Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Why Customers Like Check Cashers and Payday Lenders

Many Americans prefer alternatives to traditional banking.

The Unbanking of America: How the New Middle Class Survives, by Lisa Servon, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 272 pages, $27

Houghton Mifflin HarcourtHoughton Mifflin HarcourtMy parents opened my first savings account for me when I was seven," Lisa Servon writes at the beginning of The Unbanking of America: How the New Middle Class Survives. "The teller gave me a green Pulaski [Savings and Loan] passbook with gold lettering. It made me feel important, like I'd crossed some threshold and joined a club that bigger kids and grownups got to be a part of."

Clearly nostalgic for her rite of passage, Servon, a professor of city and regional planning at the University of Pennsylvania, sets out to discover why that experience has become alien to so many modern Americans, and what practices and services they've adopted to replace banks in meeting their financial needs. She speaks with experts, entrepreneurs, and people trying to make ends meet, and she even takes jobs at a check-cashing store and a payday loan business. She concludes that banks as currently constituted aren't a good choice for everybody, and that many alternatives—including some options widely reviled by pundits and politicians—do a better job of serving many people's needs.

The numbers of Americans who either don't have bank accounts (the "unbanked") or use them sparingly alongside alternative financial services (the "underbanked") can be startling if you were raised on bank robber Willie Sutton's apparently apocryphal wisdom that "that's where the money is." "As of 2013, the year of the [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's] most recent survey, approximately 8 percent of Americans were unbanked and another 20 percent were underbanked," notes Servon.

The 2015 survey, released after her book was written, finds nearly identical numbers, but alienation from the banking system is even more remarkable in some major communities. In 2015, the Albuquerque Journal found that 11 percent of area households had no bank accounts, while 24.4 percent kept one account while also using alternative services. Likewise, in 2015 The Kansas City Star reported that 12 percent of local households—and 45 percent of local African-American families—completely avoided banks.

Why do so many Americans shun the institutions traditionally devoted to saving and loaning money? The answer, many people tell Servon, is that banks don't seem to want their business and make it too difficult and expensive to get anything done.

"Banks want one customer with a million dollars," the owner of one check-cashing chain tells her. "Check cashers like us want a million customers with one dollar."

The check-cashing magnate has a clear interest in portraying his business in a populist way, especially given the criticism his industry faces from such politicians as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and such activist organizations as the Public Interest Research Group. But as Servon learns, people who use such services seem to agree with that description. Check cashers and payday lenders may charge seemingly high fees, but they're knowable fees.

"Customers can find it difficult to predict when banks will charge them a fee (they sometimes change the timing) and what the amount of the fee will be; this lack of clarity can be costly," Servon writes. "Now imagine the interior of a check casher—or visit one. It resembles a fast food restaurant more than a bank. Posters tell you what products are sold, and large signs above the teller windows list every product, along with its price."

Alternative services come with clear costs—and they move fast. Somebody facing bills needs a paycheck cashed now, not after an arbitrary delay while the check clears. Unpaid rent or unpurchased groceries are bigger concerns than a few dollars in fees.

Also, those fees aren't necessarily so high when you consider the available options. When concerned Oregon lawmakers restricted "expensive" payday loans in 2007, borrowers shifted to comparable products offered by banks. "It's called an overdraft," Servon reports, "and if it had a repayment period of seven days, the APR for a typical incident would be over 5,000 percent." The options in New York, where payday loans are entirely illegal, are even more stark. Servon interviews loan sharks who satisfy borrowers' needs entirely beyond the reach of regulators' conceptions of how markets should work.

In addition, Servon points out that an estimated 6 percent of Americans over the age of 15 participate in rotating savings and credit associations (ROSCAS)—a fancy name for clubs in which participants put money aside and make lump sums available to start businesses and finance major purchases. Based in traditional cultural practices from around the world, such clubs are governed by mutually agreeable rules and are unmonitored except by the communities in which they operate. ROSCAS meet needs that established banks can't or won't satisfy in an understandable way, especially (but not exclusively) for low-income immigrants.

