Philadelphia Passes Ban on Cashless Stores; Amazon Go Plans Said to Be in Jeopardy

i hope this stays civil because there's room for interesting discourse here if there's room left for nuance.

the question is, "who would i rather give influence: governments, thru directly passing laws and selectively enforcing them, or big business, thru using their outsized influence to manipulate markets and lobby for favorable laws?"
i wish that "neither" was an option, because i don't like having to choose between evils on a case by case basis
 
If Philadelphia wants to drive away modern businesses.. let them. In 5 or 10 years time they look around and wonder why no big commerce is coming their way, will they even realize it's because of policies like this? Policies like this are a great way to ensure the poor and stupid STAY poor and stupid. If there was that big of a need for cash only stores, let the free market decide. Mom and pop store can cater to those that can only count when the money is in their hand and Amazon can cater to those who understand how a debit or credit card works. Win/Win.

It's 2019 -- we are only going to get more digital and more connected, why let the lowest common denominator of laziness or ignorance set the bar for what everyone else is allowed to do?
 
collegeboy69us said:
If Philadelphia wants to drive away modern businesses.. let them. In 5 or 10 years time they look around and wonder why no big commerce is coming their way, will they even realize it's because of policies like this? Policies like this are a great way to ensure the poor and stupid STAY poor and stupid. If there was that big of a need for cash only stores, let the free market decide. Mom and pop store can cater to those that can only count when the money is in their hand and Amazon can cater to those who understand how a debit or credit card works. Win/Win.

It's 2019 -- we are only going to get more digital and more connected, why let the lowest common denominator of laziness or ignorance set the bar for what everyone else is allowed to do?
Click to expand...


People don't choose to use cash as a result of not knowing how to use a credit or debit card
 
collegeboy69us said:
Smart move... purchase protection, possible theft, and cash back bonuses are absolute terrible things to deal with right?
Click to expand...
Those benefits come with a cost, though. Every transaction used with a card has a fee associated to it. Which businesses take the brunt of that then gets passed to you in the form of increased prices.

I prefer using my CC overall for the reasons listed, but I wouldn't judge someone for using cash. I just don't have the patience for it.
 
Many of you are missing how heavy-handed this is and just how the actual poor are being used as pawns and nothing more.

Gov't dictating what can and cannot be used as payment is not cool on any level. Using the poor as a reason for this bullshit legislation is just the icing on the insult cake. The gov't should not be in the money business. Our federal gov't has been balls deep in the money business for ages and well.....you can form your own opinion on how well they've done and if it was worth the costs.

A business should have the right to accept or refuse any form of payment they wish. Maybe I should have led with that because it can also end right there.

I'm not an advocate for a cashless society even though I could count on one hand the number of times I've touched the stuff in the past 5 years. I think I've had more wisdom teeth pulled. This discourse should not be focused on the pros/cons of a cashless society or on if it's a positive/negative for a business to be cashless. None of that is the point. The discussion should always be about gov't interference. If the gov't is trying to stick their fingers farther up a business owners ass and tell them what payment is acceptable or unacceptable for a voluntary transaction they have nothing to do with, they're doing something very wrong. And before somebody chimes in that 'poor' people wouldn't have the option to patronize certain establishments (and thus less choice) because they can only pay in cash, I say this...
1. So? We all would have the choice to patronize or refuse to patronize a cashless establishment. That's where our choice ends. Our choices do not go so far as to force business owners to accept cash or seashells or wampum or time with Cowboy's sister.
2. We're not talking about gov't services or utilities which would be something people should be able to pay for using the currency of the land (it's easy to be the currency of the land when you hold a monopoly)...we're talking lattes and frappachinos and humus.
3. So?
4. So the fuck what! Go somewhere else. You don't have a right to the goods or services somebody else offers. If cashless is a bad business model, it won't last.
 
Last edited:
I've been as cashless-as-possible for at least the last 10 years? There are still some places that don't except credit card payment. The bus system I use is one (although I normally have a bus pass, but sometimes its expired or I forget it).
A side effect of no cash. When panhandlers approach me asking for change, I can look them in the face and say I don't have any money on me. I'm just waiting for someone to pull out the Square reader or tell me they have the Cash app. (I saw a skit on this somewhere - might have been SNL)
 
So instead of cashing their SSI checks, they put them on a prepaid Visa...problem solved.
 
