[te_chris]

$70/6 issues is not a lot of money to pay for a good quality magazine, IMO.

[Olap84]

I can get a whole book for $12, perhaps two on offer. The price/hour doesn't quite compute. New Scientist is £44/12 issues in the UK making it objectively about twice the value for comparison.

[te_chris]

That's a very strange measure of value for something you've admitted you want. I get it and sympathise if you can't afford it, but just arbitrarily calculating price per hour is very strange to me.

[masklinn]

With somewhat limited time and equivalent items to pick from to fill that time, what's wrong with discriminating on price efficiency?

[cwilkes]

But the thing is they are never equivalent.

And really at this price people spend more time thinking about how much to spend than they are making per hour in wages.

[eru]

> But the thing is they are never equivalent.

You can say: it's too much hassle to refute the null hypothesis.

(Ie they are equivalent enough.)

[manigandham]

You judge reading sources by price/hour?

[jpreiland]

I'm a slow reader, so this method would mean just about everything has massive value

[sliverstorm]

Hell, you can get whole books for $0.01 on Amazon.

Books are a different equation, a different tier if you will. With a newspaper, a large part of what you are paying for is currency. Books can be timeless. Magazines are somewhere in between, immediacy of info is deprioritized somewhat in exchange for increased depth, but not as much as books... Old magazines lose relevancy, just not as quickly as newspaper.

Dollars per time spent reading is a poor metric, IMO.

[eru]

The most interesting thing in old magazines and newspapers are the ads.