#finance tech

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Fintech bullies stole your kid’s lunch money

I'm coming to DEFCON! On Aug 9, I'm emceeing the EFF POKER TOURNAMENT (noon at the Horseshoe Poker Room), and appearing on the BRICKED AND ABANDONED panel (5PM, LVCC - L1 - HW1–11–01). On Aug 10, I'm giving a keynote called "DISENSHITTIFY OR DIE! How hackers can seize the means of computation and build a new, good internet that is hardened against our asshole bosses' insatiable horniness for enshittification" (noon, LVCC - L1 - HW1–11–01).

Three companies control the market for school lunch payments. They take as much as 60 cents out of every dollar poor kids' parents put into the system to the tune of $100m/year. They're literally stealing poor kids' lunch money.

In its latest report, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau describes this scam in eye-watering, blood-boiling detail:

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_costs-of-electronic-payment-in-k-12-schools-issue-spotlight_2024-07.pdf

The report samples 16.7m K-12 students in 25k schools. It finds that schools are racing to go cashless, with 87% contracting with payment processors to handle cafeteria transactions. Three processors dominate the sector: Myschoolbucks, Schoolcafé, and Linq Connect.

These aren't credit card processors (most students don't have credit cards). Instead, they let kids set up an account, like a prison commissary account, that their families load up with cash. And, as with prison commissary accounts, every time a loved one adds cash to the account, the processor takes a giant whack out of them with junk fees:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/14/minnesota-nice/#shitty-technology-adoption-curve

If you're the parent of a kid who is eligible for a reduced-price lunch (that is, if you are poor), then about 60% of the money you put into your kid's account is gobbled up by these payment processors in service charges.

It's expensive to be poor, and this is no exception. If your kid doesn't qualify for the lunch subsidy, you're only paying about 8% in service charges (which is still triple the rate charged by credit card companies for payment processing).

The disparity is down to how these charges are calculated. The payment processors charge a flat fee for every top-up, and poor families can't afford to minimize these fees by making a single payment at the start of the year or semester. Instead, they pay small sums every payday, meaning they pay the fee twice per month (or even more frequently).

Not only is the sector concentrated into three companies, neither school districts nor parents have any meaningful way to shop around. For school districts, payment processing is usually bundled in with other school services, like student data management and HR data handling. For parents, there's no way to choose a different payment processor – you have to go with the one the school district has chosen.

This is all illegal. The USDA – which provides and regulates – the reduced cost lunch program, bans schools from charging fees to receive its meals. Under USDA regs, schools must allow kids to pay cash, or to top up their accounts with cash at the school, without any fees. The USDA has repeatedly (2014, 2017) published these rules.

Despite this, many schools refuse to handle cash, citing safety and security, and even when schools do accept cash or checks, they often fail to advertise this fact.

The USDA also requires schools to publish the fees charged by processors, but most of the districts in the study violate this requirement. Where schools do publish fees, we see a per-transaction charge of up to $3.25 for an ACH transfer that costs $0.26-0.50, or 4.58% for a debit/credit-card transaction that costs 1.5%. On top of this, many payment processors charge a one-time fee to enroll a student in the program and "convenience fees" to transfer funds between siblings' accounts. They also set maximum fees that make it hard to avoid paying multiple charges through the year.

These are classic junk fees. As Matt Stoller puts it: "'Convenience fees' that aren't convenient and 'service fees' without any service." Another way in which these fit the definition of junk fees: they are calculated at the end of the transaction, and not advertised up front.

Like all junk fee companies, school payment processors make it extremely hard to cancel an automatic recurring payment, and have innumerable hurdles to getting a refund, which takes an age to arrive.

Now, there are many agencies that could have compiled this report (the USDA, for one), and it could just as easily have come from an academic or a journalist. But it didn't – it came from the CFPB, and that matters, because the CFPB has the means, motive and opportunity to do something about this.

