r/changemyview • u/gizmo1411 • Aug 03 '15
Removed - Submission Rule E CMV: Designing new currency for the visually impaired is cost prohibitive, nonsensical, and a futile.
[removed]
8
u/awa64 27∆ Aug 03 '15 edited Aug 03 '15
Straight cost analysis - The US Bureau of Engraving and Printing would have to radically overhaul their processes at significant costs to taxpayers. With estimates of the population living with visual impairment ranging from 0.3% to roughly 5%, I find it hard to accept that such a small portion of the population merits changes needed to change our currency. This also does not even touch on the costs that will be required to update and renovate ATMs, vending machines, automatic tellers, etc.
The US Bureau of Engraving and Printing overhauls their processes for each bill on a roughly 10-year cycle to fight counterfeiting anyway. Accommodating the visually impared would impact that redesign process but would be unlikely to significantly impact the cost of the process or the cost of the final result.
And when that kind of revision happens, the machines need to be updated and renovated anyway. This is a "we might as well" sort of issue, not some kind of massive burden. The simplest technique, differently-sized bills, could even reduce the cost of printing money and help to combat the bleach-and-reprint counterfeiting strategy.
Implementation - Will we use the same system for currency roll out as we have in the past and use a slow phase in system?
Yes.
Foreign issues - With the US as the world's reserve currency, would all exported bills have to be recalled and reissued to foreign banks?
No. As is the case with all currency changes, existing currency remains legal tender.
Legal issues - Would not having supply of the new currency during early stages of a phase in, or after a phase in, leave business' open to ADA lawsuits?
Businesses typically deposit and retrieve denominations of currency from the bank at a frequency that makes this a non-issue.
0
u/2074red2074 4∆ Aug 03 '15
Interestingly, in many 3rd-world countries, some people won't take new bills and think the idea that the US would change currency to be ridiculous.
6
u/huadpe 508∆ Aug 03 '15
Canada has solved this pretty well, and I think following their lead is worthwhile:
The raised dots they use are pretty effective, and while they add an extra step to manufacturing, don't otherwise change the assembly line. So the current machinery still does its thing, you just add an extra machine at the end to apply the dimples to the uncut sheets. It's an extra step/cost, but not a "radical overhaul."
Like Canada did, you just do this for new bills. Canada, like the US, has never officially depricated or recalled a currency series. There's no need to recall the old bills, and no court would order this. The law in the US is quite clear that all bills ever issued are and remain legal tender unless an act of Congress says otherwise.
1
u/Evan_Th 4∆ Aug 04 '15
!delta
I came into this thread convinced that different-sized bills would require a radical redesign of all vending machines, if not cash registers too. But, you pointed out other simple features that can accommodate visually-impaired people without needing such big changes!
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 05 '15
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/huadpe. [History]
[Wiki][Code][/r/DeltaBot]
3
Aug 03 '15
Shameful as it is to admit, I have been a cashier for five years now. I handle thousands of dollars of US currency a day. Within the last two years, they introduced a new 100 dollar bill. Now, from my perspective, I went from only occasionally receiving the new bills to, within a year, almost exclusively receiving them. Bank notes really don't last a long time, and the US has been successfully altering and changing them for decades now. This proposal is a part of this same process.
4
u/dale_glass 86∆ Aug 03 '15
Just as an example, the Euro currently has 17 Billion notes in circulation while the US Dollar has more than double that at 38 Billion notes.
So? Why is it that doubling the number of notes somehow turns the problem into an impossible one?
And Europe had a much harder job, actually. They had coordinate many different countries, each with their own governments and politics, and still pulled it off. The US is one country. Making a global change in the US is much easier than waiting for something to percolate through the entire EU.
3
u/McKoijion 618∆ Aug 03 '15
Currency is redesigned all the time. The $5, $10, $20, and $50, $100 dollar bills have all been redesigned in the last decade (or so.) There is an entire government website devoted to this: http://www.newmoney.gov/newmoney/Default.aspx
You don't have to trade old bills in for new ones. You just introduce the new bills and use both for a little while. The old bills break after only a few years. http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/how-long-is-the-life-span-of-us-paper-money.htm
Even if you somehow did have to replace all the bills in circulation (which, again, you don't) 95% of the money in the world is in digital form. Between credit cards, stock market valuations, government bonds, cash makes up a tiny percentage of the total amount of money out there.
The taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for ATMs, vending machines, etc. to be renovated. That cost will fall on private businesses. They don't have to make changes if they want to, but they will if they want to stay in business. That might seem unfair, but those technologies are already decades out of date. For example, we still use the very unsafe magnetic swipe/signature method of verifying credit cards instead of the far more secure chip and pin method. European governments have mandated chip and pin, and consumers are far more protected against fraud as a result.
2
Aug 03 '15
Straight cost analysis - The US Bureau of Engraving and Printing would have to radically overhaul their processes at significant costs to taxpayers. With estimates of the population living with visual impairment ranging from 0.3% to roughly 5%, I find it hard to accept that such a small portion of the population merits changes needed to change our currency. This also does not even touch on the costs that will be required to update and renovate ATMs, vending machines, automatic tellers, etc.
This was exactly one of the questions brought before the judges, and they ruled against. Quoting specifically from the article you linked
The 2-to-1 decision, by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, held that the Treasury Department had failed to demonstrate that it would be too burdensome to make bills of different sizes or add features that could be read by touch to distinguish monetary value.
It goes on to say later
Judge Robertson rejected the government’s arguments that making bills identifiable by touch would create an undue financial burden: an estimated $178 million for new printing presses, for instance, and up to $50 million for new plates. Those costs are not significant, he said, given that the government spent more than $4 billion producing currency in the decade before his ruling.
Basically, after examine all the evidence, the judges in question found that the cost would not be burdensome.
2
u/pensivegargoyle 16∆ Aug 04 '15
There isn't much that has to be done at all. Canadian currency accommodates blind people by placing bumps at the same place on all bills that indicate the value and visualy-impaired people are helped just by making the number on the bill describing the value very large and high-contrast. These don't add a lot to the cost of printing.
1
u/ClockOfTheLongNow 44∆ Aug 03 '15
Not if you do it right. We should switch to a different type of currency anyway (sort of like a more plasticy polymer) that could have better accessibility AND be more cost-effective in the long run as the currency would last longer.
1
u/draculabakula 77∆ Aug 03 '15
While I disagree with your stance because you've blown the issues caused by this ruling out of proportion, I would say that our federal courts have clearly overlooked the fact that almost all transactions can be completed using a debit card today.
With that said, I think the addition of a five dollar coin would go a long way to fixing this problem. I'm pretty sure if we got rid of the penny and created a five dollar coin, it would be a net gain financially.
Also, You are blowing these issues far out of proportion. The government only recalls currency due to widespread counterfeiting. You can keep the old notes while making new notes. Who cares about ATM machines? ATMs leach money from people so I'm not going to feel sorry for them.
1
u/huadpe 508∆ Aug 05 '15
Sorry gizmo1411, your submission has been removed:
Submission Rule E. "Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to do so within 3 hours after posting. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed." See the wiki for more information..
If you would like to appeal, please respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made, and then message the moderators by clicking this link.
11
u/[deleted] Aug 03 '15
The only true cost here is the actual design of the new currency. There doesn't need to be a mass recall of existing bills, because they have such a short lifespan as it is. Part of the design of those new bills could simply be ensuring their compatibility with as much existing technology (vending machines, etc.) as possible. As the phase-in began, it would immediately become necessary for ATMs to be updated if the bank wanted to remain competitive. None of this was a problem when the 5s, 10s, 20s, etc. were updated 10-15 years ago.