>> Maybe publishers should JUST pay authors WELL, and get a book every 2-3 years
There are a couple problems with this approach.
Firstly, while the median income is 20k, the book business is like films or music; ie not evenly distributed. At the top end are a small number of successful authors. They effectively subsidize the publishing house while the house throws advances at authors hoping for the next big whale.
Many books never earn back their advance. Meaning if the author was paid out of royalties they'd make less, not more.
Making advances bigger would result in fewer advances. The pot of money is finite.
This is all happening in a market where supply is unconstrained (everyone thinks they can write), and demand is very limited.
And before we discuss the value, or lack thereof of having an intermediary at all, it should be noted from your link that the median for published authors is higher than self-published authors. So clearly they seem to be making authors more valuable.
In truth of course, most (published) books aren't terribly valuable. Like music and movies most float to the bottom.
I always find this line of thought interesting. Because it implies the manufacturer has all the power. But they don't. The consumer does.
Ultimately the manufacturer wins the horse-shoe battle because they are cheaper. And the consumers in the village prefer cheap shoes to locally made (expensive) ones.
Fundamentally consumers like cheap stuff. Manufacturing shifts happen because as soon as there's a cheaper output, you've won. Consumers will reliably switch to cheap. At the start there may be some brand loyalty, there may even be a quality difference, but both those erode quickly.
Lots of people promote the idea of buying locally, even if it's more expensive. But it's a hard message to sell, and a tough one to buy. I'm sorry for the blacksmith, but times are hard and I need my horses shod.
It's easy to blame capitalism or factory owners or foreign cheap labor or any other convenient political scapegoat. But the root of the problem is consumer preference for cheap (even if inferior) to the exclusion of everything else.
This is perhaps culturally most evident where the premise above is false. In the US for example food is low quality, but plentiful. In Europe food generally costs more, but is of a much higher standard. Portions are smaller. Quality is more important than quantity.
This is not by accident. Europe has deliberately fostered local food markets, local food production, and promoted a narrative around history and good production. Cheap food is available, but quality food has a strong foothold.
I think this is the key metric. Get people in the door.
Sure you can jack up prices on food and drink. Sure you can fleece the people who do come, but everyone who stops coming "because it's too expensive" is lost forever.
The alternative is to create a space people want to come to. Yes sell food & drink. Being "good value" helps that. Being expensive fights it.
While yes, the flashy electronics is cool, do people come for that? Does it make it more fun? I just saw the ball with my own two eyes. Does an animation make it better?
What brings in a family? Work colleagues? Teenagers on a date? What brings in more competitive folks? Is there progression? What makes my friend group go once a week? Why do housewives want to hang out there at 11am? How to catch the bored teenagers at 3pm in the afternoon?
It's not even just about bowling. Can you create a space people want to come to?
Oh I agree. The US is not doing the same thing as China at all.
China is spending its money developing manufacturing of goods the world wants. It has targeted markets and the govt is spending money in those markets. The markets they have chosen have huge economic and political value.
By contrast the US has chosen to spend its (govt) money on the military. Because, you know, national security.
The US is spending just as much money as China, but focused on different areas. Your complaint (if there is one) is that China chose different markets and didn't "play the game" (as the USSR did) and base their economy on flashy weapons.
Since the collapse of the USSR in 1990 its not clear to me why US spending on military continues to grow. It's not fear of attack; there is no threat to the US itself. It has to be a desire to project power and
influence.
And yet the very limitations of that goal have been exposed in 18 months. The dismantling of USAid (or more accurately the manner of the dismantling) has destroyed 75 years of goodwill. Coupled with punitive tarifs (which are paid for by US consumers) they make the US an unreliable trade partner.
Then the war in Iran showed the very real limitations of the military. To be fair they're currently being lead by incompetence, with no clear goals or strategies. But it reinforces the point that all that military money is wasted when even simple conflicts are lost. And it further drives home the limits of that power projection in unpopular conflicts. A lesson, it would seem, the US wishes to re-learn all the time.
China it seems has different ambitions, and a very different strategy. And I get why you might not like that, because maybe (just maybe) their strategy is the smarter one in the long run.
I don't know what it's like in Scandinavia, but here, as an employer, I would see it as a positive. Something you can use as a differentiator when interviewing.
Recent graduates often underestimate what really matters to employers, Stability.
Obviously I'm not expecting people to necessarily stay 40 years in the company, but it costs a lot of time effort and money to add a new person to the team. I'd like you to hang around a bit to make that worth it.
Having children makes fathers less "flighty". You're less obsessed with "building a resume" and more interested in the stability of the paycheck, stress-free working environment and so on.
Yes, you'll still leave for a better job, more pay and so on. But it'll be more calculated and less impulsive. Which gives us more opportunity to match your needs with my needs.
In other words the maturity you learn at home translates into more maturity in the office as well.
When interviewing for jobs, lean into words like maturity, responsibility, stability and so on. These things matter.
I'm not sure I agree. In the aircraft industry especially the US has strongly pushed for exports. Overseas programs (TRS2, Avro Arrow) were terminated for political reasons (and replaced with F111 etc). More recently see F35 impact.
That's before we discuss the advantage Boeing has in the commercial market thanks to DoD contracts.
Your link shows that the US exports the same as the next 20 countries added together. That suggests some market dominance.
I also suspect these numbers do not include "military aid" - where weapons and munitions are "given" by the US to Ukraine wherever[1]. (But they may, I don't know.)
I agree though that the primary benefit of this is not "sales". And even if it was these aren't consumer goods. So it's not easily compared to China's approach. I'm not suggesting it's a terribly good subsidy. But it's still a subsidy.
