Ooh that's what that is - I thought it looked like a language toggle, but I couldn't work out the languages or in what language the abbreviations were (like HI/EN), and obviously it didn't have that effect. That is a nice idea.
NEFT and RTGS are free if you do it online. UPI is free. Many banks waive off IMPS charges.
NEFT and RTGS were introduced in the mid-2000s. IMPS in 2010, UPI in 2016. It's been > 10 years since the latest instrument launch. Enough time for "long term" impacts to show up.
If anything, the impact has been overwhelmingly positive.
What does this have to do with credit cards? India always had credit cards at a scale comparable to most countries, and they always were a regularly-used of payment for medium-sized "white" transactions; they just weren't that useful for day-to-day transactions in terms of most locals' ways of working where the actual India-level scale is, and not the primary way of transacting as in the US. And looking at how Visa and Mastercard work, and what they tried to do in Brazil, I think that's a great thing.
As GP says, you could _never_ get the older generation to use a credit card even when they had the means to do so. But they took to UPI just fine, and many now prefer it over cash.
Also, credit card issuance and acceptance in India is growing quite a bit right now, despite (because?) of UPI.
It has everything to do with credit cards if you understand what the parent comment is saying. Credit card allowed people to use something else other than cash when internet banking/digital payments wasn't available and smartphones were not a thing. Their entire society adopted credit cards as a very normal way of payment even for everyday stuff since it offers convinence over cash and rewards.
Yes India got credit cards but it was not widespread and people did not use it as a daily thing since most stores/outlets did not have the card swiping system. UPI solved this problem very well since you just need a QR code and a valid bank account and no transaction charges making it perfect for day to day spending.
We got digital payments and smartphones together. But in the US for example, credit cards came much earlier and were able to capitalize very well since there wasn't a lot of the technology at that time which we take for granted today.
Well, yes, but you conflate that credit cards would've worked, had they been available/easy, in a place like India, which in many ways rejected and still sometimes rejects the kind of thinking which makes credit cards successful in places like the US, which is what the GP was saying.
People up until one-two generations ago completely rejected the use case for credit cards for payment, since they just did not want to swallow the premise of using credit as a payment instrument. If that doesn't happen, credit cards do not take off (just as what you are saying). The problem wasn't as much as systems were not available; systems were available but people did not want it. Merchants swallow the cost if the demand comes (this is what is happening right now; credit cards are becoming mainstream despite UPI being there, because younger generation loves using them, and more merchants than before are allowing credit cards on UPI even though they can reject them, because people want to use credit on UPI as well). People at that time just did not want to use credit, so merchants had no incentive to bear costs. Kali Mody brought Diners Club to India in 1961 (my father has fond memories of that instrument). CBI introduced the first bank-issued credit card in the eighties. The system was _always_ there. People just didn't feel they wanted to use it.
People also forget that UPI is not just for consumer-to-merchant. It's also a P2P system, which credit cards definitely aren't.
You make a system that people want, people will use. People used UPI.
I'm not sure what you mean. You also need to look at the whole environment and other factors than just "People just didn't feel they wanted to use it". In 1961, India was extremely poor and it has been until the 90s. Credit cards at that time did not solve any problem, people had no use for them and the culture of using it never grew as it did in the US but UPI gained acceptance because the country was doing much better and it was easy to use. That's what we were discussing.
You seem to either not have an understanding of ground reality (if your father was using Diners Club in the 60s, he was in the elite). But the system "being" there vrs the environment of the system actually being useful are different things. People did not reject credit cards at that time due to idealogical reasons, they rejected it because there was no point for them.
By the time, we stepped up in commerce, digital payments like UPI were easily available. This is why most people say we skipped the credit card phase and went straight to digital payments. Nobody is saying India did not have credit cards but look at adoption rates and the economic reality of India in the 60s to 90s and you will see many factors that prevented this that are not realated to the technolgy or idealogy at all.
> You seem to either not have an understanding of ground reality (if your father was using Diners Club in the 60s, he was in the elite).
