So you hate getting something back for choosing one payment method over another when there's no indication that retail stores would lower their prices if credit cards (and their transaction fees) were wiped out?
> there's no indication that retail stores would lower their prices
Competition will lead to that. It doesn't happen immediately, it happens in waves. These are called price wars. When that happens, they try to undercut competition at every possible turn, and having lower payment processing fees allows them to go lower. Who wins a price war? The consumer.
Yes: points are ridiculous. The fact that credit card fees are passed on to cash payers is ridiculous. Visa and Mastercard are absolutely minted. Where does that money come from? You and I.
(and: why does competition not work for Visa and Mastercard as well as it does for retailers? Because the feedback loop is much longer. Intractable, in practice. Choosing one retailer or the other is a clear signal we can send. But are we going to choose merchants based on payment processor support? As for merchants, they're stuck in an oligopoly. Competition is gone, leading to this unhealthy market.)
There is some indication of that - gas stations have seemed to be leading the push here, with "cash-only" prices, but you'll also see places with CC fees or minimums (as much as the providers try to crack down on this).
This goes through cycles every few years. We seem to be in the cash discount part of the cycle now. Then stations discover they don't like losing customers who want to pay by credit but are getting "ripped off." Admittedly apps may make things different this go-round.
> They are probably illegal (or against contracts) in most states, but you see them very often.
Minimum purchase requirements for credit cards were explicitly legalized in the US in 2010 as part of Dodd-Frank. Merchant agreements are not legally allowed to prohibit them.
Thanks for share this. It is news to me as that used to be prohibited by the CC.
"2010 law: up to $10 minimum OK. The law says that merchants can set a credit card minimum purchase of up to $10, as long as they treat all cards the same. It also allows the Federal Reserve to review and increase the minimum payment amount."
Closing credit cards can affect your credit score because your credit line will decrease from the loss of cards, so your utilization ratio (balance / credit line) will increase. The usual advice is to try to consolidate your credit line before closing, but that might be harder when switching providers. Still, you can easily reduce the utilization by just paying the balance. So closing accounts does not have too much of a negative affect on your credit score. (My understanding is it does not affect age of accounts, because closed accounts continue to "age." Not sure about that though.)
While some of these figures might actually be due to faulty data or divergent definitions in other nations, there is another factor that neither you nor your friend seem to be acknowledging - how the high cost of health care in this country is impacting the way women seek care during, before, and after childbirth.
Giving birth in this country is extremely expensive (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/why-does-it-...) and we have a ton of people who are uninsured, underinsured, have high deductible plans, or simply aren't in stable enough financial situations to risk going to the doctor for prenatal/postnatal care when the $40 copayment or $300+ tests the doctor runs could delay their rent check that month.
When you talk about people coming into the hospital with comorbitieis, it's an easy next step to say "eh not our fault, that's on the patient, not on the medical system," but it kind of is on the medical system (or the insurance system, if you choose to differentiate the two) if the inability to afford healthcare is causing so many people to die of secondary causes when something serious enough to warrant it (in this case, pregnancy) forces them to go to a hospital.
It's a shame that bay area housing prices, which higher paid tech workers already struggle with, are even more of a burden for Facebook cafeteria workers, who make less money than many of those they serve every day. Thankfully, since your year-old article, Facebook cafeteria workers have unionized. I hope it's helped.
Still, it's unlikely that food service and retail workers in these cities are having an easier time making ends meet. The article you linked acknowledged that the cafeteria workers were making well above CA minimum wage - do you think the same can be said for all the restaurant/shop employees in the bay? Is there a reason we should be more concerned about some service industry employees over others?
Do you have a source for your claim that people are cheating on their income taxes to the tune of thousands of dollars a year?
> Still, it's unlikely that food service and retail workers in these cities are having an easier time making ends meet. The article you linked acknowledged that the cafeteria workers were making well above CA minimum wage - do you think the same can be said for all the restaurant/shop employees in the bay?
Hit the nail on the head.
All this concern for a relatively tiny number of tech cafeteria workers who are actually in much better shape than the vast majority of food industry employees. McDonalds pays the absolute minimum to its legions employees, and has to give them booklets that try (and fail) to do the math of how they can survive on their meager income. Meanwhile, bit tech pays their workers much better, but let's pick on them since they're evil!
