Connect with us

Economy

Who wins and who loses as the US retires the penny

US retires the penny? The US stopped minting pennies in November 2025. Learn who benefits and who loses as this change impacts small businesses, cash-dependent consumers, and the digital payment landscape.

Published

on

Who wins and who loses as the US retires the penny

One cent coins money (USD), currency of United States

Who wins and who loses as the US retires the penny

Nancy Forster-Holt, University of Rhode Island

By now, Americans know the strange math of minting: Each penny costs about 4 cents to make. Chances are you have some in a jar, or scattered among pockets, purses and car ashtrays.

As small as it is, the penny punches above its weight culturally. If it ever disappeared, so too might the simple kindness of “take a penny, leave a penny,” alongside timeless classics like penny loafers and the tradition of tossing a penny in a fountain.

But the penny’s days are indeed numbered. The U.S. Mint pressed the last 1-cent coin on Nov. 12, 2025, following a directive from the White House. While pennies will remain legal tender, old ones will gradually be taken out of circulation.

The impact of this change will reach beyond coin jars. Its ripples will be felt as small, cash-reliant Main Street merchants face another test of adaptability in a system that increasingly favors scale, technology and plastic. It will also be felt by people who rely on cash – often people without bank accounts who have the least room to absorb even tiny shifts in price.

My interest comes from my former lives as the chief financial officer of a large credit union and as a small-business owner. Now, I bridge theory and practice as a professor – or “prac-ademic,” as I like to say – studying the challenges facing Main Street businesses.

When the penny goes away, some will win, some will lose – and for some, it’ll be a coin toss.

Heads, they win

The first and most obvious winner is the U.S. government, which will save tens of millions of dollars each year by no longer minting a coin that costs more to make than it’s worth. Ending production seems like an easy call for efficiency’s sake.

Banks and credit unions will likely benefit too. Pennies are disproportionately expensive to handle: Every bag of pennies gets counted, sorted, rolled, verified and shipped back to the Federal Reserve, generating labor and equipment costs that far exceed the coin’s value. Removing the smallest denomination strips out an entire layer of cost and friction from bank operations – savings that scale immediately across thousands of branches.

Another beneficiary, this one hiding in plain sight, is who transports the cash: the armored-carrier industry. For companies such as Loomis and Brink’s, pennies are heavy, low-value cargo, and a logistical money-loser. Removing penny pickups eliminates one of their most inefficient services, reducing fuel use, labor hours and truck wear.

Large retailers will likely also win. Size and scale make it easier to undertake preparations both big and small, such as reprogramming cash registers and stockpiling pennies to hedge against shortages. Larger companies also have the talent and bandwidth to figure out the true costs and benefits of accepting cash or noncash payments. If most of their transactions are already digital, they could be relatively indifferent to the end of the penny.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Large retailers also negotiate lower card processing rates, which are the fees merchants must pay to the card companies every time a customer uses a credit or debit card. These rates aren’t uniform: Large chains get discounted pricing based on sales volume, while small businesses face higher costs for identical transactions. It follows that any policy change leading to more people paying with plastic will disproportionately benefit larger retailers.

To be sure, some banks, credit unions and large retailers have expressed concern and surprise at the pace of the change and the lack of guidance from the federal government. But for most, the penny’s end is a minor operational footnote. Online-only businesses operate in this frictionless world as well – no coins, no counting, no issue.

Tails, they lose

For small, Main Street businesses, the penny’s disappearance highlights the structural disadvantages they already face – and I think it will force a reckoning about what types of payments benefit their bottom lines.

As pennies phase out, local businesses are likely to round cash transactions to the nearest 5 cents, resulting in what economists call a “rounding tax.” Rounding to the nearest nickel could cost businesses and consumers about $6 million annually, according to researchers with the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.

And it wouldn’t offer much relief if more shoppers turn to plastic and other noncash payments. That’s because most small merchants lack the negotiating power to lower their card-processing fees.

Card acceptance comes with a layered stack of costs for merchants: interchange fees, network assessments, processor markups, gateway fees, chargeback penalties, terminal rentals and more. Together, these average 2.5% to 3.5% per sale for many small businesses. Also, there are expenses related to adopting the latest, greatest payment methods, and then keeping them updated.

Consider a quick-service restaurant where a typical customer spends $14. If that customer pays with a credit card and the business pays an average processing fee of 2.2% plus 10 cents per transaction, each sale incurs about 41 cents in fees. Even low-cost debit cards include fixed per-transaction charges that disproportionately affect businesses when the per-sale average is small. When the average sale is $10 or less, it barely covers the cost to process it as a card transaction.

