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

Bezos should put his billions in public libraries

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 250 posts

Re: Bezos should put his billions in public libraries

#241

Post by OrwellianChild »

graphitezepp wrote: post #15

I would much rather billionaire types take on large issues that governments don't want to touch, like space flight or specific diseases in foreign countries, than something already in service like libraries. Maybe I just have a bias due to having a library just up the street from where I live currently, but I have never not had access to an adequate library in my life time, and only see room for marginal diminishing…

Agree that private money is best used where public money isn't available... Bezos purchased the entire Washington Post - the 8th largest paper in the country with national readership - for $250M. [1] By comparison, the two library systems that service the Seattle area cost a combined $190M to run just in 2017. [2] [3] The reach and impact that can be achieved by strategic investments like the Post surely outweigh what little incremental improvements could be made in existing library systems.

[1] https://goo.gl/QfbJG1

[2] http://www.spl.org/about-the-library/budget

[3] https://kcls.org/budget/

Re: Bezos should put his billions in public libraries

#242

Post by mattkrause »

stretchwithme wrote: post #221
johnjhayes wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I'm wondering why we've never heard of anyone making a good career move by setting up tech at a library Because they are underfunded, Bezos seems to be addressing that. >>kind of my point, no? No, the provided example seems to be counter to your point.

When you make something free for everybody, instead of just those with a financial need, it's going to be chronically underfunded. We're the richest country in the world, paying trillions in taxes, borrowing trillions more and advocates for every expenditure tell us more funds are needed. If those with the means paid a fair price for the library resources they are sharing, a library could be open for many more, have…

I'm not convinced it's that obvious.

Making something free for some, but not others could stir up resentment ("why should I pay for your use of the library?"), which would make it easier to cut funding in the future. This could lead to a spiral of increasing fees (or decreased service) -> smaller constituency -> less funding.

I'm also not sure that the marginal user costs a library very much. I doubt that a library with twice as many potential patrons needs twice as many books or two times the staff, for example.

Re: Bezos should put his billions in public libraries

#244

Post by MR4D »

Blackthorn wrote: post #236
MR4D wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he would be right. Source: https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2014/07/do-librarians-need-a...

Libraries do not all follow those rules. The existence of my local library, as I discussed, shows that.

My point is that by and large, the parent poster was correct.

A lack of complete uniformity across the industry does not mean he's wrong.

Re: Bezos should put his billions in public libraries

#245

Post by stretchwithme »

mattkrause wrote: post #242
stretchwithme wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you make something free for everybody, instead of just those with a financial need, it's going to be chronically underfunded. We're the richest country in the world, paying trillions in taxes, borrowing trillions more and advocates for every expenditure tell us more funds are needed. If those with the means paid a fair price for the library resources they are sharing, a library could be open for many more, have…

I'm not convinced it's that obvious. Making something free for some, but not others could stir up resentment ("why should I pay for your use of the library?"), which would make it easier to cut funding in the future. This could lead to a spiral of increasing fees (or decreased service) -> smaller constituency -> less funding. I'm also not sure that the marginal user costs a library very much. I doubt that a library w…

Like food stamps? Are people upset about that?

A month's worth of food costs a lot more than using a book for a month.

Re: Bezos should put his billions in public libraries

#246

Post by JoshCole »

MR4D wrote: post #244
Blackthorn wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libraries do not all follow those rules. The existence of my local library, as I discussed, shows that.

My point is that by and large, the parent poster was correct. A lack of complete uniformity across the industry does not mean he's wrong.

But the person claimed that all libraries would be uniform when he said his expectation was that it would happen to any library. Therefore, he was wrong. The person you were correcting was right and you provided additional useful context.

Re: Bezos should put his billions in public libraries

#247

Post by mattkrause »

stretchwithme wrote: post #245
mattkrause wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not convinced it's that obvious. Making something free for some, but not others could stir up resentment ("why should I pay for your use of the library?"), which would make it easier to cut funding in the future. This could lead to a spiral of increasing fees (or decreased service) -> smaller constituency -> less funding. I'm also not sure that the marginal user costs a library very much. I doubt that a library w…

Like food stamps? Are people upset about that? A month's worth of food costs a lot more than using a book for a month.

