Banks Hit Jobless with Fees on Unemployment Comp

[TheAnvil 0]

You don't know what you're talking about.

- Funds come in a fixed amount FROM THE STATE and are placed into an account. Banks are NOT lending to the unemployed. Lending by the day? For unemployment funds? Or WITH unemployment funds prior to their withdrawal? BULLSHIT. NADA. NO DICE.

- This method is FAR cheaper to the State, being an EFT. No printing or mailing required. The only difference here is one of personal responsibility. No WONDER left wingers are up in arms about it! No need to be responsible, little bolshevik...the State will take good care of you...now remember...capitalism/personal responsibility bad...socialism and the State are good...[barf]

- This bullshit someone said about fees being a primary source of bank income is HILARIOUS. Compared to loans?? Yeah, right. Whatever. greater than less than...the alligator is hungry...elementary school math...

- If the State wished to preclude fees being charged, it should have made that a condition when it issued the request for proposal for banks to bid on the contract. As I've stated time and again - the banks are correct to charge fees IAW their own cost paradigms. The people receiving these benefits have the option of withdrawing these funds and placing them elsewhere, where they can use their own banks' ATMs and services to their hearts content over and over again at whatever fees they were paying elsewhere.

Liberals don't just want the benefits. They want the $$ along WITH the added convenience of direct deposit & debit card with unlimited use of bank services, free of charge. Tough shit. That increased cost is not one that should be borne by taxpayers or the banks. If you're unemployed, you have time to go to the bank, withdraw the funds, and deposit them elsewhere. YOU'RE NOT WORKING!!! Hmm...kind of like you'd take your check from your mailbox, take it to your bank, and deposit it! Except for you don't have to wait for the mail because it's a direct deposit via EFT! More convenient! My God! And people complain!

This is a no brainer. Banks are an easy target for ire and that's the only reason this is even making news. Dear God education in America is so fucked.





-

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You don't know what you're talking about.

- Funds come in a fixed amount FROM THE STATE and are placed into an account. Banks are NOT lending to the unemployed. Lending by the day? For unemployment funds? Or WITH unemployment funds prior to their withdrawal? BULLSHIT. NADA. NO DICE.

I work for a company that manages trillions (well, it was 2, now it's less) in assets. Lending out cash overnight to other financials has long been a money maker, though less so in the current climate where rates have dropped and bond traders seem unreliable.

If a state pays out just $10M/week in unemployment benefits, that bank will have 3-5M in daily balances to use. You're the one who has no idea what you're talking about.

Quote

- This bullshit someone said about fees being a primary source of bank income is HILARIOUS. Compared to loans?? Yeah, right. Whatever. greater than less than...the alligator is hungry...elementary school math...

You've never read the quarterly earnings statements from a financial either. Fees are a huge part of the profit - 20 years ago, fees were quite small, now not so, even though the same issues existed then. But back then, late payment might mean 3 or 5 days after the due date. Now it's 1pm - if the postman is late, you're fined.

[funjumper101 15]

Don't confuse the righties with facts.
Their beliefs systems can't handle the challenge to their opinions.
Only liberals change their minds when confronted with facts. Righties just talk louder and repeat their talking points, over and over again. It is well known that if you repeat something often enough, truthiness will win out over reality.
Facts are REALLY inconvenient.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

You didn't answer the question and alluded to an opposition to government contractors making a profit? Would you work for the government for free? If not, please explain your hypocrisy.

I did answer your question. They certainly make money from that program without user fees for a phone call.

Incremental cost to the bank for that phone call is zero. If you disagree, why don't you tell us what the incremental increase in fixed cost is for that phone call.

All ears, but I doubt you'll answer the question. But, I am sure we'd all be delighted to see your math on this one.

Didn't allude to anybody working for free, whether you are working for the government or not.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

- Funds come in a fixed amount FROM THE STATE and are placed into an account. Banks are NOT lending to the unemployed. Lending by the day? For unemployment funds? Or WITH unemployment funds prior to their withdrawal? BULLSHIT. NADA. NO DICE.

So enlighten us, since you know it all.

When does the state transfer the money and when does the bank make that money available to the "customer"?

How much money does the bank make in that time frame?

