Thin end of the wedge

[old man emu]

16 minutes ago, facthunter said:

(Another metaphor for OME). 

A skeleton in the closet is a piece of information that is hidden away due to its scandalous nature or ability to negatively impact one’s reputation, future or chances of success.

 

It is known to have been used as a phrase, at least as early as November 1816, in the monthly British journal The Eclectic Review.The idiom first appeared as a skeleton in the closet, though today that is the American form and the English form is a skeleton in the cupboard. The origin is uncertain. Once theory is that a skeleton in the closet/cupboard, is related to the unsavory business of body snatching in the early 1800s. Another theory sees a correlation to Gothic stories where a body was often hidden in the house.

[facthunter]

Airing your dirty linen? . Nev

[old man emu]

23 minutes ago, octave said:

I am not trying to convince anyone to adopt any particular method of payment.

The method of payment one uses really depends on what suits the situation. I don't like using my debit card for purchases under $10.00, or maybe now with inflation, $20. However, anything over $20 will be paid with the card. Big expenses, like vehicle operating costs get paid using online methods, or direct debits.

 

I only get about five free tap'n go transactions per month, so don't bother with that method at all. So I sometimes get $50.00 cash out at the supermarket to take care of a take-away meal, or a prescription. 

[octave]

I do suspect that even the most enthusiastic users of cash still do a lot of digital transactions.   One thing I have to do is manage my mother's money as she is in aged care.   Having power of attorney I have full authority to transact on her account and she does have a reasonably large sum of money.  It does feel like quite a responsibility.   I could draw it all out and move to a country with no extradition treaty (I am of course joking).   We live in a different state paying her bills would be a little challenging with cash.  

 

I think cash to some degree will be with us for some time although its use is diminishing.   

 

 

[spacesailor]

Bank Australia. 

Only in Sydney City .

It will cost more to get there.  than any savings.

It's the same as " Sydney Bank " . 

Online banking only , if not a city dweller .

Then you can lose everything by a mere scam .

spacesailor

I wondered were that "Sydney Bank bit went .

 

y Bank 

Edited February 15 by spacesailor
A little more !

[octave]

25 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Bank Australia. 

Only in Sydney City .

This is increasingly true of several banks.

 

26 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

It will cost more to get there.  than any savings.

 

I have never been inside a branch of my bank and I don't think I ever will. I have absolutely no need to.  You can transact at your local post office. To me it is well worth  banking with a bank that doesn't do all the things that people complain about.   You can't have everything 

 

28 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

Online banking only , if not a city dweller .

Then you can lose everything by a mere scam .

The protections around banking online are quite strong.  It is pretty safe as long as you take simple precautions such as not sharing your password and using double authentication etc.  Successful scams usually involve people being conned into revealing their bank details.   Carrying cash or having sums of money in the home poses a risk.

[old man emu]

Seems a few of the smaller banks can't be used today - network problems.

[willedoo]

I used to use mainly cash until the covid lockdowns changed my way of doing things. Once I took the step to using cards more often, online banking and buying lotto tickets etc. online, I don't really want to go back to using a lot of cash. The only time I ever use it now is to pay a club competition fee on the day or to buy some limes from a local honesty box stall. Plus the rare occasion I might buy something on Gumtree or Facebook marketplace to pick up in person.

 

Yesterday I was talking to the bloke who sells the limes and asked him if sales were down now that people aren't carrying as much cash. He said it's no different to what it always was. He might even make a bit more as a lot of people now don't have as much loose change lurking in the car. When I dealt in a lot of cash I always had heaps of gold coins kicking around, but no more, only notes. His limes are $4 per bag and now that I usually only have notes, I might poke a $5 bill into the slot or $10 for two instead of the correct change like I used to have. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does that (overpays) these days, so he's doing ok out of it.

[red750]

3 hours ago, octave said:

You can transact at your local post office.

And lots of post offices are closing.

[octave]

2 minutes ago, red750 said:

And lots of post offices are closing.

 

True but the most recent figure I can find is that there are around 4200 post offices.  This represents a branch network that is phenomenally bigger than any bank has or has ever had.   I guess the question is should the government subsidise unprofitable post office branches? Unlike the big banks, I don't think the post office is raking in the billions. By the way, I am not necessarily against the taxpayer subsidizing services.    

 

In the article you linked to it stated that the post office in Cooper Pedy pays $4000 a week to fly in cash.  My question is who should pay for that and is it a good use of money when there are more efficient ways?  

