4 ms·
I do understand this article; however I would point out that among the "poor" (in America hardly anyone is poor like in the 3rd world) I have met, TV is present
by patrickgzill 16y ago
I do understand this article; however I would point out that among the "poor" (in America hardly anyone is poor like in the 3rd world) I have met, TV is present and books are not.
- jerf 16y agoTVs are much cheaper per hour, so what's the surprise? I mean, yes, I know what you're getting at, but a $50 used 25-inch CRT that you use for several thousand hours is going to beat out a book on the price front any day. Even just the effort of going to the library and back adds up to more human capital per book/hour than watching TV. I'm not endorsing it, just observing it.
- WalterBright 16y agoJust a quick comment; most books one cannot even give away. A lot of used books are sold on Amazon for $.01. The local used bookstore won't even take boxes of nearly mint books for free, because they can't give them away either. I read thousands of books as a kid and paid for nearly none of them.
- three14 16y agohttp://www.bookthing.org/ http://www.bookthing.org/ for instance will generally take those books.
- patrickgzill 16y agoIt is not about cost per hour, but about improving yourself vs. entertainment. TV's information density, even for good shows (however defined), is very low; you can learn far more in 1 hour of reading than in 1 hour of TV watching. And TV is a passive activity while reading a book requires mental involvement. What people, even poor people, choose to spend their time on has an effect on what they are able to do later.
- pcestrada 16y agoLibrary?
- jerf 16y agoMy post was only four sentences, couldn't you have troubled yourself to finish it before replying?
- kenjackson 16y agoThe same could be said for many of the "rich" in America too.