Banks and hats.

Has it become common for banks to have no hat policies indoors?

My local WF has instituted this. Wear a hat indoors, no service.
They caught me off guard with it, pissed me no end. Mostly it was the attitude of the suit who approached me while in line. Mostly it was his "You Must, or Else" attitude.

Been thinking about it for several hours now. I'm just not seeing how it's a positive change.

Other than the obvious "it lets the cameras see your face", best I can figure is, it quickly sorts the robbers, who wear obscuring accessories from them that don't. I also expect the immediate result will be for the crooks to focus on the remaining banks. Forcing them to join in on the policy.

At some point, this is just going to make the crooks up their game.

I'd have have closed all my accounts then and there.

I intend to, but it takes several steps.
First of which, Redirect payroll deposits. That may take a couple pay periods.

<rant on>

Yeah, that'll show em.

WTF? Are you serious? Over a hat policy? That is retarded on so many levels.

The banks in Belize have no cellphone policies and I've been made to hang up mid-call by security a couple times. While slightly annoying, I realize it's their bank and they can have any policy they please for any reason they please. It's not like you have a first amendment right to wear a hat indoors (which I would consider rude anyways).

That's also like boycotting all McDonalds because one employee was rude on one day. Report the guy to his manager and be done with it. Why should you go through the major inconvenience of moving all your financial accounts because one employee was rude? That certainly punishes you more than them.

Lasty, repeat after me, "I'm not special." There, say it again and again. Let it become a mantra. You'll win at life a lot more if you realize that.

<rant off>

A better reason to boycott WF is that they, in general, treat their customers like crap.

Similarly, a great reason to boycott Mcdonald's is that they feed their customers crap.

While I may not be special (though I am), if I'm paying someone, I better be treated like I'm special. It's so easy to find businesses that will do this.

It's been years since I've last set foot inside a bank. I'll need to do it soon since the ATM card that I got 14 years ago is started to get sufficiently threadbare that it typically takes four tries for a machine to read it.

Relative to the inconveniences of modern airline travel, a bank asking you to remove your hat isn't particularly uncomfortable. Now, if they were serious about the security issues, they'd require Sikh men to remove their turbans, Muslim women to remove head scarves, and so forth. That would be when things start getting difficult.

There's a difference between one rude employee and a bank policy. Glenn was clear in stating this was a bank policy, not simply an overzealous employee.

And is it their bank? No, it's YOUR bank. It's YOUR money. Take it elsewhere.

If they're telling you they don't want you as a customer, why would you stay?

Some people may want to live in a quasi-fascist state - you see this all the time when you talk to some older Portuguese people saying things were great during the rule of Salazar. It took a revolution to free Portugal, how far is too far in the US?

WF as in Wells Fargo? The multinational investment bank? It seems to me that if the worst thing that they've done for your nation or society over these past few years is overzealously enforce a dress code, you should probably be delighted.

Peter

I pulled my money out of a big bank and into my credit union a while back, but to go through the hassle of switching banks because they're trying to avoid getting robbed seems ridiculous. Yes, policies like this will give criminals incentive to go to banks where there are no such policies, which will lead to the proliferation of these policies which will... make it harder to rob banks. This is a bad thing how, exactly?

As a Wells Fargo customer (via my home mortgage, not my deposit accounts) I am happy they're trying to save money and avoid putting their employees in a dangerous position. As a taxpayer who pays for deposit insurance that kicks in when banks get robbed, I'm similarly delighted that the banks are taking a proactive step to make it easier to catch criminals. And as someone who occasionally likes to wear a hat, I'm perfectly taking it off if I ever have to go into a Wells Fargo brank to conduct business.

How a private company looking out for their customers' interests as well as their own becomes a "quasi-fascist state" is beyond me, but by all means, don't let the man keep you down, boys!

It's a matter of degree, perhaps.

Take your hat and shoes off, remove your belt, strip naked. Etc.

If I were going to Hell next week, I'd sharpen my ice skates first! I'm actually agreeing with Bruno.

[rant] I dumped Wells Fargo nearly 15 years ago when they started charging me $6.00 per month for the privilege of having a savings account that paid less than 1% annual interest. I went four blocks further downtown to a small, locally-owned and managed bank, where they told me that a lot of people had left Wells Fargo and come to them.

