In article <shis0i$psq$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> In the U.S. a lot of small businesses don't take Amex because of the
> high fees,

outdated. amex fees are competitive with mc/v. top tier cards, such as
visa infinite can be higher than amex in some cases.

> while larger businesses can negotiate low merchant fees with
> Amex.

they all can.

On 11/09/2021 20.20, sms wrote:
> On 9/11/2021 11:00 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 11/09/2021 18.03, sms wrote:
>>> On 9/11/2021 3:55 AM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>> On 11/09/2021 02.38, nospam wrote:
>>>>> In article <nc9t0ixbvc.ln2@minas-tirith.valinor>, Carlos E. R.
>>>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that merchants do not accept Apple/Google Pay here.
>>>>>
>>>>> apple and google say otherwise:
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, but the merchants say they don't, and that's where I look before
>>>> trying to do a purchase, not at Apple/Google/Samsung information.
>>>
>>> I forget, are you in Spain? Here's an explanation of the issue:
>>> <https://theictscoop.com/apple-pay-arrival-in-spain-720e358a68c5>.
>>
>> Interesting link, thanks. Makes a lot of sense.
>>
>> The article also mentions that debit card use is cheaper than credit
>> card, here.
>>
>>>
>>> The other issue is that the merchant needs to accept the underlying
>>> payment method. For example, in the U.S. you can use Apple Pay, Google
>>> Pay, or Samsung Pay at Costco, but Costco only accepts Visa, not
>>> Mastercard, Discover, or Amex, so if the underlying card isn't Visa you
>>> can't use mobile wallet.
>>
>> {chuckle}
>>
>> Well, here everything is Visa or Mastercard :-)
>
> The EU interchange fee cap doesn't apply to Amex, which is probably why
> Amex acceptance in Europe is much lower than Mastercard or Visa, see
> <https://www.adyen.com/blog/eu-interchange-fees-cap>.

Interesting.
It is the kind of thing I hear once then forget, except fuzzily.

Heh... I smell one little trouble more re Brexit.

>
> In the U.S. a lot of small businesses don't take Amex because of the
> high fees, while larger businesses can negotiate low merchant fees with
> Amex.
>
Makes sense.

> It was also interesting to see that Mastercard's fees are higher than
> Visa's, see
> <https://www.valuepenguin.com/interchange-fees-na-vs-eu#north-america-vs-europe>.
>

They are? [...] Oh, they are...

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <slrnsjpq3u.iqi.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
> <nomail@example.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >> There are exceptions to this, namely on-board purchases on an aircraft
>> >> >> where they are allowed to process transactions without authorization and
>> >> >> process them when they next land.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Note that the airline has much info on each passenger, so if there is
>> >> >> fraud, they can contact the passenger.
>> >> >
>> >> > if the card is stolen, they'll have someone else's info.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know how the validation is done, but airlines have the
>> >> exact name of the passengers and can compare that with the exact
>> >> name printed on the card. When they don't match, there could be
>> >> extra questions asked and/or service denied.
>> >
>> > they don't cross check each transaction with the manifest. that would
>> > take far too long.
>>
>> Are you sure?
>
> quite sure.
>
>> That could be going on without you knowing.
>
> in other words, you are just guessing.
>
> a lot of things could be going on. this isn't one of them.

I presume they use some electronic terminal to read the card and
process the transaction. You do not know if a passenger manifest
is loaded into that terminal.

In article <slrnsjpu9k.d0a.nomail@xs9.xs4all.nl>, Rob
<nomail@example.com> wrote:

>
> I presume they use some electronic terminal to read the card and
> process the transaction.

they do.

> You do not know if a passenger manifest
> is loaded into that terminal.

i do, and it's not.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> For transport, we have a completely separate system operated by the
>> transport companies and with functionality oriented towards that.
>> You present the card at both entry and exit from the system, and the
>> system calculates the fare and subtracts it from the balance on the
>> card. "It cannot be done" using the existing chipcard system, said
>> the transport companies, because that only handles money and not
>> the special functions for transport.
>
> Ah, because the fare changes with distance?

