5 ms·

Anyone running an online business will tell you that words are valuable. Text is the primary way we communicate with our customers. Carefully chosen words can h

Anyone running an online business will tell you that words are valuable. Text is the primary way we communicate with our customers. Carefully chosen words can have a massive impact on revenue. The author possesses a valuable skill but is not fairly compensated for it. What's going on? Inequality is increasing in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United...) and many other countries. Technology is giving capital an increasing advantage over labour. A job as, say, a doctor, lawyer, or University professor, which used to guarantee you a position at the top of the social hierarchy, no longer does. Inequality is generally regarded as a bad thing, both socially and economically (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality) Addressing inequality at a macro scale is beyond my knowledge, but I do know how to address it at the micro scale: own your work. Technology contributes to inequality by allowing successful businesses to scale further with fewer employees. However, you can use the same infrastructure to scale out your microbusiness. Within our community, patio11, Amy Hoy, Brennan Dunn, Nathan Barry, and others have show how to do this. It is noticeable that many of the above have made a substantial chunk of change from publishing a book. (E.g. http://nathanbarry.com/2014-review/ http://nathanbarry.com/2014-review/ ~$260K from book sales.) The OP is in a great position to replicate this -- they have all the skills, namely command over the written word, to produce great content and great copy to sell it. On a wider scale, I think we can use technology to redress some of the growth in inequality. Presently it mostly allows relatively few businesses to concentrate wealth. If more people retake ownership over their work, which technology in many cases enables, then perhaps we can do something to address inequality. It's not the whole solution but it might be part of it.

wbl 12y ago
There are a lot of writers out there. It hasn't gotten easier to make it big, even if the size of the check once you do is bigger. Google "death of the midlist" for more information about this trend.
- noelwelsh 12y ago
  Part of the point is that if you own the product you get 100% (well, more like 95%) of the income, rather than the 10% you might get via royalties. 1000 sales for a nonfiction book is a solid year's income.
  - jacques_chester 12y ago
    You also take 100% of the risk.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    True, but the 90% that you don't see through a traditional publishing arrangement doesn't go up in smoke - it pays for marketing, distribution, accounting, and a bunch of other stuff. Now, historically publishers sometimes rip people off. But the problem is that by focusing on that narrative (especially in the music business), we have collectively thrown the baby out with the bathwater in many cases, overlooking the fact that authorship and publication are often entirely different fields of competence. Some authors are also good at publishing - and more power to them. But economic efficiency is maximized when actors specialize in those fields where they have a comparative advantage; if you're a writer, it's not really a good use of your time to be organizing your own book-signing tour unless you really enjoy that aspect of things.
erikpukinskis 12y ago
Somewhat off topic, but to your question about why we don't value certain kinds of work... Culture provides a kind of distributed wage-fixing. The free market fallacy gives people the idea that wages are optimized and reflect true economic value. But in reality employers pay as little as they can get away with. Imagine two societies. In the first, its generally accepted that people in any position, including nurses and receptionists and customer support people, can create immense business value if they accel at their jobs. A customer service agent who makes big impacts on retention could expect to make a six figure salary. Others who are less useful might make minimum wage. Now imagine another world where the general social consensus is that your job title implies a ceiling on how much value you can bring to an organization. In this world a programmer can make millions but a customer service rep is capped at $25 or so per hour. General belief is that if you want to make more you can't just create more value, you have to get a different job title. In the first world, corporations have to compete for every employee, and overall compensation costs are higher. In the later world, only the top slice of jobs are subject to market forces, and costs go down. It also has social side effects that appeal to the ruling class, but that's another story. I would argue that businesses who think this way are actually leaving money on the table, and that by removing title-based compensation caps, you have a more accurate picture of the economics of your business and can harvest more value, but most people don't seem to think that way.
- gaius 12y ago
  This is why the myth being spread that "anyone can code" is so long term dangerous. Because it doesn't matter that it isn't true (beyond trivial stuff like websites): it will still drive down what people in general think programmers are worth.
  - HarryHirsch 12y ago
    Consider that you don't see "Anyone can be a physician" campaigns. Then again, physicians are unionised, if you consider the AMA a union. Why is it that unions are anathema in the programmer community when you can see that they work nicely for other professions?
icebraining 12y ago
Anyone running an online business will tell you that words are valuable. Text is the primary way we communicate with our customers. Carefully chosen words can have a massive impact on revenue. The author possesses a valuable skill but is not fairly compensated for it. What's going on? She's not actually using that skill to increase revenue of some business?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  She's working as a college professor! Why is this not considered worthy of an economically sustainable income? Most schools seem to have a lot of money sloshing about, it just goes into the pockets of administrators and sports coaches and people erecting buildings. The people delivering the actual service of education seem to be the most poorly rewarded despite the significant degree of competence required.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Is it not worthy an economically sustainable income? According to their salary schedule, an assistant professor makes a minimum of $60k, and the median makes $90k. I'm not an American, but isn't that a decent salary? And from what understand, Las Vegas isn't a particularly expensive place to live.
    - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      Most "professors" are actually adjuncts (earning <$20k/year, if that), not assistant professors. Assistant professorships are rare and coveted.
      - icebraining 12y ago
        The U.N. salary schedule doesn't seem to include adjunct professors, only professors, associate professors and assistant professors. It does include a grade below called "instructors", can that be it? They still make a median income of almost $66k.