KATEKATEKATE said:
the question is, "who would i rather give influence: governments, thru directly passing laws and selectively enforcing them, or big business, thru using their outsized influence to manipulate markets and lobby for favorable laws?"
i wish that "neither" was an option, because i don't like having to choose between evils on a case by case basis
Click to expand...
I never understood the hatred for government involvement. If the government doesn't get involved then your democracy doesn't work. Companies on the other hand do get involved with the government with lobbying money. If the government isn't doing something you like then vote otherwise the companies will be voting with their money.

Maybe if the government had a program that allows you to put money in digitally and be used like a debit/credit card? Like a bank without private business interests getting involved. It would have to be legally anonymous transfers that can't be used in any court.
 
Laowai said:
Many of you are missing how heavy-handed this is and just how the actual poor are being used as pawns and nothing more...
Click to expand...

It's really not that heavy handed. Our entire US economy is tied to the dollar. People are paid in cash for the work they do, even if it ultimately gets deposited in a bank. That's just how things work. Philly is just working in that framework to make sure everyone plays fair -- though some of that exclusions they have are kinda headscratchers.

But obviously cash kinda sucks from an efficiency and liability standpoint. I'm not sure I'd be an advocate for a totally cashless society though. Having electronic only cash is too easy to steal/lose everything at once and the only viable solution today -- credit cards -- require transaction fees and spending other people's money.
 
Ryun said:
It's really not that heavy handed. Our entire US economy is tied to the dollar. People are paid in cash for the work they do, even if it ultimately gets deposited in a bank. That's just how things work. Philly is just working in that framework to make sure everyone plays fair -- though some of that exclusions they have are kinda headscratchers.

But obviously cash kinda sucks from an efficiency and liability standpoint. I'm not sure I'd be an advocate for a totally cashless society though. Having electronic only cash is too easy to steal/lose everything at once and the only viable solution today -- credit cards -- require transaction fees and spending other people's money.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an argument from tradition. It is and was this way so it should remain this way.
People are paid in US dollars because it's what they agree to be paid in and it's what their employer agrees to pay. If an individual was seeking compensation for his time in candy bars and pop tarts, he should be, and is, within his rights to seek an employer who will agree to those terms. What he would not be permitted to do, is to force an unwilling party to compensate him in that manner. Just as a person seeking to use cash to purchase some trinkets and baubles would be within their rights to seek a trinkets and baubles vendor who wishes to conduct transactions in cash. He should not be able to force somebody to accept a form of payment they do not wish to accept. Reasons are irrelevant.

Gov't.....should....not....interfere.

As to fair....I am not sure what you mean by fair or what it would have to do with anything.

Once again, nobody should be able to dictate what a business must or must not accept in return for their goods and/or services. They shouldn't have the right.
 
Last edited:
Laowai said:
Gov't.....should....not....interfere.
Click to expand...
If the government doesn't interfere then the companies will run amok. That is how mafia works.

Once again, nobody should be able to dictate what a business must or must not accept in return for their goods and/or services. They shouldn't have the right.
Click to expand...
What about crypto currency? Governments certainly don't like those. Remember businesses serve the people and therefore must work within certain restrictions. If we don't want government involved then I'll just walk into a Walmart and barter with the seller to lower the price, or maybe steel the item and not have to worry about police. Are three Alexander Hamilton not good enough for a PS4 at Walmart? How about I exchange my Radeon HD 6850 for the PS4?

Laws are great when they work in businesses favor but terrible for consumers?
 
DukenukemX said:
If the government doesn't interfere then the companies will run amok. That is how mafia works.


What about crypto currency? Governments certainly don't like those. Remember businesses serve the people and therefore must work within certain restrictions. If we don't want government involved then I'll just walk into a Walmart and barter with the seller to lower the price, or maybe steel the item and not have to worry about police. Are three Alexander Hamilton not good enough for a PS4 at Walmart? How about I exchange my Radeon HD 6850 for the PS4?

Laws are great when they work in businesses favor but terrible for consumers?
Click to expand...
Run amok? By going cashless? What are you going on about?
I'm talking about gov't interfering in voluntary transactions between two parties....which is what I though this topic was about.


