« How American is Globalization? | Main | Greg Mankiw takes on Jacqueline Passey »
Sad facts of the day
"80% of US families did not buy or read a book last year."
"58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school."
"...more people probably read Engadget than all of the top 50 science blogs combined."
Bill Simmons (a good link for NBA fans) thinks that Allen Iverson would have been the greatest soccer player ever to try the game.
You'll find all of those over at the ever-excellent kottke.org.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 7, 2006 at 04:58 PM in Data Source | Permalink
Comments
I am skeptical of some of this data and cannot track it to any source.
Certainly we know that many people buy and read few books.
A few years back a study commissioned by the American Booksellers
Association found that half of all U.S. households do not buy a
single book all year. But I think the stuff Kottke cites may be
far too pessimistic, and the ultimate source appears to be a defunct
web site.
Posted by: Dan at Jul 7, 2006 5:27:14 PM
Why is Bill Simmons' comment about Iverson a sad fact of the day? Because you think he's wrong, or because you think he's right?
Posted by: bob montgomery at Jul 7, 2006 5:53:37 PM
Bill Simmons said "Allen Iverson would have been the greatest soccer player ever -- better than Pele, better than Ronaldo, better than everyone. I think this is indisputable, actually. ".
It is a shame Bill is not a commentator on ESPN or ABC for the world cup. With those comments, he might even make Marcelo Balboa sound like a good and insightful commentator.
His soccer comments regarding Allen Iverson and Shawn Marion just reinforces my sad view that American sports experts do not understand soccer.
Posted by: Diego Armando Maradona at Jul 7, 2006 5:56:25 PM
I also call baloney on the book buying statistics. Either that, or someone is buying a lot of books and not sharing.
Posted by: Klug at Jul 7, 2006 6:08:46 PM
Actually, I found it to be a fairly amusing thought experiment to try to figure out which star athletes from football and basketball (or baseball I suppose) could have been world class soccer players. The Shawn Marion crossover actually seems like it could be an outstanding idea (explain to me why you think Shawn Marion couldn't be a fantastic goal keeper?). I think it's pretty clear that Simmons is exagerrating on purpose with the comment about Iverson in order to by funny...
For the record, I'd love to have seen what Reggie Bush could have done as a striker if he had grown up playing soccer instead of football. How about Michael Vick for that matter? Marshall Faulk?
Or reverse it, what soccer players might make outstanding basketball or skill position football players. How about Thierry Henry at wide receiver?
Either way, Marginal Revolution linking to Bill Simmons...do you want my head to explode?
Posted by: Todd Lippincott at Jul 7, 2006 6:10:45 PM
For a fresh link to those figures, try here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=jenkins+group+books+%22never+reads+another+book%22&btnG=Search
Of course that still does not prove it is true...
Posted by: Tyler Cowen at Jul 7, 2006 6:31:50 PM
I am not surprised by the books statistics. When I worked at a bookstore years ago we frequently had families come in and try to exchange gift certificates they'd received for cash because they'd say, "We don't read!"
Personally I am doing my part to keep the book industry afloat despite 80% of the population not buying its products. Quicken tells me I spent almost $4000 on books over the past year, and as my income goes up I'm sure so will my book consumption. :)
Posted by: Jacqueline at Jul 7, 2006 6:43:00 PM
And third, can you imagine anyone being a better goalie than Shawn Marion? It would be like having a 6-foot-9 human octopus in the net. How could anyone score on him?
The thing is, hardly anyone ever scores on the present goalies!
Posted by: Peter at Jul 7, 2006 7:44:04 PM
Well, couldn't far more families be borrowing books from the library instead of buying them?
Posted by: Joe at Jul 7, 2006 8:15:43 PM
According to my Economist Pocket World in Figures 2005 Edition (indispensable!), the United States is tied with Singapore for fourth place with $102 in total book sales per head. Japan ($150), Norway ($139) and Germany ($120) rank first, second, and third, respectively.
Posted by: Cody at Jul 7, 2006 9:01:11 PM
And the same page of statistics claims that the US is responsible for one-third of all book sales. It also gives statistics which claim "the number of books sold is not increasing" and other statistics noting that the number of books sold increased year to year. In fact, the linked page of book statistics has a massive number of contradictory statistics-- perhaps that's the point.
Posted by: John Thacker at Jul 7, 2006 10:49:38 PM
Note for example the "63% of US adults report buying a book in the previous three weeks." statistic, though I agree that seems like a classic case of lying to the interviewer to sound good.
Posted by: John Thacker at Jul 7, 2006 10:51:08 PM
If you look at the National Assessment of Adult Literacy you have a core of 93 million adults who are not going to be buying any books:
------------
As already mentioned, 30 million adults had Below Basic prose literacy. These adults can do no more than the most simple literacy activities.
Sixty-three million had Basic literacy. This means they are able to perform simple literacy activities such as understanding information in a pamphlet for prospective jurors.
Ninety-five million had Intermediate prose literacy. This means they can perform moderately difficult activities such as finding information in reference materials.
Twenty-eight million had Proficient literacy. This means they can perform complex and challenging literacy activities such as comparing viewpoints in two different editorials.