I have a relationship with them such that I can pick up the phone and call Patty, a senior vice president of the bank, and ask her to wire transfer $10,000 to my account in Mexico, and she'll have it done within the hour. Or, I can email the request to her and it'll be done by the next morning. In 15 years with that bank, I have not paid a single penny for any kind of service charge, and that includes cashiers checks, regular checks, wire transfers, overdraft protection, you name it. On several occasions I have transferred money from my account to my wife's Wells Fargo account, and rather than do an electronic transfer for which Wells Fargo will charge a hefty fee to receive the money, my bank writes a cashiers check and hand-carries it over to Wells Fargo for deposit. It wouldn't surprise me if Wells Fargo changed their telephones to 1-900 numbers so they could get a service fee every time you called them. I'm surprised they haven't put turnstiles at the door to the lobby so it costs you a quarter to get into the bank.

In case you aren't certain, I am not a fan of Wells Fargo. [/rant]

As far as the idea of no-hats making it harder to rob a bank... that's just plain silly. Do they think robbers stand around in the lobby waiting for the best time to put on their masks and pull out their guns? Robbers come into the bank with faces covered and guns at the ready, and whether or not they are wearing a hat is totally irrelevant.

tanstaafl.

Open the new account at the new bank now. Then when you are through transitioning, close the Wells Fargo account and tell them why.

They won't care. I think that Wells Fargo regards individual small accounts as a pain in the ass, and only want to deal with large business accounts, to the point of actively discouraging the private ones.

tanstaafl.

Over a hat? Yes. And it sounds nuts to me when I say it.

And my desire to get on an aircraft is lacking much these days.

Still, I'd like to know how common it's become for banks to prohibit hats?

========
Btw, that branch has had a guard on duty for some time. Didn't stop the last robbery. The one they had is gone, and the new one was chosen for having a more, humm, no nonsense attitude and appearance. That change, I approve of, presuming he is there for more than aiding the bullying of customers into compliance. The previous one looked and acted like a uniformed doorman.

=========
No cell phones. Is that no talking, or no use at all? So as to prevent signaling accomplices.

You've been watching too many caper movies. 95% of robberies are covert robberies where people leave a note and want to get in and get out without causing a scene. No Guy Fawkes masks or drawn guns, just a note demanding cash and enough of a disguise to conceal their identity without people saying "hey, who's the nutjob with the ski mask and the Glock?"

I can't find any rigorous studies on whether policies like this help reduce robbery rates, but this article mentions that robberies went down in Missouri after instituting the policy, which is not to say post hoc ergo propter hoc, but to shift the burden of proof to those who insist policies like this must be worthless simply because they're inconvenient or somehow infringe upon liberty in some meaningful way. There's at least circumstantial evidence that the policies can be helpful, and I find these slippery slope from taking off your hat the bank to tyranny arguments unconvincing.

If someone thinks that having patrons remove hats is somehow going to reduce the likelihood (no matter how remotely) of them getting robbed, then that's the kind of moron I most definitely don't want handling my money.

Seriously, why would anyone trust these jokers with their money?

I'm pretty sure there's a "no robberies" policy at every bank on the planet, yet that doesn't stop the would-be criminals.

Once you impact the normal behavior of your every day customers, you've gone too far. It used to be banks, like most other businesses, needed to compete to earn your business. I try to remind them of that every chance I get. BTW, I worked for a bank at the retail level for over 5 years.

Must be put away. Security guard is on you like white on rice if he sees it out. The two times I've been asked to stop, I've walked into the bank already in the middle of a conversation, not thinking about the policy.

Interesting, how those articles hit all the same talking points.

Sorry, Bruno, your post must have gotten cut off right around the part where you actually supported your assertions with anything other than more assertions. Repeating over and over again that the policy can't possibly reduce the likelihood doesn't make it so, especially since we know that a vast majority of the robberies are covert, so the use of an inconspicuous disguise including hats, sunglasses, etc. is important.

