Millennials are keeping libraries alive
qz.com
qz.com
To me libraries hold a romantic idea of being halls of knowledge, or even the place in which studying and teaching is done. It's a temple of learning - and no matter what you're studying, writing, or reading about - being in a place surrounded by so many other excited, eager learners is a big rush.
I went to the public library near one of the universities and every surface was filled with a laptop, with an energized student starting at it getting work done. It was amazing.
I don't really check out books, but I'm hoping maybe the library could be a future venue for me to teach free classes to people - it does seem like they have educational classes running almost every day of the week.
How could a library not excite you? :D
After one too many late fees I resolved to buying books instead. Now I have stacks of books that have been waiting for my attention for months sometimes years.
Maybe I should get back into libraries ...
Edit: there's also the potential benefit to you of "trying before buying" pretty much anything you want. Just remember to actually support the authors if you value the continued creation of content. I've sent a few bottles of scotch which have been well-received :)
But cities like LA utilize libraries as refugees for homeless people which completely destroys the purpose. It should be a refuge for people working hard and trying to excel in life, not a place for people who have given up on life. I'm happy that the homeless have a place to go but as a society, it seems like we're doing everything wrong trying to fix the problem.
There's an inherent tension between making a space available to homeless people and making it available to all members of the public.
Yes, absolutely, the primary causes of homelessness are drug addiction and mental health issues. There are other causes, and I'd never advocate being callous or dismissive toward the homeless- but this is the reason people find large concentrations of them off-putting.
I'll hopefully never fully understand what it feels like to have someone you're close to being threatened with a knife, but I can imagine it's horrible, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
What I am saying is that in order to cut down on that behaviour, we need to stop the problem at the source. To my knowledge, no country has ever managed to fully eradicate homelessness, but other places have had success in reducing drug addiction and mental health issues. If those issues are tackled, the issues surrounding homelessness should be greatly reduced, including a large reduction in violent and/or erratic behaviour.
Trust is hard to build once it's broken, and I'm not asking you to forgive anyone, but we have to look beyond our current hardships if we want a future that's worth looking forward to.
Another example: literally every single night, a homeless person sets up a tent with a bunch of trash in my building's fire escape. If there were a fire and we had to use it, it'd pretty much be inaccessible.
It's possible to call the city, but they don't fix it overnight, which is kind of the point. And installing a gate in the fire escape alcove is illegal, because the gate would apparently encroach onto public property.
So what's to be done? Should I just accept that I should just literally die in a fire, for the sake of a homeless person having a place to sleep? And of course it's easy to say, "well in an ideal world there'd be a bed for them!" Unfortunately the world we live in isn't ideal, but anytime anyone complains about quality of life issues, "homeless advocates" will demand that you solve a century old national problem before granting you have even the slightest right to complain.
What should be done? Give the poor guy a freaking bed with a roof over his head! Why don't you just say we need to take care of that guy so he doesn't have to sleep on your fire escape?
You make it sound like you think that would be asking too much of society. Like it's obvious that would be too much. That guy's going to sleep outside, so the least society can do is make sure he's not doing it somewhere that you don't have to worry about tripping over in case of a fire.
No! There is no good reason anyone should have to sleep outside in this country. And as long as people do have to sleep outside, those of us who sleep comfortably in our homes should respond to their presence not with disgust but with action.
What happens when a second person starts sleeping there? How many apartments must scarmig rent before they are allowed to evacuate in case of fire?
What if scarmig doesn't make a high enough multiple of the minimum viable rental price? Have you just decided they're obligated to die because they don't make enough money? That's kind of ironic.
>Why don't you just say we need to take care of that guy so he doesn't have to sleep on your fire escape?
Because if saying that conjured shelter beds into existence, we wouldn't have a homeless problem anymore.
>the solution is within easy reach of our society if we had the will.
I don't think the American people could message "fuck poor people" any louder or any clearer than they just did by electing Trump. The American electorate doesn't lack the will to help the downtrodden, it actively wills them to die. Are we obligated to fight the good fight? Sure. Are we obligated to die in fires unless we achieve a 100% reversal of the poiltical climate? No.
> not with disgust but with action.
There is no action you can take that will move the needle on homelessness anytime soon. At best, there are actions that a few hundred million people could take together that would achieve a marginal reduction in the problem in in a few decades.