Yes, and not only that. When you travel for a certain distance
you pay a fixed fee plus an amount per km travelled, but the fees
depend on your age (child, adult, pensioner) and also on your
posession of special tariff cards that could give a discount at
certain times of day, or let you travel for free on certain lines.

They call these (abhorrily) "travel products".
These are stored on the card in separate areas to allow the terminal
to calculate the correct fare.
There are also others, like "free rent of a bike at the destination".

Of course when using a generic debit card this knowledge will have to be
stored in a central system, unless the banks cooperate and allow
some data storage in their card as well. And when it is centrally
stored, it will have to be retrieved when you present your card.

> There is something that I do not know for sure: the articles I read
> mention that you pay one trip fare with your card; and one trip fare was
> more expensive previously than buying a 10 trips ticket or one month of
> trips.
>
> So what will they do, lower the price of the single fare bought with
> debit/credit cards or not?
>
> Also, there is the issue of taking two or three buses in a single trip.

Yes, these issues have also arisen here.
Before the system (with fare calculation by km) was introduced, we
had a zonal system where the fare would be determined by the number
of zones travelled through. A zone number is displayed at every
stop. This leads to funny situations where a short trip of 3 stops
could be 2 zones, while a longer trip of maybe 10 stops could be
1 zone and thus much cheaper. I happen to live in an outskirt that
has the same zone as the city center, while there are also outskirts
that had a different zone. For me, the new system was much more
expensive as the number of km to the city center is relatively large
for me but it still was 1 zone, for others it was less expensive.

And indeed the special tickets make it even more complicated.
For infrequent users it is also unclear at which points in the trip
you have to check out and back in again at the next bus. It depends
on the company operating the bus.

>> All of these systems have encountered resistance due to the fact that
>> the accounting company behind all this can (and does) keep an exact
>> log of all travels made by everyone.
>
> Ah... well, the dedicated card system also can do similarly - well,
> maybe not, the card in my city doesn't know my name or ID. But the
> monthly pass in Madrid does know my name.

It is similar here. I have a card which I bought at and recharge
at a machine, in principle they do not know who I am. When I want
to use those special products I need to get a named card.
However, when I make a mistake (like forgetting to check out) and I
want my money back, I need to register the card to my name first...
People who regularly use the public transport of course always have
a registered card to get some discount or monthly pass, or because
they once made a mistake and want their 4 or 20 euro back.
(which is taken for bus or train journeys you did not check out)

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> In those days it was still very customary to go to the bank (or post-)
>> office once a month and collect a big part of the money in cash, only
>> leaving some for payments that already could be made bank-to-bank
>> (like energy bill, rent, mortgage payment, etc)
>
> Yes, that culture existed in Spain for many years. The payment day you
> would see lineups at the banks to withdraw probably the entire salary.
> Especially retired folk.
>
> Recently (5 years?) banks started placing hurdles to this practice, like
> reducing the man power, the number of cashiers, or the hours dedicated.
> Or removing the cash service altogether on some branches.

We have no cashier services anymore. Even at bank offices (which
hardly exist anymore) you need to get your cash from an ATM. In a
larger bank office there is a sideroom with one or two ATMs where
you can possibly withdraw larger amounts in a bit more secure environment
than out on the street.

In message <shig8j$qe3$1@dont-email.me> Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Am 10.09.21 um 14:22 schrieb Chris:
>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> I have forgotten the phone more times than the wallet.
>>>
>>> And considering that the wallet also contains the ID card and the
>>> driving license, and driving without that is a fine, there is barely
>>> that risk here.
>>
>> The UK doesn't do ID cards and you don't need to have your drivers licence
>> on you when driving, so going out with just your phone is not a problem.

In many parts of the US you do not actually have to have your license
when driving, thogh the laws are written in a misleading way to make it
appear that you do. For example, in Colorado the law is written:

*) You are required to have tour license when driving
*) police are required to ticket you for not having it if you do not
*) courts are required to dismiss the ticket when you prove you are
licensed to drive.

Upshot, you do not have to carry your license. I have no carried a
wallet at all in years.