It's totally intuitive that taking steps to prevent people from hiding their identity in a bank would reduce the ability to execute a covert robbery, and there's anecdotal evidence that this is, in fact, the case. The tin foil hattery in this thread is really something to behold. If you guys spent one tenth of the time worrying about the real abuses the banks are engaging in instead of worrying about whether they make you take off your hat, we'd be in much better shape.

If someone is coming to rob a bank wearing a hat, how is a policy going to stop them? Like I said, there's already a no gun, no robbery policy at every bank.

Maybe the next step is that no one with black skin can use that bank? Because you know, in certain locales, perhaps African ethnicities perpetrate most of the robberies. Will these banks ask someone to remove a toupee or a wig? A turban? WIll they make you shave before coming in?

I'm sorry, a hat is not much of a disguise. I've worked on the inside and know the security measures that were employed in the mid-90's company-wide. Having worked at some 20 or so branches in a 50km radius, a number of them that had been previously robbed (all perps were caught).

The bottom line is that it's their property and they can institute whatever policies they want. I don't have a problem with their rights to do this. However, it's my money, my mortgage, my investments, and I can do business with people I don't consider to be idiots. And it doesn't even matter whether I ever wear a hat. It's the principle, and knowing that the institution isn't at all serious about security.

Being serious about security means evaluating whether a small inconvenience can lead to catching more perpetrators, and therefore recovering more funds. It logically follows that clothing and accessories that cover the face in any way are going to be a problem in recognizing and catching criminals, so I don't see how this qualifies as security theater as you seem to be implying.

Your toupee/wig example is reductio ad absurdum, so I won't bother to respond to it. There are obviously problematic corner cases like religiously-mandated head coverings, and I think the policies on those need to be clarified, but I really don't see the massive infringement upon liberty of asking customers not to wear anything that can cover their face during a covert bank robbery. Focusing on this tiny inconvenience when banks are doing so many worse things on a daily basis is missing the forest for the trees.

I just deleted a pretty long reply, can't be bothered with the fine points. In the end I don't think they're relevant anyway. My personal stance is that I would not want to do business with a bank that instituted policies that I don't agree with. The hat issue is one example of one that I don't agree with.

As mentioned, I worked for a bank and I know the real and concrete steps we used to take for security and I personally know two people who were robbed in the typical one-man-one-note fashion. The hat theory is simply bullshit and anyone stupid enough to try robbing small amounts of money in this way will be stupid enough to do it regardless of policy and regardless of hat.

The real and concrete steps your banks took has nothing to do with whether a policy like this can increase the chances to identify a robbery suspect when those countermeasures aren't enough. There are obviously other policies and procedures banks can implement that will reduce crime more than asking people to take off hats and sunglasses, but if two banks implement all of those other security best practices, but only one of them implements a no hats/sunglasses policy, the bank that doesn't is in a weaker position to identify suspects in a covert robbery.

You've done nothing to refute this argument other than invoke appeal to authority, where the authority is yourself. If that's all you've got, then we can just agree to disagree.

I am amazed how many times, on the news, we're asked to identify some bank robber, and all they have is a picture of the top of a baseball hat...

Let's just suppose that there is an actual, proper, clear study (or more than one) showing that a no-hat policy does reduce the rate of robberies in banks by 10%. Would you then agree with a no-hat policy? I would.
Let's instead suppose that the study shows that such policy would reduce robbery rate by 0.001%. Would you then agree? I most likely would not, after investigating what an inconvenience that is for customers (or, better, how inconvenient they perceive/consider such policy).
Let's suppose finally that such policy was instituted just because the security director thought "hey, I want to see people's face, so you'll see they'll stop robbing us!"... Then I would not agree, and consider that bank run by at least one idiot. Probably more.

All three scenarios above are possible, to me.

None of the above has anything to do with being rude or polite. I would not want to use a bank where personnel is rude. It did happen to me in the past and it was one big reason, albeit not the main one, to change bank.

I see no matter of principle in this no-hat policy, but rather balancing pros and cons. I don't even see an infringement upon freedom. A no-hat policy does not particularly touch ethical, moral, religious values, in most cases (and when it does I agree with Tony C that that should be clarified). Asking to be naked in a bank is in no way similar to wearing no hat. Nudity has moral, ethical, religious implications for 99.9% of customers in the Western world, and possibly all over the world. No-had is just like no-phones. If the benefit is tangible, measured, real, then it can be easily assessed whether the policy makes sense or not.

