Hacker News Reader

Comment by 8bitsrule | Hacker News Reader

In the US, it was possible to do banking at the Post Office until the 1960s. Given the crappy reputation of the 'Payday Lending' type services, there've been many suggestions in recent years to make it possible to bank at Post Offices again.

This would end one part of the deliberate gutting of public services (and the sorry outcomes which usually result). And it would give the PO another source of revenue for services ... which in my estimation would a terrific thing. Once the USPO is gone, watch out.

ADDED: According to Bloomberg (in 2013), "Banks have shut 1,826 branches since late 2008, and 93 percent of closings were in postal codes where the household income is below the national median, according to census and federal banking data compiled by Bloomberg." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-05-02/post-cras...

View on HN

Many branchless banks have partnered with AusPost to allow banking at any AusPost branch (of which there are many). And all for free! You can deposit, withdraw (within limits) send money, exchange currency, pay bills, etc. The US banking system seems so far behind, and for one of the world's largest economies it's laughable.

Many events in the US since 1980 are certainly laughable from a foreign perspective, and to many of us, more than painful from a native one. But watch as the pendulum swings.

(I'm not in a position to understand what 'all for free' means, but I've learned to be skeptical about that assertion. 'Until when?' for example.)

I agree that "until when" is usually a good caveat to keep in mind, but in this case branchless banks basically have to offer free services somehow, since banks with branches don't charge for any of those things. So in order to incentivise people to join, offering an alternative way to bank that is not any more expensive is a must. This is especially true for elderly people that prefer to bank in person. I never go into a bank unless I want to withdraw or deposit large amounts of cash, and prefer to hand cash over to a human than trusting an ATM not to stuff something up.

It’s an interesting class struggle for sure.

Rich? Get a free bank account with a personal bank rep, free personalized advice.

Poor? Spend $10 of your $200 weekly paycheck to cash it at a check cashing place, or maybe pay a $19 monthly fee to use a “basic” checking account.

> And all for free!

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Auspost charges the bank a fee to do this, and at least one of the big four (ANZ) found this too expensive. The others are presumably passing the cost on to consumers.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/anz-customers...

Yeah, but I think banks like ING see it as a necessary cost, given that other banks with branches (such as the Big 4) offer these services for free. So for ING to compete, they need to have a way for customers to bank in person without having to pay for it.

Post office banking would not be in competition with payday lenders. US Post office banks didn't originate loans. They just offered accounts and basic services.

But on a related note, is there any reasonably populated place in the US that is more than 15-20 miles from a bank or credit union? I really doubt it. People are acting like the only reason someone is underbanked is because there aren't enough banks. As a matter of fact, if you're a US citizen, all you need to set up a bank account is a smartphone or computer.

Reading up on this years ago, some people will cash their paychecks at payday loans. I suspected some of my friends did and I think I tried once and was aghast at the fees and went elsewhere.

My understanding is many people don't have a bank account, many banks require you to have an account to cash a check, or they just don't have branches in those neighborhoods. A recent AP article[1] cites 6.5% lacking bank accounts, 16.9% of Black households, and 14% of Hispanic households. Some reasons for not having a bank account are lack of money, unfamiliarity with how banking works, and distrust of institutions. The number of households without bank accounts is dropping, though.

[1] https://apnews.com/8b2b93d4e9474c418853e0f20e79aaa8

And a social security number, and pass a credit check, and have money to pay for the account (either directly by paying a monthly fee or through having enough cash - $x0,000 deposited there). A permanent address also really helps too.

Those aren't obstacles if you already have them/can pass them, but it's quite difficult if you don't! (which; those that don't aren't the most privileged to begin with.) The unbanked/underbanked aren't usually that way because the bank building is inaccessible (though that can't help), they're that way because of other systemic issues, and having the USPS run an account ledger service to all would help.

(The number of places open to those with bad credit isn't zero, but they can't just wander into any Bank of America/Chase/large national bank branch to setup an account.)

>And a social security number, and pass a credit check, and have money to pay for the account (either directly by paying a monthly fee or through having enough cash - $x0,000 deposited there). A permanent address also really helps too.

How would having the USPS open new branches help then? Unless you mean to say that they won't have to abide by the KYC regulations that any other banking institution must work with. That just opens a new can of worms.

Requiring $30/month from people that don't have $30 keeps them from being banked, and has nothing to do with not selling guns to North Koreans.

If they treat it anything like your mail, they will gladly sell your information and fill your banking notifications with about 100 spam flyers with no opt-out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com