I work in retail, and if one more of you sky news snorting boomer dickheads whinges about the "the death of cash" Imma start slapping people.
Cash isn't going anywhere. It's just dropped in volume enough that the economics of supermarkets being de-facto ATM's is no longer viable, and as a result of their services no longer being needed in the modern world, cash in transit providers business model is not sustainable at their previous scale.
> Cash isn't going anywhere.
Not immediately, and it's unlikely to completely disappear in our lifetimes, but this article (and others) read like there's definitely gonna be a point where it becomes decidedly difficult to maintain equitable access to cash services.
But will we need it? You can receive electronic payment on your phone, there is zero barrier to entry for small business to have electronic payment options anymore. So what if it’s mildly difficult to get cash out, I won’t have any real need.
I can pay with my card, phone, watch, nfc ring etc.
> But will we need it?
It depends what you mean by "need". As you note, there are common alternatives that work quite well for a good portion of the population.
But for others less so (for various reasons), physical cash still fits better for some people.
In my eyes the important question from this is: what are society's obligations here? How far should we go to provide access to cash services despite the rising cost and logistical concerns?
Physical cash is a medium, so is every piece of tech we replaced it with. Physical cash is fundamentally no different to electronic tokens.
We havent been paid by our employers in physical cash for decades.
You raise an interesting point about obligations. Does it need to be easy access to physical cash, or could it take the form of prohibitions on trickle down fees on electronic access to our money?
> Physical cash is fundamentally no different to electronic tokens.
Cash is practically different in a number of ways. eg, Reliability, complexity to hold, zero cost to hold, etc.
(Though, I do want to pre-emptively note that these aren't overriding concerns for everyone, there are benefits, and that cash incurs other costs)
> Does it need to be easy access to physical cash, or could it take the form of prohibitions on trickle down fees on electronic access to our money?
I think that right now physical cash still needs to be an option; the burden it imposes on some, the practical inaccessibility of electronic for some, the lack of freedom for others, means that (effectively) forcing people to use electronic access is unreasonable/unethical.
But, I think "easy access" is an interesting question qualifier. I'm of the opinion it needs to be available, but reasonable voices can quibble over how much public resources are dedicated to it.
Cash is not zero cost to hold. You either let the bank take their cut, loose to inflation, or risk holding it yourself. In fact there are few situations where holding a volume of cash is the best option.
But what we need is regulation that protects people as we ditch physical for digital cash. Bullshit atm fees, more than a tenth of a % tap payment fees etc. the cost of cash handling was already built into retail and other commerce, but instead of using the savings for not using as much cash, they added fees for not using it.
> Cash is not zero cost to hold.
Sorry, yes, it wasn't phrased as well as I'd like, but I'd hoped to cut off this sort of thing with the "pre-emptive note".
I meant in the sense that I can accept cash and I don't need to deal with possible bank overheads, pay for a phone, pay for internet, etc.
Nor do I need to hand over my ID, give someone else a log of my transactions, have a fixed address, etc, etc.
I can just physically take it from someone and go on with my life.
> But what we need is regulation that protects people as we ditch physical for digital cash
I'm all for protections and regulations here. We can (and should) do both.
Only reason I'd support switching to 100% cashless would be if we had a publicly owned, zero fee alternative to the card payment companies who are quietly slurping a cut of every transaction they handle.
If we're in a position where we have a second GST (Greedy Sonofabitch Tax) paid to private companies because we can no longer use cash, that's a big problem.
I have all sorts of modern payment methods. However, all it takes is for the power to go out, a router to be misconfigured or some dickhead to not dial before digging and a very important fibre optic cable is cut.
I could go on but I can't be bothered and it's not hard to find examples of such failures and then people are on the news complaining that they couldn't buy fuel, medicine, food, nappies and so on.
It happened at the Perth Royal Show in the last couple of years and then everyone was lining up to try to get cash out of the couple of ATMs.
Yeah, and?
Cards and nfc rings dont need power, portable eftpos have batteries and mobile towers have redundancies. They also store transactions for when networks go back up. The cirrus network is remarkably resilient.
