Court: Paper money discriminates against the blind

Most vending machines I've seen only take one dollar bills. If it is too big a hardship to redesign the vending machines, then they could just leave the dollars alone.

A better alternative might be to do away with paper money in general and use plastic for everything.

Or we could have plastic bills. Then we could literally tie the dollar to oil.

Changing money is a general inconvenience. Changing the size would require all vending machines that took money to be updated, costing money. Same goes for changing the layout, or making them 'bumpy'

...because all vending machines take plastic. Did you just put a dollar value on anti-discrimination?

how about cheapo money readers.. a simple barcode, a cuecat and mini comp.
really a blind mini comp could be used for all kinds of things.. with gps.. a rfid reader.. put some rfid tags on street signs and stores.

last sometimes there are things just beyond a handicap and just to expensive or hard to make compatible.. yeah it sucks, so does life sometimes. cars are made for people with legs.. blind people cant do air traffic control, I'm skinny I cant be a sumo wrestler.. it sucks. Eh yeah money is a big part of life and if we can help we should.. I just think it would be easier/cheaper to help the blind read the money, then to design new money readible by the blind and change everythign else that already reads money to read the new money

Silly you Joules, a cost effective, feasible solution won't feed as many lawyers and lobbyists. C'mon!!

cars are made for people with legs

Cars can be, and are, modified to enable them to be driven by people with no legs.

You mean to tell me that common self is something that we can't expect from the legal system???

This is tough. The court's ruling is probably correct. However, that doesn't mean there is a feasible solution. Like Joules says, blind people can't do air traffic control. Should we force the use of brail radar?

This is tough. The court's ruling is probably correct. However, that doesn't mean there is a feasible solution. Like Joules says, blind people can't do air traffic control. Should we force the use of brail radar?

That's a ridiculous comparison. Everybody uses money. Even Indonesia has tactilely discernible currency.

Cars can be, and are, modified to enable them to be driven by people with no legs.

yeah that is sorta my point.. a single car is custom modified for the use of someone handicapped.. they are not requiring ALL cars to have a gas pedal as well as a gas knob. It would be a bit more expensive and hard to modify ALL CARS, than to taylor solutions for those that need it.

So what do you propose, having "blind" money and "regular" money?

no I propose we do like canada and give them readers for free.
its a bit cheaper than revamping our entire money system.

You could also do like Canada and change your currency. Sorry, I haven't heard if portable currency readers exist yet.

but it will also make counterfeiters work very hard to duplicate these features.

Precisely. This isn't just an anti-discrimination move, but one of security. In fact, if we did have money of different sizes, it would prevent counterfeiters from "washing" lower value bills and reprinting them with higher values.

And as to the vending machines - other countries have currency of various sizes and they have vending machines that accept those sizes - so our vending machine companies could just follow their model.

also cost 3 or 4 times as much to make
heck we can do away with paper and just stamp our money out of gold.

and yes vending machine survive.. most cant take the new fives right now and will have to be programmed to take the new money.. but to take variosu new sizes they will have to be reinvented.. (yeah they can take some of those foeign vending bill readers.. but our dollars would have to macth those sizes)
I'm not sayign it is a horrible idea.. to put brail and different sized bills.
I Am say it isnt as easy as say "this is better and more secure"
sure it is, doesnt mean it is a good idea or economically feasible right now.

How do you know it costs 3 or 4 times more to make? What process goes into cutting paper money, exactly?

I don't see how a redesign would be so economically infeasible right now seeing as the government has been designing and re-designing several bills in the last 10 years. Why would this redesign put more of an economic strain on the government than the past redesigns?

Also, the vending machine readers don't just accept one size of money, they scan the images on the bill to read what type it is, so the US bills wouldn't necessarily have to be the same size as those in other countries.

I'll direct you one more time to a quote from a reliable source on the matter of cost, Joules, but feel free to continue ignoring it:

Over the past ten years – and two redesigns – the [Bureau of Engraving and Printing] has spent $4.2 billion on currency production, an average of $420 million per year.

Over the same ten year period, the addition of an embossed numeral - at an initial cost of $45.5 million and annual costs of $16 million - would have increased BEP spending by approximately $205.5 million, or less than five percent.

[Source]

They're already spending your precious tax dollars to "protect against counterfeiting". I'll add, again, that the American Council of the Blind seeks to make no changes to the $1 bill, which accounts for 50% of currency printed by the BEP each year. When was the last time any of us trusted a larger denominational bill to a vending machine?

