Slashdot Mirror
20% of U.S. Population Has Never Used Email
Ezratrumpet writes "A recent PC World article notes that 20 percent of the U.S. population has never sent an email. Does this number over- or underestimate the actual number of people who know nothing of email? What are the implications of this statistic to our society? Or are these people just Luddites who mourned the demise of the telegraph and have also never used a telephone?"
From TFA: "Many people just don't see a reason to use computers and do not associate technology with the needs and demands of their daily lives," Barrett said. Shocker.
20% of America doesn't use e-mail because they don't have anything to say via e-mail. Consider the same logic with regard to first posts ;)
"Or are these people just Luddites who mourned the demise of the telegraph and have also never used a telephone?"
Its that sort of arrogant crap that makes people vow to never use a computer. Some people have no need for a particular tech. I NEVER send text messages, they seem a waste of time. I don't use RSS and have no idea what twitter is. I never use myspace and don't have a facebook page.
So fucking sue me.
This infantile attitude of "I use tech X and thus so should you" just shows the immaturity of the poster, not that they are in any sense 'better' than those not using that technology.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
The article says that it was a phone survey. This means: 1: The people are obviously not "Luddites who mourned the demise of the telegraph and have also never used a telephone", since they used a phone to answer the survey questions. 2: Most of the tech-savvy people I know don't even have land lines. They use cell phones or things like Skype, which are difficult to survey for various reasons. The people who go those routes have generally used email. Therefore, the sample population was already skewed toward people who wouldn't have used email anyway.
To put this into some form of perspective, strange here on Slashdot I know, but in reality for most people internet became a potential reality around 1998 (AOL going onto the internet from its walled garden) or at best 1996. So maybe another way to look at this study would be
From zero to 80% in 10/12/15 years, how the US has embraced email
Sure lots of the people here on Slashdot might have had an email account in the 80s, but that is an insignificant minority. I actually think that it is pretty impressive at 80% penetration given some of the literacy issues in the US education system.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Sending a snail mail letter requires no major initial investment.
Sending your first email requires an investment to purchase your computer and subscribe to an ISP's plan.
Making a phone call requires a minimal investment in a phone, and a monthly fee of about the same price as internet access.
Sending an SMS usually requires either a 1 or 2 year commitment to a cellular provider's service plan, or the purchase of a phone for use with pre-paid minutes.
So, if these 20% want or need to provide a written record of communication, they can use snail mail at a cost of 50 cents (plus an initial investment of a dollar for a pen), or they can spend $500 on a computer and $20 a month on an ISP.
If they want a faster response than a snail mail, they *pick up the phone*. Which trumps email and IM on speed if more than one question/response is needed.
Or they use an SMS or voicemail or an answering machine if the intended recipient isn't available.
For "Joe Average", the cost/benefit ratio of email is absolutely horrible compared to other forms of communication. And since there really isn't any pressing *need* for them to have email, they don't make that investment. From anecdotal observations, I'd also say that another 20% of the population *with* computers and internet access *don't use email* on any regular basis. They use the internet for entertainment and information *not* communication.
As for me, I've been using email since the late 80's, early 90's. However up until 2005, I had *never* sent an SMS. And until mid 2006 when I had a reason to use SMS more, I had only sent maybe 3 SMSes.
So, for a service (email) that has no real value to many, has many alternatives, and requires a sizeable initial investment, is it any surprise that 20% of the population hasn't bothered with it? One wonders if perhaps they're the smarter ones.
How about over 60?
These groups are overwhelmingly not emailers (yes I know a few members of either of these groups will trump up "I do" - you've self-selected so you're not representative)
Once you take these groups out, you probably have about 80% of the population. I'd have to say that I doubt if all, or even close to all, the remainder have used email. Therefore I assume the total of never-emailed is higher than the 20% cited.
However, in the grand scheme of things, so what? People can lead full and happy lives without technology. Hard as it may be for the tech-obessed to even consider it, not everyone is like them.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Why are people who see no need to have a computer being called Luddites? I don't know that any of these people are opposed to progress, they simply don't have access to email equipment or don't use email even if they have access.
My mom and dad are definitely not Luddites, my mom used to be a Cobol programmer and my dad taught me electronics when I was small; they simply don't see any need for a computer in their home. They have cell phones, a 5.1 channel sound system, and DirectTV; but no computer.
When people see no need for televisions in their homes, should they also be called Luddites?
especially when you consider that about 12% of the population is under 10 years old and 16% of the popluation is over 65. a majority of these people are not going to be sending emails.
