A Penny for Your Thoughts

IF 0.4 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q4 ENGINEERING, CIVIL
David B. LaFrance
{"title":"A Penny for Your Thoughts","authors":"David B. LaFrance","doi":"10.1002/awwa.2477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>I don’t remember the last time I used a penny. It has, after all, been a while since I used a gumball machine. On the other hand, if I see a penny on the ground, I will pick it up because all day long I will have good luck—as the adage goes. It is with this sort of duality that I view the current debate about eliminating the United States’ least valuable coin.</p><p>Eliminating the penny is not a new idea. This is actually the seventh time since 1990 there has been a government attempt to stop penny production. Also, it is worth noting that some countries, Canada being one of them, have successfully eliminated their one-cent coins.</p><p>The US government is motivated to eliminate the penny because of the cost to make it (see accompanying table). Right now, it costs 3.7 cents to make a one-cent coin. At first blush, it seems obvious that making this coin does not make sense. One might say the penny is financially upside down because the cost of the materials used to make the coin, plus the labor of manufacturing it, is greater than one cent by 2.7 cents. Nickels are also upside down. The good news is that the value of dimes and quarters is greater than the cost of making them.</p><p>An internet search shows that pennies and other coins are typically in circulation for about 30 years. Think of the multiple times a penny will be used over three decades—logically, the cumulative uses of a penny, one cent at a time, provide value in excess of the one-time cost to make it. On top of that, when a coin is taken out of circulation, the US Mint recycles the metals to make new coins—a true circular economy.\n </p><p>Money and water have a lot in common as well as distinct differences. As for similarities, water and money are used multiple times by many people. The penny you use is then used by another person, and then another, and so on, just as water is used repeatedly by you and other people. In both cases, water and pennies provide value for each person using them. Also, it costs money to produce water and coins. And importantly, unlike a penny, which is made once and used by multiple people over decades without new investments, water's cost is repeated in advance of each time it is provided to the next “downstream” user.</p><p>One important difference between pennies and water: we can make more pennies, but we cannot make more water. While water is used over and over again, it is the same water we have always had. Pennies, on the other hand, are minted each year (at least for now), resulting in more fresh pennies going into circulation. Wouldn’t it be great if water scarcity could be solved by introducing “freshly minted” water into the supply?</p><p>Because the supply of water cannot expand, water professionals have to protect the supply, making sure each usage is free of contamination and that it is available in the quantity and quality needed. All of this protective care requires new financial investments each time water is delivered. Pennies, on the other hand, don’t need to be protected. We can lose them, let them tarnish and get scratched, and toss them into wishing fountains. No reinvestment is needed to retain a penny's value; it is always one cent.</p><p>One last comparison to consider. When other countries have eliminated their one-cent coin, cash payments have often been rounded up or down to the nearest nickel. For example, something that costs $10.92 will round down to $10.90, while something costing $10.98 will round up to $11.00. Similarly, water utilities use rounding in their billing. The rounding is not, however, an adjustment to the price but rather is applied to the amount of water used. Typically, billed water consumption is based on thousands of gallons or hundreds of cubic feet and as such, the customer's bill reflects consumption amounts rounded to the nearest full thousand gallons or hundred cubic feet.</p><p>Ultimately, the case to stop minting the penny is a case for change (pun intended). But does that change hold water, or by keeping the penny, have we proved that a penny saved is a penny earned?</p>","PeriodicalId":14785,"journal":{"name":"Journal ‐ American Water Works Association","volume":"117 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/awwa.2477","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal ‐ American Water Works Association","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/awwa.2477","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, CIVIL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

I don’t remember the last time I used a penny. It has, after all, been a while since I used a gumball machine. On the other hand, if I see a penny on the ground, I will pick it up because all day long I will have good luck—as the adage goes. It is with this sort of duality that I view the current debate about eliminating the United States’ least valuable coin.

Eliminating the penny is not a new idea. This is actually the seventh time since 1990 there has been a government attempt to stop penny production. Also, it is worth noting that some countries, Canada being one of them, have successfully eliminated their one-cent coins.

The US government is motivated to eliminate the penny because of the cost to make it (see accompanying table). Right now, it costs 3.7 cents to make a one-cent coin. At first blush, it seems obvious that making this coin does not make sense. One might say the penny is financially upside down because the cost of the materials used to make the coin, plus the labor of manufacturing it, is greater than one cent by 2.7 cents. Nickels are also upside down. The good news is that the value of dimes and quarters is greater than the cost of making them.

An internet search shows that pennies and other coins are typically in circulation for about 30 years. Think of the multiple times a penny will be used over three decades—logically, the cumulative uses of a penny, one cent at a time, provide value in excess of the one-time cost to make it. On top of that, when a coin is taken out of circulation, the US Mint recycles the metals to make new coins—a true circular economy.

Money and water have a lot in common as well as distinct differences. As for similarities, water and money are used multiple times by many people. The penny you use is then used by another person, and then another, and so on, just as water is used repeatedly by you and other people. In both cases, water and pennies provide value for each person using them. Also, it costs money to produce water and coins. And importantly, unlike a penny, which is made once and used by multiple people over decades without new investments, water's cost is repeated in advance of each time it is provided to the next “downstream” user.