That was a pretty decent deranged rant you had going on though.
 
There is a problem here with what is a business, and what people think its a business. Government should interfere, it is their mandate.
I think some are confusing 'business' with like a private club, something like that.
If a business wanted to accept your garden vegetables as currency, well i guess they can in Philly, as long as they ALSO accept cash. Wtf is wrong with that, this is what government is for.
Now if it is like a private invitation only club, i think they can do what they want... Those do get intervened with in nasty ways too, and that is wrong (like selling raw milk shit like that) in my view. Now if there was a vegetables trader club in which currency is only tomatoes, no one would care... As to what is something like a private club, and when does it become a business, I don't know. But the distinctions do exist.
 
Last edited:
Laowai said:
I'm talking about gov't interfering in voluntary transactions between two parties....which is what I though this topic was about.


.
Click to expand...
Yet only to guarantee options for its citizens, hence increase freedom....
 
Snishsnoosh said:
But in all seriousness cashless is a terrible idea-vis a-vis privacy.
Click to expand...
Yeah thats the big a stick in the ass.over this, its not about protecting your privacy in the birthplace of the US Constitution its that there is so much poverty they want to make sure everyone has the option to buy stuff
 
"This note is legal tender for ALL debts"

sfsuphysics said:
Yeah thats the big a stick in the ass.over this, its not about protecting your privacy in the birthplace of the US Constitution its that there is so much poverty they want to make sure everyone has the option to buy stuff
Click to expand...

"poverty they want to make sure everyone has the option to buy stuf"

Damn dude all those poor people are gonna be so pissed that they can't go and buy $14.99 artisan salads, if only those stores accepted cash.
 
MyNameIsAlex said:
"This note is legal tender for ALL debts"
Click to expand...
As mentioned in another way earlier federal legal tender laws only require businesses to accept dollars as a form of payment, it doesnt mean the must accept a particular form of that dollar. Translation: they must accept dollars but it can be required to be a digital transaction. In the same way it is perfectly legal to say "No bills over $20 will be accepted"
 
sfsuphysics said:
As mentioned in another way earlier federal legal tender laws only require businesses to accept dollars as a form of payment, it doesnt mean the must accept a particular form of that dollar. Translation: they must accept dollars but it can be required to be a digital transaction. In the same way it is perfectly legal to say "No bills over $20 will be accepted"
Click to expand...

Very informative , thank you.

I still think it's beyond stupid to have a store that doesn't accept cash. Why limit your customer base? You want to sell to everyone you can. Anyways, NOT accepting the form of payment that comes with ZERO processing fees seems stupid.

There are a lot of people that ONLY use cash, and not all of them are drug dealers. There are a lot of old people, immigrants, and conspiracy theorists that will only use cash.

I think Amazon Stock is overvalued in general, and short sellers must be happy to hear about these moronic cashless stores
 
harbingerofdoom said:
even if they DIDNT (which they DO).... not the same kind of store
Click to expand...

Overpriced stuff for people with loads of disposable income, same kind of store. I don't know who decided that people living on the poverty line need someone to go to bat to make sure they can spend those wheelbarrows of cash they have on expensive salads when you can get a Rotisserie chicken for 5 bucks and a 6 pack of lettuce and feed the entire extended family the same exact chicken salads for a couple days.
 
I think stores ~should~ accept cash/ I don't know that I would go insofar as to require it though.

That being said, easy way around it for a store like Amazon is to just sell gift cards for cash up front. Then everything else can be bought on the gift card...

You know, kinda like how EBT cards work, only it's your money instead of my money that goes in there.
 
Laowai said:
Run amok? By going cashless? What are you going on about?
I'm talking about gov't interfering in voluntary transactions between two parties....which is what I though this topic was about.


That was a pretty decent deranged rant you had going on though.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry Dave but I can't let you buy that PS4, you see you owe money and your credit score is low. We at Visa/Discover/MasterCard deny your purchase. Have a good day and remember to make payments on time. Please stay on hold to partake in our survey.
 
Brian_B said:
I think stores ~should~ accept cash/ I don't know that I would go insofar as to require it though.

That being said, easy way around it for a store like Amazon is to just sell gift cards for cash up front. Then everything else can be bought on the gift card...