Uhh....yes?

In the US, Republicans have been talking about "welfare queens" and people buying lobsters with food stamps for literally decades. This strategy has apparently worked for them, even though benefit fraud is supposedly quite rare.

On the flip side, it's virtually impossible to cut Social Security and Medicare in the US, in part because the programs are not means-tested and everyone hopes to get something back from them.

Re: Bezos should put his billions in public libraries

#248

Post by SJWDisagree111 »

ABCLAW wrote: post #181
SJWDisagree111 wrote: post #174

I'm guessing most of the people here have not been to a local public library in a long time. They have basically become daytime homeless shelters. That is the reason they are no longer attractive for philanthropists.

Perhaps the libraries in your community share this property, but they certainly don't in mine. What communities are you referencing in this comment? Mine have extensive multimedia selections available for access, music rooms with instruments for practice, 3d printers for prototyping, and a wealth of research staff who will help you find specific information that you need. All of the ones in my local area are well att…

Holy crap what communities are you referencing? 90210? I'm in the south so basically any public library within walking distance of a metro area. As I said in my comment most people on HN are seriously out of touch with what the majority of the population experiences.

Re: Bezos should put his billions in public libraries

#249

Post by SJWDisagree111 »

awaythrow102 wrote: post #177
SJWDisagree111 wrote: post #174

I'm guessing most of the people here have not been to a local public library in a long time. They have basically become daytime homeless shelters. That is the reason they are no longer attractive for philanthropists.

Depends where you live. Most of the suburban and rural library I have been to are what you would expect with zero bums. My local ones are quasi co-working spaces with tons of telecommuters and even a coffee shop inside.

Rural yes. There are not enough shelters or public assistance to support the homeless population. I imaging your mileage may vary based on the specific metro area. I'm specifically referring to the southeast. Also at least Chicago as well my cousin is a librarian there and constantly has stories about how her job is essentially running a halfway house.

Re: Bezos should put his billions in public libraries

#250

Post by cratermoon »

WalterBright wrote: post #208
cratermoon wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like we've been doing since the Reagan administration? How's that been working for citizens?

Do you really believe that there are less regulations, is smaller government, fewer government jobs, etc., today than in the 80's?

Let's talk about how regulatory enforcement can be compromised without actually shrinking government size, budget, or jobs.

First, there's regulatory capture[1]. In short, the regulated industry ends up writing its own regulations. As a result, the regulations just enshrine business practices as they are. The total size of the regulatory regime can even increase because of the second aspect of regulatory capture. When an industry captures the agency, it can seek to make the rules purposely byzantine and vague, in order to ensure that almost any business practice can be defended, provided one has enough legal muscle.

Regulatory capture is what people who root for Uber's business model demonize. The car-for-hire industry, they say, is regulated in such a way as to keep the taxi industry profitable even if the service is, they claim, subpar.

Second, there's policy that goes under the names "regulatory reform" or "regulatory relief"[2] Here, the regulations themselves are not subject to change or reduction, only the effort by the government to do meaningful enforcement is cut. This is what we see around the US role and reaction to the 2007-2008 global financial crisis. Laws that could have been used to prevent this event, or to prosecute the executives responsible, do exist. Violations are simply not prosecuted.[3]

For others who are asking about measurable ways government regulation has decreased[4], don't look as the size of the CFR, look at the relationship of the regulations with existing business practices and the current low-enforcement regulatory regime.

Finally, one might ask, if the regulations are so business-friendly and enforcement so lax, why hasn't the size of the regulatory workforce shrunk? Well, of course it has, but also, a big regulatory regime is a barrier to entry for competitors. The most profitable companies don't want competition, so they are happy to have regulators help them ensure that what they do is legal, while making sure that compliance is expensive and difficult enough to deter new entries into the markets.

[1] http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/dalbo/regulatory_capture_pu...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1981/11/15/u...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/books/review/the-chickens...

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15023063

Post reply on HN