> Deepstate?

The trade-off in the UK is that 90% of the country is covered with CCTV
cameras.

--
This is to say: while it was true that they had just appeared in this
particular set of dimensions, it was also true that they had been
living in them all along. It is at this point that normal
language gives up, and goes and has a drink. --Colour of Magic

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
> On 9/11/2021 7:27 AM, Rob wrote:
>
>> We have progressed from paper forms to using websites and apps.
>> There is no issue of "remembering account numbers" because the
>> banking websites and apps all have an address book where they
>> remember the names and account numbers you use.
>
> It's nice to have both paper and electronic systems available.
>
> A paper birthday card with a few comments hand written by me, mailed in
> a paper envelope with a birthday sticker, and a paper gift check
> enclosed, just seems a little more personal to me than a happy birthday
> text with a link. YMMV of course...

It seems like mainly the elderly stick to that here, and send some
money or a gift card. But the next generation talks to the
grandchildren via WhatsApp and sends them money using the bank app.

The postal system is in decay. Each year the tariff for sending
mail is newly determined, it looks like by the formula of
"how much revenue do we want or need" / "how many letters do we
still expect to handle this year" causing an exponential rise in
the stamp price that ends when the last person wanting to mail
a card or letter has to pay te entire postal service revenue :-)

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>>> AJL wrote
>>>> Frank Slootweg wrote

>>>>> Basically you can't compare the European/EU payment systems with
>>>>> those of the US. The US is way behind, sometimes decades ('checks'
>>>>> anyone?), and is not really catching on.
>>
>>>> I still find checks very handy. It's an easy way to transfer money to
>>>> an
>>>> individual without needing to know anything but his name. No app info
>>>> required. For example I generally mail checks in birthday cards to
>>>> grandkids around the country because it's safer than mailing cash and I
>>>> know that they got them when the check clears.
>>
>>> That would backfire here.
>>>
>>> Kids can have a bank account, and you normally need a bank account to
>>> cash a cheque (and it goes into your account). However, the kid can not
>>> withdraw a cent out of his own account till he is of age. No exceptions.
>>
>> Bizarre. We have the reverse, banks are encouraged to get kids
>> to open a bank account when they are in primary school and
>> they are free to do anything they like with the money in them.
>> No credit card until they are older tho, mostly 18, some banks 16.
>
> Yes, they are encouraged to have one, since birth. Traditionally, money
> gifts at put there "for your university".
>
>>
>>> An cashing a cheque without an account, into cash, incurs a high fee.

> Exception: cashing at the same office where the cheque was emitted.

Bloody hell, you lot are very backward. We haven't
had that system for something like 50 years now.

>> New Zealand has scrapped checks completely now. We, Australia,
>> are getting close to that with few stores accepting them anymore.
>> We still have bank checks for high value transactions like buying a car.

But I used my debit card for the last new car I bought in 2006.
The dealer principal was a bit dubious about it but was happy
to do it once he was sure that it wouldn’t cost him anything.
That bank would let you increase the daily limit for any time
you liked, in my case for 30 minutes over the phone to
eliminate any risk of a lost or stolen card.

> I have not seen a cheque perhaps in two decades now.

I have just got two, from a financial institution which no
longer accepts any more money into some accounts and
so cant reinvest the dividends into the account anymore.
They can pay it electronically but didn’t warn me about
that in time to set that up, just started posting checks.

> I suppose you can still have them, but no idea.