Mostly, I find in this case that the bank did a very poor job in communicating to the customers, and treating them with the very due respect. Signs everywhere, politeness, and even apologizing for the inconvenience, together with an explanation of what the benefits are and how that is all done for the sake of everyone's safety, would have been much more effective.

I'll just chime in and say that this is not necessarily true. At least in my area.

There is no state or federal law that says I can't conceal-carry inside a bank. It's up to the property owner to make these rules. Because it's relatively difficult to get a carry license in New York, most businesses don't bother posting a no-gun policy at the entrance around here. This includes banks. In the south, it seems more common to have these policies posted even in restaurants.

I keep a TD Bank account open just for cash deposits. I can then pull from TD to my credit union. The TD branch I use most often has been held-up at the drive-thru teller window twice this year. A no-hats policy wouldn't have helped that and they still don't post a no-guns policy at the entrance. There is no security guard either which is something I've never seen at any bank I've been to in this area.

I was only thinking that maybe the ceiling is not the best place for security cameras.

I've always wondered what is the reasoning behind the various, so different security policies around the world. Here in Rome, virtually all banks I went to in the last 5 years have security guards; most of them have metal detectors; very often security doors where you actually walk into a boot that can fit just one person, you are scanned by metal detectors while personnel watches on monitors, and you are actually weighted too (!!).
Sometimes, which is very annoying, you have to leave all metal in security boxes before you even try to get in or doors won't open (including keys, mobile phones, sometimes belts and pens too).
Sometimes I wonder if that's all useless. I don't know.

I imagine that requiring people to strip naked outside the building before entering would reduce robberies by 95%+. Let's do it!

And while we're at it, here's a way to eliminate perhaps 99% of all auto crashes, both minor and "serious":

Just require all vehicles to include a very sharp and pointy 20cm dagger mounted in the centre of the steering wheel, pointed directly at the driver's chest.

Very effective. Obviously we should do it!
And also ban body armour on the driver's chest.

Right, because being forced to take off one's hat is a similar assault on one's liberty to having a dagger put through one's chest if one gets in an accident.

As incursions on freedom go, no hats/sunglasses in a bank is a rounding error compared to things we all have to do each and every day. 10 items or less in the express lane. Don't park in the handicapped space unless you have a pass. Only vehicles with two or more persons in the HOV lane. And on and on.

By textbook definition, each of these infringes upon our liberty in a measurable way, but most of us submit to these restrictions for the greater good. In this case, the greater good is the possibility of a reduction in robberies, which logically follows from the fact that less ability to obscure one's face makes them easier to pick up on the surveillance cameras.

I just don't see the big deal.

This. Anecdotal, sure. Seems like we could identify a few more of those without the hat though.

All sounds very odd. I've never been into a UK bank that has any visible security measures beyond CCTV cameras, having the cashiers behind glass and a "remove your crash helmet" policy.

No security guards, no metal detectors, no weighing, no emptying of pockets, no security doors.

What are you chaps doing in your banks anyway ? I was just thinking back and I've only been inside a branch once in the last twelve months, to pay in a cheque, and even that was optional as I could have mailed it in.

Everything else is done by phone, online or ATM. Is there some quirky US activity that requires your physical presence in the branch ?

Well, Strip-Naked-before-entering policy would not be a valid option by my own example because the benefit would be way smaller than the damage done. Unless you lived in a culture in which nudity has no particular meaning.
The point is how much of your comfort and convenience you want to sacrifice to achieve security to a level which you consider acceptable. Clearly this is to a large extent subjective, but exactly because of that you can't use the reductio ad absurdum approach. Otherwise, by that same token.... Is entering a long-enough password on a website to authenticate, then, and infringement upon one's freedom to enter anywhere I want without wasting my time hitting keys on my keyboard I don't want to hit? Is the convention of saying "hello" an infringement upon my freedom to greet others by yelling instead "I hate you!!!" without them being offended?

