Both Print and Digital

Malcolm Jones facebooktweetpostBooks01.19.14New Pew Poll Finds That E-Books Are Booming but Print Holds Its Own

A new Pew study finds that readers are embracing e-books on a variety of devices but that print is holding its own.Traditionally (strange word to use in connection with technological change but bear with me), devices that bring us entertainment displace one another. VHS kicks Beta off the island, CDs make cassette tapes obsolete, and so it goes. But according to a Pew Research Center poll released this week, the same does not hold true for the devices Americans use to read. While the number of people reading e-books continues to climb (17 percent in 2011, 23 percent in 2012, and 28 percent in 2014), the figure for people who read books remained fairly constant for the same period. Even people now reading mostly e-books on tablets, e-readers, and cellphones said they also read print books.



In other words, e-reader and tablet usage is growing, but it isn’t cannibalizing the book buying market. Americans are reading books in roughly the same numbers that they have for the past few years. But they’re also reading on more devices than previously (and yes, I know, calling a book a device is cringe-inducing, but would you rather I called it a delivery system?).



This news rings true to me, since it so closely reflects my own reading habits. I read mostly actual books, but I also read on my iPad and very occasionally on my iPhone (as someone who lives with the haunting fear of being stuck somewhere with nothing to read, I rate the iPhone as the best invention since the paperback).



As for how much I read, I’m not typical. That would be an American who reads five books a year. But nearly 80 percent of us say they read at least one book a year, so I guess publishers aren’t being fanciful in those ads that say, “If you only read one book this year, make it [Your Title Here].” Of those who copped to reading once a year, 69 percent said they read a print edition, 28 percent chose an e-book, and 14 percent listened to an audiobook.



Might all this change rapidly in the next few years? Absolutely, since while the number of people who read e-books in the past year rose from 17 percent in 2011 to 28 percent in 2014, the number of Americans who own either a tablet or an e-reader jumped to around 50 percent—and did so with dizzying rapidity. Tablet ownership in 2010 was 3 percent and 4 percent for e-readers; now it’s 42 percent for tablets and 32 percent for e-readers. Nearly 50 percent of Americans own one or both devices. Of course, tablet owners can do a lot with those devices besides read e-books, but still. And considering that almost half of readers under 30 said they read an e-book last year, it’s not hard to see where this is going. (Or where it already is: If you buy the idea that technology almost always opens the door to esthetic developments, consider how the e-book and audio book boom has made possible all the, how to say?, discreet 50 Shades reading: an entire genre—a booming genre—within the publishing industry is thriving thanks to e-reading.)



As for who owns those tablets and e-readers, men and women are about equal. Discrepancies in ethnicity aren’t remarkable, and as you’d expect, more young and middle-aged people are digital readers. The more education and disposable income you have, the more likely you are to be reading on a digital device. Where you live (city, suburbs, or the country) seems to matter almost not at all.



“As someone who lives with the haunting fear of being stuck somewhere with nothing to read, I rate the iPhone as the best invention since the paperback”So, most of this is dog-bites-man. But the real takeaway, I think, is how entrenched printed books are in the culture. Time and again, I hear my friends exulting that they’ve digitized their CD collections. (As someone who owns several thousand CDs—hell, I still own several thousand LPs—I sympathize with anyone who has inventory problems, but I’m not sure what it would take to pry those objects from my clutches. A collapsing floor could do it, I guess.) But I never hear anyone say they’ve ditched their home print libraries in favor of e-books. Not once.



This is even more remarkable when you consider the number of books on people’s shelves that they didn’t like or didn’t even finish. You go to a movie that stinks, and a couple of hours later it’s out of sight, out of mind. Download a song you don’t like or get tired of, just punch delete. Books are much worse. There sits all of Proust, all but laughing at you because you’ve never made past the first 50 pages of Swann’s Way. It might as well be doing high fives with The Executioner’s Song and every other doorstopper you’ve put down and never picked up again. But there they sit on your shelves, taking up space, not paying rent, physical reminders that you wasted your time and money. What percentage of our personal libraries are losers that we for whatever reason can’t quite bear to part with? I would guess it’s considerable.



