Re-read the the post you’re talking about. It talks about the program framed as a P&L statement. That’s a fundamentally wrong way of looking at public libraries.
7 Likes
Oh man, that sounds like a cool job. I would definitely wear all black and affect a mittle European accent to sound threatening.
2 Likes
There was a lot of going into hoarder situations and retrieving items covered in cat pee. So not as glamorous as you might think.
6 Likes
I look fabulous in a hazmat suit.
4 Likes
I disagree, I think it’s framed as a discussion of opportunity costs. The article doesn’t state how they’ve offset the loss to their budget (increased contribution from funders, or decreased service?).
Even by their own short-sighted capitalist viewpoint. We can still talk about how public libraries are funded (or under-funded), about deficits and surpluses (as opposed to P&Ls). However, reliance on a regressive revenue mechanism that actively discourages people who need a public service from using it is a measure only a “free” market fundie would praise.*
Re-framing these discussions by using language outside capitalist assumptions matters. Seeing value in things beyond money opens up one’s perspective. We also see this discussion in regard to public transit, where some municipalities have abolished fares to achieve a number of benefits (including those to the community’s larger economy).
[* all the more so in this case, where eliminating the fines on supposed “moochers” instead increased book returns – because humans are not the selfish and short-sighted automatons that neoliberal economists like to present them as]
7 Likes
Fines become a deterrent to returning materials when they are punitive. They were started as an incentive to return materials in a timely manner. Let one item hang around until it’s a pain to pay for and you do tend to be more proactive in getting them back to the library. People will keep items because they forget they need to return them, they lose them behind the couch, the kid leaves it in their locker at school, etc. The library can’t afford to replace every title that someone needs because it’s been sitting around someone else’s house for months.
I think it is a fundamental flaw in thinking to consider fines income. The ideal fine is the one never collected, because people never broke the rule that triggers the fine.
Remember, the whole idea of a fine is to make it more painful to be overdue, to encourage people returning books. You don’t try to trick people into paying fines, you want to encourage them into bringing back the books on time. Fines backfire if people then just keep books because it’s too shameful or painful to bring them back.
8 Likes
Exactly. I think everyone would be horrified if it was framed as a service. “Regardless of any waitlists, if you can afford a small daily rental fee you can keep the items as long as you like.”
5 Likes
And they do. It makes them not feel any guilt for keeping something from someone else.which is the important thing.
5 Likes
You’re welcome to disagree. You might want to consider your initial question, though. Why did so many posters react so negatively to the P&L analysis post?Including 2-3 professional librarians, I might add.
5 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