Still think the bank doesn't money from that alone? Still think that without fees the bank is working for the government for free?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Incremental cost to the bank for that phone call is zero. If you disagree, why don't you tell us what the incremental increase in fixed cost is for that phone call.

marginal cost of a human answering a phone call (or even a computer) is certainly not zero.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

I said incremental not marginal.

the banks have customer service reps to deal with the other customers of the banks. So, once again, what is the incremental cost of that person, who is employed there already, to answer the question of a welfare customer?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

1. Clearly you don't give a shit about the unemployed, or their children, the same way Bush didn't. Won't anyone think of the children (and their pets)? Obviously it sure won't be you.
2. This is the same kind of selective price-gouging that used to be done to "the coloreds" in the pre-civil rights South. And now YOU'RE defending it. Coincidence? Yeah, right.
3. So's your old lady.

I'm unemployed right now and "dealing with it" (as in looking for work). I just got another rejection following an interview today. It's tough out there, but no, I'm trying to control my whining, even though I will run out of money sometime this year if I don't get something soon. And I haven't done a skydive since late October of last year (which sucks a lot). And I have a pet.

You realize, of course, my post was a parody playing along with post #33, right?

I thought it was sweet, and when a parody is taken seriously, it really identifies the type of people that hang out here.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I said incremental not marginal.

the banks have customer service reps to deal with the other customers of the banks. So, once again, what is the incremental cost of that person, who is employed there already, to answer the question of a welfare customer?

The staffing level of customer service is based on volume of calls. If you get more calls, you need to pay for more people, or you decide to give a poorer level of service.

It's not free, whether you call it incremental or marginal.

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

This is a no brainer. Banks are an easy target for ire.



-

As they bloody well should be, having plunged the USA and the rest of the world into financial crisis.

In earlier times bankers would have been hanged for the kind things they've done.

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

The staffing level of customer service is based on volume of calls. If you get more calls, you need to pay for more people, or you decide to give a poorer level of service.

Only true to a certain extent.

Say you are growing your business and have noticed that you need a customer service rep to answer phone calls from customers.

You hire the rep and for the first 5 months she is getting 15 calls per day with an average duration of 15 minutes. Your business grows and for the 5 months after that she is getting 17 calls per day on average.

As an employer, how much is it costing me for her to answer those 2 extra phone calls per day?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

You hire the rep and for the first 5 months she is getting 15 calls per day with an average duration of 15 minutes. Your business grows and for the 5 months after that she is getting 17 calls per day on average.

As an employer, how much is it costing me for her to answer those 2 extra phone calls per day?

God, I hate word problems.


Shit. see what you did?

[SkyDekker 1,147]

That's what you get for sending the bailiff after me

[Andy9o8 0]

What, you get ravished by Clem, your cellmate?

[SkyDekker 1,147]

just call me Ronnie Barker

[PhreeZone 15]

Quote

- This bullshit someone said about fees being a primary source of bank income is HILARIOUS. Compared to loans?? Yeah, right. Whatever. greater than less than...the alligator is hungry...elementary school math...

Vinny the average amount in fees charged to every checking account holder in 2008 was over $350 in fees (ATM, maintenance, bounced check, overdraft). The number for fees vs interest are not as far apart as you think they are http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/1998/07/27/story5.html 40% of bank's income is in fees as of 1998 and fees have only increases since then. The cost of overdraft was $10 in 1998, its currently $20-25. Its a $20 BILLION dollar a year income source for banks.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/27/pf/bankrate/index.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/earnings/2007-04-19-bank-of-america_N.htm
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-bankfees2108mar21,0,5584352.story


Look up something called High-Low transaction processing. Basically on days (or over weekends since transactions are not processed then) that multiple transactions occur on an account Banks process the most expensive transaction first and then work their way down from there.

Here is a situation to consider - Saturday you have $150 in the checking so you hit the movies, dinner and need to gas up the car - 3 transactions totalling $60. On Monday you have the direct withdrawal of $160 for your power set up. Also on Monday you deposit $300 in to the account. Tuesday you look at the account and you will be hit with 4 over draft charges - one for each transaction since the bank processes the withdrawal's first in terms of largest to smallest and then processes the deposits. The timing the bank chooses to use might have just cost you $120 in fees even though all day Sunday you had the money to cover your movie night and at worst might have bounced the power bill on Monday but since they do high low transaction processing they do the Monday power bill first then the other charges.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The staffing level of customer service is based on volume of calls. If you get more calls, you need to pay for more people, or you decide to give a poorer level of service.

Only true to a certain extent.

Say you are growing your business and have noticed that you need a customer service rep to answer phone calls from customers.

You hire the rep and for the first 5 months she is getting 15 calls per day with an average duration of 15 minutes. Your business grows and for the 5 months after that she is getting 17 calls per day on average.

As an employer, how much is it costing me for her to answer those 2 extra phone calls per day?