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote
>> Frank Slootweg wrote
>> > Basically you can't compare the European/EU payment systems with
>> > those of the US. The US is way behind, sometimes decades ('checks'
>> > anyone?), and is not really catching on.
>>
>> I still find checks very handy. It's an easy way to transfer money to an
>> individual without needing to know anything but his name. No app info
>> required.
>
> As Rob mentioned, we only have to know hir IBAN, International Bank
> Account Number, *or* - as I said - hir mobile number. We don't even need
> to know hir name. (And that *can* be done with a smartphone, but also
> via the web or even with a paper form (for those who don't have or don't
> want to use Internet).)
>
>> For example I generally mail checks in birthday cards to
>> grandkids around the country because it's safer than mailing cash and I
>> know that they got them when the check clears. I put a check in a
>> wedding card and lay it on the unguarded gift table - same reasons.
>> I leave a check for the yard guy under the mat. Since everybody knows
>> the system how long do you think cash would last there? Etc etc. And I
>> occasionally even get a check in the mail myself which I can easily cash
>> using just my phone, no bank trip required. So in some ways I kinda like
>> still being a dinosaur...
>
> Yes, while they (checks) still exist, you might as well use them to
> your advantage. I think that in the cases you mention, we would use gift
> cards or cash.

Both of those have real downsides. Posting cash isn't even legal here
and is to risky anyway. Gift cards have a commission and have a real
problem with the amount unspent after you have bought what you want.

Makes more sense for the parents to setup a bank account for all kids.
> As others mentioned, for us US checks are a pain. For example my
> US broker kept sending me small dividend checks which I couldn't cash
> without extreme cost - some $30 for a single check - and even selling
> shares had way too prohibitive costs, both for the sale and for the
> (electronic) transfer of the proceeds). So now I still have some shares
> and dividend in the US and I can't do anything with them/it! :-)

You can move foreign currency using paypal but the commission
isn't cheap. Not as bad as that obscene charge for the checks tho.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> The EU interchange fee cap doesn't apply to Amex, which is probably why
> Amex acceptance in Europe is much lower than Mastercard or Visa, see
> <https://www.adyen.com/blog/eu-interchange-fees-cap>.
>
> In the U.S. a lot of small businesses don't take Amex because of the
> high fees, while larger businesses can negotiate low merchant fees with
> Amex.

On debitcards here there is no transaction fee anymore, only a fixed fee
per time period. So stores accept and encourage debitcard payment
even for very small amounts.

Creditcards are generally only accepted by stores with bigger margins,
like cloths stores, and of course restaurants.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> nospam wrote
>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote

>>> Except that merchants do not accept Apple/Google Pay here.
>
>> apple and google say otherwise:

> Maybe, but the merchants say they don't,

Plenty of merchants don’t realise that they do, so its best to try it.

That’s because the terminal sees it as just another contactless
transaction and it needs to be explicitly not allowed by the terminal.

> and that's where I look before trying to do a purchase,
> not at Apple/Google/Samsung information.