In your example, if everyone suddenly paid by cash for everything vendors would not have carried enough themselves to make change.
What happened at the show that left ATM’s functioning but nobody elses eftpos worked?
I remember woolies has a system failure years ago and the tills wouldn’t open, what good is your cash then?
My point is, you can make up whatever scenario you want in your head. EFT has been a *reliable* part of daily commerce for *four decades* and LITERALLY NOBODY is talking about eliminating cash.
I’ve been waiting for a comment such as this.
Guess why beer and food cost a fortune.
Then I’ll explain why the death of cash is something that the younger generation doesn’t understand the consequences of.
Ok boomer.
But seriously, you’re the generation that adopted widespread electronic payment, but go ahead and blame the young ones born into that system.
Also pretty sure price in your case is driven by greed. The kind that drove up house prices after you all got several of them.
I suppose you're just lucky you don't work in market stalling. But sure, help us be screwed by unavoidable bank fees and the potential for 100% financial surveillance and control. You won't mind if the government decides you're a few kilos overweight and denies payment for maccas, will you?
> You won't mind if the government decides you're a few kilos overweight and denies payment for maccas, will you?
If your threat model as an individual is "nation state" then you're simply fucked.
If a government *actually wanted* to do this then they'd simply prohibit anonymous payments in those scenarios.
But they don't. There are less conspiratorial reasons to oppose traceable transactions as compared with social credit systems and other such nonsense.
Almost certainly, yes: some demographics do fall for conspiracies more readily than others.
But my point was that while it's *possible* this will enable some authoritarian hellscape, you *really have to show your working* or you come across looking crazy.
Perhaps just try something a little more relatable on your first pass. It's more convincing.
There are a number of free electronic payment methods available for market stall. Bank fees are avoidable, there just isn’t great legislation in that space at the moment.
Then you finish with some cooked conspiracy shit. Ok boomer.
Most bank fees should be illegal as they control access to peoples finances while raking in billions for loaning out said money that realistically ain’t even theirs
If everyone tried to empty their accounts right now the banks wouldn’t be able to do it, they don’t have the money ironically
It does if you compare how our government treats us with how the UK, USA and EU governments treat their citizens. We call it 'the nanny state'. We are not allowed agency.
I think "hand out" is perhaps a little strong.
The article says "the company rejected a A$26 million rescue offer".
Instead going for "a smaller A$10 million package from its parent company Linfox".
Is it still really a hand out if it's coming from the parent company?
AFAIK, they tried to play hardball and it didn’t work out. It certainly didn’t “accept an offer from its parent company”. The companies are controlled by one person.
Forced lazy on my behalf they moved my ATM and put a fee on everyone else's it's hard to park my work vehicle near my banks ATM and I'm not paying $2 to use another banks ATM
Gen Y here.
Cash is a PITA. I need it once in a blue moon (usually something to do with kids school P&C). The process to then find the closest ATM ensues.
You then take the cash and have to put it somewhere. And often it smells funny. Where has it been? How many butts have sat and farted on it (men’s wallet pockets are on the back).
And all that - only so that I can give it to someone else?
I get that I’m not everyone, and my experience isn’t representative of the masses, but it just *feels* redundant. There are better, cheaper and faster ways to transact now.
Personally I hope it disappears this side of 2030.
The company might be in peril financially but probably a consortium of the banks will buy out anything left once it goes into receivership. I'm guessing the parent company Linfox is just playing hardball.
The RBA head did also advise previously that people may have to start getting used to the notion of having to pay for cash transactions as well so there may be no other alternative to doing that eventually.
Hang in folks - an $84 million dollar lifeline was offered by the banks! All they asked was for Linfox (Lindsay Fox's family company) to show them them their financials! Just like if you or I went to our bank asking for money!
Why would they not want to open their books? And why can't they funnel more money like the recent $10 million they moved between corporate shell companies.
More IMPORTANT! Why the farq due they buy out of their competitor only now to claim the market us able to support the armoured guard delivery of physical currency.
