Posts by Charles Ramos7

Nathan Morris3 said:Well, I guess it's because anyone can have PayPal on their phone without needing contracts, special hardware, or worrying about data theft and fraud... any street vendor can use PayPal, just like how pretty much every street vendor in China uses WhatsApp or something similar.

And maybe you're mixing up cryptocurrencies with payment methods. I'm talking about PayPal being a way to pay, not really discussing crypto itself.

What do you mean by "anyone" can use PayPal? You still need a card to fund the account—meaning you could just pay with cash if you're out of luck, even without PayPal.

Nathan Morris3 said:Actually, I have. I saw someone get locked out there for the first time just because they tried to pay with cash 😁.

I'm guessing you're probably not much of an Abba fan, right? 😉

http://www.abbathemuseum.com/se/cashless

I honestly think the future is all about Apple Wallet, though it feels like it's already here for most currencies.

So, maybe some kind of electronic wallet that just works with a fingerprint or eye scan, and isn't even constantly linked to the banks.

I don't know if you've ever been to China, but WhatsApp is huge and super easy there (among other things). I haven't seen mobile payments used that much on regular streets anywhere else.

Personally, it's a bummer that restaurants in New York City don't take PayPal or something similar. I get that small shop owners don't always want to deal with credit card fees, I really do. But then you get a tourist from Iceland passing through, they don't have any kuna, and they just want a postcard or a snack. We have the tech where you could just give them an email address to pay instantly—it's on every phone—and it would make life easier for everyone, but I guess between the registers and the laws... we might be waiting a while.

Why bother overcomplicating things with PayPal when you can just swipe a card? Well, you could if the big banks didn't want to take a cut. Why is it that you crypto enthusiasts always feel the need to make simple things complicated? 😁

rowdypilot19 said:Well, obviously you haven't either. 🍿

I mean, my take on this... I guess the future is just going to be Apple Pay, though honestly, it feels like it's already here, even if we're talking about all different kinds of currencies.

So, like, some kind of digital wallet that maybe just reacts to a fingerprint or an iris scan to activate, and it probably won't even be constantly linked to the banks at every single second.

What do you mean by "all currencies"? You just buy whatever currency you need when the time comes.

Nathan Morris3 said:Stores actually deal with a huge headache when it comes to cash. They have to pay for armored truck services, waste resources checking for counterfeit bills, deal with counting errors, handle torn money, worry about outside theft, or make sure employees aren't skimming off the top. Plus there's register audits and the fact that handling cash often takes way longer than just swiping a card... I don't know if there's any actual benefit left for retailers in using cash.
And obviously, you have to ask who ends up footing the bill for all that? The customer, I guess. It might get to the point where paying with cash actually becomes more expensive soon.

I'm living for that day. 🎉 Then all those people who refuse to use cards will be coming to me for help. 😁

Laura Chavez93 said:What kind of business would ever implement such a rule without any external pressure—effectively turning away a portion of their own revenue?

They might lose some revenue, sure, but they’d slash overhead costs—kind of like how people predict self-checkout will work. You just grab your stuff and head out. Not to mention how easy everything is with online shopping now.

Nathan Morris3 said:Look, let's be real. I'm the first one to admit cash is totally impractical—it's easy to fake, leads to skimming, fraud, theft, or just simple math errors... there's no debate there, and yeah, the future for cash probably isn't looking bright. But it's also basically that line in the sand where we protect our freedom and privacy.

Whether it disappears completely or just becomes niche is actually kind of irrelevant, I guess. Because once you hit that point where even a few percent of shops won't take cash, the war is already lost. It means that in a couple of years, people might start looking at you like a criminal just for trying to pay with paper money.

It feels like we're just "waiting" for the generation gap to happen. Just like how kids today don't really get what a cassette tape is, maybe future generations won't even know what cash is.

In some ways, we’re already there. It’s not just a few places; it’s basically everywhere once you hit a certain price point. In Italy, they used to have limits around $1,000, though I think they bumped it up toward $3,000 recently.
By the way, if you're struggling with the cashless trend, I'd be more than happy to take your cash and pay with my card instead. Honestly, it’s a win-win for me—I actually love seeing people use cash because those transaction fees are pure profit. If everyone paid me in cash, I’d be living like a Senator.

Nathan Morris3 said:In an ideal—and totally sovereign—world, the people actually living in the country would be the ones making the rules. But with the USA and stuff like that, I guess this battle might already be lost. The system wants oversight even on a gold coin you give your grandson, just so they can tax it later. And honestly, the more control they have over money, the more they can just create it out of thin air. That’s what scares me most. Right now, banks still have to listen to their customers and their concerns, besides just following the regs. In a cashless society, where a bank run is basically impossible because everything is just virtual, some totally different set of rules will take over. And trust me, those rules won't be in our favor. It's not just about the government taxing every little thing; it's more about losing freedom. We could end up becoming slaves to the system. Whoever controls our money, controls us. This tiny bit of cash still floating around is really our last line of defense 😁. Luckily, the Germans still value cash quite a bit, so maybe they won't give up that easily.