Ok, in your contrived and irrelevant example, there is no cost.

But in the real world, banks get plenty of calls, and have already eliminated headcount that results in people sitting around doing nothing. It is already a compromise of cost and performance. Added calls certainly have real costs.

[TheAnvil 0]

Once again you fail to address the point at hand - don't worry; it seems others join you.

WRT your delving into bank finances and how they are, I thought it fairly clear I was referring to ATM fees/service fees for inquiries that were in question. My apologies if that was not clear. If you take into account all fees - loan origination, overdraft, etc - I'm sure the actual % income for any bank from them would be at least 35% or greater; probably greater. With regards to the issue at hand, I DO NOT CARE.

Any money coming into the bank counts towards the total it must keep on hand in cash as compared to what it may lend out. Regardless of source. If the bank is using the same paradigm for unemployment funds as other funds with regards to strategy, then they're buffoons (I doubt this seriously). With regards to the issue at hand, I DO NOT CARE.

This entire thread is HILARIOUS. I didn't know there was such ire against banks as to make people think they should give away services for free.

Let's review and I'll go quite slowly and deliberately.

FACT: Unemployed benefits recipients are NOT regular bank customers in this case.

FACT: Liberals want the unemployed recipients to receive benefits identical to regular customers.

FACT: THAT'S FUCKING MORONIC just in and of itself.

FACT: This new method is more convenient to the recipient and cheaper to the government to execute.

FACT: The money can be withdrawn and placed into another bank with whatever fee structure the recipient's own bank has. They've the time - they're not going to work.

I could go on. This is simply liberals whining over and over again because banks make a profit. So fucking what. Anybody want to work for the gov't for free? No? If so and you want the banks to do so, then look in the mirror and say 'I am a hypocrite' over and over again.

Facing facts - not the liberal forte.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkyDekker 1,147]

So your standpoint is that all the call centre representatives were already working at their maximum, therefor the bank had to charge fees for the calls from the wellfare folk?

I find that very hard to believe and I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

And if you think that example was contrived or irrelevant, you must not be working in business.

[TheAnvil 0]

Interesting...I was referring to ATM and service inquiry fees as in the thread and not all fees - loan origination and the like. I'll have to read up on that.

Thanks for the info.

Cheers,

Vinny

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Anvil, you do a lot of swearing and yelling at liberals, but very little answering of questions. Its exactly what politicians do when they know they have lost an argument.

If the banks are already making money off the program without charging fees for it, then your argument that the banks should not be expected to work for free falls completely by the wayside.

[TheAnvil 0]

ROFLMFAO!

You haven't surpassed Lucky for the funniest post in Speaker's Corner history, but this is a pretty good attempt.

Conservatives not face facts? This thread in and of ITSELF shows the issues left wingers have with that!

Perhaps you don't read a lot of threads in here...or pay close attention.

Prime example - something I LOVE to throw down left wingers' throats every time they get on their proverbial high horse about civil rights. Every time I ask a left winger who supports affirmative action why they support racial discrimination, they run like a coward. (Amazon's an exception; she admitted she supports racial discrimination; way to go, Jeanne! I'm still so proud of you). They don't want to face the fact that what they support is despicable and counter to what they claim to be. Vice answer, a tail between the legs and insults are about all you can get out of the average left winger when posed that query.

There are SO MANY cases of liberals not facing facts it's not even funny. Conservatives as well, on occasion, to be fair. But as a general rule of thumb, not facing facts truly is the liberal forte.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[TheAnvil 0]

Not at all. I - and anyone thinking about it - fully expect them to make $$ off of money in house, staying within the legal ratios. I also expect them to charge fees to non customers for usage of equipment and services. Would you like them to pick up usage fees for ATMs that are not their own for the unemployed as well? LMFAO.

This is a no brainer. Deal with it.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkyDekker 1,147]

Quote

Would you like them to pick up usage fees for ATMs that are not their own for the unemployed as well? LMFAO.

Nope and we weren't talking about that, so why bring a seperate issue into it?

I do expect the bank to not charge an overdraft fee to a welfare customer. They have the ability to just not let the payment go through.

I expect them not to charge a fee for a phone call. As pointed out earlier in this thread, I don't believe there is an incremental cost to them.

[DanG 1]

Why do you consider someone who deposits money in a bank not a customer? I think that is the root of the question. How the money gets there should not be an issue. Whether it is deposited by an employer, the government, or Santa Claus, money is money. These people are customers and should be charged the same fees as other customers.

- Dan G