I think the article linked is saying that libraries should be sacred _because_ they are nice to be in. They make people feel better about their life and the world based on some seemingly rigorous survey results.
IMO the mindset that everything everything has to be optimized to not use up “too much floor space” if it presumably doesn’t return enough measurable value is the kind of mentality that causes societal issues that we need nice libraries to counteract.
> I think the article linked is saying that libraries should be sacred _because_ they are nice to be in.
Yeah, and I'm saying they shouldn't be.
> They make people feel better about their life and the world based on some seemingly rigorous survey results.
> IMO the mindset that everything everything has to be optimized to not use up “too much floor space” if it presumably doesn’t return enough measurable value is the kind of mentality that causes societal issues that we need nice libraries to counteract.
It's not that it's too much floor space, it's that it costs too much for the benefit it provides. With government expenditure in western countries approaching or even exceeding 40% of GDP with no sign of slowing and social problems that seem to be worse than ever in some cases, I would say that efficiency of government service delivery is critically important. It's not even hyper optimizing, just basic optimizing would be nice.
I get your point and posit thus: What about National Parks? Should they be sacred or should they too be butchered for 'floor space'? Large organized spaces relieve cognitive load, remove subconscious restrictions that we impose on ourselves and expand the mind. With no limits placed on the eye, the limits on the spirit dissolve as well. Nothing feels impossible. If this is not worth pursuing 'at all costs', if even this is subject to 'optimization', if unshackling of the intellect is 'not sacred': then let's begin with reclaiming land occupied by the Hagia Sophia and La Sagrada Familia.
No I don't think national parks should be sacred, but I don't think they or public libraries should "be butchered for 'floor space'". I think options should always be measured and considered.
Libraries aren't sacred to begin with. They're not like cows in India (if not in reality, then proverbially), popping up wherever they please, and nobody can do anything about it. Oh well, had this nice business here, but then someone opened a library, and since they are sacred, we had to move. That's not the situation.
Libraries taking up too much floor space doesn't mean much, since so does anything else. At the same time, they and all other things also take up too little floor space, since "taking up floor space" by itself doesn't really mean anything I can discern. Libraries are unique, and valuable; what other unique and valuable thing does their existence prevent?
To measure things you need at least two things. Maybe even three: an object to measure, a scale or another object to compare to, and some sort of heuristic as to what the result might mean (for you). It's pointless to say that it doesn't satisfy your standards of "usefulness" or what exactly your concern is, if you don't share those standards.
If we are measuring the cost of libraries is a drop in the bucket relative to national debt and GDP. The immeasurable benefit they provide to communities is so worth their tiny relative cost.
> It's not that it's too much floor space, it's that it costs too much for the benefit it provides.
It costs way less than Facebook or a server farm full of GPT instances and provides more benefit and less harm. Our society has really warped the notion of what appropriate costs and benefits are.
You have a really warped notion of appropriate public service delivery if you think the only options are public libraries or "Facebook" or a server farm full of GPT instances. But I don't think your comment was in good faith, perhaps because you are incapable of actually addressing what I wrote.
What you wrote is that a library "costs too much for the benefit it provides". What I'm saying is that there are many other things we currently pay more for that provide even less benefit, so in relative terms libraries are quite far down the list of expenses to be worried about.
You certainly implied they were the only two options, and you did not say anything remotely suggesting you were talking about other things that are more wasteful! You're just making all that up now.
Anyway the topic is libraries. I did not say that no other things should be examined for their value for money, I was just talking about libraries. And the government sure should make good spending decisions on everything they spend money on! What kind of suggestion is that??
> It's not even hyper optimizing, just basic optimizing would be nice.
It feels a little bit like hyper optimizing. According to [0], the US spent $14.6B on libraries in 2020. The vast majority of that was from local municipalities, with state funding accounting for ~$1B and federal funding only $80M (disclaimer: I have not put any effort into verifying these numbers). It seems like our time would be better spent optimizing larger, more expensive programs before really pushing to make improvements here.
Assuming the numbers I linked above are correct or at least in the ballpark:
At the federal level, pretty much anything else, since it’s already not really spending any money on libraries, relatively speaking.
At the state/local level, it’s harder to say since there are many more administrative units involved, each with their own budget and operating model. (This also makes it hard to optimize in general, since you’d have to apply the optimizations independently across many polities.)
If I use my city as an example, library funding is 5% of the city budget. The state provides no funding to any library, so this is the entire amount the libraries get. It’s the second smallest spend by category as the city tracks such things —- though there is an “other” category that represents 10% of the budget. The bulk of the spending is on police (23%), fire (17%), and public works (11%). Obviously these are also critical services (basically everything in the city budget is!), so it’s not easy to do cost cutting there either, but there’s proportionally more room for improvement.
Data have shown time and time again that for every dollar spent on a public library the community return on investment is four $4 dollars. Public libraries are more efficient and effective the more they are used. The more a book is checked out the more people have enjoyed it or learned from it. Also, where else can you go without being forced to spend money? A lot of people can't afford these materials, just like they could not afford to pay for their own security (police) or put out fires by paying for private firefighters. Also, most libraries make up less than 5% of their municipal budgets, often closer to 1% in big cities. Seems like a good investment to me.
IMO the mindset that everything everything has to be optimized to not use up “too much floor space” if it presumably doesn’t return enough measurable value is the kind of mentality that causes societal issues that we need nice libraries to counteract.