I'm not saying you aren't right, but we aren't talking about that. Again, if cash dies out as a way to pay for things, it doesn't mean it ceases to exist entirely. Though, let's be honest, it's never really been practical for daily transactions anyway.

Nathan Morris3 said:I guess both ways have their pros and cons, though it’d be nice if there was one payment method that covered everything. Maybe crypto comes closest to that. I suppose the catch is that what works for one person might be a drawback for someone else. Cash will probably fade out eventually, and those of us who value privacy might lean more toward gold or crypto, even if that ends up being limited too.

Quincy:

I'm not sure how much crypto matters if both wages and prices are still set in actual currency.

What do you mean by "actual currency"? You mean this fiat money backed by someone else's debt? I mean, there's an exchange rate for everything, right?

Yeah.

Nathan Morris3 said:I guess both ways have their pros and cons, though it’d be nice if there was one payment method that covered everything. Maybe crypto comes closest to that. I suppose the catch is that what works for one person might be a drawback for someone else. Cash will probably fade out eventually, and those of us who value privacy might lean more toward gold or crypto, even if that ends up being limited too.

Quincy:

I'm not sure how much crypto matters if both wages and prices are still set in actual currency.

What do you mean by "actual currency"? You mean this fiat money backed by someone else's debt? I mean, there's an exchange rate for everything, right?

First off, we have regulations and laws to deal with. If the only legal tender allowed is "this fiat money backed by someone else's debt," then the exchange rate doesn't really matter.

Dennis Fisher5 said:well, I think that’s actually the heart of the whole issue here because why on earth should it just disappear? It should probably exist alongside everything else, since when we move entirely to digital, we essentially become slaves to a system where a single mouse click can wipe out our entire savings.

besides, I’m not entirely sure how the big banks are going to handle themselves in this new digital landscape once they have to go head-to-head with cryptocurrencies.

Nobody is saying it won't exist. The real headache right now is actually the opposite—in plenty of places, you don't even have a choice because they only take cash.

I'm not convinced how much crypto will actually matter if our paychecks and everyday prices stay tied to the US dollar.

Dennis Fisher5 said:I never actually suggested that we should ban banks entirely, since anyone who wants to use them certainly can
I just really wish we had the actual freedom to choose our own way of doing things, because right now, it feels like that choice has been taken away from us.

What kind of choice are you talking about?

Even other major banks or global groups don't really offer these same services across different countries ☕

Ronald Chavez79 said:BlackRock, just wait until the time comes...

Sent from my Galaxy S7

Figure out what? 😵 My insurance policy doesn't have anything to do with the guy who might accidentally hit me.

Ronald Chavez79 said:It's because they simply refuse to pay out—especially those smaller claims ranging from $1,000 up to $667... they deal with an endless mountain of disputes involving companies like Eurohertz, Adriatic, and NFIB

Honestly, things are even more pathetic when you look at the situation with Rocky Mountains/Sava Insurance
...
And yet, these guys act like they're the gold standard....
America
Generali
Allianz
Allstate
Vienna ...

Sent from my SM-G930F

What's that got to do with me? 🍿

Ronald Chavez79 said:Vienna offers the best rates, though I’d personally suggest looking into State Farm or Allstate instead... definitely steer clear of Agram.

Sent from my Galaxy S7

Why is that?

analogcanyon29 said:I was wondering if anyone knew where I might be able to go to set up one of those prepaid cards? Also, does anyone happen to know what the monthly service fee usually looks like for them?

JP Morgan Chase, for instance—they don't charge any fees:

http://www.jpmorganchase.com/personal/banking/prepaid-cards

Nathan Morris3 said:I'm not really sure why the OP even started this discussion. Usually, this kind of stuff comes from those far-right websites claiming "immigrants are stealing our jobs," which seems like a red flag. It looks like they just linked to a six-month-old article outlining Marine Le Pen's talking points without adding any actual expert analysis or logic. So, maybe we shouldn't take the OP's fears too seriously. If those are the same worries Marine Le Pen has, they might matter in politics, but I don't think they make much sense economically.

Regarding your comment, I'm not sure if you meant to pull my words out of context (hopefully it was an accident!), but here is the part you missed:
"I'll just limit my point to low-wage jobs."