Well, I wouldn't say "elite", but well off (at that time), but that still doesn't mean that card networks couldn't have made themselves useful if they/the government wanted to. Poverty is not a gating mechanism. Plenty of poor people in the US use credit cards - they practically fund the rewards system since they cannot pay on time - and I seem to remember that the first Americards were figuratively dropped from the skies, regardless of the holder's income or debt levels, which was then used to coax merchants into accepting them. Such sort of "growth" tactics would not have had an effect here since neither the government nor RBI would allow it, nor would the people take too kindly to it. And let's not disparage people for not understanding ground reality. What I'm saying still has basis in fact, just possibly not the facts you seem to care about. The point about people not wanting to use credit cards still stands. Just talk to someone > 60 years old and you'll get the drift. Many wouldn't touch a revolving credit feature here even if it was forcefully handed to them and they could easily use it. As much a fan my dad was of Diners Club, he still told me to not touch a credit card until I had at least twice as much income as expenses.
I don't disagree with you entirely, and your points are not the reason I talk about the sixties and eighties; I talk about them because many people seem to think that India did not have the systems there at all, and that India did not have enough well-off people in the past at all, or that India did not have any sort of knowhow or capability to introduce systems like credit cards (and make it work for quite a bit of the population) at all. That part is incorrect. The systems were there, they just failed for the "hundreds of millions" at that time while still working for the "few million", plus they still hung around enough to succeed now because clearly the potential was always there. Just because they didn't catch on quickly did not mean that they weren't there or were not useful to a subsection of the population. You cannot just go "straight to the digital payments phase" without acknowledging that things were there and what their trajectories were. People seem to forget that relative small scale "of solving problems" for India in terms of adoption is large-scale for other countries. A single-digit percentage acceptance in this country can swallow many countries' populations, poor or otherwise.
Most mom and pop stores (Kirana stores) in India cannot get a PoS device easily. UPI solves this problem by being much easier for merchants to onboard and start accepting payments with just a QR code instead of a PoS device.
Not just about PoS device. During early credit/debit card days, lot of stores would pass on merchandise fees directly to customers, giving discount in case of cash transactions, some stores still charge extra. This is not allowed in west as credit cards require same price as cash transactions, and most users perceive credit card rewards as something positive as one would lose out on this rewards when using cash. In India perception is that one would be making loss* if using credit cards. UPI with no fees as of now, is perceived as equal to cash by most people not dealing with black money.
When people here are saying "credit cards" are we talking about purely domestic networks, or what?
Visa and Mastercard payment rails are somewhat disjoint, even for large Indian companies. As a foreigner, there's always been a huge acceptance gap vs many other countries when you want to use a card.
What I am really impressed by is that experts and the army itself is open to criticism and commentary (I am sure there are limits, and censoring will be happening on the more important parts), but coming from a country where the government seems to think that any critique is "anti-national", such articles seem like a breath of fresh air.
A more open space means better ideas with potential edge get shared, which is better for everyone.
The key is selecting officers for competence, not loyalty. This requires all the other stuff in your country to be set up so that the leaders aren't worried about coups from your own military, but the advantage to getting all of that is that you can have a much more effective military.
Why? Because any time junior officers just went through losing a war they are going to be pissed off that they were sent out there to do something that was impossible, and got a lot of their friends killed doing it. And if you let them, they are going to fix your military and make it more effective. My favorite example of this is the unpublished Ph.d thesis from Marshall Michel, The Revolt of the Majors (https://etd.auburn.edu/handle/10415/595) about all of the junior pilots in the US Air Force who experienced, first hand, how terrible and useless the USAF was during Vietnam and over the course of the 1970's and 1980's built the totally different US Air Force that did Desert Storm.
If you are fortunate enough that you don't have the experience of recently losing a war, there will be a smaller number of junior officers who will be worried about losing the next one, and it will take more effort to identify those officers and put them into positions of power, but it is still possible to revolutionize your military without the bitter taste of a defeat. Defeat just makes it so that there are lot more junior officers committed to reform, and they will have the upper-hand over the more senior officers- so long as they are all selected for competence and not loyalty. If promotions are selected with loyalty as the primary factor, then you don't get reform, you get patronage.
