|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Apr 1, 2020 16:38:53 GMT
I'm not sure how England pays it military personnel, but I know for a fact US Army nurses and other personnel aren't as well-paid as you appear to believe. These things are very easy to look up. Average annual pay for a US military nurse is $85,000. Rising to $145,000) That's today of course, and that is well above most people's wages and many would class them as rich, or at least well off. Nowadays there's also this www.goarmy.com/amedd/nurse/benefits.html Forty years ago a WAC officer-nurse, unless she was working in a war zone, had bills to pay and the annual salary and allotments was a lot less than that of a comparable Registered Nurse working a civilian job. Enlisted nurses went through a crash course equivalent to the training a registered nurse would receive, but since it wasn't a two-year course, those nurses didn't receive a commission and were usually lower enlisted, paid a bit less than a comparable civilian LVN. Well I did say that Ron did not give an example of rank, because as ranks progress they get paid more. It's not a good example unless you know the background of that particular nurse.Between pay, housing allotment, uniform allotment, and such enlisted personnel [then and now] could live okay, but stating that they were kept-people able to stash their pay in the bank is a gross overstatement unsupported by reality. Is it? It's also easy to look up www.quora.com/What-do-soldiers-pay-for and what expenses do they have while serving, for example, overseas? And anything they do have to pay for is often subsidised. www.goarmy.com/benefits/money/basic-pay-active-duty-soldiers.htmlI ought to know, because while I'm a citizen of this country I've been a "male war bride" of sorts [male civilian spouse], twice. I am fully aware of how easy our personnel don't have it, just as I am aware that these days personnel basically pay for everything from housing to uniforms to meals. It isn't the picnic you described and never really was. Well others would say different, but of course if they have family at home they have to send them money.
But all the same, could you afford to pay even Lulu for their services? Could you have afforded to lash out the value of a house back in 1950 to have a book published? Would you even want to if you could not DIY nowadays? That's the point.
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Apr 1, 2020 17:13:27 GMT
It was not a "game for the very rich" whatever you may think. Most books published by Vantage Press (who was the largest of the vanity publishers) were by very ordinary people--very much the same sort of people who turn to POD publishing today. One only has to look at the author bios, for starters. Even if the cost was $5000 in 1950 (and I believe that it was in fact significantly less since the number I quoted was from a fairly recent news report---I do know that at least one Vantage book was published in 1977 for $7000 and ca 2010 another cost $9450...so it seems reasonable to assume that the 1950 cost would have been proportionally less), it was something that hundreds of hopeful authors managed to find.
I really do not know what you class as rich. You are talking about people having a spare one year's, at least, wage knocking around, and that's just going off your 1977 figure with wages greatly increased from the 1950s. Your 2010 example is around half a 'normal' annual wage. Few can actually afford that sort of outlay.
You are the one who used the phrase "very rich."
In fact, Vantage Press ruled the self-publishing world for decades, with a market share that hovered around 25% from the 1950s through the early 1990s (400–500 books annually at its peak)..which certainly suggests that a lot of authors were able to afford the fees. Fifteen thousand authors, in fact... a lot of "very rich" people.
That is over a period of 70 years, before they were eventually shut down for what? ripping people off? As I said, not even one book a week. A tiny number of people from the actual population of even the UK.
400-500 books annually is nearly ten books a week.
Vantage? That's not what you said. The total figure you gave was over 70 years and it was not even one a week.
That's about one quarter of what a major traditional publisher such as Simon & Schuster will release each year.
I cannot scroll back while replying, but did you not say 15,000 books over 70 years? I am sure you said something like that.
And what possible difference can it make what proportion of the population was publishing books?
Err, a big difference. 215 books a year, means 215 people a year could afford their services. A tiny proportion of the population. I expect there's no statistics stating how many people wanted to publish a book via Vanity Publishing, but could not afford the vast outlay. (Then along came POD and Lulu.)
accrispin.blogspot.com/2013/01/venerable-vanity-publisher-vantage.html
It was, actually, not too hard to find information about many Vantage Press authors. I picked some names at random and found bios of a few. One, for instance, was a retired Army nurse. Another was the curate of a church. Others included teachers, attorneys, journalists and salesmen. Hardly anyone who would be "very rich."
OK, I have seen TV progs about people who paid for such services. If female, often their well off husbands paid for it to humour them. But apart from the army nurse, who you do not mention the rank of because some are well paid, and their wage is often stashed in the bank during service because everything is provided for them (often the same with curates and vicars, kept people with an average of £25,000 a year 'pocket money') the rest are often highly paid. So, rich people then.
You are only speculating now,
No I am not. These things are very easy to look up, not to mention I have known and know some.
and when you say that if a woman published a book it must have been paid for by her husband
No, I said it can be the case, and I have seen it on documentaries, not that it's the norm.
in order to humor her I will wait to see what Larika and Maggie have to say about that little dollop of sexism.
It's not sexism at all. It happens. (And not just in self publishing. ) I am sure the two of them would not pay the huge amounts often still asked for Vanity Publishing, and no doubt not even think about it when it cost as much as a house! but if they had rich husbands who offered to pay, would they turn it down? It's not sexism, it's often how marriages work. Share and share alike.
