I don't undertand why there is not a better alternative in US, like a bank transfer/wire. In the EU, these transfers are often free at most banks, or at most, they incur a fee of 1 or 2 euros.
There is, Zelle works pretty well for smaller amounts. Paypal jinxed themselves early on by lobbying so hard to be "not-a-bank" (even though they do everything a bank does). If they hadn't used their not-a-bank status to screw so many people for so long (I think they're better now, not sure), they could have been the de-facto payment processor by now, at least for debit.
In the UK it's highly unusual to pay for anything by cheque these days. The vast majority of banks will now charge for cheque deposits for business accounts (perhaps even personal accounts, it's probably been nearly half a decade since I've had a cheque).
In most US banks, sending a wire is an "event" since wires often go overseas and so KYC, suspicious transactions and sanctions are implicated. The fact that someone is sending a wire--as opposed to a multinational--is itself evidence of a suspicious transaction.
The only wire I have ever done was a process that I do not wish to repeat. I was paying for a car for my wife. Now, both our names are on the account, but my bank could only do it in my name (because I was the one at the bank, she was in another state at the time getting the car). The manager had to process the whole thing because it was over a certain amount (probably 10k, but it was well over that). Took twenty minutes. Then the dealership required me to indicate in writing that I had no lien (so paperwork would be correct). Then I had to wait until the county tax office (which collects all vehicle taxes) told me they had all the paperwork and spend twenty minutes there doing all of that.
I probably spent four or five hours dealing with the paperwork engendered by just giving them money for a car. Transactions handled locally would have amounted to half that at most. Get cashier’s check from my bank, give to dealer, leave with car and go to tax office, hand them paperwork, leave with tag.
I guess the opposite could also be asked: Why doesn't the EU use something proven, durable, redundant, and sensible like checks instead of relying on fragile computers that have thousands more points of failure?
Because cheques are unreliable, insecure, slow, inconvenient and expensive, and electronic bank transfers solve literally all of those issues. What kind of a stupid question is that?
Do you think cheques are not processed by computers?
> Checks where I am often clear in a day. Rarely longer than two days.
That's extremely slow. Electronic transfers are basically instant these days.
> I stated that replacing checks with computers adds more points of failure.
It literally doesn't. A cheque is one big point of failure that doesn't exist with electronic transfers.
> Or do you somehow not notice the litany of things that go wrong with computers every single day right on the front page of HN.
"Computers" aren't a single thing. Bank transfers are ridiculously reliable. Far more reliable than cheques. And as I've already explained, cheques are processed by computers too so you aren't somehow skipping the possibility of programming bugs by using them.