You know, kinda like how EBT cards work, only it's your money instead of my money that goes in there.
Click to expand...


well i assume the amazon stores will be cashierless too i.e. no staff in them most of the time.
 
When I used to work in retail at Best Buy many years ago, I was told it was actually cheaper for the business to have a transaction in credit than in cash as you have to pay employees to count the drawers every night and you have to pay a company to pick up the cash you collect. Cash transactions also take longer than credit so you can check out more people using credit than cash, which can actually make a big difference during the really busy times. Both cash and credit transactions have a cost associated with them, just credit costs are easy to calculate compared to cash.
 
Good job Philly.
Sorry, cash is great for those who like to watch the cashiers freeze up trying to figure out why you handed them $10.78 for an $10.73 item! lol
 
Last edited:
Delicieuxz said:
A no-cash store would be dictating how people are allowed to spend their money and in what form.
Click to expand...

No shit - but only in Amazon's stores.

Unless you are trying to argue that Amazon's policy would magically override all other stores at the same time too? How exactly? Magic? Unicorn farts? The capitalist cabal?

I love people who love to argue how restricting choice is actually ensuring we have more choice.

It's batshit crazy. Here's a radical idea - let Amazon do what they think best and if the market rejects it then guess what - it was a bad idea. I don't need some self important totalitarian fuckwit imposing their ideas on what they think is best, thank you very much.
 
Laowai said:
Many of you are missing how heavy-handed this is and just how the actual poor are being used as pawns and nothing more.

Gov't dictating what can and cannot be used as payment is not cool on any level.
Click to expand...

That's right, who are they to tell me I can't haggle for child porn with grams of cocaine
 
Laowai said:
Gov't dictating what can and cannot be used as payment is not cool on any level. Using the poor as a reason for this bullshit legislation is just the icing on the insult cake. The gov't should not be in the money business. Our federal gov't has been balls deep in the money business for ages and well.....you can form your own opinion on how well they've done and if it was worth the costs.
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding. The whole "morality" around CC vs cash is irrelevant. A distraction. It's more totalitarian BS from people who are convinced they are way better at spending your money than you are.
 
theBrownLlama said:
fyi card processing fees just went UP
and cash is still legal tender. so no way to ban cash by law, for a physical store.
.
Click to expand...

Yes, a store can ban cash. As long as state/city laws do not say otherwise a store is free to decide what kind of payments they will or will not accept.
 
DukenukemX said:
I never understood the hatred for government involvement.
Click to expand...

It comes from people who are aware of history. Not popular these days to think about the past, but it's pretty smart to at least ponder a little about where we came from.

For a US centric perspective, this is a great place to start: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/

Government is like strong spice. Used sparingly it can greatly enhance a dish. Overuse and it quickly overpowers and ruins. For example, things like America being a republic and not a democracy (the electoral college) were deliberate choices that were made to ensure equal opportunity and negate the tyranny of the majority as much of possible.

The purpose of the constitution was to guarantee outcomes, since that's impossible, but provide a framework for as level a playing field as possible. See the Declaration of Independence in the pursuit of happiness - not a guarantee of happiness.

That people had inherent rights and that government should be restricted was indeed a revolutionary and up until then a fairly unique one, especially considering it was propose to be enacted vs. just theorized/discussed. It's the key distinction between French Revolution vs. American Revolution.

Apparently it's a fragile idea since many people seem to be determined to flip it back to people being serfs suffering at the pleasure of their government rather than the other way around.

No thanks.
 
DukenukemX said:
If the government doesn't interfere then the companies will run amok. That is how mafia works.
Click to expand...

Seriously? What the hell does "amok" really mean? How is it in your world apparently companies are all powerful gods with more power than government or even their customers?

Eh - there's a rub right there. Without customers companies are pretty impotent now, aren't they? All this recent leftist hysteria about the power of the "corporation" like it's the boogyman re-imagined would be hilarious if there weren't so many utterly ignorant people who obviously believe these fairy tails.

I remember all the consternation around Walmart taking out small businesses. And now Walmart is on the run from Amazon and the like. Yet despite Amazon some retailers like BestBuy (?!?) have figured how to remain relevant.

All without government interference.

