[blackshaw]

Let's think about who wouldn't be fine in a cashless economy:

* Elderly people who struggle with technology.

* People fleeing coercive situations like domestic abuse where their abuser controls their finances.

* People with mental disabilities, for whom cash might be the only thing they know how to use.

* Homeless people, who might literally rely on cash to survive.

* Poorer people who prefer cash because it helps them budget and limit their spending.

* People so poor or otherwise disadvantaged that they don't even have a bank account.

That last group is much bigger than you think: by one estimate, 6% of American adults don't have a bank account and another 13% are "underbanked".[0] That's tens of millions of people in the US alone who don't have access to the basic financial services that you and I take for granted.

I have no idea how they do it. I'm not sure how it's even possible to navigate modern life without a bank account, but then I'm an educated, affluent professional who has no idea what it's like to be poor. Just because I don't need cash doesn't mean that no-one else does.

So basically, I think that asking "why should a business be forced by law to accept cash?" is like asking "why should a business be forced by law to provide wheelchair ramps and elevators?" If you don't think the answer is obvious, then you need to check your privilege.

[0] Source: https://usafacts.org/articles/who-is-the-least-likely-to-hav...

[makeitdouble]

From my comment

> Sure cash should be accepted in shops selling essential goods. But other shops should have the choice.

That basically covers you whole list, except if your argument is that gaming PC parts shop should absolutely accomodate cash in case homeless people need an RTX3060 over the weekend.

Also fundamdentally a bank account should be a legal right (it is in many countries, if it's not in yours it's a more critical debate than cash), and with it should come a debit card. Sure some people won't be able to use it for a reason or another, but they can get help. The same way not everyone benefits from cash.

[blackshaw]

Who are you to decide what other people should consider essential?

[makeitdouble]

I don't, we have a definition of what's essential businesses. That's how it was handled during the covid lockdowns, shop owners know where they fit on this line.

[Tangurena2]

> I have no idea how they do it.

Check cashing stores. And you pay a very steep fee for not having a bank account.

[maccard]

> I have no idea how they do it. I'm not sure how it's even possible to navigate modern life without a bank account

My partners mum fits the bill of "underbanked". She lives in an area where cash is king (near the border of a country that uses a different currency). She has a bank account, but doesn't use her debit card or online banking.

The answer to "how it's possible" is that she relies on other people who do have bank accounts to do things that require online payments.

[lotsofpulp]

> So basically, I think that asking "why should a business be forced by law to accept cash?" is like asking "why should a business be forced by law to provide wheelchair ramps and elevators?" If you don't think the answer is obvious, then you need to check your privilege.

If you don’t think the answer is the federal government should be providing the necessary infrastructure, then you want retail business operators to pay for fixing the problems taxpayers should be paying to fix.

[marssaxman]

Does the federal government provide wheelchair ramps and elevators? I was under the impression that the government simply lays out requirements in the building code, and business operators pay to fix their accessibility problems as part of the cost of doing business.

[lotsofpulp]

No, and that comes at a cost too. There are cities where infrastructure improvements like sidewalks do not get made because the accessibility requirements make them too costly.

It is a tried and true tactic for politicians to be able to claim they did something, but also keep taxes low. It really screws the smallest and poorest businesses/communities.

IDEA 2004 - Feds mandate each and every kid get an “individual education plan” and make it very hard and expensive for school leaders to expel kids who cause problems. And of course, Feds provide no money.

So what happens? Poorer towns with insufficient resources for paraeducators to manage problematic kids just let the kids stay in class and cause disruptions. Poorer students who want to learn get punished.

Richer areas that can afford complying with all regulations are even better off than before, except their residents get lower taxes and their leaders get to say they did something to help people.

Legislating a minimum standard is easy and cheap. Funding it and executing it is expensive, so everyone tries to avoid it.

[macintux]

Thank you; I regret that I have but one upvote to offer.

[bsenftner]

Warms my black heart to read your astute assessment.