[1] there are a lot of political benefits to be gained by having bases in foreign countries, or by port visits by US ships. Unfortunately most of those benefits have been eroded in the last 2 years. The gutting of USAid (which saved basically nothing), leaving the WHO, the tarrif nonsense, bombing Iran - all have destroyed a benevolent reputation 75 years in the making.
I think "why" is a good question. And frankly for 99.9% of people the answer is "no reason".
One has to differentiate between "computers as a tool" and "creating computers".
I drive a car. It's good transport. If it breaks I take it to a mechanic. If I bash it I take it to a panel beater. I don't care about engine specs. It's a tool to do a job.
100 years ago if you owned a car you also had to be a mechanic. My father built his own car. Enthusiasts will wax lyrical for hours on engine upgrades.
In the same way, when I was young, the market for computers was basically the "creatives". There wasn't much software to buy. Most (PC) computers got built from parts. You could swap out each part at a time. You set IRQs manually. Good times.
But those products didn't suit the everyman. That only happens in the late 90s. Since then most users are "consumers" not creative.
The creatives still have lots of tools to learn (more than I did). But they will never be more than a tiny tiny fraction of the population.
There definitely were machines in (larger) businesses before the personal computers of the 80s, but the scales are different.
There were around 650 000 PDP machines produced. By contrast Commodore 64 made over 12.5 million. VIC 20 another 1.5. Zx Spectrum about 5 mil. Similar for the Apple 2. IBM pc made 7.5 million by 1987. BBC Micro another couple million.
And of course yes, these were the first "home" pcs. So as I said, before this time the machines were locked away and only used for "real work". PCs were "everywhere". We had a computer club (with 2, count them 2 machines).
Of course, compared to now they were rare. But my generation entered the work-force and spent the 90s "computerising" businesses. Not the giant corporates but the millions of regular businesses. I wrote software but it was common to have to supply hardware to go with the software.
It certainly was fun being around as an entire industry was birthed. It was very dynamic, things moved quickly, and there was a lot of "keeping up".
We saw it again with web, and then mobile, but they were less exciting in many respects.
There was this era in the late 70's and early 80's where this story is ubiquitous. And while we are all in our 50s or later now, it's interesting that we were essentially the "first generation".
When I went to work in the early 90s we were already the "old guys". Out in the real world everyone[1] who could use a computer at all was under 30. And we'd all cut our teeth on Apple 2's and Spectrum and Commodore and BBC and so on.
[1] yes there were folks from before that saw a PDP or whatever but they were rare, and usually either deep in academia or IBM etc.
Marketing is the hard part.
Ideas are trivial. Code is easy (and now with AI trivial.)
Most humans do the easy part first. It's the most fun. Lots of people can play a guitar. Only a tiny fraction market enough to make any money.
If you want success (in anything) learn (and do) the hard part first. Every product idea starts with 3 basic questions;
A) who is this for?
B) how do I reach them. Prove it by getting 10 names, email addresses, and nominal deposits.
C) can my target market afford this? Poor people need private jet transport, but that market cannot afford that product.
Writing the code is the last thing you do, not the first.
Assuming of course your goal is to make money. I make ceramics for fun, not to sell. I get the joy of making and using my own pots. It's a hobby, not my day job. I'm not interested in marketing or selling them. And that's perfectly OK.
Neither the power, nor cooling, requirements are necessarily environmentally harmful. As always ymmv.
First water; there are plenty of places on the planet where water is bountiful. If you site a data center well (say on a big lake in a rainfall area) then water is not an issue. An "using" water in this way doesn't affect water scarce areas.
Equally lots of electricity can be generated in environmentally harmless ways. Solar, wind, hydro are all clean. (Hydro depending on how and where.)
Yes, in the long run, it may make sense to put data centers outside the US. Norway for example has no problem cooling things down. And hydro is abundant.
Plus, water "consumption" is also variable. Water is used for cooling, but is not necessarily "lost". Its "used" in the sense of "made use of" but may also then be "used for something else".
Using this quirk allows for "hiding" data in the database. Because data after the nul is more-or-less invisible to generic dbBrowser type programs.
If you suspect it is happening you can read it (by casting the SELECT as a BLOB, but obviously that's not a common pattern.
Personally I've never done it, and clearly it's not something useful for security, but it does open the door to interesting meta-data storage opportunities. Again with the proviso that it is "untrustworthy".
Sure, a battery isn't available to everyone. But I is available for many.
One would have to do the math, cost of battery versus 24kw free daily. But clearly for lots of people the math will work.
A side effect of policies like this is effectively getting people to invest capital to time-shift elec usage. That's good policy. Reducing the peaks in consumption solves other problems.
From the article; this applies to NSW, South Australia and part of Queensland.
So yeah, not universal yet. But the precedent means it's moving in that direction. If WA homes end up producing lots of solar at midday then this opens the door there as well.
There are a couple problems with this approach.
Firstly, while the median income is 20k, the book business is like films or music; ie not evenly distributed. At the top end are a small number of successful authors. They effectively subsidize the publishing house while the house throws advances at authors hoping for the next big whale.
Many books never earn back their advance. Meaning if the author was paid out of royalties they'd make less, not more.
Making advances bigger would result in fewer advances. The pot of money is finite.
This is all happening in a market where supply is unconstrained (everyone thinks they can write), and demand is very limited.
And before we discuss the value, or lack thereof of having an intermediary at all, it should be noted from your link that the median for published authors is higher than self-published authors. So clearly they seem to be making authors more valuable.
In truth of course, most (published) books aren't terribly valuable. Like music and movies most float to the bottom.
So no, the answer is not "pay authors more".