That's not what was said.
> "How many apartments must scarmig rent before they are allowed to evacuate in case of fire?"
Zero.
> "What if scarmig doesn't make a high enough multiple of the minimum viable rental price? Have you just decided they're obligated to die because they don't make enough money? That's kind of ironic."
Again, you're missing the point. The idea is to tackle the issues collectively.
> "Because if saying that conjured shelter beds into existence, we wouldn't have a homeless problem anymore."
The money already exists within the government to solve it. It's just a matter of priorities.
> "I don't think the American people could message "fuck poor people" any louder or any clearer than they just did by electing Trump."
Bollocks. You do realise that there were poor people who voted for Trump? What message do you think they were trying to send?
> "The American electorate doesn't lack the will to help the downtrodden, it actively wills them to die."
Are you an American?
> "Are we obligated to fight the good fight? Sure. Are we obligated to die in fires unless we achieve a 100% reversal of the poiltical climate? No."
Again, you're twisting words, that's not even close to what was said.
> "There is no action you can take that will move the needle on homelessness anytime soon. At best, there are actions that a few hundred million people could take together that would achieve a marginal reduction in the problem in in a few decades."
What do you propose is done?
Indeed, this is the notion behind liberal politics, which have been soundly rejected by the public.
>It's just a matter of priorities.
The public couldn't be clearer that meeting basic needs for people who are unable to earn a living isn't a priority.
>What message do you think they were trying to send?
"Fuck the even poorer people who are changing my culture and taking my jobs."
>Are you an American?
Um, yes, the context of this thread is the San Francisco public library.
>What do you propose is done?
Make city life as attractive and cheap as possible to bring back the tax base from the suburbs; use the money to fund public housing and mental health services.
Continuing to degrade city life only drives away the resources that could be tapped for real solutions.
There are plenty of quality of life government programs for the non-homeless, and ignoring the issues of the homeless ('out of sight, out of mind') is not going to solve the problems, it's only going to make things worse. I'm sorry that the situation had to get as bad as it has for people to take notice, but now that recognition that something has to be done is there, I'd ask you to be pragmatic, look beyond the current issues and think of the practical steps necessary to stop the growth of the homeless.
> "Should I just accept that I should just literally die in a fire, for the sake of a homeless person having a place to sleep?"
No, you shouldn't accept that, you should take action to ensure it doesn't continue to be a problem. However, whatever action you choose to take, choose wisely. Is a person who can't even get a good night's sleep likely to be even more of a pain in the ass? I'd suggest you already know the answer.
> "anytime anyone complains about quality of life issues, "homeless advocates" will demand that you solve a century old national problem before granting you have even the slightest right to complain."
I'm not suggesting you have to solve 'a century old national problem' on your own. The reason I feel happy to recommend a push for single payer is that there's already growing momentum for single payer. Plus, it won't just help the homeless, it'll help everybody. There's really no reason not to join in the push for single payer (other than apathy, which clearly you don't have).
Why not do both? Stop using libraries as de-facto daytime homeless shelters, AND attack the problem at the source? I am STRONGLY in favor of dealing with some of the root causes of homelessness, even if it increases my taxes. Non-paradoxically, I ALSO don't want to have to inspect the library bathrooms for loose needles or scary schizophrenics before letting my kid go in by themselves.
1: http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record...
However, aside from relocating people outside SF or continuing with the status quo, there doesn't seem to be much choice. As I'm not a homeowner in SF, I can see the benefits of affordable housing (for homeless people and for people who currently rent), both in terms of reducing social tensions and in growing the local economy, but it's easy to have that view when you've got nothing to lose.
1 - https://www.google.com/amp/www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/neviu...
"But if homeless campers don’t buy the idea, the city could be headed for an ugly scene. If San Francisco police or Department of Public Works employees go to the campgrounds and order residents to pack up the tents and leave, and the residents refuse, what’s the next step?
Because video of cops and DPW workers rousting homeless people out of tents, with the inevitable shouting and confrontation, would go viral. It would be fodder for the far left fringe homeless advocates and could feed into the uproar about the SFPD."
If it comes to it, and people need to be forcibly moved on to a semi-permanent shelter, so be it. I don't see this as a reason to stop pushing forward with plans like the Pier 80 shelter.