wbl 12y ago

There are a lot of writers out there. It hasn't gotten easier to make it big, even if the size of the check once you do is bigger. Google "death of the midlist" for more information about this trend.

noelwelsh 12y ago
Part of the point is that if you own the product you get 100% (well, more like 95%) of the income, rather than the 10% you might get via royalties. 1000 sales for a nonfiction book is a solid year's income.
- jacques_chester 12y ago
  You also take 100% of the risk.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  True, but the 90% that you don't see through a traditional publishing arrangement doesn't go up in smoke - it pays for marketing, distribution, accounting, and a bunch of other stuff. Now, historically publishers sometimes rip people off. But the problem is that by focusing on that narrative (especially in the music business), we have collectively thrown the baby out with the bathwater in many cases, overlooking the fact that authorship and publication are often entirely different fields of competence. Some authors are also good at publishing - and more power to them. But economic efficiency is maximized when actors specialize in those fields where they have a comparative advantage; if you're a writer, it's not really a good use of your time to be organizing your own book-signing tour unless you really enjoy that aspect of things.

erikpukinskis 12y ago

Somewhat off topic, but to your question about why we don't value certain kinds of work... Culture provides a kind of distributed wage-fixing. The free market fallacy gives people the idea that wages are optimized and reflect true economic value. But in reality employers pay as little as they can get away with. Imagine two societies. In the first, its generally accepted that people in any position, including nurses and receptionists and customer support people, can create immense business value if they accel at their jobs. A customer service agent who makes big impacts on retention could expect to make a six figure salary. Others who are less useful might make minimum wage. Now imagine another world where the general social consensus is that your job title implies a ceiling on how much value you can bring to an organization. In this world a programmer can make millions but a customer service rep is capped at $25 or so per hour. General belief is that if you want to make more you can't just create more value, you have to get a different job title. In the first world, corporations have to compete for every employee, and overall compensation costs are higher. In the later world, only the top slice of jobs are subject to market forces, and costs go down. It also has social side effects that appeal to the ruling class, but that's another story. I would argue that businesses who think this way are actually leaving money on the table, and that by removing title-based compensation caps, you have a more accurate picture of the economics of your business and can harvest more value, but most people don't seem to think that way.

gaius 12y ago
This is why the myth being spread that "anyone can code" is so long term dangerous. Because it doesn't matter that it isn't true (beyond trivial stuff like websites): it will still drive down what people in general think programmers are worth.
- HarryHirsch 12y ago
  Consider that you don't see "Anyone can be a physician" campaigns. Then again, physicians are unionised, if you consider the AMA a union. Why is it that unions are anathema in the programmer community when you can see that they work nicely for other professions?

icebraining 12y ago

anigbrowl 12y ago
She's working as a college professor! Why is this not considered worthy of an economically sustainable income? Most schools seem to have a lot of money sloshing about, it just goes into the pockets of administrators and sports coaches and people erecting buildings. The people delivering the actual service of education seem to be the most poorly rewarded despite the significant degree of competence required.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Is it not worthy an economically sustainable income? According to their salary schedule, an assistant professor makes a minimum of $60k, and the median makes $90k. I'm not an American, but isn't that a decent salary? And from what understand, Las Vegas isn't a particularly expensive place to live.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    Most "professors" are actually adjuncts (earning <$20k/year, if that), not assistant professors. Assistant professorships are rare and coveted.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      The U.N. salary schedule doesn't seem to include adjunct professors, only professors, associate professors and assistant professors. It does include a grade below called "instructors", can that be it? They still make a median income of almost $66k.