3 ms·

> So it's much much harder to make a living as an author today than in 1921. And much easier to make it as a television screen writer. The mediums have shifte

> So it's much much harder to make a living as an author today than in 1921. And much easier to make it as a television screen writer. The mediums have shifted

coldtea 6y ago
Well, it's not the same thing, just because it still involves writing and fiction. That there are new jobs of a different kind is not much consolation when one likes the old jobs.
- fsckboy 6y ago
  When agriculture was invented, it put a bunch of hunter gatherers out of business. They weren't happy about it, they liked being hunters and gatherers. But that surplus workforce found jobs in other areas, creating whole industries where there had been nothing. Can't have Post-mates without workers and restaurants. Can't have restaurants without more workers and food distribution. Can't have food distribution without more workers and food processors... etc. Ivy league english majors get jobs writing TV and movie scripts. Mass electronic distribution means that many many people get to watch the creative output of a small number of people. All the other people who used to write are available to fill new niches in the economy. Yep, the transition is difficult, and they'll complain about it, but society as a whole benefits.
  - tuatoru 6y ago
    > but society as a whole benefits. If only Ivy League English majors get to be writers, then I think society as a whole has lost a lot.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >When agriculture was invented, it put a bunch of hunter gatherers out of business. They weren't happy about it, they liked being hunters and gatherers. But that surplus workforce found jobs in other areas, creating whole industries where there had been nothing. For many it remains still not that wise a decision. >All the other people who used to write are available to fill new niches in the economy. Yeah, I hear burger-flipping is still in demand. I appreciate the ELI5, but it's not that I don't know history, or I don't understand that some jobs die and others replace them. It is that I consider some jobs dying a problem, whether they are replaced by something else or not, and doubly so in the way that that transition happens (and some people in each generation get the short end of the stick).
    - fsckboy 6y ago
      > it's not that I don't know history, or I don't understand that some jobs die and others replace them. ok, but it's not that some jobs die and others replace them, it's that efficiency gains allow less effort to satiate demand and thereby create a labor/ingenuity supply for new endeavors. the job of writing (or performing music, etc.) did not die, it's that the demand for satisfying arts consumption can be met by a smaller sector of the economy.

> So it's much much harder to make a living as an author today than in 1921. And much easier to make it as a television screen writer. The mediums have shifted

coldtea 6y ago

Well, it's not the same thing, just because it still involves writing and fiction. That there are new jobs of a different kind is not much consolation when one likes the old jobs.

fsckboy 6y ago
When agriculture was invented, it put a bunch of hunter gatherers out of business. They weren't happy about it, they liked being hunters and gatherers. But that surplus workforce found jobs in other areas, creating whole industries where there had been nothing. Can't have Post-mates without workers and restaurants. Can't have restaurants without more workers and food distribution. Can't have food distribution without more workers and food processors... etc. Ivy league english majors get jobs writing TV and movie scripts. Mass electronic distribution means that many many people get to watch the creative output of a small number of people. All the other people who used to write are available to fill new niches in the economy. Yep, the transition is difficult, and they'll complain about it, but society as a whole benefits.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  > but society as a whole benefits. If only Ivy League English majors get to be writers, then I think society as a whole has lost a lot.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >When agriculture was invented, it put a bunch of hunter gatherers out of business. They weren't happy about it, they liked being hunters and gatherers. But that surplus workforce found jobs in other areas, creating whole industries where there had been nothing. For many it remains still not that wise a decision. >All the other people who used to write are available to fill new niches in the economy. Yeah, I hear burger-flipping is still in demand. I appreciate the ELI5, but it's not that I don't know history, or I don't understand that some jobs die and others replace them. It is that I consider some jobs dying a problem, whether they are replaced by something else or not, and doubly so in the way that that transition happens (and some people in each generation get the short end of the stick).
  - fsckboy 6y ago
    > it's not that I don't know history, or I don't understand that some jobs die and others replace them. ok, but it's not that some jobs die and others replace them, it's that efficiency gains allow less effort to satiate demand and thereby create a labor/ingenuity supply for new endeavors. the job of writing (or performing music, etc.) did not die, it's that the demand for satisfying arts consumption can be met by a smaller sector of the economy.