Of course, there are plenty of other books on our shelves that we love, sometimes because the contents bewitched us, sometimes because the book itself is so beautiful—I’ve hung on to a particularly lovely copy of The Hunchback of Notre Dame for decades, and I’m not even that wild about the story. Books in this sense are like LPs—physical objects that are fun to hold, fun to look at (rolling joints on them is not really ideal, but never mind). Transportable? Not so much. Easy to ruin, scratch, tear? You bet. But in their ungainly, old fashioned ways, books and records beat their digital equivalents in every category but convenience. They truly are, in that sense, the best delivery systems ever.

The Ignorance of David Brooks

Robert Reich.Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley; Author, Beyond Outrage

GET UPDATES FROM Robert Reich

Like. 6.3k..David Brooks' Utter Ignorance About Inequality

Posted: 01/19/2014 8:41 am Read more David Brooks, Income Inequality, Economic Inequality, Inequality, Wealth Inequality, Politics News .



.291Share102Tweet82Email396CommentGet Politics Newsletters:

Subscribe .Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributorsHot on the BlogGeoffrey R. StoneDr. Peggy DrexlerKerry KennedyJim Wallis


Robert Reich.Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley; Author, Beyond Outrage

GET UPDATES FROM Robert Reich

Like. 6.3k..David Brooks' Utter Ignorance About Inequality

Posted: 01/19/2014 Occasionally David Brooks, who personifies the oxymoron "conservative thinker" better than anyone I know, displays such profound ignorance that a rejoinder is necessary lest his illogic permanently pollute public debate. Such is the case with his New York Times column last Friday, arguing that we should be focusing on the "interrelated social problems of the poor" rather than on inequality, and that the two are fundamentally distinct.



Baloney.



First, when almost all the gains from growth go to the top, as they have for the last thirty years, the middle class doesn't have the purchasing power necessary for buoyant growth.



Once the middle class has exhausted all its coping mechanisms -- wives and mothers surging into paid work (as they did in the 1970s and 1980s), longer working hours (which characterized the 1990s), and deep indebtedness (2002 to 2008) -- the inevitable result is fewer jobs and slow growth, as we continue to experience.



Few jobs and slow growth hit the poor especially hard because they're the first to be fired, last to be hired, and most likely to bear the brunt of declining wages and benefits.







Second, when the middle class is stressed, it has a harder time being generous to those in need. The "interrelated social problems" of the poor presumably will require some money, but the fiscal cupboard is bare. And because the middle class is so financially insecure, it doesn't want to, nor does it feel it can afford to, pay more in taxes.







Third, America's shrinking middle class also hobbles upward mobility. Not only is there less money for good schools, job training, and social services, but the poor face a more difficult challenge moving upward because the income ladder is far longer than it used to be, and its middle rungs have disappeared.







Brooks also argues that we should not be talking about unequal political power, because such utterances cause divisiveness and make it harder to reach political consensus over what to do for the poor.







Hogwash. The concentration of power at the top -- which flows largely from the concentration of income and wealth there -- has prevented Washington from dealing with the problems of the poor and the middle class.



To the contrary, as wealth has accumulated at the top, Washington has reduced taxes on the wealthy, expanded tax loopholes that disproportionately benefit the rich, deregulated Wall Street, and provided ever larger subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks for large corporations. The only things that have trickled down to the middle and poor besides fewer jobs and smaller paychecks are public services that are increasingly inadequate because they're starved for money.







Unequal political power is the endgame of widening inequality -- its most noxious and nefarious consequence, and the most fundamental threat to our democracy. Big money has now all but engulfed Washington and many state capitals -- drowning out the voices of average Americans, filling the campaign chests of candidates who will do their bidding, financing attacks on organized labor, and bankrolling a vast empire of right-wing think-tanks and publicists that fill the airwaves with half-truths and distortions.







That David Brooks, among the most thoughtful of all conservative pundits, doesn't see or acknowledge any of this is a sign of how far the right has moved away from the reality most Americans live in every day.