I'll also point out that many of the ATMs used in countries that have sized denominational currency are made right here in the USA. We have not only the means, but a motive: creating new demand for factory jobs.

ok w/e you know you can change the color of a car without retoolign the factory but to change the size fo the car.. is a different matter. I didn't ignore your post the first time I simply found it irrelevant.

and you can kep ignoring the fact that blind people have the tools they need. they have readers, they have have auto braillers and I am sayign thier is cheaper easier way to do things, that already exist, and don't require us to retool the mints and ll the vending machines.

So you would prefer that they use "tools" that may or may not be free, and that many may not know they have access to versus having the government adapt and provide currency that is not only accessible to "able" human beings, but also the blind? Seriously, the government already spends billions to battle counterfeiters, this shouldn't be that hard.

It's about time the US catches up to the rest of the world.

Fine. I give up. @!$%# the blind.

Yes, it should have happened a long time ago, especially since the issue was taken to court. I'm shocked by the court's original verdict.

It shouldn't be that much of an issue to include a braille-like texture on bills.

It shouldn't be that much of an issue to include a braille-like texture on bills.

what makes you think that?
besides for the new machines to stamp them out
you have to make soemthign that handles the wear and tear of the life of a dollar and is still readible by fingers..a nd also have to make sure it is unatlerable.. meaning a guy cant just poke some bumps in a 1 and make it a ten.

And I'm sorry I'm goign to sound rude but I cant stand all the "it should be easy" "it is a no brainer", "all they have to do is putt some braille bumps and be done with it" as these people most likely have never had to invent anything.

So what do we make the braille part out of?? thicker paper, right int he bill? a plastic peace that is atatched to the bill? how about we just embed a small soudn device that says "this bill is a twenty" when you pic the thing up and be done with it.

Not every feel good idea is a good idea.

Of course there would be research and development involved, but considering that bills are now being redesigned anyway it could be done if they wanted to. I understand that anything that relies on texture could be easily manipulated, but a reasonable effort is certainly in order. I too understand that there are cut-off points, but I don't think we're there yet.

Texture is a lot harder to manipulate than ink, and could relatively easily be built into the paper as it's being made. There might be an issue with badly worn bills, but those are supposed to be taken out of circulation anyway.

The point is, they tested this, they found it reduced the life of a bill greatly.

another point.. is all you guys seem to think you have all the answers.. and the point is.. we have looked at this before.. and I'm just suggesting before you scream "BRAILLE".. go find that fact out for yourself as well.

I'm not saying not to try these things, I am saying think about it a bit first.. do some research.. often when there is a mind boggling obvious idea, there is also a really extraordinarily good reason why we don't do it.

Joules, were you one of the parties in the original research committee? Assuming not, you really can't speak to how tight their conclusion was.

The posters aren't necessarily saying it must be Braille, but that it behooves them to at least make a sincere effort.

Actually, that's 2.77% of the population. I think you forgot to move the decimal point.

Woops, I most certainly did. And actually, from the Google search I did on the U.S. population, it's closer to 3.32%.

Still very small though. As in, too small to warrant such a large overhaul.

I don't think it is a matter of being insensitive...but perhaps we should all look at the bigger picture.

In my opinion, we make allowances for the smallest portions of the population already, and this has become close to the status quo for some time. If one child in a class of 20-30 has some learning issue, the class is modified for that student. If one employee cannot work without pain, companies with certain numbers of employees must make an adaptation for that employee. So if one person can't see their money (of which this country runs on more than visual perceptions), it would only seem obvious that some adequate adjustment should be made. I liked the reference to the courts ruling against the governments argument in personal adaptations:

The court ruled 2-1 that {such} adaptations were insufficient. The government might as well argue that, since handicapped people can crawl on all fours or ask for help from strangers, there's no need to make buildings wheelchair accessible, the court said.

I find this rather humorous as well, considering the government is recommending the purposeful modification to the currency - something I am pretty sure is a crime in some way.

I don't know what our country's aversion to coins are, but many other 'older' societies have been working with coins for quite some time and their currency seems to be worth more than the dollar. The British Pound comes in 1, 2 and 5 Pound coins (and trades at almost 1:2.75), while the Euro also comes in 1, 2, and 5 Euro coins (and trades at almost 1:1.60). There are also paper notes for these currencies, but the coins are used for almost all 'small value' transactions - including vending machines.

