- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1527 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 16960
>A new "Access to Cash" study released on Wednesday warned that the U.K. risks drifting into a cashless society that could handicap those who are poor or in debt, disabled people, rural families and anyone who may be at risk of having their finances controlled by an abuser.
>The report, which surveyed 2,000 people and charities, said: "Many are struggling to participate in our digital society. If we sleepwalk towards a cashless economy, we'll leave millions behind."
|>>|| No. 16965
The primary reason I don't like it is that as soon as soon as societies go cashless they start seeing negative interest rates and the police naturally using the excuse to snoop. If that doesn't bother you then at least consider how the shops love easier payment methods because it becomes harder for people to consider whether they really need to spend this or that money.
I work in a 'cashless' office and frankly the whole thing disgusts me how easily people are being trained for something completely against their own interests.
|>>|| No. 16966
A lot of people simply aren't ready for it, even younger people. But whatever, if it keeps the stock market ticking upwards no one in power gives a monkies.
|>>|| No. 16968
A move towards a cashless society, as others have said, would benefit corporations while disempowering people.
|>>|| No. 16969
> as soon as societies go cashless they start seeing negative interest rates
This is one of the key reasons in favour of a cashless monetary system that is even unashamedly cited by some economists. They argue that in order for central bank policies of negative interest to really be effective, there must be no escape from them.
The reality of it is pretty obvious as well though, namely that it is going to hit those who don't have the means to move their capital into investments that will result in a positive return on investment after all. Ordinary people with not a lot of personal wealth will pay negative interest on their ISAs, while the rich will undoubtedly drive the prices for things like housing sky high because that's where all their money will go.
>and the police naturally using the excuse to snoop
This is already being touted as THE main reason to the gullible public for phasing out cash money. The whole terrorism and crime angle. And of course once a cashless monetary system is fully in place, then there is no reason why a governmen won't want to keep records of every single item you have bought over the past five to ten years.
They might then even tell you that the fact that you bought a 40'' TV a while ago means you are uneligible for benefits.
|>>|| No. 16970
I think being able to wave my phone or wallet in the general direction of a till to pay for stuff is excellent, and I don't really see how it's an issue for the poor, as even my cardcash account (basic no overdraft account) card has contactless, and certainly I'm a few years time, even budget phones will have NFC too. I also don't really see how contactless or NFC is any more difficult for disabled people than handling cash. Am I just being short sighted? The other stuff is fair enough but they seem like edge cases, and anecdotally I'm very sure you can be financially abused or controlled in cash, too.
All that aside, despite the convenience of NFC payments, I really don't enjoy the idea of Google adding to their profile on me in that way.
|>>|| No. 16971
Cash is a pain in the arse for businesses. Nobody has ever been robbed at gunpoint for their chip-and-pin machine. The card companies might charge you a couple of percent, but you'll spend at least as much on cash handling and banking costs.
Few businesses are going to refuse to accept cash any time soon, but I think it's inevitable that cash will eventually die off through disuse. I keep a bit of cash in my wallet just in case, but I rarely actually use it.
|>>|| No. 16974
This is a good point too.
Hopefully Tescos will take monero in the future.
|>>|| No. 16975
I don't use cash anymore, really. If I can I use my phone to pay, if I can't I'll try and tap. Failing that, I'll pay by card.
Is this the year of the middle man?
|>>|| No. 16977
>and I don't really see how it's an issue for the poor
Quite likely if you are homeless you will not have a bank account. Or a credit or debit card. I'm not sure how you will be able to fix that. And a lot of dolescum have trouble maintaining a bank account as it is, and a lot of them are denied credit or debit cards.
|>>|| No. 16978
We could set up a banking company called Paupers especially for hard up people. Anyone wishing to donate to them begging on the street can do it contactless straight into their Paupers account.
|>>|| No. 16979
>and a lot of them are denied credit or debit cards
I imagine that will change by necessity. If it becomes infeasible to pay without a card, then even the most basic accounts will come with one.
|>>|| No. 16980
I didn't consider the homeless angle, fair enough.
Poor people can get 'basic' bank accounts with no overdraft facilities and such, though. I got one when I was 16, and the card has contactless.
|>>|| No. 16981
>Poor people can get 'basic' bank accounts with no overdraft facilities and such, though.
These usually cost more to maintain for banks though. And with poor people especially, there is a limit to the account fees you can charge them. The risk of you defaulting on your overdraft may be zero, but one big way that banks make money off current accounts is that they charge you an arm and a leg in interest on your overdraft. At least more than they would have to just in order to balance out the default risk of some debtors.
|>>|| No. 16982
I don't understand your point - these accounts exist right now and you can get one. I don't see how that will suddenly stop if we become cashless.
|>>|| No. 16983
They cost banks money right now, although, as I said, they also eliminate the bank's risk of you defaulting on your non-existing overdraft.