Also, I did not mean to sound sarcastic here. I really wonder that. Because one would assume that behind specific security policies there's some study, stats, some data to support them. Which makes me curious how come some banks, here, just rely on bored security personnel, and others treat you as if you're entering a top secret facility right out oaf a Sci-Fi movie. It makes little sense to me, and makes me suspicious there are a lot of arbitrary decisions behind these policies. But, who knows.

I try not to assume stuff, and don't attribute things to intelligent design when they're more likely to be an evolutionary accident or whim.

Just think of the "turn off your cellphones at the petrol pumps" rule that many petrol stations over on this side still post and enforce. Nothing behind it at all. Somebody just thought it would be a good idea once, and didn't bother with any kind of science.

A credit union here in Austin uses a number of booths with a phone, TV, camera, and pneumatic-tube system for interacting with the tellers. It's a bit strange. A news article from 2002 when they were installed cites security, along with efficiency as the reasons. Though it didn't indicate of robberies had been a big problem in the past.

Tony, not having worked in a bank you're not really in a position to comment on the effectiveness of the procedures. Your entire premise is based solely on the inconvenience factor and moral issues with the request of the hat removal. Taym's position is the same/similar. In fact there are significant religious and cultural issues with this requirement besides the ones already mentioned, turbans.

Unless the banks in the US are drastically different, they too should be losing more money due to employee errors or employee malfeasance than to external robbery, at every level, from the lowly branch to the highest corporate. Hat removal is theater.

Please note that by "hat" I don't mean motorcycle helmet or balaclava. Seeing a customer's face is definitely a requirement for
some transactions. But even here there's wiggle room. Most banks here require the use of an ATM card at the teller, with PIN verification. IMO, teller stations could also be outfitted with secure cash dispensers, though that would definitely be pricy.

But if you want to score more than $1-2000, you won't be robbing a bank teller anyway.

And with regards to camera from above - we've all seen plenty of useless footage where a perpetrator was not wearing a hat of any kind, which doesn't make the video any more revealing. You can't identify someone from looking at the top of their head, except maybe to tell if they're an Orthodox Jew wearing a yarmulke.

But hey, I'm not arguing that you can't disagree.

I'll prefer to do business with places that don't treat its customers like would-be criminals.

So the bank you used leaves their cash stacked up the counter then ? Every bank to some extent has to treat the people that come into its branches (which by definition includes their customers) as would-be criminals. I'd be intrigued to hear all about the bank that you use that doesn't do so.

That's how they treat their money (not stacking it on the counter). Nothing to do with how they treat human customers.

Fallacious Appeal to Authority


Flashing your used-to-work-at-a-bank credentials doesn't mean anything unless you can refute my assertions that (a) many hats can be used to obscure the face, and (b) obscuring the face makes it harder to identify criminals on surveillance cameras. The fact that taking off one's hat is a very minor inconvenience is hardly the core of my argument, but it is certainly true.

The idea that I'm not "in a position to comment" is just your attempt to shut down debate when you don't have a legitimate logical argument. If you don't have any actual facts to bring to the table other than your employment history, I'll be exiting the conversation now.

If they could trust people coming into their branches and their staff to not steal the cash they wouldn't need to spend money on safes, secure cash draws, bullet proof screens between the people handling the cash and the public etc

All of these are signs that they are having to treat the public (and therefore their customers) as would be criminals. And apparently Bruno won't deal with businesses that do that.

Which is quite clearly bogus, as every business has to do that to some extent.

.. or even the banks themselves.

But clearly banks do exist, and customers are willing to loan them their hard-earned cash. A little personal respect in return seems reasonable.

Cheers

Andy, I think you're confusing protecting from criminals in a way that's passive to customers with treating customers themselves with a non-passive and invasive, no matter how minor, action. You can take that further if you'd like. Cash itself is serialized, contains at least a dozen or more security features, cameras are an assumption that everyone is a would-be criminal, etc. I suppose it's all a matter of where you draw the line.

Tony, I didn't mean to imply that you should stop debating nor that you weren't in a position to comment on hats. But having worked with specific security measures in some 20 branches does leave me with some education and experience on at least what used to be done, why, the expected effectiveness and anecdotally, on the actual effectiveness of those measures.

