Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

audreyii-fic.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 461 posts

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#171

Post by hueving »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #131
hueving wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part you're missing is that jobs will also be created while others are destroyed. We lost tons of horse caring jobs as we switched to the automobile but it didn't wipe out society.

The folks who are worried about AI destroying jobs are aware of this cycle, but they think that it's different this time. Specifically, that technology has previously allowed workers to be more productive by shifting away from manual labor and towards cognitive work that requires the human mind. But AI is a unique threat because it can match (and then quickly absolutely dominate) humans for any kind of work that requ…

>But AI is a unique threat because it can match (and then quickly absolutely dominate) humans for any kind of work that requires cognitive power.

Only at very specific tasks. As you point out later there is no evidence that AI general intelligence where it needs to be for this actually to be a threat to humans who can adapt to unexpected circumstances.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#172

Post by [deleted] »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #134
marzipan wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waterstones came back, and recently, too. [0] They're a similar company that faced similar issues - it CAN be done. This is about a lack of vision and will from the management to re-position the company, make hard cuts, and tap into the best things it had going for it. Stripping the company down to book value assets with no repurposing or new goal is what you do when you've given up and become a liquidator. Even "Kod…

That's a wonderful story, but may be premature. I don't know the UK market, but I'm not sure I'd invest in 2018.

[deleted]

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#173

Post by sseveran »

curun1r wrote: post #137
sseveran wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the beginning, especially about the deck chairs as its an expression I often use. Let's be clear its people like me who killed Barnes and Noble not its executives. I have two or three sets of bookshelves downstairs in my office filled with books, many of which were bought at B&N. I spent hours sipping coffee in their cafe's. Then I bought my kindle. And I basically have not been back since. When I do buy…

The tragedy, for me, is that while I agree with most of what you've said and my transition to ebooks has been similar to yours, I've also begun realizing what we're losing by moving away from brick-and-mortar retail. I look back on my childhood in the 80s and 90s and remember retail as not only fulfilling the need of acquiring stuff but also as a central meeting place. Going downtown to buy stuff was an activity as m…

I too remember with fondness going to the 2600 meetup at a B&N. I am not sure I would link drug addiction to the lack of people going to bookstores, but I do agree that they were a social place as well and I used them as such.

Some of this may be the lack of companies reinventing themselves. I am more likely to go see a movie now that the one near my house has reserved seats. I would be more inclined if they served adult beverages and maybe something a bit more advanced than a hot dog or nachos. There are theaters that I have seen that I could see myself going to if they were near my house. Maybe there is a model of a bookstore that I would be inclined to go to should it pop into existence.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#174

Post by mrep »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #147
mrep wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, you literally just came upon the realization for the economic use cases for unemployment benefits and also the main reason our government has one. You should read some economic textbooks as the world will make a whole lot more sense once you do.

Believe it or not, I didn't just "come upon" this realization and I've taken multiple econ classes (though I'd like to take more). Also, our unemployment benefits are a pretty sorry excuse for a social safety net, which is why I wasn't specifically talking about them here.

Sorry, you didn't mention economics at all but all of your points are discussed thoroughly and pretty well agreed upon in economic textbooks so I assumed you weren't aware (since if you were, I thought you would have sourced them).

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#175

Post by ryanwaggoner »

mrep wrote: post #174
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe it or not, I didn't just "come upon" this realization and I've taken multiple econ classes (though I'd like to take more). Also, our unemployment benefits are a pretty sorry excuse for a social safety net, which is why I wasn't specifically talking about them here.

Sorry, you didn't mention economics at all but all of your points are discussed thoroughly and pretty well agreed upon in economic textbooks so I assumed you weren't aware (since if you were, I thought you would have sourced them).

In general, conversations are more interesting and edifying when they consist of more than someone just saying "my reaction on this topic is what economics textbooks say" :)

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#176

Post by opportune »

visarga wrote: post #149
ivraatiems wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It sucks, but I'm not sure there's a better option. Maybe the best we can do is try and structure a society where getting laid off from a decent job isn't so damaging and scary on a personal level. Maybe we need to acknowledge that we're moving towards having a society where "everyone has a job that earns them their living" is untenable, because there will be less work for humans to do than humans to do it, and we…

> Maybe we need to acknowledge that we're moving towards having a society where "everyone has a job that earns them their living" is untenable No, we need a society that guarantees everyone a job, a job that will generate the income necessary for survival. We shouldn't give up agency and become simple wards of the state, waiting hand stretched ahead for the UBI to fall from the crumblings at the tech billionaires tab…

I agree, but for this attitude to work, we need to recognize that this situation won't happen by itself. It will take massive cultural shifts, a lot of money, and a lot of time. We've already seen what happens to communities when all the jobs leave, and help isn't sufficient (imagine any crumbling city). It's a lot harder to, for lack of a better word, rehabilitate those communities after they succumb to generational poverty.

