I know a business that went cash-only for the same reason in reverse: the thieves were doing it via chargebacks saying they never heard of the place. Couldn't win disputes even with video evidence.

They put in an ATM, can't charge that back.

You can accept debit cards and not accept credit cards. That is actually really common in Europe. Chargebacks for most CC providers are around $50-$100 now, so you can do it for small items, I wonder who uses cash to buy something that would make a chargeback worthwhile for a thieve? They would have to rotate cards around to get that.

More likely, thieves were using stolen cards, and the chargebacks were probably legitimate (a thief trying to make money on a chargeback would be pretty dumb anyways, since it would be tracked back to their identity regardless, and the bank would shut them down quickly they made an unusual habit of it).

Towing companies often only accept cash for certain types of jobs. They want zero opportunities for disputes or late stage regrets, particularly for towing off private property or illegally parked vehicles.

That is not how the chargebacks systems work. Source: I've worked in Fraud department at a large payment processor

Not sure what you mean. It was Square, which is talked about above.

Customer's bank says "customer says they have no knowledge of this charge"

Square allows a dispute, including with video and photo evidence of the guy signing the tablet himself. That was submitted.

Customer's bank kept the money.

I suspect Square accepts the chargeback and passes it back to the merchant without dispute. Sadly, some processors find the cost of helping their merchants to be too high. I know Facebook does this.

Card in the machine transactions can't be charged back like that. Try explaining that you lost your card and someone with your PIN paid with it, or you got mugged but never declared the theft and want your $10 back. That won't happen.

Unfortunately, the other thieves will rip a hole in the wall to steal the ATM.

"not my problem" thou

It's been over 4 years, so the ROI is pretty healthy even if this were true.

It's a late-night business, though,and adjacent to early-open businesses, so it's probably hard to find a convenient time.

It looks like many stores cut down on robbery opportunities by not having a cash register. They don't give change back, they only give store credit if you don't pay in exact change. That way, they can just put each cash payment in an envelope and drop it into a time-locked safe. (I imagine that they would do that, I don't know for sure.)

What state/country is this in? I think it's an interesting approach but I have never seen any store in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) that takes cash but doesn't give change.

From the article:

> Businesses can offer cash-to-card services for in-store purchases with a lot of stipulations including no associated fees or time limits.

I've seen it in Europe, but never in the US.

Tell that to the guy who charged $4k of jewelry on my credit card. I've never been robbed of a penny of cash and now I'm having to sue my bank to get that money back.

If it was a credit card, it was $4k of the bank's money. I presume either you didn't notice the charge or you had a serious miscommunication with the bank, because the normal result under US regulations is that the bank would be the ones trying to get their money back.

Well, if the bank thinks you did it, after investigating, you end up where parent poster is.

Thankfully DC has very low crime so they can instead tackle headline issues like this /s

A congressman was just carjacked in SW DC. The city was really great in the aughts and teens and has gone to shit post-2020. I wish they'd focus on cracking down on crime, which is working really well in NYC.

That sounds like treating the symptom rather than the problem...

Shake Shack does not have the capacity to help a society. They do the only thing they can to in their power - remove the incentive for stealing.

It is up to the gov't to enact policies (carrot or stick) to prevent robberies.

I actually largely agree, although it is of course total nonsense that a highly successful business like Shake Shack does not have the capacity to help a society. However your observation is irrelevant.

Not to mention that it's immoral to punish people for have no bank credit, and even leaving aside the ethical implications it creates a split-level society that pushes part of the population further toward desperation and crime.

Banning cash to allegedly keep workers safe is the ultimate whitewashing of corporate greed at the expense of workers and the public. This is a good law.

It's very strange that developing countries can go cashless, with everyone paying for everything on their smartphones, but a developed country like the US somehow can't.

Countries with weak control over mostly worthless currencies reach a point where it's more profitable for their government ministers to take kickbacks from the banks providing cashless services than it is for them to run a printing press anymore. It's hardly progress. The US still hasn't hit quite that level of corruption, and still has some control over its monetary policy.

the USD is much more important

That is not viable nor the responsibility of an individual business.

Businesses have a legal obligation to not discriminate against lots of recognized classes. Those without credit cards should be protected as well, because living in this country should not require you to participate in a debt-based system. If it did, it would be government of banks, not a democracy.

Forcing people to have a bank account or a credit card to buy food enforces a monopoly on money.

>Forcing people to have a bank account or a credit card to buy food enforces a monopoly on money.

And allowing businesses to not accept cash allows them to streamline operations and offering products/services at a lower price.

What does monopoly on money mean? Why didn’t Washington DC go out and invest in infrastructure to take cash from people and give them debit cards?