But they are the ones that can see the transactions happening fine.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> %% wrote
>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>>> On 11/09/2021 01.16, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Joerg Lorenz wrote
>>>>>>>> Am 09.09.21 um 22:30 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
>>>>>>>>> On 09/09/2021 19.56, sms wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.techradar.com/news/barely-anyone-is-using-apple-pay-in-stores-anymore>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "New research released Tuesday by PYMNTS.com found that only 6%
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> shoppers with iPhones in the US had used the platform to pay for
>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> in-store purchases at some point in the past year."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They don't talk about Google Pay or Samsung Pay but I suspect
>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>> numbers are even lower for those systems, see
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.statista.com/statistics/722213/user-base-of-leading-digital-wallets-nfc/>.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even though there are a lot more Android devices in the world
>>>>>>>>>> than iOS
>>>>>>>>>> devices, Apple Pay has more users than Google Pay and Samsung Pay
>>>>>>>>>> combined (and many of the Samsung Pay users are probably also
>>>>>>>>>> part of
>>>>>>>>>> the Google Pay number and vice-versa).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This 6% number surprised me since in my area paying with your
>>>>>>>>>> phone
>>>>>>>>>> appears to be at a much higher level than 6%, But I live in
>>>>>>>>>> Silicon
>>>>>>>>>> Valley where people are more tech-savvy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The increase in contactless credit cards has apparently been
>>>>>>>>>> responsible
>>>>>>>>>> for the general lack of interest in paying with a phone.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Here (Spain) there are other platforms for paying with the phone,
>>>>>>>>> provided usually by banks directly. I would not use either Apple
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> Google pay, giving them even more information about myself, but I
>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>> used the one from my bank - and I simply do not like it, as it is
>>>>>>>>> simply
>>>>>>>>> faster and easier to pay with the contactless card (here everybody
>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>> CL since years). Just a fact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is what I called an electronic cash transaction. In Europe
>>>>>>>> they are
>>>>>>>> the real growth area. In Switzerland they call it "Twint". Even
>>>>>>>> P2P-Transactions are possible. Thats the way we clear money
>>>>>>>> issues in
>>>>>>>> the wider family.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.twint.ch/en/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's another one. No, I was talking of an specific bank app that
>>>>>>> replaces the card, and the phone works as if it were the NFC card.
>>>>>>> Quite
>>>>>>> cumbersome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Open the phone, identify.
>>>>>>> 2) Open the banking app, identify.
>>>>>>> 3) Line up to pay at the supermarket. Unload your goods into the
>>>>>>> "belt".
>>>>>>> 4) The bank app has timed out and closed. Open it up again - and it
>>>>>>> takes a few seconds to respond after identification.
>>>>>>> 5) People in the line get politely restless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That’s where you are doing it wrong. You should be
>>>>>> putting your stuff on the belt, wait till the checkout
>>>>>> monkey has scanned most of the items, then setup
>>>>>> your phone to make the payment. No one then has
>>>>>> to wait for you to do anything.
>>>>
>>>>> And that's what you don't understand,
>>>>
>>>> We'll see...
>>>>
>>>>> the bank app takes a minute to be ready before I
>>>>> can wave it at the machine reader. I tried two banks.
>>>>
>>>> And apple pay doesn’t, so you should be using that.
>>>
>>> Except that merchants do not accept Apple/Google Pay here.
>>
>> That’s wrong.
>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207957
>>
>>>>> So I prefer to prepare the app in advance,
>>>>> while I'm in the line doing nothing but waiting.
>>>>
>>>> Makes more sense to do that after you load your
>>>> stuff onto the belt and only fire up the app if you
>>>> are stupid enough to use the app instead of applepay.
> --------******
>>
>>> Back to insulting.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>>> zap.
>>
>> Fat lot of good that will do you, stupid.
>
> ····································*******
>
>
> That you changed name proves your intention to insult.

Nope, that I have worked out how to do an end run around that stunt.

On 9/10/2021 6:27 AM, Mayayana wrote:

<snip>

> I'm curious about the numbers with cash back. Last I
> heard, AmEx was charging 4% to merchants and MC/Visa
> were charging 1.2-2%. So 3% cash back doesn't add up.

I doubt if any merchant would accept a card that had 4% fees. Even 3.5%
would be unusual, except perhaps for a card-not-present American Express
transaction.

You can see the fees here:
<https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-credit-card-processing-fees-costs-america/>
(scroll down to the table).

As to how a bank can pay 2-3% cash back when they're not collecting
nearly that much in fees, it's because enough card holders are not
paying off their balances in full each month and are paying hefty
amounts of interest.

Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote

> | > > > So they weren't really operating
> | > > > as a payment service. It was more like software authors were
> | > > > PayPal empoyees who got paid as PayPal saw fit.
> | >
> | > > it wasn't like that at all.
> | >
> | > It is with the transfer between the paypal
> | > account and the bank account.
> |
> | Actually PayPal acts as an escrow account for most of their
> transactions.
> |
>
> I expect that it's probably different for people using
> it as a way to pay than it is for people who use it as
> way to get paid, as Rod Speed said. In any case, there's
> no sense arguing with nospam. The less he knows about
> a topic, the more vehemently certain he'll be. And as near
> as I can tell, there are very few topics he knows
> anything about. Maybe cameras. And how to spend money
> on Apple products. Beyond that? Not likely. But he deserves
> credit for being very talented at sounding like he knows
> something.
>
> I think, also, that shareware authors have always lacked
> leverage. They tend to be mom-and-pop, self-employed.
> At first, software listing sites would gladly post
> a listing about any software because it was basically free
> content, with income coming through banner ads. Later,
> with less visitors and the PC craze dying down, listing sites
> began pressuring authors to buy ads. CNet announced that
> it would be required, as I recall. That was controversial
> among authors. First, most didn't get enough sales to justify
> ads. Second, it was dishonest to claim to be a "software
> library" with ratings while also depending on the authors
> for income.
>
> At one point Tucows
> rejected my software, with an extensive rating of numerous
> factors, such as ease of use, ease of uninstall, etc. I received
> the rejection notice a bit less than 2 minutes after they visited
> the webpage for the program. They were playing hardball. If
> I didn't buy something I wasn't going to get approved.
>
> The download sites were over a barrel because the whole
> model of being a software listing site wasn't working anymore.
> So they were trying to come up with a new approach. The
> authors were also over a barrel. It was hard to make money on
> shareware, and getting harder. The listing sites were pretty
> much the only way to get the word out. But by essentially
> selling good reviews while pretending to be "libraries" they were
> throwing away their credibility, such as it was.
>
> Around that time I also dealt with my payment service
> going bankrupt. RegisterHouse. Nice people. British. But
> they just weren't making money. By the time the lawyers got
> through I think I lost something like $300 that I was owed
> for the final month. (I received a listing of who was owed what.
> Interestingly, only a handful of us was selling more than
> maybe $30 worth in a month, with many people selling
> nothing.)
>
> Then I went to ShareIt as a payment service. Over time,
> less and less people were buying shareware. Most types of
> programs were available for free. For example, IrfanView
> took away the business from commercial image viewers.
> PowerArchiver and others killed WinZip. If a program could
> be made without too much trouble then someone would make
> it and give it away for free.
>
> The last time I sold a program through ShareIt, the buyer
> asked for a refund a couple of days later. I had no say in the
> matter. ShareIt kept their cut and I lost about $4. After that
> I decided to stop selling software. I couldn't even find a
> way to quit the service. That's how much communication
> there is with payment services. But to be fair, that's a
> problem with digital altogether. Companies make profits by
> being automated, with no employees. So there's no way
> to have a relationship with most of them.
>
> If you've always used Macs then this is probably a world you
> wouldn't know very well. The Mac shareware market was more
> controlled by Apple. As I recall, people had to get a license
> and use Apple tools. Shareware made a profit but there wasn't
> much of it. It seems like there's always one progrram of each type
> that everyone uses. In the Windows world, circa 2000, it was wild.
> Everyone was buying a PC for fun and downloading [mostly]
> free software. It was a matter of pride to have 6 image viewers
> and 8 startup managers. :) Microsoft made good tools for
> writing software and provided good docs. It was a business with
> no certification or training required. But the craze ended.
>
> Awhile back I looked into the possibility of contracting to write
> custom software for small companies. But I didn't really have
> connections. And it had become an international market. There
> was a website online where people would propose custom jobs.
> It was a joke. Someone wanted a music player program. Someone
> in China or India bid $8. Maybe they'd get paid. I expect
> probably not.

Couple of people I know have used that type of service successfully.

AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote
> Frank Slootweg wrote
>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>> Yes, while they (checks) still exist, you might as well use them to
>> your advantage. I think that in the cases you mention, we would use
>> gift cards or cash.
>
> Yep. And with gift cards I'd get cashback buying them with my credit
> card. Greedy good idea. Still, it would be a PITA buying them.

Not here, we have some digital ones which are easy to buy online.

> Gift checks are so easy to write...
>> As others mentioned, for us US checks are a pain. For example my
>> US broker kept sending me small dividend checks which I couldn't
>> cash without extreme cost - some $30 for a single check
> Wow. Here I would just use the my phone bank app
> to cash the check. Takes just a minute. No charge.

But is that true of foreign checks ?
>> - and even selling shares had way too prohibitive costs, both for
>> the sale and for the (electronic) transfer of the proceeds).
>
> I hold my shares directly. No broker. When I sell shares I use the
> holding company's website. The money is then directly deposited into my
> bank account, again no charge.
>
>> So now I still have some shares and dividend in the US and I can't
>> do anything with them/it! :-)
>
> Mail them to me and I'll write you a check... :-)

In article <shj1vm$ggr$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> I doubt if any merchant would accept a card that had 4% fees. Even 3.5%
> would be unusual, except perhaps for a card-not-present American Express
> transaction.

they don't have a choice.

card issuers require that merchants accept *all* of their cards, not
only the cheap ones.

for example, if a merchant accepts visa, they can't reject visa
infinite, which has the highest transaction fees.