You're also now confusing two very different things and this goes to that slippery slope argument. Obscuring the face is distinct and separate from wearing a hat. One doesn't have to be connected to the other and that's why I have a problem with some blanket hat rule.

There are plenty of companies I don't and won't do business with, based on any number of factors, including policies I don't agree with.

If instead of looking up bullet points on debate and arguments instead you focus your attention to the hat subject, you'll find plenty of hits about the very subject in the US and other countries. One important factor to take away from any such observation is that this kind of security isn't universally accepted. There are plenty of institutions that are more than happy to point out they don't have any such policies in place. There are plenty of places to bank.

Though not related to security, If I saw someone giving grief to a breastfeeding mother in an establishment, I'd speak my mind there as well and would have no problem taking my business elsewhere. There are a lot of ass-clowns in the world, and a lot of businesses have them employed making policy unfortunately.

Here's the gist of the entire debate:

Tony:


Me: I do see it as a big enough deal to warrant doing business elsewhere. I have 4 banks all within walking distance, all should be fighting for customer patronage.

I don't see a problem with disagreeing.

So, if I can tease your position out a bit, you would be okay with a rule that bans anything that obscures customers' faces instead of a blanket hat rule?

I'm down with that.

We have policies like that around for banks and gas stations. I've never been asked to remove a hat that I was wearing. Just seems odd to hear it being enforced.

In this area, we don't have security guards in the bank branches either, though.

I'm against those kinds of rules. A rule implies that there are no exceptions. I don't think it would be right to ask someone who had a recent surgery to remove bandages from their face. I don't think it would be right to ask someone who covers their face for religious reasons to uncover.

I just don't think there needs to be a rule for this kind of thing.

Access to one's accounts already requires identification. If someone can identify themselves, then they should have access to their accounts.

Yeah, but this is someone who's robbing the bank. They're not going to identify themselves unless they want to appear on one of those World's Dumbest Criminals shows.

The policy would have to make exceptions for bandage scenario, but not only is that a five or six sigma event, but that person is already conspicuous, and can be given special attention by the bank staff (perhaps asking for identification) before they can leave a note demanding money. Someone who just wears a hat with a brim that can cover their face is in a grey area where they're not quite conspicuous enough, but they do have a reasonably effective way to obscure their face.

Oh, we did have this going on though:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/...robber-brk.html

"more likely" is an assumption itself. Which could be correct. I do not know. I know several organizations, including the one where I work, where a lot of debate has gone into which security measures should be adopted and why (including, where to place cameras, what type of ID should be used, what access control system to adopt, etc.). You're right in saying that evolutionary accident or whim can be the causes for many policies. But I also know for sure that that is not always the case.

Having said this. I did not say the no-hat policy is good or bad. I do not know.
I said that it could be good if backed up by real studies and evidence, and it could be wrong if based on no real factual reason. Both scenarios are possible as far as I can tell, and because of that I would not dismiss the no-hat policy without further info.

I'm sure this is related to security paranoia and the surveillance society that is sweeping the western world. As a libertarian-minded person (to put it mildly), I certainly support their right to have whatever rules they want on their property. But these things always feel like they are imposed upon the banks by governmental regulation, or possibly as insurance requirements (almost entirely regulated by the State). So, it feels awful to come across these things. You are being treated like the suspect of a felony, simply for doing your daily business. You are being surveilled and monitored constantly. It's absolutely the attitude of the police-state enforcers (TSA or otherwise) that is so disgusting. It wasn't, "Sir, please remove your hat it's our policy". It's a barking and commanding attitude. It's getting worse right before our eyes.

I'm just wondering if the policy also applies to tin-foil hats?

Like I said, fellas, look at the forest, not the trees.

It's quaint, but obtaining cash in excess of the daily ATM limit requires a visit to the teller.

Why are you carrying piles of cash around? Are you a closet drug dealer or money launderer?

Seriously though, it's hard to imagine a legitimate business any more that doesn't accept check or debit card.

Here in Belize, you often have to carry piles of cash because MANY places don't accept debit/credit (although the number that do has grown exponentially in the past 5 years).

Another log for the fire.

