easier. It's a lot easier to steal from a "cashless" app than directly from the bank (though the point of vulnerability for cash and cashless is the concrete object itself). Yes, the phone or card. So much of people's identities being on a device they're expected to have whenever they leave the house. It's a magnified version of the car key problem (not only because of the amount a theif can steal with something so small, but because a smartphone tends to be rather larger than a set of car keys). Identity theft doubled in the last 12 months in the USA, something I expect will only get worse as the shift to making phones so valuable continues. This is especially serious in a mandatory direct-link system (one method of implementing cashless I've seen implied this thread) because stealing that phone means every account that person has interacted with becomes known and easier to hack into, not just the person whose phone was taken.

Having a cashless option is good. Being all-cashless would be disastrous for any society (even one that consisted completely of robots).