3 ms·

It might be a little bit cumbersome, but I don't think it's impractical. With only quarters and dimes it's difficult to pay $0.05 or $0.15, but it's possible.

by toast0 1y ago

It might be a little bit cumbersome, but I don't think it's impractical. With only quarters and dimes it's difficult to pay $0.05 or $0.15, but it's possible. If I owe you $0.05, I must give you a quarter and you give me two dimes. Or I give you a $20, you give me $19 in paper money, three quarters and two dimes. If I owe you $0.15, I must give you a quarter and you give me one dime. If I owe you $0.95, I can't give you $1 and get change, I'd need to give you $1.25 and get three dimes back. Or give you $2, get three quarters and three dimes. Owing $19.95 or $19.85 would be most inconvenient, since many people seem to live life with only $20 bills in their wallet and there would be a lot of extra change required. But, if we stopped minting pennies because they cost too much (3.7 cents), it's hard to imagine we're going to keep producing nickels when they cost 13.8 cents to mint. Dimes are much cheaper than nickels (5.8 cents), and quarters aren't too bad relative to face value (14.7 cents). Article with values [1], which I rounded to millidollars. I'd bet people would rather keep dimes than quarters, but rounding everything to quarters is a big step. I certainly would prefer quarters --- it's been a long time since arcade machines took dimes, and I only have quarter mechs (most of my games are on free play, and I can reuse the quarters I need forever, or add a credit button, but still). [1] https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/heres-how-much-the-us-spends-on-minting-its-coins-and-cash/4193546/ https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/...

mulmen 1y ago
> But, if we stopped minting pennies because they cost too much (3.7 cents), it's hard to imagine we're going to keep producing nickels when they cost 13.8 cents to mint. Dimes are much cheaper than nickels (5.8 cents), and quarters aren't too bad relative to face value (14.7 cents). Coins aren’t disposable. Why does it matter if the production cost is higher than the face value?
- axiolite 1y ago
  > Why does it matter if the production cost is higher than the face value? You can buy pennies or nickels in bulk, melt them down, and turn a tidy profit. That's literally a "money printing glitch" Every penny or nickel that gets lost in the gutter, stored in a coin collection, used as a washer or shim, turned into jewelery, or sets around in jars unused, represents a financial loss to the Treasury. It's called seigniorage and melt value. Also see Gresham's law (hoarding).
  - mulmen 1y ago
    No, you can't. According to [1] the scrap value of a penny is $0.0084771. The cost of production is $0.037. The relevant question is if a penny creates more than $0.037 of economic value before it is lost or destroyed. [1]: http://coinapps.com/base-metal/coin/calculator/ http://coinapps.com/base-metal/coin/calculator/
    - axiolite 1y ago
      Okay, metal prices are low at the moment, but post-1982 pennies did have a melt value of approx 2c not long ago. And it shows nickels are still currently worth more than 5c.
      - mulmen 1y ago
        Sure, if the coins are worth more as scrap that’s a problem. So why isn’t that the justification?
- toast0 1y ago
  Look, the Mint has one job, to make money. If it's losing money, it doesn't make cents. :P But, while coins are durable, the Mint has been making billions of pennies every year since the 1950s, and yet retailers have trouble sourcing enough pennies to make change. They do tend not to be recirculated, even if they're not disposable.
  - mulmen 1y ago
    > Look, the Mint has one job, to make money. If it's losing money, it doesn't make cents. :P I realize this is a joke but again, my objection is that this is the actual reason given. > But, while coins are durable, the Mint has been making billions of pennies every year since the 1950s, and yet retailers have trouble sourcing enough pennies to make change. They do tend not to be recirculated, even if they're not disposable. These are all better reasons than the one we were given.
    - axiolite 1y ago
      > These are all better reasons than the one we were given. Explaining that it costs 4c to make a 1c coin is a pretty clear and solid justification. People know that producing a physical unit of currency should cost considerably less than its face value, and if not, it's a huge problem. Complaining that one news article, which is just reporting a current event, doesn't give you an in-depth background analysis and context, is absurd. If you care about a topic enough to want that level of in-depth, you can go look for it elsewhere. CNN pointed me this NYT article: https://archive.is/Ek38I https://archive.is/Ek38I
      - mulmen 1y ago
        > Explaining that it costs 4c to make a 1c coin is a pretty clear and solid justification. It’s really not though, for the reasons I described already. > Complaining that one news article, which is just reporting a current event, doesn't give you an in-depth background analysis and context, is absurd. Well then it’s good that I didn’t do that. > If you care about a topic enough to want that level of in-depth, you can go look for it elsewhere. Like the HN comment section? Trump himself said: > For far too long the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents. This is so wasteful! That certainly sounds like the reason is production cost and not any of the compelling reasons you have provided.

