Skip to navigationSkip to content
Close

New York's ban on cashless stores doesn't address underlying problems. The city's decision to force shops to accept paper money protects the unbanked—largely made up of the elderly, the poor, and immigrants. But it will not help them get access to the benefits of bank accounts.

Read more on Quartz

Featured contributions

  • This piece is spot on- it does not solve the problem of people being unbanked. But at least they can use cash to buy the things they need without the barrier of not having an electronic payment source.. life is hard enough .. this is a relatively easy accommodation that makes for a bit of a kinder world.

  • New York is moving to ban cashless stores, the rationale being that it discrimantes agaist the 11pc or so who dont have bank accounts. They follow a number of other US cities. Its quite a contrast with China which continues to forge ahead with new technologies and where most of my friends there often

    New York is moving to ban cashless stores, the rationale being that it discrimantes agaist the 11pc or so who dont have bank accounts. They follow a number of other US cities. Its quite a contrast with China which continues to forge ahead with new technologies and where most of my friends there often walk out of the house with no cash. Some commentators say policymakers shoukd deal with the underlying problem that there are people without banking. I call it the Hunger Games Society, where if you are below certain levels of income you have to pay extortionate rates of interest and lose access to all sorts of things including access to proper healthcare. Having no smartphone is already a big problem. This is all in a world of zero interest rates and where the wealthy can borrow colossal amounts at near zero. The main reason, in my mind, to keep physical cash is for privacy. China is still a poor country on GDP per capita but everyone is using digital cash, even beggars use cheap phones to collect digital money. However, do we really want governmwnts to know all of our transactions? Perhaps if we do move in that direction - and it seems likely looking at demographic propensities - it will make it even more important to have a bitcoin alternative. This week a group of European central banks clubbed together with the BIS and co-chaired by the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England to collaborate on central bank digital currencies. Im convinced the financial architecture is gou g to undergo a revolution this decade.

  • As a city of immigrants and socioeconomic diversity, the ability to purchase goods is a necessity for our economic prosperity. Until everyone can have immediate access to banking, this ban makes sense. To be banked you need the ability to have a state identification card and an actual address, not a

    As a city of immigrants and socioeconomic diversity, the ability to purchase goods is a necessity for our economic prosperity. Until everyone can have immediate access to banking, this ban makes sense. To be banked you need the ability to have a state identification card and an actual address, not a p.o. box. Immigrants do not immediately have access to these things and the poor often don't have enough money left over after paying bills for it to make sense for them to use a bank. Accessibility is a huge issue and until it can be solved, stores should accept all forms of payment. Truly free checking accounts would help.

  • Something that's not talked about as often is the importance of resiliency. That is, what happens during a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or some other electrical or data center disruption? This is a real question in Sweden, which is going cashless faster than almost anyplace. Keeping cash around

    Something that's not talked about as often is the importance of resiliency. That is, what happens during a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or some other electrical or data center disruption? This is a real question in Sweden, which is going cashless faster than almost anyplace. Keeping cash around could be seen as a failsafe in event of a major emergency.

    It's also worth asking whether we want our payment systems to be owned and operated by for-profit companies (potentially even foreign companies), or whether these rails should be public utilities.

    There's a lot to be said for having a big policy discussion on these matters. If there's one thing policy makers have learned from Sweden's example, it's that it's much easier to protect the cash infrastructure before you lose it.

  • New York is the 5th state to ban payment discrimination. Let's not forget though the benefits of going cashless especially on newest wave of payment and banking systems. The new and more meshed ecosystem of digital banks and payment solutions enabled lower costs that has significantly lowered transaction

    New York is the 5th state to ban payment discrimination. Let's not forget though the benefits of going cashless especially on newest wave of payment and banking systems. The new and more meshed ecosystem of digital banks and payment solutions enabled lower costs that has significantly lowered transaction and operating fees passing on the interests to consumers.

  • Retailers should be free to decide their charging strategy. This would incentivize development of cheaper banking technologies for the unbanked - 11% of NY is surely an attractive market

  • As I stopped carrying cash years ago one would think I would agree that idea that cash was a thing of the past. I don't.

    I think eliminating cash is dangerous for the following reasons.

    1) it discriminates against the poor who don't have access to banking or whose income is so low they cannot afford

    As I stopped carrying cash years ago one would think I would agree that idea that cash was a thing of the past. I don't.

    I think eliminating cash is dangerous for the following reasons.

    1) it discriminates against the poor who don't have access to banking or whose income is so low they cannot afford the plethora of charges that banks, fintech payday loan companies and atm companies charge. It is a financial death of a thousand cuts.

    2) A cashless system would lay waste to entire level of the economy where the additional charges on minute transactions or the informal garage sales, craft shows, farmers markets and roadside vegatable stands. Imagine a world without lemonade stands ,fast cofee, girl guide cookies, boy scout apples, newsstands, Sally Anne kettles.

    Panhandlers would have to depend even more on charities.

    3) The technology is fragile. A power failure would and has created instant poverty for thousands unable to access their money.

    4) an utter distrust of a banking system that can delay payments makes cash neccessary for private purchases of even large value items like used cars boats tractors.

    5) loss of privacy as big data firms would be able to track not only every transaction but physical movement.

    6) a cashless society would also make travel difficult as most tourist destinations use US cash either directly or to convert local currency.

    Who gets left behind we all would.

More contributions