The CFPB has emerged as a powerhouse of a regulator, doing things that materially and profoundly benefit average Americans. During the lockdowns, they were the ones who took on scumbag landlords who violated the ban on evictions:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/20/euthanize-rentier-enablers/#cfpb

They went after "Earned Wage Access" programs where your boss colludes with payday lenders to trap you in debt at 300% APR:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/01/usury/#tech-exceptionalism

They are forcing the banks to let you move your account (along with all your payment history, stored payees, automatic payments, etc) with one click – and they're standing up a site that will analyze your account data and tell you which bank will give you the best deal:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/21/let-my-dollars-go/#personal-financial-data-rights

They're going after "buy now, pay later" companies that flout borrower protection rules, making a rogues' gallery of repeat corporate criminals, banning fine-print gotcha clauses, and they're doing it all in the wake of a 7-2 Supreme Court decision that affirmed their power to do so:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/10/getting-things-done/#deliverism

The CFPB can – and will – do something to protect America's poorest parents from having $100m of their kids' lunch money stolen by three giant fintech companies. But whether they'll continue to do so under a Kamala Harris administration is an open question. While Harris has repeatedly talked up the ways that Biden's CFPB, the DOJ Antitrust Division, and FTC have gone after corporate abuses, some of her largest donors are demanding that her administration fire the heads of these agencies and crush their agenda:

https://prospect.org/power/2024-07-26-corporate-wishcasting-attack-lina-khan/

Tens of millions of dollars have been donated to Harris' campaign and PACs that support her by billionaires like Reid Hoffman, who says that FTC Chair Lina Khan is "waging war on American business":

https://prospect.org/power/2024-07-26-corporate-wishcasting-attack-lina-khan/

Some of the richest Democrat donors told the Financial Times that their donations were contingent on Harris firing Khan and that they'd been assured this would happen:

https://archive.is/k7tUY

This would be a disaster – for America, and for Harris's election prospects – and one hopes that Harris and her advisors know it. Writing in his "How Things Work" newsletter today, Hamilton Nolan makes the case that labor unions should publicly declare that they support the FTC, the CFPB and the DOJ's antitrust efforts:

https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/unions-and-antitrust-are-peanut-butter

Don’t want huge companies and their idiot billionaire bosses to run the world? Break them up, and unionize them. It’s the best program we have.

Perhaps you've heard that antitrust is anti-worker. It's true that antitrust law has been used to attack labor organizing, but that has always been in spite of the letter of the law. Indeed, the legislative history of US antitrust law is Congress repeatedly passing law after law explaining that antitrust "aims at dollars, not men":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/14/aiming-at-dollars/#not-men

The Democrats need to be more than The Party of Not Trump. To succeed – as a party and as a force for a future for Americans – they have to be the party that defends us – workers, parents, kids and retirees alike – from corporate predation.

Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/26/taanstafl/#stay-hungry

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[mod2amaryllis]

i know vet prices are out of control expensive but it's because the world is expensive, not greed, and so every time i encounter someone complaining about it in bad faith i want to grab them by the hands with shaking, sweaty desperation and say "on average human nurses are paid 30-50 dollars an hour. vet techs, who are nurses of every department and every specialty and also janitors and mma fighters, are lucky to break minimum wage."

[tygerland]

[cyberpunkonline]

The Great Tech Heist: How East Coast Money Made Silicon Valley’s Wild West Look Like a Rigged Casino

Let’s take a trip back to the ‘90s. Picture it: everyone’s wearing acid-wash jeans, video game cartridges are getting blown into like they’re ancient relics, and the internet is that weird thing we only use to email chain letters and download Metallica tracks on Napster (sorry Lars). The tech world is exploding, right? West Coast kids, wired up on Mountain Dew and Jolt Cola, are coding like mad geniuses in their garages, while on the East Coast, fat cats are throwing cash at any startup that promises to "disrupt" something, anything. Sounds like the American Dream? Think again.

The Myth of the Silicon Cowboy

Look, we’ve all heard the fairy tale: Silicon Valley was built by scrappy hackers, rebellious dreamers who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and revolutionized the world. Yeah, no. Turns out, the tech boom wasn’t just a bunch of geeks in garage startups waiting to change the world with code—it was funded by some serious East Coast money. Yup, while the West Coast had the talent, the algorithms, and the vision, it was those Wall Street fat cats who swooped in with their big, dirty bags of cash when the rest of the world still thought the internet was just a fad for nerds.

Let’s not look at this through rose-tinted glasses. The West Coast might’ve had the hackers and engineers, but the East Coast had the old-money institutions and finance bros itching to throw dollars at anything with "tech" in its name. It wasn’t just about innovation, man. It was about control. The future wasn’t some wild frontier—it was a rigged casino. And the house? You guessed it. Ivy League-educated venture capitalists who had their claws in the game long before anyone knew what "dot-com" even meant.

East Coast Money, West Coast Hustle: The Unholy Union

Picture this: West Coast techies, hyped up on vision boards and overly optimistic projections, meeting East Coast investors in their slick suits, who smell like cigars and finance spreadsheets. It’s a match made in capitalist heaven. The techies needed funding to keep their dreams alive, and the financiers were happy to oblige—so long as they got a cut, or better yet, all the power.