Financially sophisticated young Americans are also turning away from traditional banking. Peer-to-peer lending through online services such as Prosper and Lending Club "requires far less paperwork than other loans and is perceived to be more transparent than payday loans," writes Servon. Loans through these platforms tend to be relatively inexpensive, too. Online-only banks such as Simple and Walmart's GoBank cater to customers seeking greater transparency and lower costs, and some offer financial advice that millennials in particular find helpful.

Servon's explanation for why banks are so opaque in their operations and unresponsive to consumer needs is a bit self-contradictory. On one hand, she attributes the disconnect to greed and lack of oversight. "The spirit of deregulation explains the massive move away from policy that protected consumers and smaller banks, launching the Wild West attitude that gained momentum over the next two decades," she claims. She also laments the loss of a supposed old-timey sense of "public interest" and insists that modern banks have "focused so single-mindedly on profit that they've sacrificed the well-being of their customers."

But that's not the tale she hears from everybody.

"The regulators are causing the opposite of the desired effect by making it so dangerous now to serve a lower-income segment," JoAnn Barefoot tells the author. A former official with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, and a deputy controller of the currency, Barefoot points to a web of red tape—much of it intended to battle discrimination—that makes serving many potential customers a legal minefield.

The Albuquerque Journal report on the unbanked also noted that "regulations stemming from the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 and the Patriot Act of 2001 have created an almost adversarial credit environment for people whose finances are in cash."

Traditional banks have meanwhile gained a reputation for working hand-in-hand with government. That relationship certainly doesn't serve the needs of the many customers, from illegal immigrants to established businesses, who want to avoid official scrutiny of their transactions. When Servon asks a successful building contractor why he uses check-cashing services, he answers, "The insurance, the taxes, the workers comp—it's killing us. Some guys try to hide as much of their income as they can—they got two-million-dollar businesses and they report half a mil. I'm telling you—it's impossible to stay afloat if you don't do some of that."

Photo Credit: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

On select articles, Reason is testing a new comment promotion feature developed by SolidOpinion. Commenters can purchase points and bid to promote their comments and/or the comments of others. Winning comments are displayed at the top of the comment thread for each article, and are identified as “promoted comments.” Point purchases and bidding are handled SolidOpinion. Please send any questions and feedback to promoted-comments@reason.com.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    "Not that banks aren't perfectly capable of making their own problems"

    So much equivocation. I'm cancelling my subscription and starting my own libertarian site, with blackjack and hookers.

  • Animal||

    Don't forget buttsecks and Mexicans.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Why do so many Americans shun the institutions traditionally devoted to saving and loaning money?

    Because a lot of people are rightly concerned about getting involved with businesses openly lobbying for the legal right to defraud their customers?

  • GILMORE™||

    Is that what you think the CFPB prevents?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    It's what I think the fiduciary duty rule prevents.

  • GILMORE™||

    Even worse

    I'm a fiduciary in some areas. It shouldn't apply to advisors. Why are they called "advisors"? Because they give advice. If you make 'bad advice" a crime, everyone will hew to consensus to avoid risk. Which if you understand anything about markets, increases it.

    Basically, you're ignorant

  • Stormy Dragon||

    1.) There's a big difference between "bad advice" and self-dealing out of your client's accounts. We shouldn't even need a federal law as it was a common law tort, but the pro-fraud wing of the Republican party has been very good at blocking people's access to common law remedies.

    2.) If you don't want to be responsible for the content of your advice, then stop selling your services as an advisor. Without fiduciary duty, you're just a salesman, so stop charging people for a service you aren't actually willing to provide.