That said, handling cash also comes at a cost, and it’s not always easy to know what’s best for business. One analysis found that accepting cash costs 53 cents per $100 of sales, compared with $1.12 for accepting debit payments using a signature and 81 cents for PIN-based debit. Of course, businesses also should keep in mind that different customers will have different payment preferences.

And speaking of customers, those who are most likely to feel the pinch from the end of the penny are people who still rely on cash: older adults, lower-income households, people without credit cards or bank accounts – either unbanked or under-banked – and people who budget in cash because it provides firmer spending discipline.

A few cents added to a grocery total or a convenience store purchase may not matter to someone tapping a rewards credit card, but cash-dependent consumers experience those small increases directly, with no offsetting points, perks or end-of-month cash back. And yes, prices often end in 99 cents, which get rounded up, not down. So the burden falls disproportionately on those least equipped to absorb even small, cumulative increases.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

For some, it’s a coin toss

Digital-first consumers may barely notice the penny’s disappearance. They tap phones, scan QR codes and use payment apps that will still settle to the exact amount.

While businesses haven’t received final guidance on how to handle payments in the post-penny era, one option is to price electronic transactions to the cent and round cash transactions to the nearest nickel. If that were widely adopted, digital payments alone would remain precise.

Consumers who use cashless payments may believe their choice doesn’t affect how they shop, but behavioral research says otherwise. Credit cards reduce the “pain of paying,” leading people to spend more – often 10% to 20% more than with cash. Credit card rewards programs further incentivize card use. In one last nod to the cost of noncash payments, those rewards are funded by higher merchant fees that ultimately translate into higher retail prices.

Killing the penny makes economic sense for the government and some businesses, yet it also highlights a deeper truth: Efficiency tends to reward the already efficient. For many, however, even when the change is small, every cent still counts.

Nancy Forster-Holt, Clinical Associate Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, University of Rhode Island

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Start Your Morning Informed

Get the STM Morning Brief delivered to your inbox every weekday with breaking news, transportation updates, technology, science, and trending stories.

STM News Brief Ad 2

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

News

FAA Certifies Boeing 737-7: What It Means for Airlines and the 737 MAX Program

The FAA has certified Boeing’s new 737-7, clearing the smallest 737 MAX variant for service as Boeing and Southwest prepare for first deliveries.

Published

on

737 7 max ID fb3c1b364a1c

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has certified Boeing’s new 737-7, granting the company an amended type certificate that clears the smallest member of the 737 MAX family for commercial service. The milestone closes a multi-year certification effort and puts the focus on execution: Boeing and launch customer Southwest Airlines say preparations are underway to support first deliveries.

For STM Daily News readers, the headline isn’t just “another plane gets approved.” It’s a signal that Boeing has now cleared a key MAX variant designed for long-range flexibility in a smaller footprint—an aircraft type airlines can use to open or defend routes where demand is strong, but not strong enough to justify a larger narrowbody.

What FAA certification means

An amended type certificate means the FAA has approved the 737-7’s design as compliant with commercial aviation regulations. In practical terms, certification allows airlines to place the aircraft into revenue service once deliveries begin and operator-specific steps—training, manuals, maintenance programs, and entry-into-service planning—are completed.

Boeing also said the FAA updated Boeing Production Certificate No. 700 (PC 700) to include the 737-7, supporting production and delivery activities.

Why the 737-7 matters in the MAX lineup

Boeing positions the 737-7 as the smallest and longest-range member of the 737 MAX family. The company says it typically seats 135 to 160 passengers in a two-class configuration and offers a range of up to 3,800 nautical miles (7,040 km). That combination matters because it gives airlines more options to fly longer “thin” routes—markets where frequency and reach matter more than packing in additional seats.

Boeing also highlights performance for operations out of high-altitude airports and in hot climates, where takeoff performance and payload-range tradeoffs can shape fleet decisions.

Efficiency claims: fuel, emissions, and noise

Boeing says the 737-7, like other 737 MAX jets, reduces fuel use and CO2 emissions by 20% and cuts the noise footprint by 50% compared to the airplanes it typically replaces. For airlines, those improvements typically show up in two ways:

  • Route economics: lower fuel burn can improve margins on longer sectors and reduce exposure to fuel-price swings.
  • Operational constraints: quieter aircraft can help with airport noise requirements and community pressure, while lower emissions support sustainability targets.