[onetrack]

My argument is the cost of electronic transaction systems is effectively hidden, because it's absorbed by million of businesses, and simply added to the cost of the goods that I have to buy.

 

The day we get major transparency as regards the cost of the electronic system/s, will be a wondrous day indeed. Every business pays out substantial amounts for access to the electronic networks, for EFTPOS machines, and constant ongoing monthly fees. You see none of these costs listed on your till docket (or electronic record).

[pmccarthy]

The power has just been out in much of Vic. Did cash registers work? Could shops still operate with cash? We didn’t lose power here.

[octave]

Just now, onetrack said:

My argument is the cost of electronic transaction systems is effectively hidden, because it's absorbed by million of businesses, and simply added to the cost of the goods that I have to buy.

 

Cash also has hidden costs.   Money has to be printed or minted transported and protected.  It has to be manually counted it has to be securely stored or transported back to the bank. For an extreme example, the post office in Cooper Pedt, $4000 a week to supply enough cash for those who prefer it.

 

I am happy for people to use the method that suits them.  A business should not be compelled to take cash if it is too onerous. That is fair enough, isn't it?

[onetrack]

I don't see what's "onerous" about handling cash transactions. It's a system that's been in place for hundreds of years, and it has always worked just fine.

Good safes work for most people, the thieves always worked on weak safes, and poor security - and how successful has robbery ever been as a career?

[onetrack]

Well, well .... look at this! It's good I've still got my reserve of cash, that I can rely on!

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-15/banks-affected-by-outages/103473152

[octave]

Onetrack I have previously put the example of the music school I worked at and my wife managed. Huge sums of money coming in every day during the first week of the term. Her sitting there behind the counter at 8PM with few people around. Even if the owner had invested in an expensive safe that doesn't stop someone from coming in and demanding the safe be opened.   Why should the owner of this business be compelled to take cash?  If people don't like it they can go to a competitor.

 

Cash handling does take time. Tallying up at the end of the day etc.  All the money surely can't stay at the business site. At some time some of it is going to end up in the bank and someone has to take it there.

 

Yes, cash was the preferred method in the past but bank robberies were also common. 

 

 Back when I joined the airforce we were paid in cash. On pay day the duty sergeant and duty corporal would go down to pay section and pick up the unit's pay. They would then spend quite a while working out the breakdown of denominations paid to each person. (getting it wrong was bad). This system changed somewhat in 1984 when there was a huge armed robbery on Holsworthy army base on a payday.  After this when the pay was picked up it was accompanied by an armed guard.  We were just one unit on the base, this procedure was done for every unit.  Eventually, that was scrapped and money went straight into our account. 

 

 

 

My understanding is that cash transactions have declined to 13% People are voting with their feet. 

 

By the way, no one has suggested who should pay the $4000 a week for the post office at Cooper Pedy to fly cash in.   I think it is a reasonable question.

 

 

[onetrack]

They don't have to fly in cash every week. Once a cash float is established, it's like running all transactional ventures, the money just keeps circulating.

My nephew bought a defunct country tavern 110kms East of Perth, and on the day of opening the new manager forgot to organise a cash float.

They did a run-around with family and friends, borrowing cash they had on hand, and they got $1300. It was plenty to operate with, on the first night they were open again.

[spacesailor]

" declined to 13% " .

 me , I say forced to change , to the correct bank your employer insists on .

My first ' none pay day ' , was a fisser as , the employer's bank hadn't told me ' which branch ,I had to go to to sign for an account .

So my local branch couldn't find an account in my name .

They didn't worry , not their problem. Off to the city , to sort it out . Whole day lost without pay .

spacesailor

 

[octave]

They don't have to fly in cash every week. 

The article that Red posted specifically says once a week.  Money people withdraw does not necessarily end up back at the post office. Some may be spent out of the area and some may be held onto by some people. Of course some may be deposited back at the post office 

[Jerry_Atrick]

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

It's a system that's been in place for hundreds of years, and it has always worked just fine.

That is like saying the horse and carriage woirked just fine for centuries - why bother changing?

 

Cash and electronic or other forms of payment (e.g. cheques) have their positives and negatives. As Octave is saying, it is not a binary choice - people can elect to use one, two, or more ways of transferring cash (which is just currency, which is just a store of value).