> As to how a bank can pay 2-3% cash back when they're not collecting
> nearly that much in fees, it's because enough card holders are not
> paying off their balances in full each month and are paying hefty
> amounts of interest.

that's only one part of it.

selling transaction data is extremely profitable for all cards, plus
periodic merchant promotions which are effectively advertisements.

the cards with higher cashback rates normally have annual fees,
including the one you brag about with its $400 annual fee.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
> Chris wrote
>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 11/09/2021 11.24, Chris wrote:
>>>> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/10/2021 4:10 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/09/2021 00.18, AJL wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still find checks very handy. It's an easy way to transfer money
>>>>>>> to an individual without needing to know anything but his name. No
>>>>>>> app info required. For example I generally mail checks in birthday
>>>>>>> cards to grandkids around the country because it's safer than
>>>>>>> mailing cash and I know that they got them when the check clears.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would backfire here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kids can have a bank account, and you normally need a bank account
>>>>>> to cash a cheque (and it goes into your account). However, the kid
>>>>>> can not withdraw a cent out of his own account till he is of age. No
>>>>>> exceptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An cashing a cheque without an account, into cash, incurs a high
>>>>>> fee.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here the parents can countersign the check and use their phone to
>>>>> deposit it into their account (no bank trip required). They can then
>>>>> later go to the store with the kid to buy the gift, give him cash, or
>>>>> combine the money with other cash gifts to buy something really
>>>>> special...
>>>>
>>>> That was banned here decades ago as it's easy to steal people's cheques
>>>> that way. Only the account payee can cash/deposit a cheque.
>>>>
>>>> Gifting money is easy via direct deposit to their bank account.
>>>
>>> But not to kids, at least in my country. They can not withdraw from
>>> their own accounts a single cent till they are 18.
>>
>> That does seem really very odd. How are kids supposed to manage their
>> money? Many 15+ year olds have jobs and need to get paid here. How does
>> that work in Spain?
>
> Simple: no jobs. Forbidden for minors.

Even baby sitting and lawn mowing/pool cleaning/walking the dog ?

> Having a minor working is considered an abuse and the employer could be
> jailed.

That’s mad.

On 9/11/2021 12:47 PM, Rob wrote:

<snip>

> On debitcards here there is no transaction fee anymore, only a fixed fee
> per time period. So stores accept and encourage debitcard payment
> even for very small amounts.
>
> Creditcards are generally only accepted by stores with bigger margins,
> like cloths stores, and of course restaurants.

Not sure where "here" is. As a visitor to Europe we mostly were using
Google Pay (with an underlying Visa card) at restaurants, hotels, and
for transportation but we also went to supermarkets quite a few times as
well, and never had a problem. Never went to any clothing stores.

I think that the issuing bank for my 3% cash back Visa card would be
pretty upset if I was using it a lot in the EU with the 0.3% cap on
credit card fees, but I don't stay up at night worrying if banks are
making enough money.

Despite the fact that many people benefit from high cash-back cards,
personally I wish that the U.S. also had a cap on merchant fees even
though it would mean the end of most rewards programs. But it won't
happen in the U.S. because politicians take way too much in campaign
donations from the financial services industry.