Inside the certification effort

Boeing said the certification program began in 2018 and included more than 1,000 hours of flight and ground testing, extensive system safety analysis, and human factors reviews. The company also noted an updated engine anti-ice system to address a potential condition discovered during flight testing.

Boeing Commercial Airplanes President and CEO Stephanie Pope called the certification “important” validation of the airplane’s design and the work of the MAX development team. Mike Sinnett, senior vice president of Product Strategy, Product Development and Development Programs, said Boeing held regular discussions with the FAA and that the process has sharpened the company’s understanding of current regulatory requirements—knowledge Boeing expects will accelerate future development with a renewed emphasis on human factors, safety, and quality.

What to watch next

With certification complete, the next phase is about delivery timing and real-world deployment.

  1. First deliveries to Southwest: Boeing and Southwest are preparing for delivery of the first airplane, including updates to final configuration.
  2. Production stability: certification removes a major hurdle, but supply chain health and production cadence will determine how quickly the 737-7 shows up in airline schedules.
  3. The 737-10 timeline: Boeing reiterated it is working to certify the 737-10 this year, keeping attention on how quickly the final MAX variant clears regulatory review.

The bigger MAX picture

Boeing said the 737 MAX family order book stands at more than 7,200 airplanes, with more than 2,300 delivered through the end of June 2026. The 737-7’s certification adds another deliverable product to that portfolio—one aimed at airlines that want long range without stepping up to a larger gauge.

Bottom line

FAA certification of the 737-7 is a meaningful milestone for Boeing and for airlines looking for a smaller narrowbody with long-range capability. The real test now is operational: turning certification into on-time deliveries and reliable entry into service—while the industry watches Boeing’s push to certify the 737-10.

Related Links

📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.

Stay connected with STM Daily News!

Source:

Boeing (PRNewswire), Aug. 3, 2026 — “U.S. FAA certifies new Boeing 737-7 airplane.”

Continue Reading

Economy

Donor States vs. Recipient States: Where Does Your Federal Tax Dollar Go?

Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don’t necessarily measure government dependency.

Published

on

us capitol in washington dc
Donor States.
Photo by Ivan Dražić on Pexels.com

Every year, Americans send trillions of dollars to Washington through income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and other federal revenues. The federal government then sends trillions back across the country through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military spending, federal salaries, contracts, grants, infrastructure projects and dozens of other programs.

But the money doesn’t necessarily return to the states in the same proportions in which it was collected.

That’s where the terms “donor state” and “recipient state” come in.

What Is a Donor State?

Simply put, a donor state sends more money to the federal government than it receives back in federal spending.

Imagine taxpayers and businesses in a state contribute $100 billion to the federal government during a year. If federal spending within that state totals only $80 billion, the state has effectively contributed $20 billion more to the federal government than it received.

A recipient state experiences the opposite: federal expenditures within the state exceed the amount collected there in federal revenue.

These aren’t official federal government classifications, however. They’re terms commonly used by researchers analyzing the flow of money between individual states and Washington.

Only Three Donor States in 2023?

According to an August 2025 analysis from the Rockefeller Institute of Government using preliminary federal fiscal year 2023 data, only three states had negative balances—meaning they contributed more federal revenue than they received in federal expenditures.

Those states were:

New Jersey: approximately $18.9 billion more contributed than received.

Massachusetts: approximately $6.8 billion more contributed than received.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Washington: approximately $54 million more contributed than received.

At first glance, that might suggest nearly every other state depends financially on those three states.

The reality is considerably more complicated.

Some states send Washington more money than they receive, while others receive considerably more federal spending. Here’s what “donor state” really means—and why the numbers don't necessarily measure government dependency.

COVID Changed the Numbers

Historically, several wealthy states—including California and New York—have frequently appeared on the donor side of the equation.

The enormous federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted that pattern.

Trillions of dollars in extraordinary federal spending flowed into states through stimulus payments, business assistance, unemployment programs, healthcare funding, state and local government assistance and other programs.

Even after the emergency phase of the pandemic ended, some of those expenditures continued influencing federal balance-of-payments calculations.

That’s one reason examining a single year can produce a misleading picture.

California: Recipient Today, Historical Donor

California provides perhaps the best example.

In fiscal year 2023, California technically received slightly more federal spending than it contributed—approximately $342 more per person.

But look at the longer-term numbers and the picture changes.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Using a nine-year average that excludes COVID-related spending, Rockefeller Institute researchers calculated California’s average balance at approximately negative $29 billion.

In other words, over a more typical period, California has historically contributed substantially more to the federal government than it received.

Its enormous economy, high incomes and large number of taxpayers generate tremendous amounts of federal revenue.