 

I always carry some cash with me in my wallet - at the moment, it's £20. There are times when I need to use cash for whatever reason - I have it. I prefer to use debit card swipe transactions. I feel this is the most safe and convenient. However, some people use phones (which I find a pain in the proverbial because they rely on a less than perfect cellular nework and how many times I have been stuck in a queue because phone payment person's phone had no signal or the battery had died). You could say my debit card is a manual version of electronic payments.

 

Some people prefer cash, and that is fine, too.

 

Shouold a business be forced to accept cash? I think there are some cases where it should - for example, the only general store in a remote town may qualify. But in more populated areas where there is choice, not really.. if they want to take the risk of loss of custom in a power outage, that is their business.

 

You can easily work out the cost of electronic payments by going to your bank's website and looking up merchant card processing fees. That is what the retailer pays (well, not really fgor the big retailiers - let's say that is the most a retailer will pay). You cannot look up the cost of handling cash easily because the cost is hidden in a myriad of overheads. As Octave said, delivery and handling. But there is an amount put aside for theft and loss (e.g counterfeit or damaged), and even reconciling the register to the accounts - these days most accounting systems read the bank transactions and import them into their system, match the transactions or generate the transactiond and the bookkeeper just checks them.. much quicker, simpler, and cheaper than manually doing the books the old way.

 

The banks still have to store the physical cash..  but the just keep electronic records of which accounts are allocated how much.

 

Also, not sure about Aus, but small business accounts here are fee free for unlimited electronic transactions, but incur transactions fees once a small threshold of physical cash transactions has been reached. I think it also depends on teh government/regulatory approach. Over here, very few people pay operating fees as part of an account. The only time most people will pay fees is going into an unarranged overdraft or using speciality services (e.g. international transfers, safe wiring of large amounts of cash, for example, a house puchase, etc).

 

As automated electronic transactions have become more prevalent and across more products, the banks have been required to up their game. When I first came here, they could take up to 3 days to transfer between different holders accounts - now it is instant; fees are reviewd and scrapped or capped regularly. I think I have put in another thread how, when I worked for a bank in Aus after living here, I literally laughed that they had the audacity to charge people for transferring money between their own accounts online after a numbre of these transactions per month. The bank execs here may have to face the public in stocks if they tried it here.

Edited February 15 by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

I think it also depends on teh government/regulatory approach.

Obviously the British Government controls the banks, not the other way around.

 

4 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

the audacity to charge people for transferring money between their own accounts online after a numbre of these transactions per month. The bank execs here may have to face the public in stocks if they tried it here.

quod erat demonstrandum

[Jerry_Atrick]

26 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Obviously the British Government controls the banks, not the other way around.

I think you will find it is more the banking conduct regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority, has teeth. Also, there are votes in it. And in some ways, the size of the economy and compeition of the banks are also somewhat self-regulating at least at the retail level, although you can find plenty of examples where they have failed miserably.

 

The resistance to establishing a royal commission and the lack of real accountability, though, is testimony to how much control they weild in Aus.

 

[Edit]. Maybe I should make it my lifelong ambition to be grilled in a Royal Coimmission 😉

 

Edited February 15 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

The " HORSE " was unable  to walk forever on " paved " ( hard ) .

roads .

It's ' toes ' wore out .  Then had to be ' shod ' with slippery steel shoes . ( bridle- paths were made for the horses ) .

spacesailor

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Cars don't drive forever either without ainetnance. My point is, for the time, they worked. But with progress, they became obsolete (largely).

[old man emu]

This morning I overheard an indigenous person on the phone to a bank. I suppose that it' not PC to allocate an ethnicity to the fellow, but it's not done with malice, but to draw your attention to aspect of a stereotype that plays an important part in my story.

 

To proceed.

It seems that the fellow had lost his phone recently which must have had his banking app installed. Having obtained a new phone, he was trying to access his bank account to get money. I formed the opinion from his speech that he wasn't a well-educated person. I heard him tell the operator that his partner had entered a incorrect password so that he could access his account, and its being incorrect, he was locked out. He was trying to get his password reset. I was talking to his companion who told me then he had recently won $10,000 on the "cardies", and the money was supposed to be available from today. So he just wasn't trying to access his pension.

 

This incident perchance involved a person from the lower ranks of the educated, and maybe not as knowledgeable in the ways of computerised business. The incident reinforced in me the drawbacks of this reliance on digitisation for what should be very simple, everyday transactions, and the difficulties in trying to resolve problems without being face-to-face.

 

I should add that he was an NAB customer, but the NAB recently closed its branch here, for all the usual reasons. That leaves the town with only one bank (Bendigo Bank) and the Post Office agency.