EDIT: Looks like San Francisco's local government bottled it, the shelter was shut less than 6 months after it opened:
https://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/6/11870806/san-francisco-homele...
I have found some homeless people hard to communicate with before. I've tried volunteering with homeless people, and it's quite surreal to have them genuinely not remember who you are and speak to you as a stranger even if you spoke with them the week before, which happened on multiple occasions.
The main thing that encourages me to look past that is the thought that I could've easily ended up one of them. I'm not the most emotionally strong person I know, if I wasn't born into a supportive family I can easily see how I'd end up in their shoes.
Mental health issues are unfortunately common. Hopefully more resources can be made available to help people overcome them.
How do people without homes "completely destroy the purpose"? Are they stealing books? Breaking computers? Barricading the doors?
Do you really believe that all people without homes have "given up on life"? Not a single one is "working hard and trying to excel in life"? Have you heard of working people without homes? Particularly in LA, SF, et al. where the cost of a home vastly exceeds the income of many people?
Do you think education could be a productive method for reducing the number of people without homes?
Then enforce those rules. One violation, and you're out. Two, and you're out for good.
Librarians know who the troublemakers are. They just have no power to do anything about them. It's not illegal to be homeless, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to do violent, illegal or disgusting things without consequence.
Most people maintaining public spaces view unattended bags as a public safety threat.
If anything, there's a shrug and a sigh and some rent-a-cop is sent to harass. Almost never is the infraction met with punishment of any consequence.
Start actually arresting or forcibly evicting people who behave this way. They'll stop coming around. San Francisco is particularly feckless in this regard.
This is one of those easy solutions that sounds practical on paper, but in reality doesn't hold up.
Let's say SFPD go ahead and do what you suggest. What does that achieve? If they arrest people for shooting up, are you sending them to jail? For how long? Is that going to help them get clean when smack is probably easily attainable in prison anyway? When they're released, now not only are they homeless they've got a criminal record, good luck in the job market with that hanging over you. If they go down the other route and forcibly evict them, where do they get evicted to? All it does is shift the problem to another part of the country, who are probably just as resistant to dealing with it as SF.
You have to treat the root causes of involuntary homelessness as if it's a societal disease. The threat of arresting people isn't a strong enough deterrent to break people out of their addictions, which should be clear by now, otherwise the war on drugs would already have been 'won'.
Perspective! If someone is shooting up in the library, their future employability is of (at best) tertiary concern to me. The pressing matter is making sure they don't continue the behavior. We can't just stop enforcing laws because it might make lawbreakers break more laws.
The city of SF actually did adopt a policy of forcing addicts into treatment by giving them an ultimatum of jail time for accumulated minor offenses. It worked, but was stopped when some bleeding-heart sued the city. I'm a liberal, but I consider that a tragedy. You can't cure addiction by arresting people, but you sure as hell can stop enabling it on a societal scale.
And also, when I say "evict", I mean "evict them from the library". I don't care where they go to shoot up; watch porn; shit in the sink; sleep or harass people, but they can't do it in the library.
I'm suggesting we have to look at the problems holistically. Let's say someone breaks the law. The main aim of throwing someone in jail is to stop them committing more crime, correct? If jail time is going to be effective in doing so, that's fine, but if incarceration only leads to an increase in crime after the person has been released, was it worth it? Perhaps there are other ways of reducing the problem that we should consider instead.
> "The city of SF actually did adopt a policy of forcing addicts into treatment by giving them an ultimatum of jail time for accumulated minor offenses. It worked"
Do you have a link to an article showing the effectiveness of this approach in SF?
As for your other points, if someone is shitting in the sink, is the main problem that they're mentally deranged, or is the main problem that you have to witness it?
What if by doing that people would become willing to invest in the programs that treat these kinds of problems?
If that's the case, great, but the impression I'm getting from many people here is that it's 'not my problem'. I don't see much of the sympathy that would drive people to act on the behalf of others.
A couple days ago one of them threw themselves from the 5th story and landed in the atrium. He could very easily have killed someone in addition to himself. I have trouble rationalizing this romantic view of the homeless as these poor downtrodden, down on their luck people who just need a hand up, with the realities I see everyday of mentally ill, dangerous, and completely uncontrollable people. They definitely are not there to read. A few have developed the skill set necessary to direct the free access computers to porn sites.