by toast0 1y ago

mulmen 1y ago

> But, if we stopped minting pennies because they cost too much (3.7 cents), it's hard to imagine we're going to keep producing nickels when they cost 13.8 cents to mint. Dimes are much cheaper than nickels (5.8 cents), and quarters aren't too bad relative to face value (14.7 cents). Coins aren’t disposable. Why does it matter if the production cost is higher than the face value?

axiolite 1y ago
> Why does it matter if the production cost is higher than the face value? You can buy pennies or nickels in bulk, melt them down, and turn a tidy profit. That's literally a "money printing glitch" Every penny or nickel that gets lost in the gutter, stored in a coin collection, used as a washer or shim, turned into jewelery, or sets around in jars unused, represents a financial loss to the Treasury. It's called seigniorage and melt value. Also see Gresham's law (hoarding).
- mulmen 1y ago
  No, you can't. According to [1] the scrap value of a penny is $0.0084771. The cost of production is $0.037. The relevant question is if a penny creates more than $0.037 of economic value before it is lost or destroyed. [1]: http://coinapps.com/base-metal/coin/calculator/ http://coinapps.com/base-metal/coin/calculator/
  - axiolite 1y ago
    Okay, metal prices are low at the moment, but post-1982 pennies did have a melt value of approx 2c not long ago. And it shows nickels are still currently worth more than 5c.
    - mulmen 1y ago
      Sure, if the coins are worth more as scrap that’s a problem. So why isn’t that the justification?
toast0 1y ago
Look, the Mint has one job, to make money. If it's losing money, it doesn't make cents. :P But, while coins are durable, the Mint has been making billions of pennies every year since the 1950s, and yet retailers have trouble sourcing enough pennies to make change. They do tend not to be recirculated, even if they're not disposable.
- mulmen 1y ago
  > Look, the Mint has one job, to make money. If it's losing money, it doesn't make cents. :P I realize this is a joke but again, my objection is that this is the actual reason given. > But, while coins are durable, the Mint has been making billions of pennies every year since the 1950s, and yet retailers have trouble sourcing enough pennies to make change. They do tend not to be recirculated, even if they're not disposable. These are all better reasons than the one we were given.
  - axiolite 1y ago
    > These are all better reasons than the one we were given. Explaining that it costs 4c to make a 1c coin is a pretty clear and solid justification. People know that producing a physical unit of currency should cost considerably less than its face value, and if not, it's a huge problem. Complaining that one news article, which is just reporting a current event, doesn't give you an in-depth background analysis and context, is absurd. If you care about a topic enough to want that level of in-depth, you can go look for it elsewhere. CNN pointed me this NYT article: https://archive.is/Ek38I https://archive.is/Ek38I
    - mulmen 1y ago
      > Explaining that it costs 4c to make a 1c coin is a pretty clear and solid justification. It’s really not though, for the reasons I described already. > Complaining that one news article, which is just reporting a current event, doesn't give you an in-depth background analysis and context, is absurd. Well then it’s good that I didn’t do that. > If you care about a topic enough to want that level of in-depth, you can go look for it elsewhere. Like the HN comment section? Trump himself said: > For far too long the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents. This is so wasteful! That certainly sounds like the reason is production cost and not any of the compelling reasons you have provided.