"sms" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

| > I'm curious about the numbers with cash back. Last I
| > heard, AmEx was charging 4% to merchants and MC/Visa
| > were charging 1.2-2%. So 3% cash back doesn't add up.
| | I doubt if any merchant would accept a card that had 4% fees. Even 3.5%
| would be unusual, except perhaps for a card-not-present American Express
| transaction.
| | You can see the fees here:
|
<https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-credit-card-processing-fees-costs-america/>
| (scroll down to the table).
|

That says it can go as high as 3.45% + 10 cents for AmEx.
Not so far under 4%. It also mentions that they dropped their
fees in 2018. AmEx have been famous for their fees. I was
once in a restaurant with a friend who wanted to pay for dinner.
She gave them an AmEx card and then predicted they'd reject
it. Sure enough, they came back and said it wouldn't go through.
She persisted. It went through. She explained that they did
that to get people to use other cards in order to pay a reduced
fee.

| As to how a bank can pay 2-3% cash back when they're not collecting
| nearly that much in fees, it's because enough card holders are not
| paying off their balances in full each month and are paying hefty
| amounts of interest.
| That theory doesn't hold water. There's no reason
for them to keep a customer they're losing money on, no
matter what else is going on. I'm guessing there's some
combination of kickbacks and data selling that makes it worth
their while. Especially since some offer more cash back
for purchases through a phone account. It seems likely
that merchants are making deals with them to offer kickbacks,
essentially running a 1-2% off sale in order to get more
overall sales.

"AJL" <noemail@none.com> wrote

| > That lock also comes in handy when store clerks harass me about
| > getting a store credit card. "Oh, you know I'd love to, but I keep my
| > credit locked. Haven't you done that yourself? Oh, dear." :)
| | I just say no thank you. It's their job to ask you. Be nice to them...
|

Why not tell them about the lock? Most people don't
know and identity theft is on the rise. If the stores were
responsible they wouldn't be offering cards on the spot
like that in the first place.

And it's not just their job. I happen to know that in
Home Depot they're authorized to offer up to a certain
limit money back, which varies over time. For example,
they may be able to offer up to $100 discount on your
current purchase if you get a card. The clerk may then offer
$25, $50, whatever. It's their choice. Whatever they can
get you to accept, they pocket the rest. So don't feel
too badly for them.

In article <shj3n6$94r$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> I'm guessing there's some
> combination of kickbacks and data selling that makes it worth
> their while.

there is, and has been for a long time.

> Especially since some offer more cash back
> for purchases through a phone account.

mobile payments do not provide any user data to sell.

the reason that some cards bonus mobile payments is because the risk of
fraud is significantly lower.

Rob <nomail@example.com> wrote
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote

>> The EU interchange fee cap doesn't apply to Amex, which is probably why
>> Amex acceptance in Europe is much lower than Mastercard or Visa, see
>> <https://www.adyen.com/blog/eu-interchange-fees-cap>.
>>
>> In the U.S. a lot of small businesses don't take Amex because of the
>> high fees, while larger businesses can negotiate low merchant fees with
>> Amex.
> On debitcards here there is no transaction
> fee anymore, only a fixed fee per time period.

Can you spell that last bit out a bit more please ?

> So stores accept and encourage debitcard
> payment even for very small amounts.
> Creditcards are generally only accepted by stores with
> bigger margins, like cloths stores, and of course restaurants.

Understandable but unusual.

On 2021-09-11 02:40, Rod Speed wrote:

> Yes, the risk of getting infected that way was always very low.
>
>> The fact that the virus remains active after its supporting
>> droplet has evaporated in the air also points to
>> virus remaining active for longer on any surface.
>
> Yes, but you don’t get much virus that way.

Wrong. The original SarsCoV2 required a fair amount of viral load. You
get a lot of virus from touching a surface that has a lot of virus on it.
..
When you allow a droplet containing a lot of virus to evaporate, the
virus then disperse as their float in air. So when you breath in, you
have greater chances of breathing in a virus, but lesser chance of
breathing in a lot of virus (such as when standing in front of a person
shouting).
..
What has changed dramatically with Delta is that you need to ingest a
much smaller viral load to trigger the disease, so the odds of getting
sick by breathing in small amount of floating virus in air have increased.

But this has never decreased the ability to catch it from a surface.

On 2021-09-11 06:27, Carlos E. R. wrote:

>> A connection is needed to verify that your card is
>> 1-valid
>> 2-has sufficient funds.
>
> Not with this type of cards, storage of the funds is local.
>

I thought the context was recharging stored value cards.