Sometimes a patronage system can be effective, but it ends up being like the Czarist Russian fleet of 1905: Admiral Makarov was very very good, and everything directly under him was competent, but all of the other admirals varied between mediocre and terrible and the rest of the fleet was as well. After Makarov's ship the Petropavlovsk sank with almost of its officers and men (including him) the Russian Navy gave no further benefit to the state, it was just a sacrifice.
To quote Don Draper: "that's what the money is for".
By all means go work for big tech if you want to, it's a free country, but then you don't get to wash your hands off the bad things your company's doing by saying stuff like "the execs made us do it" or "the execs overruled us".
There's nothing unproductive in calling out denying responsibility/culpability. Some would say it's practically mandatory.
> There's nothing unproductive in calling out denying responsibility/culpability. Some would say it's practically mandatory.
I've been condemning the surveillance industry going on two decades now. Making that condemnation personal has felt pretty unproductive to me. Maybe there is now enough of a critical mass of people seeing the problems that personal condemnation might help move the needle these days, but many years of this not being true is still the perspective I am coming from.
Employees that are paid multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars plus equity, and likely can jump ship to another company without a hitch are not in a position of strength?
Please. Meta is one of the few firms where employees genuinely had a chance to stop this from happening, with all the "engineers are first-class citizens" bit.
I'd rather people own up to their responsibilities than dodge around theoretical nonsense.
Seems that they didn't add explicit options for resination/indifference, but there is at least one archetype you get at the end which does fit that mold:
The Shrug
patron saint: Matt Levine
AI is a thing that exists and you regard it with detached amusement, like everything else. It's overhyped, sure, but so is most stuff. You'll use it when it's useful and ignore it when it isn't, and you find the discourse more interesting than the technology. You are unbothered.
I figured out fairly early in my career that if a company/team really wants you, the recruiter is going to roll out the red carpet, irrespective of seniority. It's happened multiple times for me, and has led to the few successful offers I've had. But if they're ambivalent, or you're just there to fill in the statistics, then problems will pop up: lack of proper communication, no clear timelines, canned responses, ghosting, the list goes on.
So I look for markers: if I see a quick turnaround time for my emails, I know that I'm in the right interview loop. Else I spend as much time as the other party spends on me, ie not much.
Absolutely. I've had two experiences that stick in my mind - one, where the recruiter told me within the first three minutes that the hiring manager had already seen my resume, they'd both agreed there was amazing alignment, and then proceeded to talk to me for forty five minutes about the company and answer questions to make sure I was interested in the company (I was). Yes, of course, his job, but it wasn't just trite vague and generic "We have excellent benefits", but talked about their path and plans and approach. He was very responsive, and sure enough, excited hiring manager call, and then just one more call, with the VP of Product, who outright said the hiring manager was making the call and decisions, if I was talking to him, I was basically a "finalist", and that he wanted most of the interview to be me asking him questions, not just so I could learn more, but he could see my levels of inquisitiveness, etc. I got that job, the recruiter was very responsive, we even joked that I had a brief moment of doubt when he sent me a message "to connect" after the two interviews: we'd had all our previous conversations via Zoom. I said in my email, "feel free to schedule a Zoom for any time after X or give me a call directly" (admittedly trying to feel things out), and he said "Oh, I can just give you a quick call" (and I assumed it was thanks but no thanks).
The other, they made things work. While normally, we're all accustomed to "Actually X has a conflict, so we need to reschedule" and on and on and you can find yourself a week, two weeks later, waiting still, this company said "X has a conflict, but we're going to put someone else into the interview", and then they had a challenge with someone being sick for a panel interview - "We're going to do the interview without them", i.e. they were committed to "we need to and want to keep moving forward". Every time I've had that rescheduling limbo, as you say, it's a sign (obviously there can be some exceptions), but when a company is working to make things happen, it's generally a good sign about your prospects, the company, or both.
I just wish it had a tooltip because its purpose was not immediately clear (CR/BN is a bit cryptic).