New York Tells a Similar Story

New York has also historically ranked among America’s major donor states.

Yet in 2023, New York had a positive federal balance of approximately $13.3 billion, receiving roughly $1.04 in federal expenditures for every $1 it contributed.

Researchers attributed much of the change from New York’s historical pattern to lingering pandemic-era federal expenditures.

As those programs disappear from the calculations, New York could return to its traditional position as a donor state.

Arizona Is a Net Recipient

Arizona presents a different picture.

Over the Rockefeller Institute’s nine-year analysis, Arizona averaged a positive federal balance of approximately $44.5 billion.

Even after excluding COVID-related spending, Arizona’s average remained positive at roughly $35.3 billion.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

That means federal expenditures flowing into Arizona have substantially exceeded federal revenue collected from the state.

But that doesn’t mean Arizona simply receives tens of billions of dollars in “welfare.”

Federal spending includes far more than public assistance.

Arizona hosts military installations, federal lands and agencies, defense and aerospace operations, veterans programs and a significant retiree population receiving Social Security and Medicare.

All of those expenditures count toward the state’s federal balance.

Texas Receives More Than It Sends

Texas also had a substantial positive balance in 2023.

Federal expenditures exceeded revenues collected from Texas by approximately $80 billion, making it one of the country’s largest net recipients in total dollars that year.

Again, the number needs context.

Texas is home to major military installations, NASA operations, defense contractors, federal infrastructure projects and millions of Social Security and Medicare recipients.

Those federal dollars all count as money flowing back into the state.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

The Surprising Leader: Virginia

If recipient-state status simply meant dependency on federal welfare programs, Virginia would seem like an unlikely candidate to lead the country.

Yet Virginia recorded the nation’s largest positive federal balance in 2023 at approximately $145.4 billion.

Why?

Location.

Virginia sits next to Washington, D.C., and contains an enormous concentration of federal employees, military installations, government contractors and defense spending.

Neighboring Maryland ranked second with a positive balance of approximately $81.1 billion.

The numbers illustrate why federal balance-of-payments statistics should not automatically be interpreted as measurements of welfare dependency.

A recipient state isn’t necessarily a “welfare state.” Federal expenditures include Social Security, Medicare, military installations, defense contracts, federal salaries, research, infrastructure, grants and other programs.

Where Does the Federal Money Actually Go?

Federal expenditures flowing into a state can include:

  • Social Security
  • Medicare and Medicaid
  • Military bases and personnel
  • Defense contracts
  • Federal employee salaries
  • Highway and transit funding
  • Scientific and university research
  • Agricultural programs
  • Veterans benefits
  • Disaster assistance
  • Federal grants
  • Infrastructure projects
  • Federal agency operations

A state containing a large military installation, federal laboratory or government agency can therefore receive billions of federal dollars without that money having anything to do with traditional public assistance programs.

Why Wealthier States Often Become Donors

Federal income taxes are progressive.

People with higher incomes generally pay a larger percentage of their income in federal income taxes.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

States containing large concentrations of high-income households and highly profitable companies can consequently generate enormous amounts of federal revenue.

That helps explain why states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have historically appeared frequently among net contributors.

The federal government doesn’t earmark the taxes collected in California exclusively for California.

The money enters the national treasury and helps finance programs throughout the United States.

In that sense, federal taxation intentionally redistributes resources geographically as well as economically.

So Are Donor States “Subsidizing” Recipient States?

In a broad accounting sense, yes.

Federal revenue collected disproportionately from some states helps finance federal expenditures occurring elsewhere.

But describing the relationship simply as one state “paying for” another leaves out important context.

Federal spending follows national priorities rather than state borders.

A Navy base in Virginia protects the entire country. NASA facilities in Texas conduct missions funded by taxpayers nationwide. Social Security benefits paid to a retiree in Arizona may reflect payroll taxes that person paid while working decades earlier in California, Illinois or New York.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Americans and businesses also move between states throughout their lives.

The federal system was never designed to ensure that every dollar collected within a state’s borders would eventually return to that same state.

The Bigger Picture

The donor-state debate is often used as political ammunition, particularly when politicians argue about which parts of the country are supporting others.

The numbers are real, but they require context.

A state can move from donor to recipient status because of a recession, natural disaster, military spending, demographic changes, infrastructure investments or extraordinary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

That’s why examining several years of data generally tells us more than looking at a single year.

Ultimately, the donor-versus-recipient calculation reveals something fundamental about the United States:

Federal taxes don’t remain where they’re collected.