That being said I agree that homeless is not effective as a blanket term to describe anyone without a home, huge difference between someone living out of their car and showering at the gym, and a schizophrenic who hasn't bathed in 6 months.
These aren't actually incompatible with each other. I would consider mental illness to be "down on one's luck", wouldn't you?
> They definitely are not there to read. A few have developed the skill set necessary to direct the free access computers to porn sites.
I don't know if this is what you intend, but language like this makes it sounds like you're discussing some sort of monkeys, not people. Of course they can use computers. Most homeless people weren't born homeless.
I believe GP was referring to the skills to get around adult content blocks rather than general computer skills.
Looks like SF libraries don't filter content:
That is because this "romantic view" is a straw man you came up with so that you can rationalize writing a comment attacking the homeless and the mentally ill, instead of doing something constructive. Do you participate in the San Francisco Tenants Union? Are you doing anything to help SB562 (single-payer in California)? When was the last time you gave a homeless person change?
You can whine about homeless people all you want on HN but that says more about your inadequacies as a person than about the homeless. Until the lack of affordable access to housing and mental health services is resolved the homeless population in California will keep growing.
The class of homeless you are referring to is people pushed out of their homes due to rising prices and their limited income. These people (in my experience) are not the ones going around screaming at people an not bathing for months. You would most likely not even know they are homeless.
You are not talking about the same groups of people so you are talking past each other and nothing productive will come of your exchange.
And having affordable housing obviously creates some stability in a person's life.
From what I've observed, the problematic homeless people primarily need health care or to be put in a mental institution (for the really unstable ones). Affordable housing would certainly be nice, but having that isn't going to do anything for the ones that piss on the floor or jump off the balcony of a public library because they wouldn't be able to pay (or want to pay) any price for housing.
Uh-huh.
Can the histrionic rhetoric, dude. It's not working.
Cities need to get homeless services right. They also need to get libraries, parks, and transit right.
You and I have access to private-sector alternatives. The working-class kid who wants a quiet place to do his homework, the guy on the edge of homeless desperately applying for jobs on the public computer, someone depending on the librarian to help them navigate the welfare bureaucracy... they don't.
You may not realize it, but a great many people on the low end of the socioeconomic ladder depend on libraries as quiet sanctuaries and as a window of access to the modern, networked, intellectual world. Shouted obscenities and excrement vapor in the air ruin it for them too.
You're right, we should be deeply concerned by such dramatic scenes of intense suffering and inhumanity. But if you're even slightly concerned, the last thing you want to do is let the environment deteriorate and fester undisturbed. The guy who might consider defecating on the floor deserves a peaceful and pleasant library, too. He's not going to get it if we let such things become normal there. The characteristics of the spaces we inhabit shape our moods and behaviors, and a library which could be mistaken for a skid row alleyway serves no one.
Maybe you should see the demographic as being a little more complex rather than just throwing them all into the one bucket. Rather than 'find another term' to split the demographic itself ('homeless' is a pretty accurate description of 'doesn't have a home'), perhaps you should find a different term for the groups you want to specify.
/sarcasm
By offering something that is even more attractive than a library to people who want the roof but not the books.
One might even argue that it is undemocratic when funds for one public service (with a lot of popular support) were reappropriated for another, maybe less popular, one. Imagine (in Lennon's voice) the USAF going rogue to set up an NHS clone with money they were supposed to spend on new jets: laudable in a way yet unquestionably out of line. Not their decision to make.
Member only access where it's free to join but you ban people breaking rules ?
We already limit library use to those who live within the library's community. Just require a library card to get in, too. Morals aside, the logistics would be simple.
> How do people without homes "completely destroy the purpose"? Are they stealing books? Breaking computers? Barricading the doors?
Shooting up heroin in the bathroom? Using the water fountains to wash up. Talking angrily to their schizophrenic delusions? Stinking to high heaven? Saying "completely destroy the purpose" is a bit of an exaggeration - but the mission of the library is hampered a bit if you make them defacto daytime homeless shelters.
> Do you really believe that all people without homes have "given up on life"?
He was exaggerating, but yes - many homeless have no reasonable expectation of improving their circumstances.
> Do you think education could be a productive method for reducing the number of people without homes?
Those who aren't mentally ill or completely socially maladjusted, sure. Of course, there's a difference between "education" and "just putting them in a building full of information and crossing your fingers".