I disliked the Saq. Dollar just as much as the next person, so 'boo' to the DoT, but there is no reason we can't try and go this route in our quest to make adjustments for small portions of the population.

You're not being insensitive. I"m 59 years old and have been legally blind since birth. I manage my money by folding it differently. I was taught that as a small child.

I don't expect the whole world to be redesigned for my disability. The idea is just plain silly.

What's next? Don't weather warning sirens discriminate against the deaf?

By the way, mostly I put my money in the bank and use a debit card. It's so easy to keep things straight that way.

Considerations for people with disabilities are not necessarily based on reasonableness or value. It's about equality. We try to make things as equal as possible for people who are diabled. We can't be perfect, and there are some disabilites that we simply can;t accomodate, but in this case, visual impairment is prevalent enough and easy enough to accomodate in this instance, that we absolutely have to do so.

If one child in a class of 20-30 has some learning issue, the class is modified for that student.

I have a big problem with that, actually.

Provisions should be made for that student, but not at the expense of the other 29 kids in the class. Sometimes inclusiveness goes a little too far.

As I said, I've been legally blind for 59 years. I feel no unequal treatment because of the way money is printed. Sometimes, we just take all of this "fairness" crap too far.

No way is it worth the price the taxpayers would be charged.

I manage just fine.

c anderson its cool to hear about how you deal with your impairment. Maybe that's a totally reasonable way for the visually impaired to handle money. How are you able to check and make sure you aren't being short changed? Do you just have to trust that cashiers are not going to take advantage of you?

`Of course it would make a difference for generations to come, thats what we as adults should be doing is looking to make the future better for everyone. I'm glad the courts ruled this way. It's a step towards progress.

I hate to sound insensitive, but would the money invested into completely redesigning paper money really make that big of a difference?

I disagree. I think you love being/sounding insensitive.

Is that where you want the bar set for helping people, it has to make some sort of economic sense? The cost of this change-over would be what, the cost of a month or two in Iraq?

would the money invested into completely redesigning paper money really make that big of a difference?

Not to you, so it's just not worth it right? Do your roads and services that allow you to travel to, get sewer service for, and water to your house benefit someone across town? I mean why should the person across town pay for your sewer line, so you can crap indoors? Maybe we should just all pay individually for every service we benefit from. No collective buying power. You pay a sewer connection fee, right? Do you think that itcompletely covers the cost of your connection set up? Think again. Where does the rest come from? Other tax payers, that's who. Yet their help doesn't seem to bother you.

It's only if this change-over is going to help someone else that you seem to have a problem with the cost.

The few blind people I know get along just fine with how things are now.

Care to switch?

I disagree. I think you love being/sounding insensitive.

I'm sorry you feel that way. You can think whatever you want, but just know that what you think is wrong.

Is that where you want the bar set for helping people, it has to make some sort of economic sense?

Oh, absolutely not! I want everyone to have a pony and alllll the cars and houses they want. That would certainly help people.

Of course it has to make some sort of economic sense, you fool. What colour is the sky on the planet you come from?

It's only if this change-over is going to help someone else that you seem to have a problem with the cost.

Yeah. That's it. I just plain hate blind people. Anything that will benefit them does a direct injustice to me and my hatred for the blind. Damn their faulty rods and cones to hell!

Seriously, do you even read what you type?

But maybe I am being insensitive. Someone let me know.

You asked, I answered

Of course it has to make some sort of economic sense, you fool.

Name calling and CoH violation aside, perhaps you can explain the economics of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That has a cost to businesses that, while creating access and thus increasing customers or working available to said business, I doubt it is actually a net gain.

So why do it? Because it creates a fairer environment to live and work in for all citizens.

From the government's standpoint it's a benefit. If a disabled person who would otherwise be able to work except of the lack of a ramp at the workplace is likely to have to go on disability, a cost to tax payers. Better to allow workers to work if they can, right? So build them a ramp.

Same thing with this issue. I can see easier to identify paper money increasing a blind persons mobility if they are able to pay for things when they are out in the world or counting cash at their workplace.

I want everyone to have a pony and alllll the cars and houses they want.

While that's very generious of you, changing the paper money a bit is good for now.

colour

Do you live in the U.S.? -- Jus' wondering

Do you live in the U.S.? -- Jus' wondering

Canada, actually. We're British like that.

From the government's standpoint it's a benefit.

Actually it's an expense. An unnecessary one, as blind people have been getting along fine with how things are now. Don't believe me? Ask Mr. C Anderson.