I think a much better alternative to UBI, which is just a modern twist on bread and circuses, would simply be larger inheritance taxes that are kept by the state. That way work that actually contributes to human betterment still gets rewarded, but society doesn't begin to stratify into rich and poor people in a world where it becomes almost impossible to move from poor to rich.

That said, your idea isn't mutually exclusive with UBI. One interpretation of UBI is that it acts more as a social safety net than as a long-term solution.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#177

Post by blhack »

Kluny wrote: post #121
blhack wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the one near me (in Phoenix, near Arizona State University). It's a major anchor in a shopping center, and is busy every time I'm ever in there. The employees are also really helpful. This Christmas, I was trying to find some books as a christmas gift, and the staff made a bunch of suggestions based on books that they had actually personally read. Sidenote: finding appropriate books for 8-14 year old girls is rea…

Patricia C Wrede, Mercedes Lackey, Tamora Pierce, Ursula K Le Guin, Judy Blume and Anne McCaffrey are some authors who have outstanding books for girls in that age range, in case you find yourself with the same problem again.

Thank you! Any specific stories you recommend? The problem I was having with the things I was looking at were that a lot of them seemed to be basically romance novels for kids.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#178

Post by adventured »

jamiesonbecker wrote: post #160

'The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the "WARN Act") is a US labor law which protects employees, their families, and communities by requiring most employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 calendar-day advance notification of plant closings and mass layoffs of employees, as defined in the Act.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_Adjustment_and_Retraini... It's sad that old-school…

> Personally, I think it's sad that old-school books are dying.

They're not.

US printed book sales climbed for the fourth or fifth straight year in 2017 (depending on how you're measuring it), at 687 million units sold. That compares with 648 million for 2004 for example. Further, independent book stores have been doing quite well [1].

"Unit sales of print books rose 3.3% in 2016 over the previous year, making it the third-straight year of print growth"

https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/b...

[1] http://www.bookweb.org/for-the-record

[1a] http://theweek.com/articles/573874/4-reasons-why-independent...

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#179

Post by michaelmrose »

tytytytytytytyt wrote: post #154
Maro wrote: post #112

I don't agree with the basic premise of the article wrt job security. B&N does not owe you a job. Nobody does. You got to work at the same company for 20 years? You should be happy and gracious. All things come to an end. I'm 37 and the longest I've worked at a company was 3.5 years, and that was my own startup. I average about 2-3 years/company. I'd kill to find a company/job where I can stay for 5 years without bec…

Plus these sound like mostly entry level, no-qualification jobs. I can't imagine why anyone would feel like they had any real measure of job security at jobs like those.

Because treating people to lots of free kindness, ra ra spirit, free cheap food, team building is a great way to retain people so long as the wages you pay them are enough to get by. If you persue this strategy successfully your business will be chock full of people who love you and think you all are family even though you don't pay them much..

People that need more monetarily will of course notice that raises are minimal and long term growth meh but many people have modest needs or spouses that make more money and they have no particular reason not to collect the same money adjusted for inflation and stay comfortable.

Re: The unnecessary demise of Barnes and Noble

#180

Post by mrep »

hueving wrote: post #167
mrep wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, you literally just came upon the realization for the economic use cases for unemployment benefits and also the main reason our government has one. You should read some economic textbooks as the world will make a whole lot more sense once you do.

This post is condescending without any real substance. "Read some economic books" is not meaningful in the context of one particular government safety net.

Apparently my comment is being misinterpreted since I completely agree with his points because they are well agreed upon concepts in economic textbooks. I was laughing about it because he made no mention whatsoever of economics despite his argument being so economically rational so I suggested reading up on economics as it seemed like a subject he was unaware of but one that he would love.
Post reply on HN