And "rich" salesman, teachers and journalists?
Er, yes. Do you not bother to look up what some earn? I can give you a few examples, even my wife, but I cannot be bothered.
Besides, I thought that I made it clear that I had looked up the bios of several Vantage Press authors. I found a scant few who anyone would classify as being remotely "rich." Most were solid middle-class working people.
Middle Class to most people is considered to be rich. MC earnings go from around $47,000 to $149,000. Upper Middle Class start at $149,000. Those are individual earnings, and there could be two in a house earning more or less the same.
Looking up a few more (not everyone has bios available), I found a physical education instructor, an historian, a widowed grandmother, a college instructor, another attorney, a missionary (we know how wealthy missionaries are), elementary school principal (another lucrative profession), lion tamer(!), another college lecturer and a musician. All to say nothing of an apparently endless supply of hopeful poets.
And did you look up their backgrounds? Seems you were not able to. A person's job does not always indicate their actual disposable wealth. And from what decade? You gave the 1950s price as being today's equivalent of buying a rolls Royce or a house.
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Apr 1, 2020 17:19:55 GMT
So Kevin according to Wikipedia that remark could be taken as sexist. Stating what can and does happen does not make the reporter of it sexist. But are you saying that, no matter how clever a female is (or not) they cannot be married to very well off men? No need to work? Think Footballer's Wives, who often set them up in some clothing business, or around here, just a shop, that lasts a few months only, because they are mistaken that everyone can afford clothes that don't even have a price label on
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Apr 1, 2020 17:25:35 GMT
"Ron is an early interest in a creative activity such as drawing the same as being born with an inborn talent for drawing?"
I would have thought that a talent, not necessarily just an interest, for doing art from a very early age, without tuition, is the sign it's inborn?
|
|
|
Post by And Kevin 2024 on Apr 1, 2020 17:31:48 GMT
However in mine and Cliff Richard's time (!940s and 1950s) actually he is 3 years younger than me. Anyway look at this extremely famous song of his. It has a very catchy tune and was my brother's favourite song, We women just accepted it, but Cliff would never have got away with it today. Women would unite and condemn it as sexist. Hardly. Do you not listen to lyrics of today? Even sung by females? Cliff is just singing an observation about his GF, he's not saying he has her tied to the kitchen sink. The word Doll may often be seen as derogative by some, but many females would not object to being observed as such, or even dressing as them www.bing.com/images/search?q=living+dolls&FORM=HDRSC2
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2020 18:07:43 GMT
to humour them
Yes Kevin, rich men do help their wives achieve their dreams. It is the phrase "to humour them". which would be considered racist.
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Apr 1, 2020 18:48:40 GMT
to humour themYes Kevin, rich men do help their wives achieve their dreams. It is the phrase "to humour them". which would be considered racist. Lady Elizabeth,
You are a treasure, no condescension intended.
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Apr 1, 2020 19:11:37 GMT
Mr Lomas,
All I can say is what the context bids me I must. I can not hope to compete with one so all-powerful, all-knowing, and able to see the all-encompassing reality so much better than mere personal experience and memory are able to do.
As such, I concede the defeat of my base, lowly, cretinous intellect at the hands of your far superior intelligence. A maundering fool as senile as myself can not hope to aspire to being, British.
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Apr 1, 2020 19:29:17 GMT
400-500 books annually is nearly ten books a week. Vantage? That's not what you said. The total figure you gave was over 70 years and it was not even one a week. That's about one quarter of what a major traditional publisher such as Simon & Schuster will release each year. I cannot scroll back while replying, but did you not say 15,000 books over 70 years? I am sure you said something like that.
I did. But they did not publish a consistent 500 books a year from the year they started. They began with only a handful of titles.And what possible difference can it make what proportion of the population was publishing books? Err, a big difference. 215 books a year, means 215 people a year could afford their services. A tiny proportion of the population. I expect there's no statistics stating how many people wanted to publish a book via Vanity Publishing, but could not afford the vast outlay. (Then along came POD and Lulu.)
So what? Only a tiny portion of today's population is self-publishing via any means.
The best estimate I could find for the number of self-published authors world-wide is between 3 and 5 million. Taking the higher number, that is only 0.07% of the total population of the earth.You are only speculating now, No I am not. These things are very easy to look up, not to mention I have known and know some.
Fine. Look them up and cite the sources. and when you say that if a woman published a book it must have been paid for by her husband No, I said it can be the case, and I have seen it on documentaries, not that it's the norm.
Uh huh. in order to humor her I will wait to see what Larika and Maggie have to say about that little dollop of sexism. It's not sexism at all. It happens. (And not just in self publishing. ) I am sure the two of them would not pay the huge amounts often still asked for Vanity Publishing, and no doubt not even think about it when it cost as much as a house! but if they had rich husbands who offered to pay, would they turn it down? It's not sexism, it's often how marriages work. Share and share alike.
