Hacker News Reader

Comment by MR4D | Hacker News Reader

Given that it was created in 1996, I think we'll survive. ( https://www.imls.gov/about-us )

There was this rich industrialist who did more for libraries than this agency ever did. His name was Carnegie - maybe you can search for him in 10 seconds on Google and buy a book about it on Amazon if you wish. Or take a couple hours and go to your library if you prefer.

View on HN

Please don't post to HN like you've done in this thread. It takes discussions off-topic (as clearly seen below) and into flamewar territory. This breaks the site guidelines. We're hoping for more thoughtful conversation.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14005562 and marked it off-topic.

Ok. But I wish you would have flagged the parent poster as well. He brought up the IMLS, which is a huge waste of money, and further called its planned budget cuts "devastating". Not sure how a loss of 600k in funding to libraries in Houston is devastating when we are the only city in the world that paid for TWO stadiums with convertible roofs.

Further, the IMLS that he referenced supports over 150,000 libraries and museums, averaging about $1,000 each. Not sure how that's "devastating".

So I get that you don't like my tone, and I'll pay more attention to that, but the parent's post was a huge exaggeration, which is why I took that tone. And yes, I should have written it better.

I always find it odd when people say 'tone' when it seems obvious that the problem is about content, but thank you kindly for the good will.

Your point about library funding far exceeds my library funding expertise (a.k.a. zero), but you can always post another reply to the original comment, as long it's factual and civil.

IMLS was formed by combining two extant organizations which date back to 1976 and 1956.

Carnegie funded 1689 libraries in the US. Today there are nearly 17,000 public libraries, and about 120,000 libraries of all types. His library donations are worth about $2 billion in today's money, while IMLS's budget is over $200 million each year.

Carnegie's philanthropy was amazing and is to be admired, but I think your statement is a little off, not to mention rather rude.

I meant to be blunt, not rude. The reason is that we have a lot of crap that is spent and controlled by a small group of people well outside our control in Washington (regardless of political party).

With $20 trillion in debt, we need to start cutting things and giving control back to the states and cities. If we don't start now, then as interest rates rise, the interest payments on the debt will crowd out things we need. I'd rather

There's ton's of other crap to cut out of the budget, and I'm not trying to take a political stance here, but just because the government gives me cheese doesn't mean that's the best way.

Looking at the location in the article (Lower Peach Tree, AL) is poor as it gets (and is unincorporated). But somewhere along the line, the people of that state of Alabama decided that supporting the Crimson tide was more important than internet connectivity. Why should someone in NYC or LA, or anywhere outside of AL have to pay for that decision?

I live in Houston, where we have horrible roads (seriously, ask anyone who's ever been here). But when you ask people if they'd like to raise taxes to have better roads, the answer is no (I'd pay more, but clearly I'm in the minority). Should I make you pay for our roads because we don't want to?

I meant to be blunt, not rude.

Congratulations, you managed to do both. Add in "condescending" for the trifecta!

My understanding of "blunt" would have been a straight statement of facts. Statements like "I think we'll survive" and "maybe you can search for him" ain't it.

> With $20 trillion in debt, we need to start cutting things and giving control back to the states and cities.

Might want to re-read Trump's budget proposal if you think the money is going to be returned to states or cities.

My comment was about IMLS. There's clearly a TON of other stuff that should be cut too.

Would you like to familiarize yourself with the proportion of Carnegie library buildings that are still, in fact, libraries?

Making sarcastic and condescending comments is not the same as being “blunt”. Your original post was basically the textual version of an eye-roll emoji.

Some unsolicited advice: if you assume that your interlocutors are reasonable and intelligent adults who disagree with you because they come from a different background and have a different perspective rather than because they are idiots, you’ll get much more value out of conversations.

I like your emoji analogy. That being said, I was reacting to the parent's use of the word "devastating". Not sure how $1,000 per library is devastating.

I believe people on HN are reasonable, but the term "devastating" was hyperbole at best.

Clearly I'll spend more time on composing next time as I obviously hit a nerve, unintentionally.

The same Carnegie who, with his wealthy pals, bought a damn, turned it into a private sporting club, and failed to maintain it, causing a flood that killed 2200 people.

https://www.nps.gov/jofl/learn/historyculture/andrew-carnegi...

I'd prefer we have this organization than the noblesse oblige of rich industrialists.

Woah! I had been aware of the Johnstown Flood. But not of Carnegie's involvement in it. Thank you!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood

That's an argument I'm not going to engage in.

However, I would like to point out the the taxpayers funded over $600,000 for Houston libraries. Nice to know we can pay for two convertible roof stadiums while the taxpayers pay for our libraries.