Blazing Spiders
Just as a side: When I wrote this I did so in humor, but it does hold an element of interest. People who have never used e-mail are going to be far more susceptible to scams that those who have used e-mail have become well aware of and learned to ignore. The art will be in perpetrating them over forms such as SMS, which allows only short messages, successfully. I would say 1/5 people a reasonably large target population.
The summary, even leaving aside its tone, is flawed in that it seems to presuppose this is by choice.
I think people underestimate the amount of poverty - even in the US, where the official definition of poor still most often includes obesity, a car, 2 televisions, airconditioning, and other things seen as luxuries across most of the world.
If you have a family of 4, and are making a combined income of ~$30k/year, and have payments to make for housing/car/food/medical, you might be stretching to pay the PHONE bill much less have luxury money to spend on frivolities like a web connection. And yes, they are frivolities: if all of your friends are in similar financial circumstances, you have even less incentive because they aren't going to be online EITHER. Finally, even the web is squeezing these folks out - browsing by modem SUCKS, and it seems that more and more sites are building fancy flash front-ends that take minutes to d/l at modem speeds.
-Styopa
Those of us around IT don't always see them regularly, but remember, 16-17% of the population just aren't that smart. And per another comment, 1% are in jail. I saw a college alumni survey about a decade ago and email use really dropped over about the age of 55 -- which I guess now might extrapolate to 65? Lot of Americans over 65. Lot of Americans at the poverty level as well.
Admittedly, many of these factors are coexistent but 20% sounds really good all things considered.
I'm not the least bit surprised. I work with some NGOs that provide skill training to those in poverty, and nearly none of the people I know outside of those organizations realize that within 6 miles of their homes, there are thousands upon thousands of people living in poverty and rampant crime (aside from making jokes like "don't go in there - you'll get shot"). These people often can't read, have no education past middle school, and have no skills to use for employment. Most people just drive around these areas, having never really even thought about what's down the streets they never turn onto. People like to cling to the attitude that people in poverty are just milking the system and don't want out, but I guarantee you that within a short drive of where you live there are people in poverty that not only want out, but are working hard at it. You show up there offering to teach them to read or teach them basic interviewing skills or help them pass the GED and you will be inspired by how hard they work. And, you will gain some perspective on how fortunate you are to have been born into the situation you were with the skills and talents you have.
Yeah... You are aware that scams like this easily predate the invention of e-mail, right? Scams are scams. Even if you've never seen this particular one before, it's easy enough to spot from a mile away. Some people are going to fall for this kind of thing but I see no reason to believe that like email users before them and phone call/telegraph/letter recipients before them the vast majority of those 20%ers will spot the scam for what it is right off the bat.
Who says people over 65 don't use the internet, you insensitive clod? People over 65 invented the internet.
I need to clarify, because in rereading that I noticed how little information that conveys.
The target demographic in these scams (especially with the added consideration of SMS-spam) are:
a) the older folks who could REALLY USE a few (nevermind a few HUNDRED) extra thousand to get by
b) teenagers using mommy and daddy's bank account, thinking they are 'the slick'
c) the dirt poor, who have seen black market dealings all their life, and know a good con can pay off sometimes (low value target)
d) idiots
Most people belonging to any of those groups see $200K as a goldmine. Hell, I know what money's really worth, and would STILL jump at a chance to catch $200,000; not to the point of forgetting what lying deceitful creatures humans can be though.
And a good percentage of that cant afford internet service in the first place.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The Pew Internet & American Life Project has some excellent information about how Americans use Internet and mobile technology. Despite Slashdot, Twitter, MySpace, et. al., a huge slice of America only uses modern communications technology when they need to, while a smaller slice tries to avoid it.
For many people, technology is something they struggle to adapt to, rather than rush to embrace. It can be frustrating for these people, and very time-consuming. There's only so much time in the day, and if I weren't keeping up on the latest geekery, I could be using that time to read more history, ride my bike more, become a karate black belt, or whatever.
Most people are not technology-obsessed, and there will always be a certain percentage of the population that is too old to care about the latest new thing that makes it easier to hook up with barhopping friends or more easily consume huge libraries of P2P pr0n.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
My first thought was that there are probably 10-15% of the older generation in our society as well. I don't have the numbers, but you could probably conclude, based on the average age of death around 70, that 1/8th (12.5%) of the population is age 60-70+, 12.5% would be in the 50-59, etc. This would mean that the folks living to 80/90+ would factor in to the retired and enjoying their camping, fishing, knitting, and whatever else people do when they retire instead of sitting in front of a PC all day.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Both my Grandmothers -in their 80s have never used a computer, and are pretty representative of their generation. Obviously there are exceptions, but computers weren't much of their lives. They both get off the phone after a minute, because they are worried about "long distance" charges to - lol.
..........FULL STOP.