That wasn't my intention at all. I don't think an $18 an hour wage is bad, especially since it's significantly better than what people are "afraid" of making.

It looks like Japan is pulling more interest from people here than Germany is. 😁

Nathan Morris3 said:Regarding your first point, unemployment in Germany actually dropped by 0.1%, down to 6.6% (about 2.91 million). That might sound like a massive number, but I think it's just a cumulative figure that covers everything. The bottom line, I guess, is that anyone who actually wants a job in Germany can find one. I'll stick to talking about low-paying jobs since I'm pretty sure those can be turned on or off whenever needed. I don't know the exact breakdown of that 6.6% off the top of my head, but it probably includes people who just don't want to work or can't.
Like I mentioned before, maybe those 1-euro jobs aren't really an option, but more of a requirement for people on long-term assistance. It’s less about choice and more about preventing system abuse, since there are plenty of folks who just don't want to work. The logic seems to be that if you're on social aid and refuse to work, your benefits get cut by 30%. It's meant to give people a way to earn their keep. So, I guess don't let the 1-euro thing confuse you—it's more of a nudge than actual compensation, which is probably why minimum wage doesn't apply. As for your other comment, I think the answer lies in the fact that Germany has been open to workers from across the European Union for years now. And what happened? Not much, I guess. Even with all that openness, Germany still struggles to find enough young workers.

The real question is what happens when the first economic tremor hits—you know, during a crisis or layoffs, and things get even more tense... but I suppose that's more of an integration issue.
Since we're on the topic of the economy, I won't get into all the ethical reasons for helping refugees fleeing German conflicts, or the general idea of helping traumatized refugees by giving them work. But even setting ethics aside, I guess Germany would face a much bigger mess if a million refugees were just wandering the streets without jobs (dealing with crime, ghettos, stigma, and frustration...).

If that's the case, this whole thread is pointless. The OP seems unnecessarily worried about nothing.☕

Nathan Morris3 said:Basically, Germany is short on workers. They're missing young people because of a huge demographic issue (unlike France, I suppose). It’s become this political thing since Germany is trying to bridge that gap, and they've been pretty clever about how they handle it. So, if we agree they need young labor (we could totally have a separate debate about that if you want), then asking if there will be enough jobs for everyone is kind of pointless. I haven't dug into the specific data, but I imagine the shortage covers everything—from doctors down to those low-paying roles.

From a macro perspective (which is what actually matters), those low-paying jobs are the easiest to create. You could hire an extra 10,000 people just to clean up streets in German cities. It increases value through cleanliness, the state pays for it, half of that flows right back into the budget via taxes and contributions, and the other half cycles back through spending. It doesn't just come back; it kicks off processes that boost GDP and create new value. At worst, it's macroeconomically neutral, but realistically, it's probably a win for the German economy.
The only real issue would be if remittances spike and more money leaves the country than value is created, but I guess the thing with low-wage jobs is that people barely earn enough to survive, so there isn't much cash to send back to a "homeland." So, with low-paying jobs, there's not much risk. With high-paying ones, the math is different because you're bringing in skilled people, so you need a way to turn that knowledge into GDP, otherwise you aren't using their potential and might see market shifts. But I'm sure the Germans have ways to fill those gaps too.

P.S. What I'm saying applies to markets like Germany—a country that exports more than it imports, produces things, attracts talent, and needs young workers. They can, and probably must, make this work.

I might agree regarding the labor shortage in Germany (though I don't quite get why they'd bother with those €1 jobs if they're supposedly desperate for people even at €8.50 🤔), but Germany isn't some isolated island. It’s part of the European Union, so they can always legally hire workers from elsewhere in the EU or just move their production facilities there.

Nathan Morris3 said:Are we talking about those low-paying roles?
I mean, there are always low-paying jobs available, though I don't really know enough about the psychology behind them to say for sure. Maybe not every job is one where it doesn't matter who shows up. I suppose a hardworking Syrian might do a better job than a lazy American, or a hardworking American might beat out a lazy Syrian... I guess it depends on what kind of passport you hold. Just natural selection, I guess. And besides, I wonder how many Americans are actually heading to Germany for €8.50 an hour.

BTW, I forgot to mention that 25 years ago, Germany was already dealing with something similar: millions of capable young people who even spoke German were flooding the labor market. What happened then? Well, I guess not much changed, if you ignore the "Solidarity surcharge"😁 .

We're talking about minimum wage jobs here. I wasn't just referring to Americans; I mentioned Romanians too, and I meant other locals (EU citizens) as well. If Americans won't do it, there won't be enough locals willing to work for minimum wage. Maybe Syrians are hardworking, but the real question is whether they'll all get their paperwork sorted and learn the language...