writing


The “Pro Act” bill threatens free expression

The more I hear about the “Pro Act” bill (it’s not an act till Biden signs it), especially from its supporters, the more convinced I am that it’s a threat not just to writers’ livelihoods but to free expression.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. On the surface, it just grants freelancers a freedom we didn’t have before, the freedom to deal with clients through organizations. This ignores the reality of labor law, which gives unions the power to compel employers by force of law to enter into agreements. Outsiders often have the choice of joining the union, giving the union money without joining, or not working for a unionized employer.
(more…)


Sunk costs and opportunity costs for writers

Economics is more personal than most people realize. Every choice about how to allocate your resources is an economic decision, and time is your most basic resource as a writer. You expend time on your work in order to get income. Sometimes you know exactly what you’re going to do today and what you’ll get in return. A lot of the time you face choices. Which of your customers should get your attention first? Should you put them aside for a while and look for new income opportunities? Should you keep working on a time-consuming project or give it up as a lost cause?

Two economic concepts are useful in making these decisions: sunk cost and opportunity cost.
(more…)


An assault in Congress on freelance writers

Previously I’d written about California’s AB-5, which put heavy restrictions on the number of articles freelance writers could sell. That was ultimately amended, after some major companies stopped using freelancers.

A bill now in Congress is raising similar concerns. It’s different from AB-5 in important respects but is still disturbing. The “PRO Act” has passed the House of Representatives and gone to the Senate. It would require clients to treat freelance writers as employees, but only in certain respects. To be exempt, writers would have to pass all three requirements of the “ABC test”:
(more…)


Enough with the “phobia” epithets

Sometimes, to make a point you just have to lecture. This is one of those times. I don’t think most of my regular readers need the lecture, but you might like to point it out to those who do.

Start of lecture:

Do you know what the word “phobia” means? Merriam-Webster gives a single definition: “an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.”

The central word is “fear,” which is what “phobia” means in Greek. It’s generally a reaction someone has no immediate control over, though it’s possible to reduce it with long-term measures. Examples are acrophobia (fear of heights), claustrophobia (fear of enclosed places), and agoraphobia (fear of crowds). They don’t normally entail hostility, just a strong desire to avoid whatever it is.
(more…)


What does “Trust science” mean for writers?

Writing about science is hard. To start with, it’s complicated. Scientists deal in concepts which most people outside their field don’t understand. Most of us have no more than a vague idea of what a boson is (my spell checker doesn’t even recognize the word) or what the difference is between a brontosaurus and an apatosaurus (they’re the same beast).

An even bigger complication is the way science works. Scientists accumulate information, form hypotheses, and try to find out if their hypotheses explain the data. If they do, hypotheses build up into a theory. The term “theory” doesn’t mean a tentative guess, as it does in ordinary speech; it means a set of ideas which is the best explanation available.
(more…)