  • GILMORE™||

    You are confusing an advisor with a trustee

    Which actually explains who likes the fiduciary rule = lawyers, who would be among the only real beneficiaries

    Well, lawyers, and State Street/Black Rock et al, who would get a free trillion$ in free assets to manage

    What little you think you know about this issue is wrong

  • GILMORE™||

    ""what could be bad about a federal law that treats everyone as equally ignorant as me? I can't see any bad side effects in forcing hundreds of billions of $ into vanilla indexes. We have too much diversity in the marketplace. No one needs 23 kinds of ETF. "

  • GILMORE™||

    "" Without fiduciary duty, you're just a salesman""

    I think this is a revealing remark mainly for its assumption that salespeople have zero interest in providing value to clients.

    It's the sort of thing I imagine schoolteachers think; people who've never been inside a business, and are suspicious of profit motive as essentially corrupting

  • Stormy Dragon||

    When an "advisor" faced with those 23 different ETFs consistently chooses the one that has a lower return and higher fees, but which happens to be paying him a big kickback for each client he sends their way, then yes, he has zero interest in providing value to clients. He's a con artist, and his ass ought to be in jail.

    And this is the be problem with our current system. If someone gets caught cheating at poker, the Democrats' response will be a law to ban poker and the Republicans' response will be a law to legalize card cheating. Neither side wants to actually punish the cheater.

  • GILMORE™||

    When an "advisor" faced with those 23 different ETFs consistently chooses the one that has a lower return and higher fees, but which happens to be paying him a big kickback for each client he sends their way

    What you don't understand is that the few cases where that's the case, it's not because the advisor is scumbag, but because his sponsoring broker sets up those incentives.

    And the client chooses those institutions willingly

    You dont understand the problem, so I'm not surprised you like the worst 'solutions'

  • GILMORE™||

    ^^sorry, the first paragraph there was supposed to be quoted.

    Stormy = I'd go into more detail about why i think the problem you describe is actually very rare, and usually far more benign than you think, but i'm not sure its worth the time.

    the fact is that there are not "big kickbacks" really for most brokers/advisors; they're more like "reduced trading fees" or other structured incentives which reduce costs on his/her end rather than the clients. What's the difference & cost and performance between a Large Cap Value fund from State Street vs. Blackrock vs. Invesco vs.? a few basis points here and there. yes, it adds up, and sometimes its offset by reduced overall management fees, or higher wrap fees.

    the problem you describe isn't even all that significant to most people. Hell, I can assure you = far more people are being "ripped off" by fees in mutual funds that they got through their company sponsored 401K plan than they are by independent financial advisors who happen to prefer "fund family X" vs. "fund family Y". and the reason they prefer those things is actually for reason far less venal and greedy = often its because they get better research from that fund family, or get access to services they can offer to clients.

    Basically, i don't think you (or many others) know squat about how the industry you're proposing to regulate *actually works*. And that's generally a recipe for epic stupidity which creates more problems than it 'solves'

  • GILMORE™||

    Lastly =

    I actually agree there's a problem with "fee structuring" in finance, writ large

    Most financial services involve everyone selling the same product and only being creative in how they make money off it.

    There's not enough real competition. There are also legal bars to most "innovation". The solution is not "more rules" ... It's "get rid of the structural incentives that favor big institutional investors"

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So, it sounds like you are familiar with financing, so I have a question for you.

    1) What are your thoughts on High-Frequency Trading?

    2) How do you feel about this idea of changing the marketplace model to one of staggered batch auctions, rather than just racing to who bids first?

    Paper Link if Unfamiliar

  • GILMORE™||

    What are your thoughts on High-Frequency Trading?

    1) I've only had very-peripheral contact with that sort of area of business; i worked @ a sell-side bank for a few years and sat through a few presentations and got to chat with the guys who ran that shop.

    the impression i got was that it was a good profit center, but not absurd; it executed thousands of trades an hour and makes pennies per-trade. the effect on the larger market seems to be to cause higher volatility than average in the first and last hour of the trading day.

    Beyond that, i'm not sure why it matters to the average investor.

    2) don't know. will read the paper. the only questions i'd have is, "what's so broke about the current system, and why is that necessarily an improvement"? if its a good idea, i'd think it would be an area for competition with NYSE/NASDAQ et al; why not have multiple marketplaces and let the participants decide which presents the best forum?