Um... I did. I'm still not sure how he counts change. That seems like a big deal. If bill readers work, that's cool, but it didn't sound like they were part of his program.

I failed to answer you. The answer is simple. I always carry currency in denominations that will allow me to pay up to the next highest dollar. It's simple. That way, your change is always in coins. See? it's so easy. Most of the time, however, now I use a debit card.

Also forgot to say that paper currency is folded differently. A $1 is flat. A $5 is folded once across. A $10 is folded once lengthwise. A$20 is folded across twice. I never carry anything bigger than a $20.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

The more you know...

You're right. We shouldn't discriminate. So we should confiscate all property holdings above the federal poverty line. That would solve the probem.

That must be what they mean by a straw man argument!!! I've always wondered what one of those looked like.

Now you know ;:-) (on one level - see below)

My comment was supposed to be facetious towards the main thrust of the seed. I'm just getting a little weary of hearing the call of 'discriminatory!' being raised every time there's a perceived inequality, at the expense of the greater society. I'm constantly having to ignore the majority of my students to tend to the one or two who have been 'mainstreamed' in (whether appropriate or not!), courtesy of NCLB. The $$$ we have to spend as a school district for education of special needs children are high, but its the paperwork hoops that get really redonkulous, and get me as cranky as I was yesterday. I support giving a Fair and Appropriate Education (FAIR) to those who have these needs, but when it interferes with the ability to educate everyone else, then it goes too far. So is the cost worth it??

To that, I turn to the vine. Stolte-Sawa's quote of $16 million/year for the addition doesn't sound too unreasonable. I was under the impression that costs were going to be much higher. So I drop my opposition in the light of the reasonableness (ugly word) of the costs.

Money does discriminate against poor people??? That still is a fair target, and I do not see my lines against it as being a straw man arguement. If you want socialism, go ahead. I'm sure Kim Jong-Il, the only true socialist government leader in the world, would LOVE to accept another citizen.....

It's a straw man because you are setting up an argument for me which I don't have. I have NEVER espoused socialism here on Newsvine and if you knew me you would know what.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

You argued against a straw man agument of your own creation, not against anything that I ever said. And to compare me to Kim Jong-ill based upon a joke I made is beyond ridiculous.

So we should confiscate all property holdings above the federal poverty line.

Therein lies the straw man, as I never even remotely said anything close to that. You are equating one who is concerned about Poverty with espousing socialist ideals. If being concerned about the poor makes me a socialist then call me a socialist if it makes you feel better.

Phaedrus - The problem is, I don't know you well enough yet. Apparently, you don't know me well enough either, so we were missing the sarcasm (on my part) and the point of view (on your part).

I think the bigger issue is that money discriminates against poor people.

You never really explained what your comment meant: were you discussing the shape of money? The fact that the poor don't have money? (I had originally assumed the latter, wasn't sure if you were being sarcastic or idealistic or something else, and added my own sarcastic touch, which you took far too seriously and far too personally.). I explained this in 7.3. If you didn't like that explanation, and you didn't recognize the sarcasm involved, (I don't think I'd compare ANYONE to Kim Jong Il without being firmly tongue-in-cheek,) then my apologies. The poor didn't ASK to be poor, for the most part. And while we live in a nation where there are some hopes for advancement, some people have fewer opportunities than others. I am hoping that this last meaning is truly what you had in mind.

If being concerned about the poor makes me a socialist then call me a socialist if it makes you feel better.

Everyone should be concerned about the poor. Being concerned about the poor doesn't make you a socialist. Being naive about how economies work and assuming that the government can solve everyone's fiscal problems makes you a socialist. s'ok?

Being naive about how economies work and assuming that the government can solve everyone's fiscal problems makes you a socialist. s'ok?

You're very good at setting up your straw men aren't you? Did I ever say that the government can solve everyone's fiscal problems? Argue with what I have personally said and stop with the straw men.

If you don't know me well enough then should you have jumped to conclusions about my politics? I think not.

I should have realized as much. Thanks, hhabilis!

This has nothing to do with blind people, it is only a prelude to the 'mark of the beast' to come. The government is ready. (satire)

It is an old Hebrew axiom. Very old. Another one that has been ignored by the Christians who take the bible literally. The Mark of any man will show on his hand and his forehead. This means what he does and how he thinks. That is all. (Not a satire). The on ly thing that is "At Hand" is whatever you make out of your own efforts. no wonder some still hate Jews....