And that's the issue. If we in houston had to pay for our choices, we'd make better ones or suffer the consequences. So, to me, the IMLS is wasting a ton of money. (It's hard for me to think we are the only ones benefiting from this largesse. )

Nowhere in your link says that Carnegie bought or owned the damn and club, just that he was a member.

The club was actually a corporation responsible for maintaining the dam, of which Carnegie was a part owner. The other members were largely executives in or with ties to Carnegie businesses:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Fork_Fishing_and_Hunti...

From that link, he wasn't an original charter member, which means he didn't "bought a damn, turned it into a private sporting club", he just joined the club later on. And the club had 50 very wealthy people, of course they had ties with him.

I have no problem finding him legally responsible, since I like giving shareholders skin in the game, but your accusation is factually unsupported and highly misleading.

Actually, it not. If you want the full account, you can read David McCullough's book about the Johnstown Flood

Frick was essentially Carnegie's right-hand man, having been appointed to run Carnegie's businesses after he withdrew from their day to day operations to enjoy his wealth. The club was explicitly set up as a retreat for executives from Carnegie businesses or those with ties to them (it was informally known as "The Bosses Club"). Carnegie not being a charter member is immaterial, as it's simply an artifact of his slight remove from the day-to-day operations. He was certainly caught up in the suit that, were liability laws the same as they were today, Carnegie's business' would have been dragged down with him.

Will read, thanks!

The fact that you're able to spend time leisurely on sites like HN implicitly groups you into a higher income bracket. If you couldn't afford a personal computer, your comment might be a little less snarky when the library was your primary resource.

Or maybe I just don't think the government trying to support 158,00 libraries and museums at an average of $1,000 is worth it.

If kids need broadband, then raise the local taxes to pay for it. Or solicit local donations. Frankly, I don't think it would take much to raise $1,000 for a library.

For example, if the local population is too stupid to fund it because they just raised $60 million for a new high school football stadium, then that's their problem, and I don't think I (or you) should have to pay for their ignorance. (I'm referencing a town in Texas that built a massive high school football stadium because they think it's more important that their education investment.)

TL;DR - just because something exists, doesn't mean it should. There are more efficient ways of doing things.

The $1,000/library is a bit misleading. Larger systems in wealthier and urban areas do not take much funding, since taxes are enough to support the services. Libraries tend to scale pretty well.

It's small libraries in rural areas that really need this support. Many communities cannot afford to support even the fixed costs of a library (a building and staff person), to say nothing of a collection or broadband. These largely rely on grants and support from the state and federal government.

This page says Houston gets over $600,000. So the facts support my point.

https://www.imls.gov/grants/awarded/ls-00-10-0044-10

If an area is in the income bracket where the majority of the population would need a library to access the internet, raising taxes in the area is only going to burden that community even more.

This (https://www.imls.gov/grants/awarded/ls-00-10-0044-10 ) could be replaced by each Houstonian paying a whopping 15 cents.

Yes, there are poor areas. The problem is they lack powerful congressional seats, and the rich ones get the money.

> Or maybe I just don't think the government trying to support 158,00 libraries and museums at an average of $1,000 is worth it.

We both look at the number and shake our heads, only you think it's far to high and I far to low.

>For example, if the local population is too stupid to fund it because they just raised $60 million for a new high school football stadium, then that's their problem, and I don't think I (or you) should have to pay for their ignorance. (I'm referencing a town in Texas that built a massive high school football stadium because they think it's more important that their education investment.

Just like with the "die poor, don't have kids you can't afford" argument, it may make you feel morally superior, but it actually makes you a short sighted dick.

The kids who will suffer because of it didn't decide to build that stadium or neglect the education infrastructure, they just get disadvantaged by it.

tl;dr - sometimes you just need to suck it up and pay for things you don't want to like an adult because it's better in the long run.

You are 100% right. I've worked for Uncle Sugar since 1981 as an AF officer and a contractor, and after seeing the way money gets spent, you're better off burying it in a fruit jar in your backyard than giving it to the government.

Since when are IMLS, NEA and PBS comparable to the DoD and their $1000 wrenches and toilet seats?

So, are you advocating since there's waste on one area that we should waste it in other areas?

The military clearly has a ton of waste, but that's not a reason to waste money here - it's a reason to cut waste there too.

When one area has 100x the waste of the other and isn't nearly as easily auditable, it's a question of priorities. Going for this instead of defense procurement which is actually hard to cut is like DHS going after little old protesting ladies and patting themselves on the back.

The fact that you're able to spend time leisurely on sites like HN implicitly groups you into a higher income bracket

That's somewhat prejudiced. You can browse HN just fine with a cheap Android and any open wifi, which isn't hard to find in a city. Even the homeless have smartphones nowadays, for the most part.

That may have been true twenty years ago. Not today.

Have fun buying scientific articles at 40$ a piece every time you need higher quality information than is found in pleb dumps like lifehacker or random medium blogs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com