I am perhaps from an older age group. At one time merchants really didn't care to take plastic for minor purchases. Same for checks. Walking around money was an amount to get you through to the next pay day. And banks closed for the weekend. Yes things have changed.

The amount of money the banks rake in for those small transactions is enormous. The public would be up in arms if the gov was to propose a similar tax hike.

If more people resisted reaching for the plastic, there would be a windfall for the merchants, but competition & inflation will see to the erosion of it. The net effect is we all pay less.

Sadly, I don't expect John Q. is going to stop using plastic, I even use it, but this is mostly when cash cannot be tendered.

The value credit cards add over cash is not just convenience at the point of sale. I favor using my credit card because it's easier to track my expenses when every transaction is itemized. I would never have the patience to keep receipts for every cash transaction and tally them at the end of each month. Having this control over my finances saves me money in the long run, because I'm not making stupid spending decisions that will force me to borrow money later.

The real problem with credit card companies isn't the transaction fees, it's the high interest rates, late fees, etc. If they only give cards to people who pay their balance each month, they go bankrupt tomorrow.

The transaction fees are indeed higher than they'd be an open and competitive market without network effects, anticompetitive behavior, etc. but if you want to start breaking their stranglehold on the consumer, you need to do what the CFPB has done and hit them on the obscene late fees, confusing language in the agreements, and deceptive marketing practices. Focusing on trying to keep down transaction fees arguably attacks the one legitimate purpose they serve, and would force them to try to get more money from penalty interest and late fees on customers who are probably already in financial trouble.

There are plenty of underground transactions other than drugs or laundering that are served by cash.

Then there's also non-business transactions. If I owe someone money, I like to pay them in cash, not write them a cheque. To me a cheque is kind of like a fax. It makes me feel like I'm living my childhood back in the 70's/80's.

I prefer using cash for everything I can. It is easier, quicker, and I don't like the thought of a list of my spending habits on some computer somewhere. I think I'm just old fashioned also.

I can't see how it's easier. The amount of cash in your wallet is an easily-exhaustible resource, whereas if you have your credit card in your wallet, it doesn't run out until you hit your credit limit. So you don't have to worry about restocking your wallet with a trip to the ATM. Similarly, you just have to worry about the one piece of plastic (some people use more than one credit card, but that's a choice) whereas with cash, you have to differentiate between different denominations, do some quick math, etc. Then you have to take change back, and if you're diligent about it, count the change to make sure it's correct.

Seems like a lot more work to me.

I don't think it's faster, either. It's true that the speed advantage of credit cards is often overstated, but studies in this area seem dubious at best.

I'm not attacking you for your personal preference, and totally understand the privacy / Big Brother concerns. But speed and simplicity are not valid arguments for using cash.

It always seems to take longer for somebody to pull the card out, swipe it, go through the menu options, wait for it to get approved, then sign it than just handing over the cash. Maybe it is because the grocery store I use has an automatic change dispenser, but getting change back takes no time at all. No matter how much stuff folks are purchasing when they use cash, the lines just seem to move faster. It could definitely just be a perception, but when I have to use a card, it just feels like I'm waiting forever and people are staring at me waiting to get done.

Yeah, the auto change dispensers are helpful, but they don't generally give you bills back, so you still have to deal with a cashier for those.

A lot of places can process small to medium-sized credit card payments without a signature these days -- I think it depends on how much they're willing to pay the middlemen for the privilege.

It's the amount of risk they are willing to take. For instance, every pay at the pump gas station has some transaction limit per swipe. The station owner can set that to any amount they want. They typically set it to match the garanteed payment limit for unsigned charges. That way they get reimbursed even if a stolen card is used. Charges over that limit must have a signature and be authorized, to get the same guarantee. Or you swipe again.

Seperatly, There was a recent court ruling that the various card companies had conspired to fix merchant fees. One part of the fallout may be that merchants, will be free to offer discounts to customers paying with cash.

Depending on the amount, I usually use a bank transfer. Of course they're free in the UK. I think you North Americans get hammered for those.

Around here that is set at a $100 limit. One of my friends has a RV and he has to swipe his card three times to fill the thing up. It is great watching that.