  • GILMORE™||

    *footnote:

    I think (from what i've seen) HVT/HFT is only one category in the larger field of "algorithmic/black-box trading" , and that in that world, that the 'plain vanilla' high-volume trading strategies are fairly benign, boring .... and while they do artificially amplify trading volumes (and consequently intra-day volatility), that there aren't any particular obvious negative consequences for other participants.

    *some companies whose shares became targets for HVT strategies *have* complained that the unnecessary churn had some unpleasant costs from their own POV ... but i'm not sure how significant it is, since its only relevant to very very liquid large-issue equity.

    Other black-box trading, i'm not so sure about; i think there is potential for problems, but haven't seen any major evidence for it yet.

    e.g. "one algorithm trying to game another one", where you have one automated trader trying to create the conditions to trigger an automated response from another, and consequently generates huge amounts of "noise" in the stock behavior which may mislead other market participants.

    there's a recently written book i have floating around somewhere that was all about this stuff, but i never got around to it. if i find it i'll mention the title here.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'd like that if you do find it.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Because they want to retain the last vestiges of their right to privacy in a total surveillance state?

  • ||

    "Why do so many Americans shun the institutions traditionally devoted to saving and loaning money?"

    You mean the institutions that support a system of making money from debt(not wealth), and then stealing and looting your land, labor, capital, and tools(actual wealth)? I'll let you think about that for a moment...

  • Sevo||

    "...and that "it's unclear whether the USPS has the capacity to distribute financial services efficiently.""

    No, it hasn't.

  • Jimbo||

    Ok then, we'll go with the DMV!

  • Sevo||

    Sorry. They've been drafted to provide medial care.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Question: Will the mailman finally be able to shoot dogs when he becomes the collection agent for USPS financial services?

  • chemjeff||

    "it's unclear whether the USPS has the capacity to distribute financial services efficiently."

    Are you fkn kidding me? Get the inept government mail service, the one that can't make money even though it's a monopoly, involved in financial services???

  • XenoZooValentine||

    it's unclear whether the USPS has the capacity to distribute *mail* efficiently, for fuck's sake.

  • ||

    At least the USPS is constitutional.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Maybe people should stop being poor.

  • ||

    Hey JB. Has anyone asked you lately to send them an email? Just curious...

  • Jimbo||

    Dissension in the ranks!

  • ||

    Hey, I just asked how his email life is going. I'm concerned.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Not that I'm aware of.

  • Jimbo||

    We have the winning Libertarian answer above! Thanks for playing and be sure to congratulate JB.

  • ||

    Well, being poor is already illegal. Just ask the homeless. Needz moar cops to beat up the homeless!

  • Akira||

    The leftist opposition to payday loans is emblematic of their faulty reasoning, which holds that low-grade options should be illegal.

    They think that if they outlaw "substandard" housing and impose occupancy limits, all the poor people will move into 3-bedroom ranch houses in the suburbs.

    They think that if they outlaw jobs that pay below the "minimum wage", all the poor people will get hired at $15 per hour and get health insurance, mandatory maternity leave, and a host of other expensive benefits.

    And of course, they think that if they outlaw payday loans, poor people will just engage in savings and wise investments and become rich.

  • ||

    "The leftist opposition to payday loans is emblematic of their faulty reasoning, which holds that low-grade options should be illegal."

    But somehow it's ok to give people mortgage loans that you know they cannot afford to pay back, or to some up with some ill thought out scheme to get them to trade in their perfectly functional car that they've paid off for a new car that they cannot afford.

    /Prog logic

  • Jimbo||

    + No Money Down!

  • chemjeff||

    "The leftist opposition to payday loans is emblematic of their faulty reasoning, which holds that low-grade options should be illegal."

    Oh come on. Maybe the leftist opposition to payday lenders is a little bit of this. But in my experience, it is much more about preventing perceived exploitation of the poor. Which is fine. But being opposed to exploitation doesn't necessarily mean that such behavior should be illegal. That's all.