One important difference between pennies and water: we can make more pennies, but we cannot make more water. While water is used over and over again, it is the same water we have always had. Pennies, on the other hand, are minted each year (at least for now), resulting in more fresh pennies going into circulation. Wouldn’t it be great if water scarcity could be solved by introducing “freshly minted” water into the supply?

Because the supply of water cannot expand, water professionals have to protect the supply, making sure each usage is free of contamination and that it is available in the quantity and quality needed. All of this protective care requires new financial investments each time water is delivered. Pennies, on the other hand, don’t need to be protected. We can lose them, let them tarnish and get scratched, and toss them into wishing fountains. No reinvestment is needed to retain a penny's value; it is always one cent.

One last comparison to consider. When other countries have eliminated their one-cent coin, cash payments have often been rounded up or down to the nearest nickel. For example, something that costs $10.92 will round down to $10.90, while something costing $10.98 will round up to $11.00. Similarly, water utilities use rounding in their billing. The rounding is not, however, an adjustment to the price but rather is applied to the amount of water used. Typically, billed water consumption is based on thousands of gallons or hundreds of cubic feet and as such, the customer's bill reflects consumption amounts rounded to the nearest full thousand gallons or hundred cubic feet.

Ultimately, the case to stop minting the penny is a case for change (pun intended). But does that change hold water, or by keeping the penny, have we proved that a penny saved is a penny earned?

一分钱买你的想法
我都不记得上次用一分钱是什么时候了。毕竟,我已经有一段时间没有使用口香糖机了。另一方面,如果我看到地上有一分钱,我就会把它捡起来,因为就像谚语说的那样,一整天我都会有好运气。我正是从这种二元性的角度来看待当前关于取消美国最不值钱硬币的争论。取消一分钱并不是一个新想法。这实际上是自1990年以来,政府第七次试图停止硬币的生产。此外,值得注意的是,一些国家,加拿大是其中之一,已经成功地取消了他们的一分硬币。美国政府取消1美分硬币的动机是考虑到制造成本(见附表)。现在,制造一美分硬币的成本是3.7美分。乍一看,制造这种硬币显然没有意义。有人可能会说,一分钱在财务上是颠倒的,因为制造硬币的材料成本,加上制造它的劳动力成本,比1美分高出2.7美分。镍币也是上下颠倒的。好消息是,1角和2角5分硬币的价值大于制造它们的成本。网上搜索显示,便士和其他硬币的流通周期通常为30年左右。想想一分钱在三十年中会被多次使用——从逻辑上讲,一分钱的累积使用,一次一分钱,提供的价值超过了制造它的一次性成本。最重要的是,当一枚硬币退出流通时,美国铸币局会回收这些金属来制造新的硬币——这是真正的循环经济。钱和水有很多共同之处,也有明显的区别。至于相似之处,水和钱被许多人多次使用。你用的一分钱被另一个人使用,再被另一个人使用,以此类推,就像水被你和其他人反复使用一样。在这两种情况下,水和硬币为每个使用它们的人提供了价值。此外,生产水和硬币也要花钱。重要的是,不像一分钱,它是一次制造,几十年来被许多人使用而不需要新的投资,水的成本是在每次提供给下一个“下游”用户之前重复的。硬币和水之间的一个重要区别是:我们可以制造更多的硬币,但我们不能制造更多的水。虽然水被一遍又一遍地使用,但我们一直拥有的水是一样的。另一方面,便士每年都会被铸造(至少现在是这样),导致更多的新便士进入流通。如果可以通过引入“新鲜铸造”的水来解决水资源短缺问题,这不是很好吗?因为水的供应不能扩大,水务专业人员必须保护供应,确保每次使用都没有污染,并且可以获得所需的数量和质量。每次送水时,所有这些保护性护理都需要新的金融投资。另一方面,便士不需要保护。我们可以把它们弄丢,让它们失去光泽,被划伤,然后把它们扔进许愿池。保持一分钱的价值不需要再投资;总是一分钱。最后一个需要考虑的比较。当其他国家不再使用1美分硬币时,现金支付通常会向上或向下四舍五入到最接近的5美分。例如,价格为10.92美元的东西会下降到10.90美元,而价格为10.98美元的东西会上升到11.00美元。同样,自来水公司在计费时也使用四舍五入。然而,四舍五入并不是对价格的调整,而是对用水量的调整。通常,账单上的用水量是以几千加仑或几百立方英尺为单位的,因此,客户的账单反映的用水量四舍五入到最接近的一千加仑或一百立方英尺。最终,停止铸造一分硬币的理由是为了改变(双关语)。但是这种改变站得住脚吗?或者说,通过保留一分钱,我们证明了省一分钱就是赚一分钱吗?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
28.60%
发文量
179
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal AWWA serves as the voice of the water industry and is an authoritative source of information for water professionals and the communities they serve. Journal AWWA provides an international forum for the industry’s thought and practice leaders to share their perspectives and experiences with the goal of continuous improvement of all water systems. Journal AWWA publishes articles about the water industry’s innovations, trends, controversies, and challenges, covering subjects such as public works planning, infrastructure management, human health, environmental protection, finance, and law. Journal AWWA will continue its long history of publishing in-depth and innovative articles on protecting the safety of our water, the reliability and resilience of our water systems, and the health of our environment and communities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信