Because that would leave the politicians more liable and the costs are easily visible. Much easier for them to punt the responsibility and costs to a small portion of the voting populace.

There is no "forcing". If there is sufficient demand for paying with cash, then someone will start a business that accepts cash and charges more, thus making more profit. More people will start such businesses, driving down the price until the price accurately affects the additional risk plus market demand.

If no such business exists, it is because the cost of the risk/hassle of dealing in cash is too high compared to the low market demand.

This is akin to saying that if there were sufficient demand for free speech rights, privacy, or the abolition of slavery, markets would provide for those things - and that their removal is simply an economic function.

Like, if enough people want handjobs from non-sex-trafficked sex workers, surely some massage parlors will open to cater to ethical customers, right?

Markets do not guarantee civil rights, and they shouldn't be relied upon to do so. Moreover, their failure to do so should not be construed as a proof that broad enforcement of those rights would not improve both individual businesses and the wider economy. Nor should the economic impact be the sole reason for society to choose whether those rights are worth defending.

By your logic, businesses can choose to refuse service on the basis of race because a certain race is poorer on average - and people from that race just have to hope they will be served by another business that comes along to hoover up their money.

We as a civilization have decided that we don't want the market or a collection of individual businesses to make those sorts of decisions. Protecting people from predatory discrimination is the role of civil society and government, and why we make businesses conform to certain standards, whether they like it or not.

That’s a lot of words built on top of a rather flimsy assertion that using cash is a civil rights issue, which I don’t think any court has actually ruled on. It seems like a right that people have invented from thin air.

The answer to people being unbanked is to make banking easier and less discriminatory. Not to force everybody to accept cash.

Classes covered under Title IX aren't necessarily covered by the Constitution, but our democracy has recognized that they need protection. Civil rights are rights outlined in law and reinforced by the courts. They're not pulled from thin air. If you believe that there is no right to spend your income without first depositing it into a third party for-profit bank for safekeeping, then make that case.

You can claim that anything is a civil rights issue by selectively distorting statistics in your favor. Let’s wait until courts weigh in on this.

Okay, then let's not force businesses to make their buildings wheelchair-accessible either, because most customers can walk. If some customers can't shop there anymore then the market will take care of that problem too, right?

>then someone will start a business

I hate this argument that "someone will start business"

No. If people will struggle with getting food then they will adjust and get cards despite not liking it. Nobody will open business for them.

For me this is some kind of free markets naivety

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.” - Anatole France

It’s an expensive burger restaurant, not a grocery store. Having a bank account and a debit card doesn’t mean “participating in a debt-based system”.

Yea, both of those things mean participating in a debt-based system. If your money is all on loan from your credit card company, or in a bank that charges you fees to get it out, you literally have nothing. I don't give a flying fuck how expensive the hamburger is, the same thing applies to Dollar General or to tickets to the opera. A company FORCING consumers to use their money through a middle man bank creates a private currency that undermines the full faith and credit of the US government which itself is the only bulwark against mafias taking a piece of every transaction... and is only so because we have some say in its constitution. The government's assertion that we have a right to trade with its currency as opposed to that of a private bank is the assertion of our rights as citizens, not slaves to any given mafia or corporate power.

You must be using the wrong banks.

Are there retail banks in America which aren't run for profit? I wasn't aware. Should citizens be forced to keep their money with privately run institutions, which decide when and how and if they can access their money, in order to transact on the most basic level, in order to buy food? If so, the government effectively renounces its exclusive control of the currency.

Why do countries print currency? For the settlement of debts public and private. It's not merely a civil rights issue. It's a core governmental function to provide a public and universally accepted instrument of trade. Governments which partner with privately run banks and coerce citizens into using those banks are inherently corrupt.

This is like complaining that you need to buy a wallet or pants with pockets in order to carry cash, therefore the government has relinquished exclusive control over currency. No, they have not.

There are debit cards too.

Nobody needs to rob a Shake Shack anyway. Robberies are not a product of need.

Greed.

The typical robber is stupid, impulsive, and antisocial. All of which are traits that contribute to low incomes.

There are relatively intelligent robbers who manage to pull off diamond heists and the like, but these are a minority of robbers and aren’t a threat to your typical local retail business.

Also, as crime becomes endemic in a community, anybody who can afford to leave does so. Businesses close as well, reducing economic opportunities for the people left behind.

Really, it's probably both. Why do rich people steal money? Why do poor people steal designer purses?

If the perp needs fent and Shake Shack has cash that can be used to purchase fent, the robbery is a product of need.

Nobody needs fentanyl.

You do understand what the word "addiction" means, right?

They definitely “think” they need fent.