It took them the better part of 4 years to bring clean water back to Flint - they only ended their bottled water program in April of this year. Those who were there during the crisis will be living with the consequences of lead poisoning for the rest of their lives. Odd that you view something this recent, and of this magnitude, as an outdated talking point.
You're absolutely right! It took years to replace a huge number of pipes while keeping a water system working, and those affected will suffer lead poisoning so long as they live.
I've seen a lot of "Flint still doesn't have clean water!" talking points in the past month or so. Without passing moral judgment, the talking point is not reflective of current reality.
While it might help "normalize" a programming career, it also reinforces the idea that no matter what a woman has accomplished (or is capable of) in her career, her physical appearance is at least as important when evaluating her accomplishments.
Full disclosure: I am a woman. I am also a student and CS major. I happen to be conventionally attractive, and rather than inspiring me, this kind of article contributes to certain fears I have, going into the industry. If we want to inspire young girls to be interested in programming, we should highlight the work of people like Marissa Meyer, who have worked really hard over many years...not give them the impression that being born tall and beautiful is as important as their resumes.
You may have same objections toward articles that would mention how much money a man makes, what an excelent breadwinner he is, how breave or strong he is. It would reinforce the idea that no matter how accomplished man is in his career what matters is how much money he makes or how manly he is.
I don't think that looks of Marrisa Mayer were not a factor in how much her story was covered.
> If we want to inspire young girls to be interested in programming, we should highlight the work of people like Marissa Meyer, who have worked really hard over many years...not give them the impression that being born tall and beautiful is as important as their resumes.
It is funny you say that because guess what showed up on my Linkedin news feed the other day. [1]
I am aware that Marissa Meyer's looks are often spoken of. However, before she was a CEO, she earned degrees from some of the world's most highly ranked universities and did interesting work for another 13 years.
Regarding the article you posted - the advantage that attractive people have in the workplace is not limited to women; attractive men also earn this benefit. In fact, some studies show that if attractive women are applying for typically male-dominated fields, they are rated more negatively than their unattractive counterparts. Attractive males do not experience a noted disadvantage when applying for any job.
As much as I empathize with you in feeling that our vote is useless in the presidential elections, I would like to remind you that our votes still matter in local elections. I'm sick of people telling me they don't vote because our president hasn't made enough changes in our corporate-driven, polarized, two party system. I am just as disappointed in our government as you are, however, I know that when I vote for a mayor, I am voting for someone who actually can/will make visible changes in my community. Additionally, every ballot contains various propositions and bills, where I am able to vote directly on various tax increases, local law modifications, etc. These are important issues, and I encourage all of my friends to register, if only for these reasons.
I did (and do) vote in local elections. I even voted in our local election two days ago. I agree that local voting is still important, even if I disagree with some posters here who say that local voting has more of an impact on our daily lives than our national government.
So ridiculous! Why are they cracking down on this? Are young French and German girls really posing such a risk to US employment rates? I have offered the same thing while asking if I could stay with relatives in other US cities (I'm American). Next, are they going to go around accusing 16 year old American girls of tax evasion since their bank accounts "fit the profile" for someone who's done babysitting?
Sorry, but the living standards are high enough and tuition costs low enough in France and Germany that I'm not really sure why any French/German college-aged kids would be sneaking into this country for real jobs.
It's reasonably straightforward au-pairing legally in the US. You just need to be represented by one of the officially sanctioned au pair agencies, and you get a J1 visa.
So I guess they're miffed that girls are trying to cheat the official (rather inflexible IMO) system.
There are huge numbers of American girls in Europe doing a similar thing -- legally and illegally -- and in some countries you'd get the same hard-assed attitude.
In Germany, au pairs don't need a visa at all.
France, being France, they require a work permit (unless you're from CN, NZ or AU).
Spain is easy (just apply to the nearest consulate and it's rubber-stamped) and you can work there for up to two years.
In the UK, it's super-complicated. The UK authorities simply don't want non-EU workers under any circumstances (but what's the point in au-pairing in another English-speaking country?).
However, French and German girls are awesome, so please keep it up and with any luck, more will come here to Spain.
If you're college is not already in the online arena, my first thought is that an investor is going to come in and try to turn it into another University of Phoenix or DeVry.