Posted by: Noumenon at Jul 7, 2006 11:57:46 PM
Here's the top ten Most Literate Cities in America 2005 ranking:
1. Minneapolis, MN 382,618
2. Seattle, WA 563,374
3. Pittsburgh, PA 334,563
4. Madison, WI 208,054
5. Cincinnati, OH 331,285
6. Washington, DC 572,059
7. Denver, CO 554,636
8. Boston, MA 589,141
9. Portland, OR 529,121
10. San Francisco, CA 776,733
And here's the bottom ten:
70. Garland, TX 215,768
71. Fresno, CA 427,652
72. Arlington, TX 332,969
73. Long Beach, CA 461,522
74. Anaheim, CA 328,014
75. San Antonio, TX 1,144,646
76. Santa Ana, CA 337,977
77. Corpus Christi, TX 277,454
78. Hialeah, FL 226,419
79. El Paso, TX 563,662
What could possibly be the difference between the populations in the Top Ten and the Bottom Ten? It's just baffling...
You know, Tyler, when you get your way on immigration and American is Hispanicized like you keep calling for, you're going to be sad.
Literacy rankings:
http://www.uww.edu/advancement/npa/special_reports/cities/allrank.html
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Jul 8, 2006 3:02:32 AM
Perhaps the south is mostly too hot during the summer to enjoy a book-read ;)
But seriously, I think we have a problem here, because many people decide to read either newspapers (no book) or to read on the internet, nowadays. Perhaps we have to include newer medias in those statistics?
Posted by: Max at Jul 8, 2006 9:44:02 AM
I'm a scientist (computer scientist and mathematician by degree and trade) and there's nothing sad about the fact that endgaget has more subscribers than the top 50 science blogs, at least if you peruse the bottom ten of them.
They are dreadful--boring, off topic, ill informed on topics they post on that are outside their scope (which their posts often are). Basically, they don't encourage someone to come back
Better still would be for there to be better science blogs in the first place. What's sad is perhaps how science hasn't translated well, or scientists haven't learn wit.
Endgaget is interesting. It's a blessing people read it.
Posted by: Allison Coates at Jul 8, 2006 11:41:19 AM
Two thoughts about the purchases:
35 years ago, when I was in high school, a mass-market paperback cost less than an hour's labor at minimum wage. Today, many of them cost considerably more than an hour at minimum wage.
Is public library usage up or down in any systematic fashion? I admit that I am a regular visitor to my local library, driven in part by the cost of actually purchasing the books. And not just for fiction: inter-library loans give me access to the campus libraries of three major universities.
Posted by: Michael Cain at Jul 8, 2006 11:52:02 AM
35 years ago, when I was in high school, a mass-market paperback cost less than an hour's labor at minimum wage. Today, many of them cost considerably more than an hour at minimum wage.
That's true, but on the other hand Amazon has made it possible to purchase very inexpensive used books that, in many cases, are in near-perfect condition. I recently bought a copy of America's Game (list price $27.95) for the grand total of $6.48 including shipping and handling. It is in absolutely perfect, bookstore-quality condition.
Posted by: Peter at Jul 8, 2006 4:09:52 PM
Why buy a book? Everything good is online. Heck, this blog is about 60% of the good stuff to read.
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Jul 8, 2006 6:45:37 PM
Reading books is overrated.
Posted by: BillWallace at Jul 8, 2006 11:54:17 PM
This isn't my observation (I don't know the name of the person I can credit for this), but take a gander at this bit:
One-third of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives. Many do not even graduate from high school.
How do they graduate from high school and not gradute from high school at the same time?
I'm thinking that Snopes.com will take a look at this within a few days and declare it to be false.
Posted by: Marty Busse at Jul 9, 2006 6:04:25 AM
Yglesias points to Douthat, who points to this NEA study, which says that, at least as of 2002, 56.6% of the U.S. population had read a book in the past year. So, unless all of the book readers in this country are grouped into some VERY large families, I'm calling BS on this 80% "fact".
Once again, we learn, never believe what you read on the Internet.
Posted by: Al at Jul 9, 2006 11:34:23 AM
Sure you can. You can "believe" NEA studies you find on the Internet. The problem is everyone spreads around these random, uncited numbers they find on some webpage. I'm supposed to be worried about the horrible state of the man on the street, but I'm more worried that university professors don't know any better.
Posted by: Jason Malloy at Jul 9, 2006 2:14:48 PM
1. Books, as already mentioned, are overrated. Non-fiction books are needlessly long-winded. And fiction is just another form of entertainment - not morally superior to the others. The claim of literature as a gateway to 'Truth' is romantic hyperbole.
2. Much of book purchasing is about status and social signaling. Being able to drop a Raskalnikov reference in conversation is helpful in certain social situations. People constantly look for ways to signal status, wealth, education, etc.
3. Doesn't the fundamental premise of this site -- that average people are competent to make life-improving decisions -- conflict with labelling certain decisions as 'sad'? That logic fits right in with my leftist friends who honestly believe that noone could rationally choose to join the military -- that such a decision can only have been forced by poor economic prospects, limited education, overly militaristic parents, etc.
...
I don't want to disallow moralizing by economists. But part of the fun of economists is that they are usually the ones pointing out the flaws of conventional wisdom moralizing.
And I do wish more people read widely. I wish more people had tastes similar to my own. But then I'd need to find new ways to look down on the masses. :-)
Posted by: mike at Jul 9, 2006 3:32:57 PM
Somebody needs to do some research about BS-detectors. As soon as I read those "80% of families buy no books", and "58% of Americans read no book after high school", my BS-siren was going off at full volume. So how can somebody as smart as Tyler not have *his* alarm go off?
Posted by: Slocum at Jul 9, 2006 10:40:52 PM
