At the scale larger banks are operating at, you could argue that even customers storing a few dollars each represent a significant block of capital in aggregate.
It's also clear that banks aren't losing money. What's at issue is how they earn their money and at whose expense.
There are a lot of books on the subject, but the short answer is that it's just the most common standard at this point. Yes there are some things about it that don't make sense, but for whatever reason it seems to be the most coherent way for musicians to communicate using a common language.
It's popularity also has to do with what sounds pleasing to the ear (and brain) on a biological level.
A number of people have come up with alternative scales and notations systems over the years, but none of them have really stuck for one reason or another. Nonetheless, they are pretty fun to read about.
Also, if you aren't familiar with John Cage, you should check him out. His music and writing deals with a lot of the stuff you just brought up, and it's also a really great jumping off point to find other interesting artists and musicians.
I can't give a super accurate history of how we got here, but it seems as though it's been a gradual process. Once the banks saw that people at bars, casinos, and high end hotels would pay these 'convenience' fees, they said to themselves, "why not do this everywhere?"
It also ties in to how banks are regulated. Now again, I'm not super well versed in the history here, but as I understand it, after the stock market crash in the 20's, congress passed the Glass-Steagall act which, among other things, said that the banks either had to be an investment bank, or a commercial bank, but not both. That way the commercial banks, which are holding regular folks money, can't gamble it all away. That seemed to work pretty well, so much so that congress was later convinced to repeal large portions of Glass-Steagall.
Once that happened, investment bank culture, which never really left commercial banks, once again came to prominence, along with it's emphasis on making money for shareholders.
The reason I mention all that is to say that during Glass-Steagall commercial banks had to go back to making money slowly but surely through giving out safe loans and charging modest fees for basic services. In the meantime, their shareholders, having had a taste of the large dividends generated by investment fees and the like, came to expect more than the safe, modest returns commercial banks used to provide. In order to appease investors, commercial banks then had to look for other ways of generating profits. That's where things like atm fees, excessive overdraft charges, monthly checking account fees, and the like come in.
The fees and stuff actually got so bad that congress passed a law mandating that the banks had to allow people to opt out of overdrafts, among other things. Unfortunately, this law had been kicking around for several years by the time it got passed, so the banks had plenty of time to weaken it and/or find work arounds. For instance, where you used to get a single overdraft charge for each time you overdrafted, many banks went to a system where you got a daily charge for every day your account was in the negative. I've literally seen someone crying in the bank upon being told that what should have been a single $40 charge had grown in the course of a week or so into a $400 charge. Sadly, this is just one of many such examples of how commercial banks have changed their practices to prioritize profits over public service.
Hope that all made sense. As I said, I'm not a historian, and a lot of the stuff I discuss is widely debated, but if you find it interesting there's a lot of good info on wikipedia and youtube, not to mention your local library. :)
It's important to note that many large banks actively discourage customers from opting out of overdrafts. So much so that they even have scripts they make their tellers recite.
For example, if you attempt to opt out, the teller might say, "but what if you are at the gas pump and can't get gas because you have opted out of overdrafts?" The subtext being, "wouldn't it be better to get enough gas to get home and in the process incur a 40 dollar fee."
Hey thanks for the support. While I don't think making sweeping generalizations about HN readers is necessarily constructive, I would definitely agree some of us are working from very different assumptions here.
I guess the main thing I was attempting to communicate is that the facts on the ground are very different from the facts as presented in this article and elsewhere online. While it's definitely difficult to convey this in brief internet comments, I do feel there's a worthwhile discussion going on, so thanks to all involved as well as those reading. :)
Not sure why you are accusing me of intellectual dishonesty, unless the goal is to derail the conversation.
You are right to say that a few of the specifics I gave were not correct. I was clearly not arguing that. However, the specifics you gave were not 100% correct either. For instance, if you go to an atm machine in a wal-mart and attempt to withdraw cash, you will be charged 3 dollars. The fee breakdown I linked bears this out. A fee breakdown, I might add, that is several pages removed from the main page describing the class of card in question.
As I said, there are a variety of cards on offer, from a variety of sources, but they all seem to fall within the same range cost-wise, even if the fees are structured differently.
It's as if we are arguing about cars, and you want to debate whether the pinto in question had power-windows or not, while ignoring the fact that it will explode in a routine accident.
I couldn't say, but would be interested to find out. As far as CU's are concerned, I'll admit that I'm speaking anecdotally.
Obviously each CU is different, and I can't really speak to the specific terms that each one offers, but overall they seem to be more attractive than the terms offered by the large chain banks and the payday lender style banks that originated the style of debit cards discussed in the article.
I read it. Maybe you should go to a store and actually get one of these cards, then let me know how it works out.
Seriously though, these cards, like many "financial products" come with a variety of price points and fee structures. If you re-read my comment, you'll see that I didn't claim my figures were definitive, but they are definitely in the ballpark.
Kind of fucked up that the article doesn't mention the fees associated with these cards until like 3/4 of the way into the article.
These cards charge 5 bucks a month, plus like 3 dollars to deposit cash, 3 dollars to withdraw cash, in addition to the 5-10 dollars up front for the card itself.
Because of this, a person using this type of card can easily spend $100+ a year on fees. Not exactly a great way to save money, and hardly better than overdrafts.
If at all possible, people in this sort of situation would be much better served by joining a credit union. While there are some drawbacks in terms of hours and atm availability, many CU's do not charge overdrafts and also have some form of atm reimbursement. This, along with the ability to deposit checks by snapping a pic with your phone make them a viable, and preferable alternative. Sadly, they are not as prominent, nor well advertised as the sort of cards peddled by Wal-mart, et. al.
Found a video of one of their prototype scanners. IIRC they looked at like every scanning solution available and also got a bunch of universities and libraries to help them purchase and operate scanning equipment. Pretty cool stuff.
Damn shame. EEVblog is one of the shining examples of the sort of program that could only come about on a platform like youtube. I've often wondered why netflix or amazon haven't picked it up or made similar programming, and yet I have a hard time seeing them producing content of such quality and depth.
I know you guys are joking, but there is a whole class of cell phone that is designed specifically with the prison market in mind. Not too sure on the specs of the higher end models though.
It's also clear that banks aren't losing money. What's at issue is how they earn their money and at whose expense.