Rural America Turning to Grocers, High-Fee ATMs as Banks Leave
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
The Family Dollar has NO CASH BACK!! signs on every terminal because like Kroger they must have discovered razor thin margins aren't sufficient to cover transaction fees. For the same reason the city in the article may discover Dollar Tree has the same attitude about cash back transactions.
Short of government incentives there is no reason for a savings and loan to remain in a small unprofitable town and outside of North Dakota there are no government-owned banks. As much a it goes against the political climate these days you probably do need government regulation and incentives to keep banking accessible to these towns.
I use Ally Bank and they offer $10 reimbursement for ATM fees every month and they have a wide network of fee-free ATMs (at most 7-11s and a few other common stores). If you look harder, you can find accounts without any limits (e.g. Charles Schwab), and many credit unions support deposits in co-op ATMs (probably not helpful if there aren't any in rural towns). The only reason I go to banks is to withdraw cash in specific denominations for paying our baby sitter, but you can usually get the same thing if you ask nicely at a grocery store.
I don't see much of a reason why people need physical banks anymore. Withdrawals can happen with an ATM, deposits can happen in mobile or mail, and loans are increasingly available online. The only thing I can think of is business owners needing to make deposits and withdrawals frequently.
There are absolutely transaction fees (also called processing fees) involved, but they're usually paid by the merchant. That's why many shopowners usually post required minimum purchase amounts for credit cards (i.e. you must buy $10 or more in order to pay with credit card).
If you use your bank's ATM, they won't charge you a fee ( aka waive the fee ). If you use another bank's ATM or a non-bank ATM, then it's highway robbery. So the only time I ever use an ATM is if it had my bank's logo on it.
> Compare this to Europe where in most countries ATMs do not have a fee
Wow. Does this apply even if you use another bank's ATM?
It varies but typically ATMs prefer charging the card issuer rather than the customer. So if you're using a bank that doesn't charge when you withdraw money out of its network, then it's essentially free. That's very common with online banks.
The fact that one wants to pay for bank services and agrees on a bank to force them to come (vs having mechanisms for remote access) is something I do not understand.
There is a population which does not have access to Internet, or is computer illiterate. The efforts should go into helping them to learn and legally force banks to make online banking easy.
I think it’s fear of the unknown for many.
Is it? The poorest people are more likely to be primarily cash users, based on what I've read, e.g.:
> "...Seventeen percent of all black households and 14 percent of all Hispanic households had no bank account in 2017, according to a report from the FDIC. Some have poor credit; some work jobs where they’re paid only in cash. Cashlessness isn’t an option for them..."
From https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/12/cashl...
Right now, the second you use your debit card. It shows up on your account.
Somewhere there was an automatic debit on one my bills for 30-50 US bucks that my bank paid, but since my account was already closed, it basically went into default. When I tried to open a bank account in my new state, I was denied.
It ends up there’s something like the credit reporting agencies, but for banks, and because of my $50 dollar accidental default, I ended up on this system. There are almost no consumer protections on it, so I couldn’t contest it, and I didn’t have any way to pay it or get it removed.
The end result is that I was unable to open a bank account for the next 5 years without a co-signer, even though my credit score was in the 700s and I had a six figure income. I was able to get credit cards, but couldn’t easily pay the bill without an account to write checks from. I had to go to check cashing places to get money orders (most banks won’t give you money orders or cashiers checks without an account), I had to cash my paychecks at the one office my employers bank had in town, and I could only receive checks for banks I could travel to. When I rented my apartment, I paid the security deposit in cash, but then had to drive around town when I got it back after moving out to try and find a branch of my landlords bank while I was on my way out of town. It was a nightmare.
There’s a whole system I fell into that I wasn’t even aware existed until that happened to me, and I consider myself a highly educated consumer compared to your average person. There are plenty of reasons to want cash in our society, even if you are not doing anything illicit or that you want to keep hidden. If, for any reason, banks are not available to you, life gets very difficult very quickly.
Also, you should be able to decide which order payments go in - highest first or lowest first. Highest first can easily result in 4 small overdrafts instead of 1 large overdraft.
Last year a spate of articles appeared about how grocery stores had bailed out of small-town/rural America, leaving maybe a Dollar General or something. For years, we've heard about telecom monopolies providing less than realistic service to small-town/rural America. Remember all the hand-wringing over a "digital divide"?
1. Isn't this just market forces at work? Since we're all free market fundamentalists, why does this bother us? 2. This is the result of deregulation, unchecked consolidation, and the populace migrating to cities. Monopolies, or even firms with a lot of monopoly power in oligopolistic markets don't have to meet every need, they just need to keep turning what they consider as an obscene profit. This strikes me as a 2nd order effect of allowing banks to consolidate. 3. Small and medium towns are losing population as well, and may be on the bubble for this sort of thing as well. 4. There's certainly an outsized amount of hand-wringing over the fate of rural America. I'm going to guess that there are urban areas with vastly greater population, that have much the same problems. Don't we usually agree that 15% of Americans are un-banked? This seems like an "electoral college" for concern about rural Americans.
Far from 'outsized amount of hand-wringing over the fate of rural America' the truth is rural America has been somewhere between ignored to outright attacked for the past 50 years. 99.9% of social justice efforts have been focused on the inner-city, targeting the problems of poverty, crime, drugs, discrimination facing those group while completely ignoring the poverty, discrimination and drug abuse of rural America until we realized the rural opioid epidemic is worse today than the urban crack epidemic of the 80s.
Far from being a result of deregulation, our economy is so over-regulated that only the mega-corps with armies of staff dedicated to compliance can stay in business, pushing all the smaller competition out of the market.
A more accurate summary would be: "After 50 years of regulation consolidating power in a handful of urban areas, while only providing social services and affirmative action for the urban poor, the people who live outside of those areas have suffered on both ends of the spectrum"
As for my situation I live in a town of 300 people--with a bank branch but no ATMs anywhere.