Yep yep. A book a day (or very close to that) from roughly when I was seven or eight years old until I was 32 and my first son was born (which very much put a damper on that). I was probably the only kid "ever" to go to Duke with a footlocker full of paperbacks that I stacked up on the one meager shelf on the wall of my dorm room so it reached to the ceiling. At the time I had to cut back due to offspring (a period that lasted almost 25 years, and to some extent continues today) I had at least 3000 to 4000 books that I owned personally, mostly paperbacks. I still own maybe half of these. With kids, I was lucky to read 1-2 a week -- a rate equal to that of a "super" reader, especially when they were young, although at various points that rate would go up due to reading them kid's books (the books I'm talking about were almost entirely "adult full length novels" although I shamelessly include Baum and ERB and books that now would be counted as "teen" novels as books of that grade dominated my pre-teen reading.
At this point -- approaching 63 -- I probably read 3 to 5 novels a week, entirely on my kindle book reader on my tablet (or sometimes my phone). Kindle books, especially new writings in SF&F, are often as inexpensive in modern currency as used paperbacks or paperback in general were back in the 60's and early 70's -- I remember well buying new paperbacks for prices ranging from $0.50 to $0.95, and my bitterness as they rose first to $1.95, then $2.95, and then as high as $4.95 over the 70's and 80', much faster than the value of money so they were actually more expensive. I try to spend under $4 for kindle books, and have entire series that I've binge-read that cost $1.99 to $2.99 each (and a few that have cost $0.99 each for full length books, under a dollar again!).
There are, however, two DIFFERENT totals that can describe my lifetime reading. One is the actual total number of books I've read AT LEAST once, without counting rereads. The other is the total number of times I've read any book, including one I've read before, cover to cover. Because I am space and money limited, much of the reading above has been rereads. For example, I've read things like LOTR or the Chronicles of Amber series (books 1 through 9, the original) at least dozens of times, each. Hell, I've read both of them in English dozens of times and in Spanish a time or two. Then there are books that I've read that sucked or that were OK, but I just didn't enjoy them so once was enough (All Quiet on the Western Front, a small mountain of so-called "literature" I was actually forced to read in school, much of it so unremarkable that I can't recall titles or plot). Long ago I decided I like things with "plot", rather than the anecdotal ramblings of period pieces or books that are the moral equivalent of today's reality TV.
I'm guessing that in roughly 55 years of power reading, 30 of that unencumbered, I've read at least ten thousand unique books, and have read "a novel" at least twice that including rereads, making it my average to reread a book twice, although it is a pretty biased average with a smaller set being a lot more than twice, a larger set being twice, and a fairly large set being just once and done.
Why do people -- including my own kids -- not read so much now? Ever so many reasons. TV is a huge one -- I grew up in India in the 60's without TV and it was reading or wandering through the alleys and scrub desert around my house, and I did a fair bit of both. Video games -- I go through phases even now when I will burn a day or ten on the e-cocaine of computer gaming (working on Divinity on Steam as soon as I quit this, but have burned weeks to months of wake-time on WoW, D1 and D2, nethack etc, Baldur's Gate, electronic sudoku, electronic jigsaw puzzles -- and yes, these seriously displace reading). A school system that places no value on reading per se and that forces one to read books that suck (however "intellectual" they may be) instead of stuff that is fun enough to compete with TV, sports, and gaming). The sad fact that reading is BOTH a cause and effect of general intelligence, so for maybe half the population reading for pleasure is simply not much of an option and for much of the other half not reading at critical times when habits are established becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, a feedback loop of literacy-doom during cortical development. Is one smart because one reads or does one read because one is smart? Both is the only fair answer.
To conclude, 4000-ish is a serious underestimate of the power reader. In my generation, I'm not even particularly rare. My brother owns a bookstore chain that he founded in CA. My sister reads constantly. My wife (a physician) doesn't read so much now, because physicians ALWAYS have work and she has a hard time relaxing, but when she relaxes she reads books and EVEN as a physician she probably still qualifies at the 80/year level lifetime (she read close to a book a day for a long time, although her preferences are more for "literature" as her mother taught English. Her mother -- the only person I've ever met whose in-house book collection equaled and possibly even exceeded my own -- I built her bookshelves to cover an entire office wall for her paperbacks when I first married her daughter, and every bedroom had full bookshelves and often boxes of books unshelved on the floor. MY mother read and collected detective stories (which I read myself when I ran out of SF&F or adventure) at the level of a super reader. I can't recall my father reading at that level and I'm pretty sure my wife's father and brother and sister never did, but it just wasn't that uncommon for generally smart people to read a lot more than 80/year in my generation. It's a shame that Netflix and Amazon and movies and TV series in general have filled the niche in cognitive development that used to be filled by reading and books, but then, maybe it isn't a shame, it is just different. From observation, I think it is a bit of a shame because there are STILL are far, far more books than movies, and movies are usually like a very poor and limited window into the books they are often written from. Too bad.