Originally Posted by
Aimless
Categorically disagree. Perhaps what you're trying to say is that the law does not address the root causes of people being unbanked/underbanked, or give them access to banking services, ie. solving the problem of people being unbanked/underbanked; that's absolutely true. The law does, however, solve or at least mitigate a problem - the problem of unbanked/underbanked people not being able to participate fully in society by purchasing goods that they need/want and can pay for. The law can plausibly mitigate the problems that arise as a consequence of people being unbanked/underbanked. It does indeed also create new problems for those merchants who prefer, no doubt for legitimate reasons, to go cashless. The law attempts to mitigate those problems as well, eg. by making some allowances for stores that provide easy access to machines that can top up prepaid cards. That may still not be enough, but, as a group, merchants are better able to incentivize innovation that can solve their problems, than individual poor people who can't even access basic banking services that are increasingly necessary for participation in normal society.
Giving a starving person free food doesn't address the root causes of poor food security, but it does mitigate the consequences of lacking food security for that person. Giving a homeless person a home doesn't address the root causes of people becoming homeless, but it does mitigate the problematic consequences that arise from those root causes (see eg. Finland's experiences with this simple strategy). Treating a person with diabetes doesn't address the root causes of diabetes, but it does mitigate the problems that arise as a consequence of diabetes, for that person. Making it illegal to discriminate against black people on the basis of race may not address the root causes of such discrimination (eg. racism), but it does mitigate the problems that arise from such discrimination, eg. being denied access to goods and services or jobs for which they are qualified.
Who cares who gets credit for solutions, so long as those solutions are discovered and implemented? But let's be real - innovators who develop good solutions for any problems that may arise from this law are the ones who'll get credit for those solutions, as well the $$$.
The market will deliver innovative solutions that will prevent mass death of retailers in NYC. You must have faith. These problems can be easily solved, if the will to solve them is there.
Partly because I disagree with your assessment that this law doesn't "solve anything", I have to disagree with this characterization - and with your conclusion. The law does solve something, and it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the politician who managed to get it passed cares about solving a problem for a vulnerable group that he represents. Any righteous genius who feels they are less lazy, more responsible, and more competent... are welcome to present solutions that may meet your standards. It's telling that they haven't been able - or inclined - to do so yet.