This wasn’t a one-off thing. This was a system. East Coast money turned the Valley into a playground for the rich before the innovation even had a chance to breathe on its own. The money vultures from Boston and New York didn’t just see an opportunity; they saw a way to control it from the start. The ‘belief gap’ (you know, that time when people still thought tech was a passing trend) was patched over not by pure innovation or passion, but by heavy financial artillery.

The Fad That Wasn’t: Dirty Money and Nepotism

Let’s get real. Tech wasn’t some magical, equal-opportunity goldmine. It was a “get rich quick” scheme for anyone with the right connections or enough dirty cash to play the game. Nepotism was as rampant in the tech space as in any other industry—maybe even more so. Those that had old money? They were the ones who got in early, while the rest of us were busy playing GoldenEye and waiting for dial-up to connect.

Sure, there were a few exceptions—some genuine innovators who actually did come out of nowhere to change the game. But for every scrappy underdog success, there were a hundred trust-fund babies whose families were plugged into the venture capital pipeline. The rise of the tech industry wasn’t fueled by underdogs, but by a calculated infusion of East Coast dough—making sure that when the chips fell, the same people who always win were the ones holding the cards.

Media vs. Tech: A Clash of Titans or Just a Slow Dance?

And let’s not even get started on the media’s role in all this. If you thought the mainstream media (MSM) was rooting for the rise of the internet, think again. The old guard—newspapers, magazines, television—they were terrified. Internet? Pfft. Just another fad like laserdiscs and slap bracelets, right? Wrong. But of course, they had to protect their interests, so they downplayed it at first. "No, no, people will never want to read their news on a screen." Yeah, well look where we are now. They couldn’t hold back the tide, but they sure as hell tried.

And when they couldn’t? They hopped on the bandwagon, rebranded themselves as “digital pioneers,” and started their own media conglomerates online. They played both sides, hedging their bets, and ultimately getting in bed with the very tech companies they once mocked.

The House Always Wins

Look, it’s no accident that tech became what it is today. It was designed to succeed in a system that benefits the already-powerful. When East Coast money plugged into West Coast talent, it wasn’t to help build a utopian future of innovation and creativity. It was to control the next big thing. The old money powers weren’t afraid to take over the narrative—and as usual, the house won.

So yeah, every time you hear about the "wild west" of tech and how it was all about risk-takers and visionaries, take it with a grain of salt. Sure, there were some rebels in there. But the real power move was knowing which side of the table to sit on. And unless you were part of the old guard with the right connections, you were just along for the ride.

As Hunter S. Thompson would probably say, it’s all one big swindle. The game was rigged from the start, and now we’re all stuck in this digital casino, hoping we can at least break even. But let’s face it: the house always wins.

And remember, folks—when you’re sitting there staring at your screen, watching tech giants swallow the world whole, just know this: behind every slick algorithm and groundbreaking app, there’s probably a cigar-smoking finance bro laughing all the way to the bank.

And that’s the real joke.

[businessmemes]

I think Terry and Susan might need to update their resumes asap

[fereldanwench]

BOLD THE FACTS ft Valerie Powell

→ Tagged by the wonderful @corpocyborg--Thank you so much! ♡♡♡ → Answers are based on her status during the in-game events

✧˖°. PERSONAL

$ Financial: wealthy / moderate / poor / in poverty

✚ Medical: fit / moderate / sickly / disabled / disadvantaged / non-applicable / would be in great shape if not for the brain worm

✪ Class or Caste: upper / middle / working / unsure / other

✔ Education: qualified/ unqualified / studying / other

✖ Criminal Record: yes, for major crimes / yes, for minor crimes / no / has committed crimes, but not caught yet / commits more crimes (bribes law enforcement) to avoid charges / yes, but charges were dismissed

✧˖°. FAMILY

◒ Children: had a child or children / has no children / wants children

◑ Relationship with Family: close with sibling(s) / not close with sibling(s) / has no siblings / sibling(s) is deceased

◔ Affiliation: orphaned / abandoned / adopted / disowned / raised by birth parent(s) / not applicable  