It was a joke, Dan, you know like funny ha ha.

Phaedrus, the antichrist is not a joke. *serious face*

...

*slap on the wrist*

...

*hands you your excommunication papers*

...

*you are now free to join the Illuminati*

Phaedrus, the antichrist is not a joke

I know, and "Thy name is Bush".

Seriously though, there is no such thing as an antichrist. It's myth!!

Seriously though, there is no such thing as an antichrist. It's myth!!

Well, now that's just insulting, he believes in you! You are saying that the Bible is a source of Myth? Hell is a myth, Dante's Hell is, but Satan, God and Life after death, Myths.

Phaedrus, it was what you call a joke. You know like funny haha.

;-)

you sir have never attempted to buy drugs,
LOL

there are somethings plastic cant buy.

I trade in stolen gold and diamonds only. So my local dealer remains happy.

I agree, seems on this issue of paper currency, the US needs to 'catch up' to other modern nations.

When I first started to do international travel professionally, I remember thinking how odd it was that every other country's currency was of varying sizes and colors. Now, after almost a decade of working overseas, the fact that US currency is all the same shape and color strikes me as terribly antiquated. (For several reasons, the issue of the visually impaired included.)

At the very least, braille indentations on the bills to identify the denomination could go a long way in solving this issue.

Blind people can't learn to see.

Right-on stolte-sawa!

Blind people can't learn to see. But, we can learn to be elf-sufficient citizens.

Yea, because all those poor people, we know it's all their own fault, every single one of them for why they are poor. I hope you never fall into poverty yourself. It sux!!

Phaedrus, I responded to your point earlier, and you took personal offense. Now, I have to ask, are you responding to the points made above on innumeracy, poor education, and sight deprivation, or are you going overboard on the poverty arguement? You've made that point. It doesn't bear the repeating in this subthread. Thank you.

Blind people can't learn to see. But, we can learn to be self-sufficient citizens.

I was referring to this because he is assuming that everyone who is poor is poor because of their own bad choices. A lot of times this is the case, but not always, not in a greedy capitalistic Republican run society which we have in this country. Get really sick one time so that you have to file bankruptcy due to the medical bills and then talk to me about learning to be self sufficient citizens.

Braille is not the only way that blind people can "see" flat surfaces. The Euro doesn't use braille, and neither does Canadian paper money, but both are tactilely discernible currency.

not saying change is bad.. hardly but there has to be more thought given to it than the comment sin this thread suggest.

See comment #12 and links. I doubt lobbyists for the blind would stake their livelihoods on web forum-caliber ideas.

good atleast you put some effort in it, thanks for helping me grow smarter.. my whole point is to get people to think.. and look and see alternatives.. rather than always screamign the most obvious idea in their head.
Only 5% awesome.
I wonder if you have the numbers.. if we provided readers for every blind person
.. I suppose we could work it out.
$200x 3.3 million legally blind people.. (from your link)
so that is 700 million to get readers int he hands off all the blind.
ok according to here.. it will cost the industry .5 billion to redo all the atms
.3 billion to start the conversion of the money along with an added .06 billion per year in extra costs. soo 700 million to give them readers.. and 860 million to redo our money (lets forget the yearly costs)
so it is almost 20% cheaper to give them all hand held readers.

just saying is all.. put some thought into it.

also from my link

Ferguson said the bureau tested braille marks on bills, but durability tests showed that they wore off quickly.

im not really insensative, just askign people to think.

that is a very good comment.

There are simple solutions to this problem that could be slowly rolled out as new currency is printed.

One less problem in the world. Where's the big deal.

People should be pleased to hear that there are simple solutions that solve a problem that fortunately most of us have never even realized exist.

thanks for your perspective tzara. I sometimes take all these issues as my personal responsibility and get mad at all the stuff Viners are leaving on my plate.

I am not against change, I am against looking before you leap to obvious answers
People dont, that's why they tell the same stupid ovious jokes.. like the simpsons and the girl showing off the car.. "do you come with the car?".
There is often a reason the obvious isnt done.
And even more often the easy solution isnt, LIke "hey lets just convert to plastic"

Yep, you all are getting some awesome coins. I'm thinking of ordering a set. I love coins!

That seems like a good idea. (Thanks for adding numismatists to my vocabulary and thanks to wikipedia for giving me a definition)

I'm a numismatist! My prized possession (of my coin collection) is a Roman coin from ca. 69AD, featuring Emperor Domitian.