I don't say that all of your criticisms were wrong - but you went off the rails in the opposite extreme of the person you replied to. Any solution we come up with should acknowledge that libraries are vulnerable to the tragedy of the commons, and a great percentage of the homeless are not going to improve themselves without the aid of services that the library has no business providing.
"You have to be in the same physical location to use a building" is one of the softest restrictions in history.
In order to borrow something, sure, you have to live nearby, but a library is more than a book loan service. For example, I was crossing the US and booking the hotel for the next night every morning. If the motel I was at didn't have working internet, I'd find a library and use theirs to make the booking. I was never blocked on account on not living nearby.
The question was asked, how can we logistically enforce no homeless people. The answer is (new, non-existing policy here): restrict access to those who can borrow books. That's how we could do it, logistically.
By only making it free for students.
> How do people without homes "completely destroy the purpose"?
I wouldn't say it destroys the purpose, but it changes the atmosphere and environment of the place. I don't think people want to spend time with homeless and weird people around them. It sounds harsh but that's the truth.
I don't want to live in a society that solves the stench of poverty and untreated mental illness by corralling people into ghettos and homeless shelters. The only humane solution to the stench of human suffering in public libraries or anywhere else is to minister to the unmet needs. Give them medical treatment, showers, food and a bed.
I do have a problem with them using the space in a way that actively prevents people from being patrons. I have more of a problem with the tacit assumption that this is some kind of stopgap "shelter" and that the unilateral non democratic appropriation of public spaces to provide a poor substitite is defensible.
In chemistry, when you have a both a product and a side-product dissolved in a liquid (say, water) and you want to purify the solution to have only the product, you don't try to take the side-product away directly; instead, you pour in another fluid with different viscosity that the side-product will prefer to its original solute, and then shake things up. After everything settles, the product is in one layer, the side-product is in the other, and you can now drain the layers into separate flasks and wash/evaporate/crystallize out your product.
People, like chemicals, can't just be told what to do; you need to give them a place they prefer to be if you want any hope of them moving there.
I love libraries. If someone is reading a book or a magazine or even surfing Facebook on a computer I don't care what they look like, smell like, or whether or not they go back to an apartment at the end of the day.
My city has a beautiful library. They also have very liberal policies, afaik people aren't turned away.
But those tables you'd like to read a magazine at? Full of people camped out, possessions spread around them, talking, dealing.
Those isles of books? Now they are also beds.
It's really an asshole move to assume that if anyone at any point doesn't want their library turned into a shelter, then they are heartless people who hate the poor and mentally ill.
I want better health care in this country. I want better support for ensuring that everyone had a roof over their head. I also want to read a book in the library without being hassled or smelling excrement.
Libraries should be open to everyone to use as libraries.
The first two should be seen as prerequisites for the third. The first one especially.
Is it fair that libraries have inadvertently taken on the role of social care of the homeless? No, it's not. Should, as you put it, libraries be open to everyone to use as libraries? Yes, they should. However, the answer is not to shut the homeless out of yet another place, the answer is to push for cheaper, more comprehensive healthcare (i.e. single payer) so that we can address the problem head on.
I empathize, but this is destructive. Deciding we can't have [basic service that worked fine not long ago] until we have [complete change of heart about philosophical and policy questions at the core of people's political identities] will only run civilization into the ground.
If a homeless encampment appears on a public transit mainline, should we shut down the city's transit system until poverty is eradicated worldwide?
Our civilization is certainly low, but it could fall a lot further.
Societies are a bit like networks, they're only as strong as their weakest link.
Well, giving the homeless a better place to hang out would be one option. I don't think most of them are there to actually use the library as such (some might be, of course).
As I understand it, many shelters kick them out during the daytime, so they wind up in the library or riding public transportation to get out of the weather instead.
And homeless push out the people who could be expanding their minds and imagination, trying to improve themselves and society.
They sit there, charge their cell phones, watch youtube, sleep and shower.
No, I don't think education helps. Technology should reduce the cost of living. We need better systems and societies where paying rent shouldn't require 20+ hours of work a week.
I defiantly see this happening in Pasadena. The main library has become a refuge from the summer heat, but I feel like this drives others from using it.
Not "people who have given up on life".