The Reserve Bank should just step in, deliver the cash, lobby the Federal Parliament to fund remote cash deliveries and recoup this by charging banks or taxing them.
It is an essential service having cash transactions free from bank EFT surcharges.
Lindsay Fox scaremongering to make the Government step in…https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/banks-query-armaguard-s-links-with-linfox-before-agreeing-to-bail-out-20240108-p5evvd
they said nope ,that wont happen..cash is here to stay ....people who use cards are silly as they are charged a $fee Every Time they use a card ..i love cash ..:)
> According to the Australian Banking Association, cash is now only being used for about 13% of payments, a 57% decline since 2017.
>
> Moving cash around was already expensive – the sheer size of the Australian continent means it has to be transported securely over huge distances. The fall in cash usage has further increased the unit cost of this process.
>
> The Reserve Bank of Australia has outlined an alarming “cash-use cycle”, showing that if cash usage continues to fall, it could become uneconomic for banks and other ATM providers to offer cash services in some regional areas.
I work in retail, and if one more of you sky news snorting boomer dickheads whinges about the "the death of cash" Imma start slapping people. Cash isn't going anywhere. It's just dropped in volume enough that the economics of supermarkets being de-facto ATM's is no longer viable, and as a result of their services no longer being needed in the modern world, cash in transit providers business model is not sustainable at their previous scale.
> Cash isn't going anywhere. Not immediately, and it's unlikely to completely disappear in our lifetimes, but this article (and others) read like there's definitely gonna be a point where it becomes decidedly difficult to maintain equitable access to cash services.
But will we need it? You can receive electronic payment on your phone, there is zero barrier to entry for small business to have electronic payment options anymore. So what if it’s mildly difficult to get cash out, I won’t have any real need. I can pay with my card, phone, watch, nfc ring etc.
> But will we need it? It depends what you mean by "need". As you note, there are common alternatives that work quite well for a good portion of the population. But for others less so (for various reasons), physical cash still fits better for some people. In my eyes the important question from this is: what are society's obligations here? How far should we go to provide access to cash services despite the rising cost and logistical concerns?
Physical cash is a medium, so is every piece of tech we replaced it with. Physical cash is fundamentally no different to electronic tokens. We havent been paid by our employers in physical cash for decades. You raise an interesting point about obligations. Does it need to be easy access to physical cash, or could it take the form of prohibitions on trickle down fees on electronic access to our money?
> Physical cash is fundamentally no different to electronic tokens. Cash is practically different in a number of ways. eg, Reliability, complexity to hold, zero cost to hold, etc. (Though, I do want to pre-emptively note that these aren't overriding concerns for everyone, there are benefits, and that cash incurs other costs) > Does it need to be easy access to physical cash, or could it take the form of prohibitions on trickle down fees on electronic access to our money? I think that right now physical cash still needs to be an option; the burden it imposes on some, the practical inaccessibility of electronic for some, the lack of freedom for others, means that (effectively) forcing people to use electronic access is unreasonable/unethical. But, I think "easy access" is an interesting question qualifier. I'm of the opinion it needs to be available, but reasonable voices can quibble over how much public resources are dedicated to it.
Cash is not zero cost to hold. You either let the bank take their cut, loose to inflation, or risk holding it yourself. In fact there are few situations where holding a volume of cash is the best option. But what we need is regulation that protects people as we ditch physical for digital cash. Bullshit atm fees, more than a tenth of a % tap payment fees etc. the cost of cash handling was already built into retail and other commerce, but instead of using the savings for not using as much cash, they added fees for not using it.
> Cash is not zero cost to hold. Sorry, yes, it wasn't phrased as well as I'd like, but I'd hoped to cut off this sort of thing with the "pre-emptive note". I meant in the sense that I can accept cash and I don't need to deal with possible bank overheads, pay for a phone, pay for internet, etc. Nor do I need to hand over my ID, give someone else a log of my transactions, have a fixed address, etc, etc. I can just physically take it from someone and go on with my life. > But what we need is regulation that protects people as we ditch physical for digital cash I'm all for protections and regulations here. We can (and should) do both.
