[stillsut]

There are MBA's who are also curious and interested in "going digital", "leveraging big data", etc. Left to initiate programs under these banners, and evaluate themselves I expect the MBA to perform sub-optimally.

My point is not to disrespect MLS, in fact as even as a programmer, I'd probably be terrible as a head sys-admin/tech-support for a library too.

I'm wondering why we've never heard of anyone making a good career move by setting up tech at a library (other than as a fat and easy contract)? If we can all relate to these deficient computer networks being run in public libraries, why has nobody succeeded in this space? I'm suggesting perverse incentives in management structure is why this much needed service isn't being filled by our extremely talented tech workforce.

> it literally won an award for being the best and does not have a certified librarian in a head position.

kind of my point, no?

[johnjhayes]

>>I'm wondering why we've never heard of anyone making a good career move by setting up tech at a library

Because they are underfunded, Bezos seems to be addressing that.

>>kind of my point, no?

No, the provided example seems to be counter to your point.

[stretchwithme]

When you make something free for everybody, instead of just those with a financial need, it's going to be chronically underfunded. We're the richest country in the world, paying trillions in taxes, borrowing trillions more and advocates for every expenditure tell us more funds are needed.

If those with the means paid a fair price for the library resources they are sharing, a library could be open for many more, have better resources AND cost the taxpayer less.

Libraries weren't always free. Like the one Ben Franklin helped establish. These didn't cost the taxpayer anything. And if you wanted to help someone without the means, you would just pay for their membership.

http://www.benjamin-franklin-history.org/lending-library/

[mattkrause]

I'm not convinced it's that obvious.

Making something free for some, but not others could stir up resentment ("why should I pay for your use of the library?"), which would make it easier to cut funding in the future. This could lead to a spiral of increasing fees (or decreased service) -> smaller constituency -> less funding.

I'm also not sure that the marginal user costs a library very much. I doubt that a library with twice as many potential patrons needs twice as many books or two times the staff, for example.

[stretchwithme]

Like food stamps? Are people upset about that?

A month's worth of food costs a lot more than using a book for a month.

[mattkrause]

Uhh....yes?

In the US, Republicans have been talking about "welfare queens" and people buying lobsters with food stamps for literally decades. This strategy has apparently worked for them, even though benefit fraud is supposedly quite rare.

On the flip side, it's virtually impossible to cut Social Security and Medicare in the US, in part because the programs are not means-tested and everyone hopes to get something back from them.

[notfromhere]

Because libraries are underfunded, as is most public infrastructure. Libraries bring a lot of beneficial resources to a community, but they're the first things to be cut