  • Akira||

    "But in my experience, it is much more about preventing perceived exploitation of the poor."

    That *perceived* is where the problem lies, I think. Leftists see it as "exploitation" to provide things to the poor at a cost they can actually afford.

  • chemjeff||

    Leftists see it as "exploitation" to provide things to the poor at a cost they can actually afford.

    No, in this case, the claims of exploitation may actually have some merit. The interest rates at payday lenders are very high and it is easy to fall into a trap of perpetual check-cashing so as to keep up with all the hot checks that the customer is writing. I DON'T think this means that payday lenders or check-cashing places should be illegal. But I also don't think that 5,000% interest rates are anything to be defended or celebrated. I think they should be legal for the same reason that I think heroin should be legal, because it's not my place to decide for you how to spend your money. But if someone asked me for advice "hey, should I start a heroin habit?" I would say absolutely not. Same deal with the payday lenders. If someone asked me "hey, should I cash my checks at payday lenders, or should I write hot checks in order to get advances on my paycheck?" I would say absolutely not.

  • Diane Merriam||

    When you need money for something urgent *NOW*, those "high" interest rates can be lower than the costs of not having them available at all.

  • Sevo||

    Exactly.
    A third party presuming the knowledge of the two trading parties is wrong, always.

  • Akira||

    When people are not educated in economic matters, they seem to have this idea of fairness - some metric by which all transactions can be judged. They believe that they can look at the terms of any transaction, roll it around in their head for about 10 seconds, and say, "no, that's not fair" or "yes, that's fair". I'm sure we've all seen people do this. What's really interesting is to press them on what "fair" really means and what kind of calculations they did to arrive at that judgement.

    So it's easy to see why people think they have the right to butt into private transactions. Payday loans should be illegal because they're not fair. The minimum wage should be raised because the current level is not fair. And the government should have unlimited authority to alter the terms of any contractual agreement should it be discovered that the terms are not fair.

    It's hard to rid people of these faulty ideas. Almost impossible. I heard someone commit the fairness fallacy one time, and I really pressed them on the details of how they came to that conclusion. They never had an answer; they basically just reasoned in a circle with statements like "it's not fair because that's not an equitable price" or "he deserves to be paid more than that".

    Sometimes I think it's easier to let these people go and focus on educating a new generation on the correct principles of economics.

  • GILMORE™||

    "being opposed to exploitation doesn't necessarily mean that such behavior should be illegal."

    Lol

    As though "force" isn't the only incentive the left understands

  • chemjeff||

    Well I know. When they see an injustice, they think that alone justifies government swooping down like some Superman and saving the day. But while their methods are wrong, it doesn't mean that there really might not be an injustice.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    I see where you're coming from, i think, but I have a hard time applying "injustice" to a deal somebody entering into willingly knowing all the terms in advance, assuming they bothered to read the contract.

    (Not to say hiding "and your first born child" in the contract is OK, but that's not what's going on here.)

    Some people really do have use of a payday loan as a last resort to deal with some temporary problem. That so many people are so unprepared as to make this a thriving industry is an indictment of the education, employment, and financial systems perhaps, but not necessarily of the payday lenders.

  • Diane Merriam||

    The one I've used has it all detailed on a huge chart on the wall in big numbers. Exactly what it will cost you for how much of an advance.

  • Sevo||

    "But while their methods are wrong, it doesn't mean that there really might not be an injustice."

    If two parties are freely trading, any "injustice" is in the mistaken opinion of a third party.

  • Trigger Hippie||

    Yep. I said 'fuck off' to the traditional banking system about six years ago and joined my local credit union. For a working-class puke who rarely has more than a few grand saved up at a time and doesn't make large ticket item purchases such as myself, it made a hell of a lot more sense.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I am not even really sure how wealthy one needs to be before Credit Unions stop making sense.