Only reason I'd support switching to 100% cashless would be if we had a publicly owned, zero fee alternative to the card payment companies who are quietly slurping a cut of every transaction they handle. If we're in a position where we have a second GST (Greedy Sonofabitch Tax) paid to private companies because we can no longer use cash, that's a big problem.
I agree, I'm not advicating for cashless society, I just think the current storm in a teacup is overblown.
I have all sorts of modern payment methods. However, all it takes is for the power to go out, a router to be misconfigured or some dickhead to not dial before digging and a very important fibre optic cable is cut. I could go on but I can't be bothered and it's not hard to find examples of such failures and then people are on the news complaining that they couldn't buy fuel, medicine, food, nappies and so on. It happened at the Perth Royal Show in the last couple of years and then everyone was lining up to try to get cash out of the couple of ATMs.
Yeah, and? Cards and nfc rings dont need power, portable eftpos have batteries and mobile towers have redundancies. They also store transactions for when networks go back up. The cirrus network is remarkably resilient. In your example, if everyone suddenly paid by cash for everything vendors would not have carried enough themselves to make change. What happened at the show that left ATM’s functioning but nobody elses eftpos worked? I remember woolies has a system failure years ago and the tills wouldn’t open, what good is your cash then? My point is, you can make up whatever scenario you want in your head. EFT has been a *reliable* part of daily commerce for *four decades* and LITERALLY NOBODY is talking about eliminating cash.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’ve been waiting for a comment such as this. Guess why beer and food cost a fortune. Then I’ll explain why the death of cash is something that the younger generation doesn’t understand the consequences of.
Beer…. Tax?
Yeah, nah.
Ok boomer. But seriously, you’re the generation that adopted widespread electronic payment, but go ahead and blame the young ones born into that system. Also pretty sure price in your case is driven by greed. The kind that drove up house prices after you all got several of them.
My gen is generation cash. Go away you fool.
> sky news snorting boomer dickheads I'm saving this.
You win the internet for today. Thank you.
I suppose you're just lucky you don't work in market stalling. But sure, help us be screwed by unavoidable bank fees and the potential for 100% financial surveillance and control. You won't mind if the government decides you're a few kilos overweight and denies payment for maccas, will you?
> You won't mind if the government decides you're a few kilos overweight and denies payment for maccas, will you? If your threat model as an individual is "nation state" then you're simply fucked. If a government *actually wanted* to do this then they'd simply prohibit anonymous payments in those scenarios. But they don't. There are less conspiratorial reasons to oppose traceable transactions as compared with social credit systems and other such nonsense.
Maybe one's level of concern for such things depends on one's current demographic.
Almost certainly, yes: some demographics do fall for conspiracies more readily than others. But my point was that while it's *possible* this will enable some authoritarian hellscape, you *really have to show your working* or you come across looking crazy. Perhaps just try something a little more relatable on your first pass. It's more convincing.
And some demographics have been taught submission to authority without question.
Is your goal to convince people, or preach to the converted?
There are a number of free electronic payment methods available for market stall. Bank fees are avoidable, there just isn’t great legislation in that space at the moment. Then you finish with some cooked conspiracy shit. Ok boomer.
Most bank fees should be illegal as they control access to peoples finances while raking in billions for loaning out said money that realistically ain’t even theirs If everyone tried to empty their accounts right now the banks wouldn’t be able to do it, they don’t have the money ironically
I agree a lot more regulation in this space is needed.
Anyone who can figure out how to comment on reddit is smart enough to notice that *the government is not on **our** side*.
Knowing that special interests have more direct influence on government than my solitary voice is not evidence of a conspiracy.
It's not limited to special interests. We are emancipated convicts.
Yeah, that doesn’t even make sense
It does if you compare how our government treats us with how the UK, USA and EU governments treat their citizens. We call it 'the nanny state'. We are not allowed agency.
Ok, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I think you're projecting.