Occasionally David Brooks, who personifies the oxymoron "conservative thinker" better than anyone I know, displays such profound ignorance that a rejoinder is necessary lest his illogic permanently pollute public debate. Such is the case with his New York Times column last Friday, arguing that we should be focusing on the "interrelated social problems of the poor" rather than on inequality, and that the two are fundamentally distinct.


Baloney.



First, when almost all the gains from growth go to the top, as they have for the last thirty years, the middle class doesn't have the purchasing power necessary for buoyant growth.



Once the middle class has exhausted all its coping mechanisms -- wives and mothers surging into paid work (as they did in the 1970s and 1980s), longer working hours (which characterized the 1990s), and deep indebtedness (2002 to 2008) -- the inevitable result is fewer jobs and slow growth, as we continue to experience.



Few jobs and slow growth hit the poor especially hard because they're the first to be fired, last to be hired, and most likely to bear the brunt of declining wages and benefits.







Second, when the middle class is stressed, it has a harder time being generous to those in need. The "interrelated social problems" of the poor presumably will require some money, but the fiscal cupboard is bare. And because the middle class is so financially insecure, it doesn't want to, nor does it feel it can afford to, pay more in taxes.







Third, America's shrinking middle class also hobbles upward mobility. Not only is there less money for good schools, job training, and social services, but the poor face a more difficult challenge moving upward because the income ladder is far longer than it used to be, and its middle rungs have disappeared.







Brooks also argues that we should not be talking about unequal political power, because such utterances cause divisiveness and make it harder to reach political consensus over what to do for the poor.







Hogwash. The concentration of power at the top -- which flows largely from the concentration of income and wealth there -- has prevented Washington from dealing with the problems of the poor and the middle class.



To the contrary, as wealth has accumulated at the top, Washington has reduced taxes on the wealthy, expanded tax loopholes that disproportionately benefit the rich, deregulated Wall Street, and provided ever larger subsidies, bailouts, and tax breaks for large corporations. The only things that have trickled down to the middle and poor besides fewer jobs and smaller paychecks are public services that are increasingly inadequate because they're starved for money.







Unequal political power is the endgame of widening inequality -- its most noxious and nefarious consequence, and the most fundamental threat to our democracy. Big money has now all but engulfed Washington and many state capitals -- drowning out the voices of average Americans, filling the campaign chests of candidates who will do their bidding, financing attacks on organized labor, and bankrolling a vast empire of right-wing think-tanks and publicists that fill the airwaves with half-truths and distortions.







That David Brooks, among the most thoughtful of all conservative pundits, doesn't see or acknowledge any of this is a sign of how far the right has moved away from the reality most Americans live in every day.

January

January is one of my favorite months especially when it's sunny and seasonably cold like today.  It is as if the days of January are extra, as if the year does not start until 2/1 and we have these extra days.  January is a good month.

Print over eBooks

« Previous EntryBlog MainNext Entry »nation -- January 16, 2014 at 2:45 PM ET

from PBS.org

Americans prefer print books over e-books

By: News Desk



Although more Americans own electronic readers, most prefer reading print books. Photo by Flickr user srharris



Despite an increase in electronic readers and tablets, most Americans still prefer flipping through the pages of a book.



A report released Thursday found that 70 percent of Americans read print books last year, but only four percent read exclusively e-books. According to the survey, conducted by the Princeton Survey Research Associates International, the average adult read five books in 2013.



While Americans read both print and e-books, the survey also found that half of American adults now own an e-reader or tablet, which is a seven percent increase from 2012.