  • Tagore Smith||

    Yeah, I'm really bad with money, personally. I'm good at making it, but I'm not very good at keeping it- I might bring in 300k of profit in a year and only pay myself 70k. I do sometimes wonder where the money went... I suppose I should pay more attention to the business side of things, but....

  • Animal||

    Credit unions don't work very well if you do a lot of international business. At least the ones I've used don't.

  • Sevo||

    "Jerry Brown: If Trump is elected, we'll build a wall around California"
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art.....892193.php

    Awlrighty, then:
    "Trump administration deals a big setback to Caltrain"
    [...]
    " Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao has put the brakes on $647 million for Caltrain to go electric — and in the process pretty much killed hopes for high-speed rail coming to San Francisco anytime soon.
    [...]
    "I never imagined that the electrification of a train would be subjected to such brutal, partisan politics," Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto"
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/.....941880.php

    It's possible she said that with a straight face; congress-critters didn't get there by being the sharpest knives.

  • Akira||

    "Trump administration deals a big setback to Caltrain"

    And you know - you just KNOW - that California "progressives" are going to bemoan this move as the thing that destroyed their fancy choo choo project, which was going along just perfectly with no problems whatsoever until that mean old Trump went and messed it up.

  • Sevo||

    "A new, confidential federal report shows that the initial segment of California's partially federally-funded high speed rail (HSR) project will come in massively over budget and far behind schedule, the Los Angeles Times reports.
    The Times obtained the Federal Railroad Administration risk analysis report, which shows projected costs for just the first 118-mile Central Valley section of the "bullet train" will soar to 150 percent — $3.6 billion more, over a previous estimate. It's the "bridges, viaducts, trenches and track from Merced to Shafter" that could now cost between $9.5 and $10 billion dollars. This section of the project won't even yet serve the promised dream of a San Francisco.
    http://www.breitbart.com/calif.....peed-rail/

    Yep, and they'll get away with it for the same reason this report on taxpayer costs was "confidential".

  • XenoZooValentine||

    "I never imagined that the electrification of a train would be subjected to such brutal, partisan politics,"

    Well, he used to hang them, but we hoped electricity would be more humane, then we moved on to lethal injection.

    I miss the good ol' days when you'd just take trains out back and shoot 'em, personally. Ain't had a good train-shootin' around these here parts in a dogs age, I tell you what. Why, back when I was a young'n and the missus was was a schoolmarm's daughter with a wild streak and a good eye for squirrel, there was this train that got caught caught colludin' with the squirrels. Now people took that sorta thing real serious back then. But the only witness they had was this other train that swore up and down that this train opened the granary to those little monsters, which is awkward because that's where and when we and the missus met. Anyway, they shot that sucker full of holes, sent it straight to the devil's scrapyard, and just a week later the eye-witness train was caught in possession of unregistered nuts. The moral of the story is: Sometimes life ain't fair. And always protect your nuts.

  • Akira||

    "I never imagined that the electrification of a train would be subjected to such brutal, partisan politics,"

  • MarconiDarwin||

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Let's see if this fixes it.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Final attempt to un-bork the italics, if this fails I give up.

  • Akira||

    "I never imagined that the electrification of a train would be subjected to such brutal, partisan politics,"

  • Akira||

    What the fuck happened to my comment?

    The missing part of that comment was: Why do people try to achieve something through POLITICAL means, then complain when it's POLITICIZED? They're the ones who made it political in the first place! If they wanted to build a high-speed rail line without political obstacles, they should have just started a private company and built the damn thing themselves. (yes, I realize that private companies still face political obstacles)

  • Sevo||

    Hard to get the union votes if you can't brag that you brought the swag.

  • Jerryskids||

    She concludes that banks as currently constituted aren't a good choice for everybody, and that many alternatives—including some options widely reviled by pundits and politicians—do a better job of serving many people's needs

    While I'm so very fucking grateful there's an academic who's taken the time to second-guess what's for my own good and who's willing to put her imprimatur on my ability to make decisions for myself, I'd kinda like to think there are at least a few people who might look at the fact that if tons of people are doing something and they don't understand why maybe the people who are doing the thing know more than the person who doesn't understand why they're doing it. Or maybe, you know, you could just go mind your own damn business if you don't know what my business is.