As I keep pointing out, DIY publishing can be just as expensive as vanity presses if one wants to do things properly. It is only cheap if an author undertakes all of the work themselves, and vanishingly few have the experience or ability to do equally well as an author, editor, copy editor, designer, illustrator and marketing expert. So the comparison between the two is actually unfair if you are matching someone who skips necessary expenses with someone who hires a company to undertake the jobs he hasn't the experience to do himself. Creating a book of a quality equivalent to one produced by a commercial publisher would cost the DIY author at least $7000, according to the Reedsy survey I cited earlier. And that is just the cost of preparing the book for print. And "rich" salesman, teachers and journalists? Er, yes. Do you not bother to look up what some earn? I can give you a few examples, even my wife, but I cannot be bothered.
I am sure you cannot be bothered. But, frankly, personal anecdotes don't weigh very much. The average salary for an American teacher is only $38,000. Just for comparison's sake, the average annual income for a salaried American is $49,000. Besides, I thought that I made it clear that I had looked up the bios of several Vantage Press authors. I found a scant few who anyone would classify as being remotely "rich." Most were solid middle-class working people. Middle Class to most people is considered to be rich. MC earnings go from around $47,000 to $149,000. Upper Middle Class start at $149,000. Those are individual earnings, and there could be two in a house earning more or less the same.
If middle class is being rich, I sure have been missing out on something. But your point is, well, pointless. A lower middle class person is rich to a pauper, just as someone in the upper classes seems rich to me.Looking up a few more (not everyone has bios available), I found a physical education instructor, an historian, a widowed grandmother, a college instructor, another attorney, a missionary (we know how wealthy missionaries are), elementary school principal (another lucrative profession), lion tamer(!), another college lecturer and a musician. All to say nothing of an apparently endless supply of hopeful poets. And did you look up their backgrounds? Seems you were not able to. A person's job does not always indicate their actual disposable wealth. And from what decade? You gave the 1950s price as being today's equivalent of buying a rolls Royce or a house.Did I look up their backgrounds? Of course I did. Where did you think I got their job information from? Again you're just indulging in idle speculation. What are you suggesting? That these people were all lottery winners or heirs to the fortunes of rich uncles? Or that all of the female authors depended on indulgent husbands? But to answer your final question, most of the Vantage Press authors I cited were from the last two decades---mostly from the 90s.
By the bye, the $5000 and up fee was apparently what was being charged in the final years of the company. Frankly, I suspect it was proportionally less in the past.
(PS I never mentioned Rolls Royces or houses. That was your comparison.)
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Apr 1, 2020 19:41:32 GMT
to humour themYes Kevin, rich men do help their wives achieve their dreams. It is the phrase "to humour them". which would be considered racist. OK, I have seen TV progs about people who paid for such services. If female, often their well off husbands paid for it to humour them.
Indeed. Not only is the phrase "to humour them" sexist, but so is the suggestion that this occurred "often," which is a pretty sexist assumption. There is the even more subtle implication that women have no share or say in the household income, other than what the husband doles out.
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Apr 1, 2020 19:44:04 GMT
"Ron is an early interest in a creative activity such as drawing the same as being born with an inborn talent for drawing?" I would have thought that a talent, not necessarily just an interest, for doing art from a very early age, without tuition, is the sign it's inborn? I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Apr 1, 2020 19:44:52 GMT
to humour themYes Kevin, rich men do help their wives achieve their dreams. It is the phrase "to humour them". which would be considered racist. OK, I have seen TV progs about people who paid for such services. If female, often their well off husbands paid for it to humour them.
Indeed. Not only is the phrase "to humour them" sexist, but so is the suggestion that this occurred "often," which is a pretty sexist assumption. There is the even more subtle implication that women have no share or say in the household income, other than what the husband doles out. Ron,
Concede the field before I have a heart attack laughing, please.
If you like swords I'll craft you a functional one when I'm able.
|
|
|
Post by ronmiller on Apr 1, 2020 20:58:27 GMT
OK, I have seen TV progs about people who paid for such services. If female, often their well off husbands paid for it to humour them.
Indeed. Not only is the phrase "to humour them" sexist, but so is the suggestion that this occurred "often," which is a pretty sexist assumption. There is the even more subtle implication that women have no share or say in the household income, other than what the husband doles out. Ron,
Concede the field before I have a heart attack laughing, please.
If you like swords I'll craft you a functional one when I'm able.
|
|
|
Post by Retread-Retired-Cameron on Apr 1, 2020 21:12:56 GMT
Ron,
Concede the field before I have a heart attack laughing, please.
If you like swords I'll craft you a functional one when I'm able.
Your choice of short blade, offhand midsize, or full-length, either fully functional or one step lower with unsharpened edge. I'd have to deliver a long sharpened one in person due to shipping regulations, and I'm not planning to hit the East Coast until some time next year. {I dislike the idea of having even one broken tooth pulled.]
Though I must admit it has been kind of funny getting to sit back and watch the match, even if one side was so far outclassed. In another setting you would have made a good tourist, one I wouldn't want to sit across the table from, and that's not an insignificant accomplishment.
You're just making it hard to breathe, as I've not been accustomed to laughing so much in many years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2020 3:11:39 GMT
You are a treasure, no condescension intended.
Thank you Sphinx-Cameron.
|
|