You're probably young, and have a wonderful support sysyem (these days, a rich, sympathetic father), but be careful about throwing around aspersions.
Life will throw you some real curves. It might get so ugly, you will look back upon your youth idealism and literally cry?
Unfortunately, this limits the space that is available for people to work and study. There have also been two suicides in the past year (people jumping from the 7th floor balcony into the central atrium -- it's now being walled off to prevent this).
The problem is in the US, they generally only have night-time accommodation and even those have strict limits.
Isn't the purpose of a public library to collect, preserve and disseminate information freely to the public? Please explain how a homeless person "destroys" those purposes when they participate?
>"It should be a refuge for people working hard and trying to excel in life, not a place for people who have given up on life."
That view on what a library's purpose is seems uniquely and selfishly your own.
It's interesting that you declare homeless as "people who have given up on life" yet you yourself have apparently given up on them as human beings. Honestly it sounds like you could stand to learn a little empathy.
I hope he never has mental health issues or similar that result in homelessness.
By destroying books and furniture, screaming loudly when people are trying to read and becoming violent, among other things.
Next question.
Really are all homeless people acting that way? I have seen plenty of suburban teenagers in libraries do some of those same things. Why is it different if it's homeless?
By the way your "next question" comment is quite a display of arrogance. Seriously who goes around saying that?
No. The ones that aren't, aren't a problem.
If anyone has proposed ejecting homeless people who are behaving in a civilized manner, I haven't seen it. Have you?
"By the way your "next question" comment is quite a display of arrogance."
Your feigned ignorance of the fact that crazy/drunk homeless people disrupt the library deserved it.
To expand:
If a homeless person (or any other person -- I don't actually care if the guy is homeless or Bill Gates) can comport themselves in the library in a civilized manner, they are welcome there as far as I'm concerned. If they can't, they aren't.
That would include:
1) Not shitting and pissing in the book stacks, or littering them with used condoms and needles.
2) Not yelling obscenities or incoherencies, whether due to intoxication, mental illness, or both.
3) Not pulling weapons on the other patrons or staff, trying to fight them, or making verbal threats to them.
4) If using the public computers, not engaging in public masturbation, playing loud porn videos, etc.
Should there be a place for people who can't control themselves to this minimal extent to go? Yes. Should that place be the library? No.
Maybe the library means different things to different people. For them it's a place to loiter with air conditioning and free wifi. For upper and middle class, a place to gain knowledge or have fun. For aspiring writers, a place to attend workshops and talk with other authors. Does it matter if they loiter though? I've taken naps and played with my phone at the library too.
In over fifteen years of going to the library, I've only ever had one homeless person be aggressive towards me and security gave them the boot right away. You're probably more likely to be mugged on the street than attacked while reading a book at the library.
This feels more like an image problem. Being surrounded by poor people may not feel good but I don't see a problem with it. They're just people doing something at the library. More power to them if they're using the library for job resources or want free internet access.
What an interesting take.
I'll go ahead and answer that for you: $80 a year for a service I have never used nor do I know anyone who has used in the past decade. It's just not a good value for money to me.
It's a small cost but you are paying it.
There are likely other things your taxes pay for that you use more than other people as well. For example my city allocates a huge amount of money towards maintaining roads, which I never use and sidewalks, which I use more than the average resident.
I think there's good arguments to privatize roadways, or at least some aspects of them. But at least roadways and sidewalks are things that just about everyone uses at some point, even if indirectly.
Libraries on the other hand probably only benefit a relatively small percentage of the population at all and only in a significant way to those who directly use them. They represent a particularly high level of waste in my opinion.
Recently I ordered Minecraft for PS4 from another library to play with my cousin (again, free) and when I went to pick it up I also went to the shelves and took out Discourse on the Method & Meditations.
As a result of the system, the selection of media is... beyond compare. I could not be happier that my tax dollars are going to my library.
They even made their software open source: https://evergreen-ils.org/
I think there is a case to be made that modern libraries are driving more use with younger generations then previous generations, with my own family being a frequent visitor of our local system. I think there is a social case to be made that modern libraries are fulfilling a broad mission and provide a great return on tax payer investment. Having a question of have you gone to a library in the past year doesn't really show that.
Naming it was not always done / well known.
Cronkike called them "youth"
Social scientists invented names. Marketers segmemted them.
The Vietnam era youth created a disruption of authority which has been followed ever since.