They become part of a national pool used to fund programs, obligations and investments across all 50 states.

And depending on where you live, your state may be putting more into that pool—or taking more out—at any particular moment.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Related External Links

🍽️ Love discovering great food and drink? Join the conversation! Share your thoughts in the comments and subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter for the latest recipes, restaurant news, food trends, and culinary stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Continue Reading

jobs help wanted

Ghost Jobs: The Hidden Hiring Trend Affecting Millions of Job Seekers

Ghost jobs are becoming a growing concern for job seekers. Learn what they are, why companies post them, and how they affect hiring, the economy, and your job search.

Published

on

Why You Keep Applying—But Never Hear Back

If you’ve ever spent hours tailoring your résumé for a position only to hear nothing in return, you may have encountered what’s known as a ghost job.

concentrated young black guy sitting at table and working remotely on netbook. Ghost Jobs.
Photo by Andres Ayrton on Pexels.com

A ghost job is a job posting that appears active but isn’t currently being filled. While not every old or inactive listing is intentionally misleading, many remain online long after hiring has paused—or even after the position has already been filled.

The result is growing frustration among job seekers and increasing questions about the accuracy of employment data.


What Exactly Is a Ghost Job?

A ghost job is an advertised position where an employer has little or no immediate intention of hiring someone.

This doesn’t necessarily mean the company is acting maliciously. There are several reasons these listings exist.

Companies may:

  • Build a database of future candidates
  • Test salary expectations and available talent
  • Comply with internal hiring policies
  • Maintain the appearance of growth
  • Delay removing listings after a hiring freeze or filled position

For applicants, however, the experience is often the same: applications disappear into a black hole.


Why Companies Post Ghost Jobs

Some employers say maintaining job listings helps them prepare for future growth.

Others keep positions open because budgets haven’t been finalized or executive approval hasn’t been granted.

Recruiters may also continue collecting résumés so they’re ready when a position eventually opens.

While these reasons may make business sense, they can create unrealistic expectations for applicants actively searching for work.


The Impact on Job Seekers

Ghost jobs can have real consequences.

Many applicants spend dozens of hours:

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage
  • Researching companies
  • Customizing résumés
  • Writing cover letters
  • Completing assessments
  • Participating in interviews that never lead anywhere

The emotional toll can be significant.

Repeated silence often leaves qualified workers questioning their experience or abilities when the issue may simply be that the position was never actively available.


How Ghost Jobs Affect the Economy

The effects extend beyond individual applicants.

Employment Data Can Be Misleading

Job openings are often viewed as a sign of economic strength.

If a significant share of posted openings aren’t being actively filled, the labor market may appear stronger than it actually is.

That can influence:

  • Business confidence
  • Consumer confidence
  • Economic forecasts
  • Public policy discussions

Productivity Suffers

Job seekers spend valuable time applying for positions that may never result in interviews.

Recruiters also spend time managing applications for jobs that aren’t immediately available.

Those inefficiencies create costs for both workers and employers.


Hiring Becomes Less Efficient

When applicants lose trust in job boards, they’re less likely to apply broadly.

Companies with legitimate openings may receive fewer qualified applicants because candidates become skeptical of online listings.


Are Ghost Jobs Illegal?

Generally, no.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

In most cases, employers are legally allowed to advertise positions even if they’re not hiring immediately.

However, critics argue that intentionally leaving inactive jobs online without updating their status reduces transparency and wastes applicants’ time.

Some employment experts have called for greater accountability and clearer labeling of inactive or future hiring opportunities.


How to Spot a Ghost Job

While there’s no foolproof method, these warning signs may indicate a listing isn’t actively being filled:

  • The same position has been reposted for months.
  • The posting never disappears.
  • Employees report hiring freezes.
  • The company rarely responds to applicants.
  • The job description is vague or unusually generic.

Tips for Job Seekers

Instead of applying blindly:

  • Focus on recently posted openings.
  • Connect with recruiters or current employees.
  • Research whether the company is actually expanding.
  • Use networking alongside online applications.
  • Follow up professionally when possible.

Quality applications often produce better results than sending hundreds of résumés.


Looking Ahead

Artificial intelligence has made it easier than ever for applicants to submit hundreds of applications—and for employers to post and manage thousands of job listings.

As hiring becomes increasingly automated, transparency may become one of the most valuable qualities in the recruiting process.

For both employers and job seekers, trust remains the foundation of a healthy labor market.

Related Links

📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!

💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.

Stay connected with STM Daily News!

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Continue Reading

Trending