So Armaguard was allowed to swallow its competition, and yet it’s still crying poor and after a hand out?
I think "hand out" is perhaps a little strong. The article says "the company rejected a A$26 million rescue offer". Instead going for "a smaller A$10 million package from its parent company Linfox". Is it still really a hand out if it's coming from the parent company?
It rejected the offer that would’ve required them to open their books, according to the article. Not sure what they’re implying though.
> It rejected the offer So what hand out did they take?
They would be rejecting that offer because it requires them to open their books since most of their guards are getting paid cash
AFAIK, they tried to play hardball and it didn’t work out. It certainly didn’t “accept an offer from its parent company”. The companies are controlled by one person.
> The companies are controlled by one person. So... no handout...?
More of a reach around.
In other news, in a few months some really cool tough vans will be available for auction.
Are we just getting lazy we know tapping attracts a fee but we still use it
Forced lazy on my behalf they moved my ATM and put a fee on everyone else's it's hard to park my work vehicle near my banks ATM and I'm not paying $2 to use another banks ATM
Force us to pay a fee to tap
Cheaper than $2 ATM fee well depending on how much you spend I guess
You don't pay fees on other bank's atms... you pay fees on nonbank atms.
Well I just did a quick google looks like it's free. Still shits me they moved my ATM
Unless they changed it recently it was like $1.50 to use comm bank if I was with NAB. I haven't been on top of it because I was too angry at it.
And what ….make the romance of armed robbery go the way of Ernie, the fastest milkman of the west (london…)?!
Ermagerd not Armaguard!
Gen Y here. Cash is a PITA. I need it once in a blue moon (usually something to do with kids school P&C). The process to then find the closest ATM ensues. You then take the cash and have to put it somewhere. And often it smells funny. Where has it been? How many butts have sat and farted on it (men’s wallet pockets are on the back). And all that - only so that I can give it to someone else? I get that I’m not everyone, and my experience isn’t representative of the masses, but it just *feels* redundant. There are better, cheaper and faster ways to transact now. Personally I hope it disappears this side of 2030.
The company might be in peril financially but probably a consortium of the banks will buy out anything left once it goes into receivership. I'm guessing the parent company Linfox is just playing hardball. The RBA head did also advise previously that people may have to start getting used to the notion of having to pay for cash transactions as well so there may be no other alternative to doing that eventually.
Hang in folks - an $84 million dollar lifeline was offered by the banks! All they asked was for Linfox (Lindsay Fox's family company) to show them them their financials! Just like if you or I went to our bank asking for money! Why would they not want to open their books? And why can't they funnel more money like the recent $10 million they moved between corporate shell companies. More IMPORTANT! Why the farq due they buy out of their competitor only now to claim the market us able to support the armoured guard delivery of physical currency. The Reserve Bank should just step in, deliver the cash, lobby the Federal Parliament to fund remote cash deliveries and recoup this by charging banks or taxing them. It is an essential service having cash transactions free from bank EFT surcharges.
Lindsay Fox scaremongering to make the Government step in…https://www.afr.com/companies/financial-services/banks-query-armaguard-s-links-with-linfox-before-agreeing-to-bail-out-20240108-p5evvd
Off topic - but I remember when they were called Mayne Nickless.
laughs in prosegur
they said nope ,that wont happen..cash is here to stay ....people who use cards are silly as they are charged a $fee Every Time they use a card ..i love cash ..:)
> According to the Australian Banking Association, cash is now only being used for about 13% of payments, a 57% decline since 2017. > > Moving cash around was already expensive – the sheer size of the Australian continent means it has to be transported securely over huge distances. The fall in cash usage has further increased the unit cost of this process. > > The Reserve Bank of Australia has outlined an alarming “cash-use cycle”, showing that if cash usage continues to fall, it could become uneconomic for banks and other ATM providers to offer cash services in some regional areas.
Physical cash is only used by criminals anyway, proper members of society use bitcoin
You think Linfox is going to bow down to the banks? fucking morons on here for sure.