Senators (Moynihan) used to count the number of generations since the founding of the country.
These are some of the names generations have been called i can remember in my lifetime
Child of the depression
War baby
Baby boom
Generation x
Generation Y
Womans rights era (ERA)
Mans world
--- Gen x got lots of headlines.. But that group was very bland
Most generations, until recently had the real threat of dying in war. And to know personally getting notice of a loved one or friend dying.
I totally forgot that. I know why.... We call them the Selfish Generation...
I've never heard the greatest generation being referred to as selfish. However, as we both know, all these labels are nonsense anyway.
I also forgot "net natives" this, to me, will be a label with meaning.
I also have the?privilege of family history and writings.
Imo the war victory meant that the winners began "for the first time" thinking about themselves... Previous generations, from my understanding of my family history, were not all about doing for themselves. Its not the fault of BBers to be selfish because it was planted by our parents
However, not all generations are labelled as strongly. I think I'm part of a 'missing' generation. Technically I'm a millennial, but according to the top definition here (I'm aware Urban Dictionary isn't always the most reliable reference)... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Millennial ... I'd be a Generation Y Millennial. I do think there's a difference between Generation Y and Generation Z, not in the way where one is superior to the other, but in terms of the differences in the childhood and young adult experiences that shaped us. When I read articles about millennials they're almost always targetted at the Generation Z Millennials. I'm not complaining, I'm grateful I avoided the type of pigeonholing that Generation Z has unfortunately had to go through.
As for why this media focus on the next generation happens, I think part of it is adults trying to make sense of an unfamiliar culture. Perhaps it's a natural reaction when you have kids to try to make sense of the world they're growing up in (when they're not with you). There's often an undercurrent of negativity, though this can run in both directions (the baby boomer generation is widely seen as greedy, for example, though of course such generalisations don't really hold up to much scrutiny).
In short, yes.
The terminology you link to is interesting, I had not previously seen Gen Y and Gen Z combined with "Millennial" in this way.
Yes. It was annoying at the time. Especially how marketing people described every product as "eXXXXXtreme!!!!", because they thought that's how we all talked.
However, strangely enough I DO miss being, well... relevant. Looking around today, it's like my generation never existed. Most of the musicians I listened to are dead, most of my movies and TV shows and childhood toys have been subsumed by reboots, and most people act as if "Baby Boomers" segued directly into "Millennials".
I didn't like being labeled or pigeonholed at the time, but there is something to be said for having a generational "identity". You feel a lot more invisible, even as an individual, when you belong to a smaller generation whose labels don't stay on the forefront.
Not to mention, from a practical standpoint of political clout... we'll probably wind up getting thrown under the bus by your bigger generation in our elder years, just as as we were by the boomers in our younger years.
As for what it means to be part of a generation, all generations disperse as people get older. It's harder to build a shared identity over common experiences as people's overall life experiences vary wildly. If I've read right, and it's the connection you miss, the answer is to connect with people as individuals. We are always more than the labels we assign to ourselves anyway.
Larry Page, Sergei Brin, Jerry Yang, David Filo, Marc Andreson and more are all Xers.
I don't use any of the "extra services" like computers (except for the catalog), meeting rooms, etc. 90% of the time I just read physical books. Occasionally I get a DVD or audiobook CD.
It's nice that libraries have ebooks available these days, but I never check those out because they require me to use DRM readers. If they were plain PDF's I'd definitely use them.
Also, our local library system charges $1/day for CDs and DVD's....
I've made my fair share of "forced" monetary contributions to our local library, but it's money well spent.
(They used to send me letters, but only after I was overdue).
Depending on your legal/moral stance, DRM strippers could be an option.
Wouldn't it make more sense to make "forgiveness day" simply a day where your late fees are, say, 95% discounted or something?
In my public library system, at least, you can't check out new books when carrying more than $5 in fines. (I forget whether you have to return the books, or just pay the current balance.) Thus, it's not quite as simple an incentive system as that.
They let you renew each checkout twice, for a total of 9-weeks.
They email you when a book is coming up due, so you can click to renew it.
They have a drop-off bin (like a bank's night deposit), so you can turn in your books safely if you can't get there during regular hours.
