[coldtea]

>Serious answer: I think there is a huge oversupply of authors at the moment. The world would probably be better off if half of all authors (selected at random) were to quit and go find something more productive/lucrative to do.

Or you know, let them do whatever they want, and price THEIR work however they want, and then either buy it or don't buy it.

[lmm]

Sure. But if they're choosing to be an author in full knowledge of the economics of it, "working well below market" as the grandparent said, then they shouldn't complain about not earning much money.

[coldtea]

I don't think that's something we can settle with "they knew about working below market so they shouldn't complaint".

Knowing about something and considering it fair and acceptable are two different things.

A logical argument would be: "they knew about working well below market so they shouldn't act surprised" (because knowing in advance and acting surprised are contradictory).

But being hurt and complaining? There's no logical contradiction between doing that and having prior knowledge that a choice would end bad for you.

(Besides they also know that for some authors that's not the case, and they could -- even legitimately for some -- think that they are better than them, and deserve the same money).

[lmm]

I don't think a claim like "the pay for job X is unfairly/unacceptably low" makes sense on its own (or at least, it's not a claim that people would be sympathetic to in general). It tends to contain an implicit argument that either a) job X is representative of the most lucrative (reasonable) jobs available to people in particular circumstances or b) job X is somehow socially valuable. No-one complains that e.g. surfers are underpaid, and few would be sympathetic to "How much do you value your favorite surfers eating or having health insurance?" I took kevinr to be implicitly claiming that authors are socially valuable, that I would prefer for people like his friend to write instead of working at their market rates.

[kevinr]

As with many things, there's a widespread and not entirely erroneous perception that working below market for a while is a necessary precondition to later doing well.

Also what's considered "market rate" and what's in 2016 a living wage have relatively little in common. Seven cents a word is the minimum 'professional' rate for short fiction, which very few people in 2016 can actually live solely on.

[pbhjpbhj]

You can choose something bad but still not have better choices available. If it's their best option are they allowed to complain then?

[lmm]

Yes. My understanding of "working well below market" is that it by definition means there are much better-paying jobs available to them, no?

[pbhjpbhj]

Ah my understanding was along the lines of "market [rate]" for a person being the "rate they could get in their first choice occupation assuming a job was available to them".

Or market rate of a field being the mean rate for workers of that occupation.

If it's work below market or gut chickens for a living people will tend to accept less than they feel they're worth.

[vinceguidry]

kevinr used that phrase poorly. Working well below market means that there is enough demand for your services so where you could charge more, but you choose not to, typically due to inexperience.

But that's not the case, the market for the output of authors cannot sustain living wages, there is no 'market wage' to make. If you look closely at this and other creative professions, that has always been the case; there is always more people that want to make a living with creative work than there are people that want to pay well enough for that work so that the creators can live.

This is structural and unlikely to change barring something like basic income. The usual answer given to aspiring creator is both to generate the income you need to live in the service industry, say as a waiter, and also to be your own agent and pimp out your professional services yourself.

[Nutmog]

The number of books in the world is monotonically increasing.

The number of hours a person has available in their life to enjoy reading books is constant, or at least capped pretty close to where it's at now.

There are already too many books for anyone to read everything that might interest them in their lifetime.

So what's the use of new fiction books? Haven't enough already been written to serve everyone's needs? I agree that we need fewer fiction authors and the market is showing that with their low compensation.

[dreamfactory2]

Also true for music, film, games and massively amplified by digital storage and distribution. I really don't care about the price of a book as the increasingly astronomical cost to me as I age is the time to read it.

[amag]

I don't understand why you're being down-voted. I mean I want to scream "NO!" to what you said, but against my will (I love books) I have to concur. Same as in all other branches of the entertainment industry too much crap is being produced which decreases the SNR making it harder to find the good stuff.