Bacon on Saurday

I woke up this morning thinking about turning cartwheels down the hallway, but then I thought about my long-suffering wife. She is not too terribly fond of calling 911. I thought about letting my inner Rambo out for the weekend, bur then I thought about the people who would be in harm's way and I decided to have mercy on them. Then I thought BACON and realized no one would be harmed except Fred. So BACON it is

Red State Fear

Robert Reich.Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley; Author, Beyond Outrage

GET UPDATES FROM Robert Reich

Like. 6.3k..Fear Is Why Workers in Red States Vote Against Their Economic Self-Interest

Last week's massive spill of the toxic chemical MCHM into West Virginia's Elk River illustrates another benefit to the business class of high unemployment, economic insecurity, and a safety-net shot through with holes. Not only are employees eager to accept whatever job they can get. They are also also unwilling to demand healthy and safe environments.



The spill was the region's third major chemical accident in five years, coming after two investigations by the federal Chemical Safety Board in the Kanawha Valley, also known as "Chemical Valley," and repeated recommendations from federal regulators and environmental advocates that the state embrace tougher rules to better safeguard chemicals.



No action was ever taken. State and local officials turned a deaf ear. The storage tank that leaked, owned by Freedom Industries, hadn't been inspected for decades.



But nobody complained.



Not even now, with the toxins moving down river toward Cincinnati, can the residents of Charleston and the surrounding area be sure their drinking water is safe -- partly because the government's calculation for safe levels is based on a single study by the manufacturer of the toxic chemical, which was never published, and partly because the West Virginia American Water Company, which supplies the drinking water, is a for-profit corporation that may not want to highlight any lingering danger.



So why wasn't more done to prevent this, and why isn't there more of any outcry even now?



The answer isn't hard to find. As Maya Nye, president of People Concerned About Chemical Safety, a citizen's group formed after a 2008 explosion and fire killed workers at West Virginia's Bayer CropScience plant in the state, explained to the New York Times: "We are so desperate for jobs in West Virginia we don't want to do anything that pushes industry out."



Exactly.



I often heard the same refrain when I headed the U.S. Department of Labor. When we sought to impose a large fine on the Bridgestone-Firestone Tire Company for flagrantly disregarding workplace safety rules and causing workers at one of its plants in Oklahoma to be maimed and killed, for example, the community was solidly behind us -- that is, until Bridgestone-Firestone threatened to close the plant if we didn't back down.



The threat was enough to ignite a storm of opposition to the proposed penalty from the very workers and families we were trying to protect. (We didn't back down and Bridgestone-Firestone didn't carry out its threat, but the political fallout was intense.)



For years political scientists have wondered why so many working class and poor citizens of so-called "red" states vote against their economic self-interest. The usual explanation is that, for these voters, economic issues are trumped by social and cultural issues like guns, abortion, and race.



I'm not so sure. The wages of production workers have been dropping for thirty years, adjusted for inflation, and their economic security has disappeared. Companies can and do shut down, sometimes literally overnight. A smaller share of working-age Americans hold jobs today than at any time in more than three decades.



People are so desperate for jobs they don't want to rock the boat. They don't want rules and regulations enforced that might cost them their livelihoods. For them, a job is precious -- sometimes even more precious than a safe workplace or safe drinking water.



This is especially true in poorer regions of the country like West Virginia and through much of the South and rural America -- so-called "red" states where the old working class has been voting Republican. Guns, abortion, and race are part of the explanation. But don't overlook economic anxieties that translate into a willingness to vote for whatever it is that industry wants.



This may explain why Republican officials who have been casting their votes against unions, against expanding Medicaid, against raising the minimum wage, against extended unemployment insurance, and against jobs bills that would put people to work, continue to be elected and re-elected. They obviously have the support of corporate patrons who want to keep unemployment high and workers insecure because a pliant working class helps their bottom lines. But they also, paradoxically, get the votes of many workers who are clinging so desperately to their jobs that they're afraid of change and too cowed to make a ruckus.



The best bulwark against corporate irresponsibility is a strong and growing middle class. But in order to summon the political will to achieve it, we have to overcome the timidity that flows from economic desperation. It's a diabolical chicken-and-egg conundrum at a the core of American politics today.

The Dylan Library VI

Driving home from Auburn today I played "Nashville Skyline."  That album denotes 1970.  That album denotes the country Dylan.  First off I was jarred by "Girl from the North Counstry" with Johnny Cash.  What a treat!