Don't think this is significant? Ponder the miracle that is the ubiquitous pencil: https://pencils.com/economics-of-pencil-making-2/

The market created that, not government or some egghead central planning. That people don't get shouted off the stage for being so utterly ridiculous in supporting government intervention in crap like the subject of the original article really is shameful in how ignorant as Americans we really have become.
 
DocNo said:
No shit - but only in Amazon's stores.

Unless you are trying to argue that Amazon's policy would magically override all other stores at the same time too? How exactly? Magic? Unicorn farts? The capitalist cabal?
Click to expand...

So, people would be restricted in how they can spend their money and on what only in Amazon stores... which would be a case of people being restricted in how they can spend their money and on what, and of people, not a company, having less choice.

I don't know why you're talking about Amazon's policies spreading to other stores, since no one else was. However, there is certainly potential that their accepted-payment policy could be adopted by other stores. Though, that's neither here nor there to the matter of that policy in just Amazon represents a restriction on how people can spend their money.


I love people who love to argue how restricting choice is actually ensuring we have more choice.

It's batshit crazy.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why I pointed out that's what was being done in Zareek's post. It seems you're also doing the same thing.


Here's a radical idea - let Amazon do what they think best and if the market rejects it then guess what - it was a bad idea. I don't need some self important totalitarian fuckwit imposing their ideas on what they think is best, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

You don't want a "self-important fuckwit" giving you more choices of how to spend your money and where, but, you're eager for a corporation imposing its ideas on you, reducing your choices of how you can spend your money and where? How did you get to that strange position?

So, in the end, for you, this has absolutely nothing about people having more choice to spend their money. What is it about for you, then?
 
Delicieuxz said:
you're eager for a corporation imposing its ideas on you, reducing your choices of how you can spend your money and where? How did you get to that strange position?
Click to expand...

How the hell does Amazon impose anything on me?

If I want to pay with cash I just go to another store. There's not a damn thing Amazon can do about that. Oooh those evil capitalist boogymen - utterly impotent thanks to.... capitalism! Oh my, the irony!

The only way Amazon can impose a damn thing on anyone is if they also force all other stores to simultaneously close or enforce the same policy.

Otherwise the only thing they are imposing is their terms of service for their store. Good for them. It's their store after all.

Doesn't mean I have to patronize them. That's what choice is. I can choose to either use Amazons store with their restricted terms or not.

On the other hand some bureaucratic assholes mandating that NO ONE can go cashless is indeed removing choice because their bureacratic edict affects all stores, unilaterally. That's the difference between government and business. Despite the hand-waving that businesses are evil incarnate, businesses can't unilaterally impose their will on everyone else. But governments can. Yet we need to be worried about those evil businesses.

Yeah, right.

I hope this helps clear things up about who is really restricting what. So yes, if you are arguing for this then you are indeed arguing that restricting choice (government unilaterally removing a way of interacting in the marketplace) is offering more choice - which is completely nonsensical.
 
DocNo said:
On the other hand some bureaucratic assholes mandating that NO ONE can go cashless is indeed removing choice because their bureacratic edict affects all stores, unilaterally. That's the difference between government and business.
Click to expand...

You're saying that it takes choice away from the corporation, not the customer. The comment I responded to pertained to giving more choice to the customer:

"How about BAD, we don't want municipalities telling us how we are allowed to spend our money and in what form."


I hope this helps clear things up about who is really restricting what. So yes, if you are arguing for this then you are indeed arguing that restricting choice (government unilaterally taking a way of interacting in the marketplace) is offering more choice - which is completely nonsensical.
Click to expand...

In both cases, there is a choice being taken from a group so that another group has an additional choice. You're arguing in favour of reducing the options people have of how and where to spend their money in favour of a corporation having the choice to refuse to accept certain payment types. I'm saying that means reduced choice for people concerning how and where they can spend their money.

Which trade-off is more important?:

- corporation gets to choose to not accept cash, people with cash lose freedom to spend their money how they wish.

- corporation loses the option to not accept cash, people with cash preserve their freedom to spend their money how they wish.


I can't imagine why you'd argue for customers to lose choice and access in favour of a corporation being able to take away customers' choice and access, unless you owned the corporation (and were a bit of a prick to your customers).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top