A 14-year-old, Suvir Mirchandani, told the government if they change the typeface they use they’ll save $400 million in printing costs.
Grown-ass adult Thomas Phinney shuts down the kid’s lofty idea in every way possible.
His first point:

It is not the change of font to Garamond that saves toner; it is that their chosen font is smaller at the same nominal point size than the comparison fonts.
So fuck it, use the smaller-at-the-same-point-size font, right? Wrong:
But any of those changes, swapping to a font that sets smaller at the same nominal point size, or actually reducing the point size, or picking a thinner typeface, will result in slightly less legible text. That seems like a bad idea, as the % of Americans with poor eyesight is skyrocketing as our baby boomers (and even their children, like me) age.
This isn’t even getting into the cost difference between printing in-house or using a third party vendor:
Aside from that, the reduction in toner/​ink usage probably would save less money than claimed in the study. The claim is based on the proportion of total cost of ownership of a laser printer that goes to toner. There are sadly two big problems with the idea that using less ink (or toner) will save that amount of cash, based on that proportion.
He has many more points, but you get the idea.
Adults: 1, Children: 0.
In the infamous words of Maddox, I AM BETTER THAN YOUR KIDS.
Don’t cry little Suvir Mirchandani, some day you’ll be a grown up, and you’ll likely be smarter than most 14-year olds, but not yet.