It means somebody has to go to the bank each day to drop off the cash and collect change.
So it's inconvenient, and an unnecessary security risk to whichever staff member is required to do that.
Compared to not accepting cash and not having to deal with any of that, then yes it's a major burden.
So... just like the past few hundreds years then.
> So it's inconvenient
So is taking out the trash. But are you going to complain about the janitor who gets paid to do it?
> and an unnecessary security risk to whichever staff member is required to do that.
Is it really so unnecessary? Moreover, is dealing with money ever not considered a security risk?
> Compared to not accepting cash and not having to deal with any of that, then yes it's a major burden.
Even not accepting cash is a security risk. Do you deal with your computer infrastructure? Card skimmers? What about cameras that take pictures of card information while being slid across the scanner? How do you deal with the security audits of the backend software? What about the background checks of the people who wrote the backend software?
You're falsely painting a rose garden. It's just a different garden, that's all.
If you have the option not to, wouldn't you opt out?
> Even not accepting cash is a security risk. Do you deal with your computer infrastructure? Card skimmers?
Those are risks of accepting cards, not risks of "not accepting cash"
I have the "option" to opt-out of things that I never opted into in the first place. It's ludicrous that I have to do "opt out" of something I didn't have a choice of being opted-into in the first place.
> Those are risks of accepting cards, not risks of "not accepting cash"
Yes absolutely. And those risks (of accepting cards) mean that I disagree with the implied statement that not accepting cash removes burdens. It simply shifted the burden elsewhere (onto the customer).
What are you even talking about? The context is that cash is inconvenient and costly to deal with. You said "So is taking out the trash. But are you going to complain about the janitor who gets paid to do it?"
To which I basically responded yes - wouldn't you opt out of paying the janitor if you didn't have to? i.e. reduce the cost of doing business - if we're not making trash we don't need to pay someone to take it out. Hey, let's not make trash!
Your response doesn't make any sense in that context.
> those risks (of accepting cards) mean that I disagree with the implied statement that not accepting cash removes burdens
It's not implied, it's flat-out stated. Taking cash involves a variety of extra costs, risks and infrastructure. If you don't take cash you don't need a cash till, you probably don't need a safe, you don't need to pay staff to count and reconcile it, you don't need to get it to the bank safely, or pay banking fees.
If you're going to take cards all you really need these days is a smartphone and a reader.
> It simply shifted the burden elsewhere (onto the customer).
So? We're talking about burdens on the business. If you feel that having to use a card in an unacceptable burden, then perhaps you don't use that business.
By the sounds of it, not many people feel this way. And it's quite funny in itself - given that it's far easier not to bother with cash as an individual too.
You replied with a non-sequitur so I replied in kind.
Asking about opting-out of paying someone? No, that's immoral. Only scumbags would consider asking that let alone actually do it.
Asking about opting-out of using cash? No, that doesn't make sense given that I've clearly stated that I won't be a customer of businesses who have.
Asking about opting-out of taking out the trash? Nobody likes trash to pile up and I have a lot of respect to people who deal with it.
Asking about opting-out of being a janitor? I was a janitor for a long time. How does that make sense in the conversation though?
> To which I basically responded...
Your new reply doesn't include what you originally replied with. There's new context here and it changes what your first message meant to me. Here, have a new reply:
No, I am not a scumbag. People deserve to be paid fairly.
Further: janitors do real work that robots simply cannot do. I cannot ask a robot how their day was, how long they've worked there, what their hobbies are, or where to find the competing store. I can ask a janitor that though and perhaps even build a friendship.
> Taking cash involves a variety of extra costs, risks and infrastructure. If you don't take cash you don't need a cash till, you probably don't need a safe, you don't need to pay staff to count and reconcile it, you don't need to get it to the bank safely, or pay banking fees.
Taking cards involves a variety of extra costs, risks and infrastructure. If you don't take cards you don't need a card reader, you probably don't need internet, or have IT staff to manage all of that, you don't need to pay staff to count and reconcile sales, or pay processing fees...
Do you want me to go on? The risks aren't gone. They're just moved.
> If you feel that having to use a card in an unacceptable burden, then perhaps you don't use that business.
Indeed, I have stated exactly that in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34499522
> it's far easier not to bother with cash as an individual too
It's easier until you have a problem. When you have a problem it takes a hell of a lot more time to resolve.
If you have a problem with cash... well usually there _isn't_ a resolution so why bother trying? Time saved and that's far easier to deal with.
No, I didn't, saying "If you have the option not to, wouldn't you opt out?" in reponse to your comment "are you going to complain about the janitor who gets paid to do it?" is absolutely not a non-sequitur.
If there is a business cost you don't have to pay, if you have that option, why would you not take it?
> Asking about ...
You missed an option there - not generating the trash in the first place, so you don't need to pay a janitor. That's the analogy with not taking cash - deciding not to create the issue in the first place that requires the costs and hassle.
> Taking cards involves a variety of extra costs, risks and infrastructure. If you don't take cards you don't need a card reader, you probably don't need internet, or have IT staff to manage all of that, you don't need to pay staff to count and reconcile sales, or pay processing fees..
As a small business you also don't need all of that, just a tablet and a reader. Everything else is already done.
We're also not talking about taking cash or taking cards, we're talking about the difference between taking both, or taking cards only, and whether that constitutes a reduction in hassle and risk.
Also this is not the same argument you were making before, which was that the burden was transferred to you the potential customer.
> The risks aren't gone. They're just moved.
The risks of taking cash are gone if you don't take cash. If you're taking cards anyway, deciding not to take cash is an absolute reduction in risk and hassle.
> If you have a problem with cash... well usually there _isn't_ a resolution so why bother trying?
By this logic it's better to die than break a limb. Dead is dead but getting something fixed is a huge hassle. More nonsense I'm afraid!
Sure it is.
> If there is a business cost you don't have to pay, if you have that option, why would you not take it?
You are implying that a business could opt-out of paying janitors. No, that is not an acceptable business practice. Janitors cannot work for free, they are not slaves. And we cannot allow trash to pile up and things to go uncleaned.
> You missed an option there - not generating the trash in the first place, so you don't need to pay a janitor.
There is no situation wherein trash will not be generated. Likewise there is no situation where cash shouldn't be accepted.
> As a small business you also don't need all of that, just a tablet and a reader. Everything else is already done.
Sure, everything else is already done if your shitty small business offloads all of the work to the customer instead.
> The risks of taking cash are gone if you don't take cash. If you're taking cards anyway, deciding not to take cash is an absolute reduction in risk and hassle.
No, it's not a reduction in risk at all. It's offloading the risk to someone else.
> By this logic it's better to die than break a limb.
In the United States with the current state of healthcare, this logic is practically true.
Look, our discussion clearly shows that you might do well at increasing business profits. But your arguments are unable to reconcile basic compassion to your fellow humans. That's unfortunately common in modern businesses.