If that's not reasonable or convenient enough, then sheesh... just buy books. But if anyone's life or behavioral habits are so chaotic that buying retail books is cheaper than library borrowing, then I have to wonder how they manage to survive adulthood in general.
I can't resist mentioning my library's bizarre set-up here: if books are due on day X, but are in the drop-box at the time of opening on the next open day (for that branch, so one can game the system a bit by returning to branches that are closed on particular days), then they are counted as having been returned on time.
Once, I took advantage of this, but, just to be on the safe side, also renewed the book online. (I've had problems, usually eventually resolved, with re-shelvers forgetting to mark the books as checked in, so that fines accumulate for a day or two.) It was treated as overdue. When I asked about this, they told me that it was the intended functionality of the system.
The myth that everything is out there on the web is really belied by a few hours spent in a subject-oriented academic library.
I found it ten years after being a student. I think every student should read it at the beginning of their studies.
One extreme example is that anyone who lives in Texas can apply for access to any library in the "TexShare" system of public libraries, which includes the state university libraries. You first get a library card from your local public library, and then apply through the TexShare program for access to the university library you want: https://www.tsl.texas.gov/texshare/card
Generally none of these programs allow you to use the interlibrary loan service though, only resources the library itself has.
There is a bookstore in Austin that has a great coffee shop inside, and it certainly attracts folks to come in and browse.
That's the majority of bookstores in Austin.
BookPeople?
Seems a perfect match.
I've seen programs at libraries to help the Elderly learn basic computing skills, or have activities together(knitting clubs, boardgames, etc), to get them out of their homes/retirement communities and to a new place.
We really need it to keep our daughter entertained as well because we "cut the cord" many years ago. She's an avid reader now, and I'm a proud dad. We're reading the Never Ending Story currently, and it really is never-ending!
I'm old enough to have been taught to use the paper card catalog in school, and I was a library aide from middle school through high school. I always thought of them as temples of knowledge, but temples in which the relics could be borrowed by anyone. This along with the concept of borrowing and returning always seemed to be a cornerstone of the ideal of an egalitarian society. So it breaks my heart to walk into literally any of the local public libraries and see what has become of their collections. They all now compete at offering the most salubrious lounge experience, to facilitate which they have in some cases removed as much as half of their former floor collection.
I do believe that in the 21st century the library has an important function to serve in providing a place to access the Net for people who cannot otherwise do so. Making space for this is justifiable in my view. Making space for someone to drink a latte in a taxpayer-funded place of access to information is not. There are many, many places that will provide such services far better than the public library.
Cheaper than coffee shops and especially quieter than coffee shops...
But they got a big construction site on one library here now and the other one isn't so nice... it looks like a prison for books :\
https://www.baunetzwissen.de/imgs/1/2/8/4/6/0/5/6272648125_1...
A few areas for improvement:
- Most of the libraries I frequent have very slow wifi, but this may be on purpose.
- Most digital library catalogs have terrible UIs (broken back buttons, poor search results, etc.) They work, but they're not fun to use.
Talk to your librarians! In my experience, they welcome feedback, including of this sort. Sometimes the response is "all the systems suck, and this one is the best compromise we could find between suckiness and cost" (it always has been for me), but it's also a good way to get involved in efforts to fix it (for example, UI tests for proposed new systems).
Sad. Really sad.
If your school offers home ec, take it! These are valuable life skills that you absolutely need to have. You don't need an "adulting 101" book, you need home economics in school.
I can also, of course, get books in paper form, requesting them online to be delivered to my nearby branch, or just going to a branch and browsing. My wife has read over 110 books this calendar year, the vast majority of which were gotten via the SFPL.
While studying I've used the university ones a few times, but I've also always preferred to buy my books if they were important enough to be read thoroughly and repeatedly.
On the one hand I'm kinda sad about this, on the other hand I like to own and revisit the books I read.
If I can't get it for free from the library then I'll consider ordering it from Amazon.
Another advantage of the library is you don't accumulate more and more books over time, unlike if you buy them.
The price of books over the years has been pretty stable, in adjusted dollars: https://theawl.com/how-much-more-do-books-cost-today-28fea1a...
US Libraries in the 1970s, 80s and 90s were still logical places to do research and work. I don't believe they are anymore. They are mainly archives and public resources for those that can't afford information access privately.
I remember very fondly visiting the library in the 70's and reading for hours there as a child but much prefer private access now.