More of these accounts means more cost for the banks, which they cannot completely recuperate by charging other people interest. And you probably can't pass on the full cost of maintaining these accounts to poor people in the form of fees.
|>>|| No. 16984
How is somebody homeless? Just get a house. Just get a house.
|>>|| No. 16986
Benefits can only be paid into a bank account, so they're already an absolute necessity if you're poor. If someone is homeless or destitute and doesn't have a bank account, it's pretty much the first priority for any outreach worker, because they can't sign on without one. The major banks will accept a surprisingly wide range of identity documents when opening an account, including letters from the JobCentre or a homelessness service. New banks like Monzo, Monese and Starling are even more laissez-faire.
|>>|| No. 16992
>I'm a few years time, even budget phones will have NFC too
And in a few more years time the banks software will no longer work with your phone forcing you to buy another.
|>>|| No. 16995
Contactless works via GPay on all android phones with NFC, not any individual bank's app. Since Google makes money from these transactions, and the data from them is equally valuable, they have incentives to keep older phones supported as long as feasible, and that's going to be quite a while.
You're right to be cynical about this stuff but you're being cynical in the wrong direction. The problem isn't that it would push people out of the system, the problem is companies like google will do everything in their power to make sure everyone is in the system. I'd not be surprised at all if they brought out a £10 smartphone or Gpay card explicitly for tramps, so they can track their data too.
|>>|| No. 16997
>I'd not be surprised at all if they brought out a £10 smartphone or Gpay card explicitly for tramps, so they can track their data too.
I'm not sure what kind of profit they'd hope to turn on data about a common bum. Next, you're going to tell me there will be a pared down version of Alexa for bums.
|>>|| No. 16998
>I'm not sure what kind of profit they'd hope to turn on data about a common bum
It's basically free data, and even homeless people buy stuff.
|>>|| No. 16999
They don't make money on the "bums" as you put it - they make the money on the people donating to them.
|>>|| No. 17000
You could build an app with homeless radar and filter functions like just avoiding the ones who actively badger you for money. Then you build a homeless version with generosity radar.
|>>|| No. 17001
Then you feed the amount of donations to the homeless people into the live feed HMRC system and deduct tax on them accordingly.
|>>|| No. 17002
Could help avoid the cunts who camp out next to a cash machine and give dirty looks to everyone that uses it.
|>>|| No. 17004
There would still need to be a transition period during which time cash machines would still be around.
|>>|| No. 17005
What do you reckon will happen to all the old cash machines? Would be nice if they started selling fags and booze.
|>>|| No. 17007
Should happen at about the time weed becomes legal?
Insert your age ID / medical need card, payment card and amount, and get some manky industrial government-approved Philip Morris product and a warning leaflet with handy perforations.
|>>|| No. 17008
They will likely just scrap them and brick up the resulting hole in the wall.
But you'll probably also see even more bank branches disappear. One of the main reasons why many of them still exist is to provide a place where you can withdraw cash.
And of course to negotiate mortgages and credit in person with you. But even that will probably cease to exist in the future, as algorithms will work out the conditions of your loan all on their own. We're already seeing it with price comparison web sites.
When you really think about it, some 99 percent of your banking needs could be served either by large algorithmic computers, or a handful of call centres if you must speak to a human.
Some 20 years ago at the end of the 90s and going into the early 2000s, the banking sector was called the coal industry of the 1990s. But there seems to be yet more trouble ahead if you are employed in that field. You could probably still lay off 50 percent of the workforce nowadays and have computers do their jobs, and still have a functioning banking system. And if you no longer have cash to manage, that figure could probably rise to 70 percent.
|>>|| No. 17009
>>17008 They will likely just scrap them and brick up the resulting hole in the wall.
Could they turn into paypoint terminals, get the min-wager out of that loop? They've got power, backhaul and a lease arranged, and are in hopefully suitable places.
Other than weed, what unattended service makes sense? Something that can't be done from a phone.
|>>|| No. 17011
That would make sense if we wanted to keep referring to them as holes in walls.
|>>|| No. 17012
Can't happen soon enough.
Just wait and see how quickly people start clamouring for ideas like universal basic income, once the decline of labour power starts affecting the middle classes as well as the peasantry.
|>>|| No. 17015
Since bricks are mostly imported from Europe we won't have any after Brexit.
|>>|| No. 17066
> I work in a 'cashless' office
The hell is that?
I had already been asked too many dubious questions by a bank clerk when getting the bloody debit card. Things that isn't their business really. I wonder how much stuff they have on people that they don't show.
|>>|| No. 17068
There are even cashless bank branches.
I've got all my accounts at Barclay's, and their newest branch that has opened on the ground/business floor of a new supermodern block of flats here in the area is essentially cashless. There is a sign in the entrance area telling would-be bank robbers that there is no cash anywhere in the branch's rooms. The only thing they've got is a cashpoint out front, ten feet from the entrance, that is mounted in the building's exterior wall, like a lot of places have. It doesn't look like the back of it is accessible from the branch's back rooms, and the machine is probably only serviced from the front.