✧˖°. TRAITS + TENDENCIES

♦ extroverted / introverted / in-between

♦ disorganized / organized / in-between

♦ close-minded / open-minded / in-between

♦ calm / anxious / in-between / highly contextual

♦ disagreeable / agreeable / in-between

♦ cautious / reckless / in-between / highly contextual

♦ patient / impatient / in-between

♦ outspoken / reserved / in-between / highly contextual

♦ leader / follower / in-between

♦ empathetic / vicious bastard / in-between

♦ optimistic / pessimistic / in-between

♦ traditional / modern / in-between

♦ hard-working / lazy / in-between

♦ cultured / uncultured / in-between / unknown

♦ loyal / disloyal / unknown

♦ faithful / unfaithful / unknown

✧˖°. BELIEFS

★ Faith: monotheist / polytheist / atheist / agnostic

☆ Belief in Ghosts or Spirits: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care / in a manner of speaking

✮ Belief in an Afterlife: yes / no / don’t know/ don’t care / in a manner of speaking

✯ Belief in Reincarnation: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care / in a manner of speaking

❃ Belief in Aliens: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care

✧ Religious: orthodox / liberal / in between / not religious

❀ Philosophical: yes / no / highly contextual

✧˖°. SEXUALITY & ROMANTIC INCLINATION

❤ Sexuality: heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual / asexual / pansexual

❥ Sex: sex-repulsed / sex neutral / sex favorable / naive and clueless

♥ Romance: romance repulsed / romance neutral / romance favorable / naive and clueless / romance suspicious

❣ Sexually: adventurous / experienced / naive / inexperienced / curious

⚧ Potential Sexual Partners: male / female / agender / other / none / all

⚧ Potential Romantic Partners: male / female / agender / other / none / all

✧˖°. ABILITIES

☠ Combat Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor/ none

≡ Literacy Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

✍ Artistic Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

✂ Technical Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

✧˖°. HABITS

☕ Drinking Alcohol: never / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / alcoholic / former borderline alcoholic turned sober

☁ Smoking: tried it / trying to quit / quit / never / rarely / sometimes / frequently / chain-smoker

✿ Recreational Drugs: tried some / never / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / addict

✌ Medicinal Drugs: never / no longer needs medication / some medication needed / frequently / to excess

☻ Unhealthy Food: never / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / binge eater

$ Splurge Spending: never / sometimes / frequently / shopaholic

♣ Gambling: never / rarely / sometimes / frequently / compulsive gamble

Tagging: @medtech-mara, @vayneoc, @themermaidriot, @itzsassha, @elfjpeg, @morganlefaye79, and @vox-monstera ♡

dividers by @saradika | masterlist here (awesome resource--thank you so much! ♡)

[birbwizard]

somnic oc

[mitskillsindia]

[charliejaneanders]

In the early 2010s... the tech business was much smaller. Back then, people used desktops more than mobile devices. Business school students preferred to work at banks. And Google’s market cap was less than $200 billion. Hoodies, not suits, ran the industry. As the economic opportunity in tech grew though, things changed. Bankers and finance professionals, looking to reinvent themselves after the financial crisis, found the tech sector. They became CEOs and COOs as the developers stood back. [T]he tech sector, or at least parts of it, then trended into overfinancialization. Instead of thinking about what problems they could solve for people, some companies looked only at growth and margins. They became extractive. DoorDash, for instance, counted tips toward its minimum delivery worker payments, changing the policy only after an uproar.

The Over-Financialization Of Tech And The SVB Backlash

[matthewgallaway]

I discovered a rooftop bar near my office that’s always completely empty and has hilariously mediocre drinks and food — like everything looks like it was picked up prepackaged from a convenience store — but the views are amazing and probably for the first time since 2019 reminded me what it’s like to feel awestruck by the city and its (relative) immortality.

[prussianmemes]

i think if everyone complains that their field of work sucks and is in ruins and isn't paid enough - i think the conclusion should be that work in general just sucks.

[mentalbarf]

[justposting1]

5 Easy Passive Income Ideas for 2024

Hello, this is Taylor! Today, we’re going to dive into a fascinating topic—five ways to generate passive income. For each method, we’ll discuss how difficult it is to get started, how challenging it is to earn $100 per week, and how hard it is to maintain once it’s up and running. You’ll see that these factors vary across the different methods, so let’s jump right in! First, what is passive…

[clowningaroundmars]

the way that i am now downloading stock market news apps......... and squinting at these crazy ass news articles and learning finance terms n shit.... trying to read these number and graphs........

i am morphing into a middle aged dad of 3 kids. 🧍‍♂️

[gothamite-seagull]

Remember girls, if anyone says 'women belong in the kitchen', that's where the knives are kept.

[pygian-weapon]

about fucking time