When are banks finally going to start acting normal?

Chris Stewart3 said:It seems every major bank in this country carries itself with the unearned arrogance of some higher power. One has to wonder if anyone will ever put an end to this condescending attitude toward the public.
For instance, it would be far more efficient if employers simply paid us in cash. That way, we wouldn't have to deal with banks bleeding citizens dry through endless transaction fees or dragging them into unnecessary overdraft territory just to manage basic expenses. Rather than actually providing financial education, they seem solely focused on stripping people of their hard-earned money, acting as if they practically own us.
Is there any way we can push for a meaningful shift in this relationship?

Ronald Allen said:What kind of commission are you even talking about...?
If someone actually started paying your salary in cash, it would probably just mess up your relationship with the bank even more, because we all know what happens when you stop having regular deposits hitting your checking account.
It's not like banks are forcing people into overdrafts; people just choose to screw up their own finances, and the banks just sit there rubbing their hands together—it's a little bit of sweet satisfaction for them. It’s not that the banks bought us, it’s that we sold ourselves.

Chris Stewart3, man, this isn't Looney Tunes, so don't start trolling here too.

Seriously, give me a break... 🙂

Chris Stewart3 said:Oh, absolutely, it's entirely our own fault. What stings the most is how we handed over our entire banking system to foreign interests; the truth is, they didn't come here to invest in us, they came to extract from us. If the majority of people actually shifted their loyalty toward domestic institutions, things would change significantly. It isn't just that citizens are beholden to these banks—it's the entire economy; in short, we're looking at disaster.

Charles Martin78 said:Don't you worry, it’s all about to kick off. Ever since yesterday, people have already started pulling their savings out of the banks, and I suspect we'll see more and more of that happening as long as this tense atmosphere persists—especially if someone at the top decides to make some nasty "cost-cutting" moves.

At the same time, you can bet they'll hike up interest rates on loans, jack up those monthly service fees, and squeeze us for every penny under the guise of a "credit rating downgrade" or some other equally ridiculous excuse...

Throw in a few delayed paychecks or late Social Security payments, and well—it’s going to be absolute chaos out there...

Charles Ramos7 said:Well, nobody is stopping you from hitting up a broker and buying shares in those "foreign" banks just like I did. You get the dividends, the invites to shareholder meetings...
That way, they aren't 100% owned by outsiders anymore. Or better yet, you buy stock, your brother buys some, your uncle, your grandma, your best man... before you know it, you've got a seat at the table.😉

Chris Stewart3 said:Oh, absolutely, it's entirely our own fault. What stings the most is how we handed over our entire banking system to foreign interests; the truth is, they didn't come here to invest in us, they came to extract from us. If the majority of people actually shifted their loyalty toward domestic institutions, things would change significantly. It isn't just that citizens are beholden to these banks—it's the entire economy; in short, we're looking at disaster.

Ronald Allen said:What kind of commission are you even talking about...?
If someone actually started paying your salary in cash, it would probably just mess up your relationship with the bank even more, because we all know what happens when you stop having regular deposits hitting your checking account.
It's not like banks are forcing people into overdrafts; people just choose to screw up their own finances, and the banks just sit there rubbing their hands together—it's a little bit of sweet satisfaction for them. It’s not that the banks bought us, it’s that we sold ourselves.

Chris Stewart3, man, this isn't Looney Tunes, so don't start trolling here too.

Seriously, give me a break... 🙂

Daniel Perez13 said:I don't get why you're getting so worked up. The idea of paying wages in cash envelopes instead of through banks is probably just a way to pressure banks into actually considering their impact on society and the economy.
It's a radical suggestion, but I wouldn't be surprised if a union eventually brought it up, mostly because banks aren't listening to anything right now.
I won't go into detail about why it's in the bank's interest to handle the payments, but they'd likely cave on several issues if they were actually threatened by an option like this.

Ronald Allen said:Look, if we were living in Andorra, maybe that theory might actually fly. Or if, by some freak accident, we were some kind of emerging nation starting off with a perfect GDP, a massive budget surplus, and leaders sent over from other countries to run things.
But today? When over 70% of people are living in the red, when 58% of people are juggling at least two credit cards, and 45% are stuck with a mortgage or some kind of personal loan... discussing this theory is just insane. People managed to rack all that debt up specifically because their paychecks hit their checking accounts—and, honestly, because of how foolishly they chase a certain lifestyle they feel forced to maintain.
If we suddenly switched to cash in hand right now, half of them would completely ignore their bank overdrafts, and at least a third would start skipping out on their mortgage or car payments. Do I really have to explain where that leads...?

I'm not foaming at the mouth or anything, but I thought people might actually use their brains before jumping into these trolling debates.

Charles Ramos7 said:I’m not convinced that switching to cash-only payouts would actually rattle the banks. They have way too much room to maneuver and push back. Not only could you end up stuck without any cards, but they could easily claim that using a checking account is a mandatory requirement for any basic banking service.
Basically, you'd be left without any debit or credit cards (Americans left high and dry 😂), lose access to CDs or savings accounts, and wouldn't even be able to qualify for a loan (Americans cut off from credit 😂). Plus, they’d probably just hike up the fees for in-person teller visits while lowering online ones—though, of course, you still need a direct deposit hitting your account to use those online tools in the first place...

At the end of the day, we need them a lot more than they need us.

Chris Stewart3 said:One must remember that there was a time when plastic cards didn't even exist, yet we managed to live perfectly fine lives. Increased spending isn't inherently a problem when it's born of necessity; the issue arises when it's driven by pure luxury. Look at telecommunications today: we spend five or six times more than we did before the smartphone era. We surround ourselves with a mountain of products we never truly needed, simply because this materialist culture demands that we own and display them. We acquire things we didn't create, thereby defining our very identity through someone else's labor and borrowed money.

briskdriver110 said:I mean, how is the bank even to blame here?