I'm not sure exactly what they do in that branch all day, but then, I only saw three desks in it when I went there recently, so I guess there's enough to do for three people. They also seemed to have brochures about mortgages and loans, so I guess that's essentially the kind of work they mostly do there.
|>>|| No. 17073
>The hell is that?
I load money on my security pass and it magically transforms into shit coffee and the odd lunch that would be a £3 meal deal anywhere else.
|>>|| No. 17081
You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store
|>>|| No. 17086
> There are even cashless bank branches.
Those don't fluster me as much although I've yet to see one.
So it's the equivalent of a similar system for schools. I get it, thanks mate.
|>>|| No. 17087
I often forget just how much school has changed since my day. How are the children with big televisions supposed to afford their cigarettes, space raiders and panda pops if they can't rob off the others now?
Also, I'll have you know that I rebel against Big Catering by bringing in a packed lunch. This of course means I've essentially eaten the same Mon-Fri lunch for almost entire life only I've swapped out the chocolate bar for 2 oranges. It's just hit me how I never imagined I'd be a 30 year old man eating peanut butter sandwiches.
|>>|| No. 17092
I don't like the future we're heading towards. Maybe we'll never have social credit score but living in London I'm really on the thin end of the wedge when it comes to all this stuff and there's no simple way to resist it once it comes in force.
The example that comes to mind is how public transport has changed over the last decade. No longer is there even any point in having an Oyster card because you can use your bank card in the same way with the same perks. My neighbour even had a rough experience a few weeks back trying to pay with cash for a ticket which the station refused and in his words they were extremely rude about it like he'd asked to do something outrageous. So your choices are either allow whoever has the data to track your journeys (obviously security services can already follow you all around the city but this gives more permanence) or buy a ticket by card which will usually end up costing you more and you still have the purchase logged if they can't already track the ticket.
|>>|| No. 17093
I see a lot of people like you fearing for what might happen, but the reality is we're already there.
If the government wants to track you, they already are, and they have been for decades. It's admittedly made easier by new technology, but if MI5 want to know where I'm spending my cash, they'll sharp find out. Your phone, your face, your fingerprints, it's all easy enough to track even by a private company, let alone the government.
We're long past the point of being able to fly under the radar. I'd be surprised if there wasn't already a social/criminal score tied to my name in a computer in a basement somewhere in London.
|>>|| No. 17097
I wouldn't say that is precisely what worries me, any debate over direct surveillance was over the day we allowed CCTV everywhere. Now it's just normal and people would be more likely to get mad over not enough data being available.
Instead what worries me is how passive this is all becoming and the danger of interlinking data as a means of social control or even re-personalisation of society. So far we've had a society of increasing anonymity after centuries of every moraliser in the village knowing your business but that's changing and I think this thread is already illustrative of how people will accept things out of simple convenience. Nothing can seemingly be done about it as an individual and indeed, you better be a good boy now or things could get painful for you and everyone who associates with you. I'd probably even have a good score but as a paranoid weirdo who just wants to be left alone it bothers me.
|>>|| No. 17099
>We're long past the point of being able to fly under the radar. I'd be surprised if there wasn't already a social/criminal score tied to my name in a computer in a basement somewhere in London.
This is pretty much the reality we live in.
China has simply taken it a step further by being quite open about it and admitting to a full-on social scoring system. But that doesn't mean countries like the UK have nothing at all of this sort. It's just kept more hidden from view because obviously it goes against the core principles of a free democratic country as we are led to believe we still live in.
|>>|| No. 17108
> Maybe we'll never have social credit score
It's already there, think of knobheads offing themselves because of 'likes' - or lack of such - on social media. In less extreme cases, falling into depressive states for the same reason.
The banks have extensive profiles on people. I've seen one - just a casual glance - it wasn't pretty.
Add nosey employers/HRs that sort of vet potential candidates on social media.
It's only about when the gubmint busybodies catch wind properly and make it more formalised.
Many moons ago I paid a visit to one of the local prisons on behalf of the company I'd worked for at that time.
Even if I expected it I was still amazed by the amount of cameras over that place.
Now when I walk through the city I just can't help and notice CCTV everywhere, and I always remind myself of that grim place.
|>>|| No. 17110
>It's already there, think of knobheads offing themselves because of 'likes' - or lack of such - on social media.
In that case, they weren't going to survive life's harsh realities in the first place.
When I was a lil un, nobody ever really wanted me on their team when we were playing a bit of footie in the neighbourhood playground after school. I was very honestly shit at it, and have been all my life. But that didn't mean I was unaware of the rejection that was going on there.
Was I going to off myself at age ten because of it? No, not really. I also never really thought about offing myself when I applied for jobs and a good few companies declined to even invite me for an interview. I also never considered doing something bad to myself whenever a girlfriend dumped me.
So again, if you can't deal with people not "like"ing you on the Internet, then you are simply unfit for a normal adult life, where rejection will almost be the norm.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]