  • RabbitHead||

    They could even mind their own damn business when they DO know what my business is.

  • ||

    "They could even mind their own damn business when they DO know what my business is."

    I wish Reason had an upvote option.

  • Jerryskids||

    who didn't close the ital tag?

  • Tagore Smith||

    I'm pretty banked at the moment, though I sometimes regret it- the state of New York keeps cleaning out my checking account over tax issues I neither remember nor understand, to the tune of over 10k in the last year.

    But when I was a young man in Montreal, just trying to survive, I wasn't banked at all, and I kind of liked it. I remember going to one of those check-cashing places and pulling a $600.00 commission check out of my tobacco can, looking scruffy as fuck, and having them be like "How the hell does a guy who looks like you make 600 a week (this was the early 90s)?"

    So they called around to make sure but, in the end, they handed me my $600.00 in cash, minus 3% or so. Yeah, baby- I make a lot more than 600 a week now, and it gets direct-deposited and then confiscated by various tax agencies. I kind of miss the days when I'd go down to the check-cashing place and have them count me out my money.

  • Tagore Smith||

    Go fuck yourelves

  • mtrueman||

    "Customers can find it difficult to predict when banks will charge them a fee (they sometimes change the timing) and what the amount of the fee will be; this lack of clarity can be costly,"

    Why don't these customers get paid in ready cash rather than something that allows a bank, a check-casher or payday lender to take their skim? It seems to me that the more you get to keep of your wages, the better.

  • ||

    "Why don't these customers get paid in ready cash rather than something that allows a bank, a check-casher or payday lender to take their skim? It seems to me that the more you get to keep of your wages, the better."

    I don't know of any employers other than those hiring illegals, or under the table workers that pay in anything other than a paper check or direct deposit. In fact many companies like Target, Walmart, etc. give you a payroll debit card if you don't have direct deposit.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    Why do people prefer banks a lot more then?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    At least some of them might get one as a marker of social status, that is, they don't want to be seen as the kind of person who doesn't have a bank account.

    Mostly because banks are much better at marketing to new customers? A lot of people probably don't even know what a credit union is.

  • creech||

    I can remember places, early in my career, where there were pay envelopes with cash given every Friday.
    It made it easy for workers to stop at the bar before heading home and turning over the envelope to the wife.
    When our company switched to checks, the Union actually bargained for having the occasional overtime or bonus checks cut separately so the guys could turn over the regular check to the wife and not tell her about the OT check which was cashed and spent as the workers saw fit!

  • Agen Judi||

    maybe its easy to get the money right??

    skbola.com

  • ||

    test

  • ||

    test again
    and again

  • Real Books||

    "Jerry Brown: If Trump is elected, we'll build a wall around California"

    Loud cheers from 49 other states.

    Get to work, Jerry. He's been president for a month now.

  • esteve7||

    Been a member of a Credit Union and have worked for them ever since I was 18. Went in to open up an account after becoming an adult, saw a help wanted sign, and 12 years later I'm still in the industry.

    Not all Credit Unions are saints, but I've witnessed first hand from my 4 years as a teller how much better they do things. I helped countless people improve their situation when banks wouldn't even give them a chance. It really does matter

  • ||

    I am so used to credit or debit cards being used. So if people are moving away from banks, are they also moving away from using the 'plastic?'

  • CE||

    Clearly nostalgic for her rite of passage, Servon, a professor of city and regional planning at the University of Pennsylvania, sets out to discover why that experience (opening a savings account) has become alien to so many modern Americans.

    Gee, maybe it's the 0.025% interest rates the banks are paying.

  • CE||

    Everything is italicized

  • ||

    Politicians who are connected to and have friends/donors from banks want to limit the competition?! Who would've thought?!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online