[flaviusb]

In many places, financial institutions like banks do not serve the poor. Like, in the US if you are a poor minority living in an area heavy in poor minorities, it is quite likely that banks will essentially refuse to serve you. Redlining was an example of this kind of thing. There are other, related things - low balance fees, minimum transaction sizes, the need for proof of income or a guarantor who can provide such. This is why cheque cashing places still exist in 2016 in the US - for many people, they literally will be refused service if they try to open an account so they can deposit their paycheque. Blaming this on 'poor financial literacy' is backwards - all the financial literacy in the world won't help you when banks systematically discriminate against you.

[mc32]

>"all the financial literacy in the world won't help you when banks systematically discriminate against you"

What the non profit did was show people how to use banking services, how to save, etc. and lo, people did. So what you say could be true some where but, it's disproven here where the non profit introduced people to the banks.

[flaviusb]

You have not given any details, so I cannot evaluate what this nonprofit was actually doing - that is, there are two questions:

1) How much were they doing? That is, where on the scale were they from (a) just literally letting people know that saving was a thing and banks existed through to (b) actually going in with people to open accounts, making personal introductions, acting as guarantors etc?

2) Who were they helping? That is, where on the scale of 'relevance to systemic discrimination that I discussed' were their clients from (c) mostly educated white college graduates with good credit history and family money (though perhaps not much personal money) living in 'good' areas through to (d) mostly poor black lower class minimum wage workers with bad credit history living in 'bad' areas?

It is a relevent counterpoint if the nonprofit is mostly doing (a) and mostly helping (d) - otherwise, it is entirely irrelevant.

That is, because doing (b) firstly does not scale, so it only fixes the problem for a few people, and secondly agrees with what I said, about how you need these things in order to bank if you fit into category (d). And because serving (c) is entirely irrelevant to the point about systemic discrimination, as (c) are people that do not face this.

So, please either show that the nonprofit was mostly doing (a) and mostly helping (d), or retract your point, as it is wrong.