Humanities desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	May 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 30

mix of government types

What federal states, if any, have both parliamentary and 'presidential' republics among their members? —Tamfang (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you count Malaysia - where some of the states have monarchs, while others have an appointed head of state who serves a four year term. I think that may be the nearest you get. Wymspen (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Among federal states, Malaysia may be (almost) unique in that regard; generally in most Federal states, the government of the constituent states closely matches that of the national one; for example all Canadian Provincial governments mirror the national government, with a Lieutenant-Governor, Premier, and provincial Legislature, very similar to the national one. The United Arab Emirates is itself an absolute monarchy which is a federation of other absolute monarchies. Etc. Malaysia's mix of government types is the only one I can think of where the constituent parts do no, by and large, have essentially identical governments. --Jayron 32 12:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do low-income people start a family?

A marriage certificate costs money. "A legal marriage certificate costs anywhere from $5 to $26 for the first copy."
A marriage license costs money. "The marriage license fee is $18 if one or both parties are Indiana residents and $60.00 for out-of-state residents."
A wedding officiant costs money. "For an intern minister or retired judge, you may be charged up to $100-$200. Expect to pay $200 to $500 or more for an experienced church minister or a professional officiant. The national average cost for a pastor or priest to officiate a wedding in 2016 is $278 according to The Knot."
A wedding obviously costs money.
A baby needs a crib or some kind of bed suitable for a baby. That costs money.
I think wedding rings are optional, as not all cultures do wedding rings anyway. But in case the partners want wedding rings, they come with a price tag.
The hospital stay for delivering the baby costs money. "On average, U.S. hospital deliveries cost $3,500 per stay, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Add in prenatal, delivery-related and post-partum healthcare, and you're looking at an $8,802 tab, according to a Thomson Healthcare study for March of Dimes."

How much money does an individual have to invest in the bank before starting a family? What are the free or low-cost alternative options for low-income people? SSS (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See debt and personal bankruptcy. People who are poor get bills, but end up not paying them. In the U.S., this is not a small problem. 2/3rds of medical bills are not paid off on time. You read that correctly; since 2/3rds of the U.S. does not meet the definition of "poor", that means that many middle and upper-middle-class people have medical bills they cannot afford. But the simple answer is "you just don't pay the bill". --Jayron 32 15:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, the biggest cost is healthcare-related. Upper-middle-class professionals probably don't have to worry about the marriage certificate and license, the wedding officiant, the wedding, the crib and baby supplies. But they do have to consider healthcare-related costs, if they choose to deliver at a hospital. Will it be cheaper to hire a midwife for a home delivery? Or if a midwife is costly, then the pregnant female may deliver the child at home, alone. Historically, childbirth is always a dangerous time. SSS (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WORLDVIEW. In some countries, the healthcare costs of having a first child are negligible or zero. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true; but it was evident from the OP's comments that they were discussing the U.S. (almost nowhere else in the civilized world do people have to pay these kinds of healtcare costs). --Jayron 32 15:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was evident they were using US examples, but not evident that they were only interested in the USA. I don't have sufficient knowledge of all the world to make the assumption in the second part of your reply and even with your knowledge you imply that there are indeed other countries the OP could have been asking about. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also dont need to be married to start a family. MilborneOne (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further to MilborneOne I think that in much of the world, a lot of "families" are started in moments when people not particularly interested in thinking about costs or marriage. Take a look at the stats and then factor out 2nd and subsequent children (you were interested in "starting"), who might be presumed to be more likely to be born after a mother has married someone, whether or not it's the father of the first child. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone in the US would be able to scrap together those amount in the range of $10-$50 for a single non-recurrent cost. Add to it that a poor couple could still get support from no so poor relatives. Note too that absolute poverty in the US is rather the exception than the rule. Source: is this Stanford study. Doroletho (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While that is broadly true, the relative lack of social mobility in the U.S. is largely due to being in such states of bankruptcy or near bankruptcy. Many poor people have abysmal credit ratings which closes off access to common means of investment, such as real estate and educational loans, which may otherwise give them a means to accrue wealth. The fact that most of the U.S. population is only a car accident or a bad illness away from such a state is why the U.S. ranks unfavorably on many Income inequality metrics, 2 million people per year declare bankruptcy primarily due to medical bills, an number which has been rising considerably in the recent decades, and which looks to only go up. At that rate, that means that roughly 10% of the population has done so in the last decade-and-a-half, and those medical bankrupties have a generational effect on the ability to accrue wealth. People in the U.S. generally don't starve to death, but "not starving to death" is a constant state of being for large segments of the U.S. population, often for generations. --Jayron 32 16:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, if a 14-year-old begins minimum-wage work while still living with parents, then how much money must he accumulate as a pro-active action to starting a family? Should he begin investing in an education and a family at the same time at 14 years of age? SSS (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're granting far more forsight to 14-year olds. If a child is sexually active at that age (which, depending on the U.S. state laws in question, may be younger than the bright-line at which it is legal), chances are they are not doing so as a plan to have children, but rather as a plan to get laid. The children thing just happens. --Jayron 32 17:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to border on a request for advice or advice giving. Stating just information that's found in sources and calculating from there:

Costs

Getting a courthouse marriage costs less than $100. Weddings are not a legal requirement for a family, they're more for friends and relatives to go "yay." Still, they cost an average of $35k
Student loans in the United States average to about $30k a person. Paying back student loans can help build a credit score, which affects one's ability to buy a house and car. Interest rates are around 6.8%, so you'll need to pay $300/month if you're planning on paying it off in under 10 years.
The cost of having a baby can be $32k if things go well and almost twice that if there are complications. That's just birth, not furniture or stuff. After birth, the kid can cost $14k a year, though "Up to a third of the total cost is housing," so $1k/month excluding housing.
A house could be $119k. You get a mortgage for that, and down payments tend to be around 8% to 11%. So, something like $12k for a down payment, with an average $1k monthly payment.
Average new car price is $33.5k, with a down payment of 20% (or $6.7k) and a yearly cost of about $8.5k (or about $700/month). If you buy a used car, the upfront costs should be lower but it's safe to assume maintenance costs will get higher sooner.

So, the "American dream" of a college education, house, one or two (1.5) cars, and two or three (2.5) kids can cost about $102,000 upfront and about $6,000 a month (especially if your spouse also went to college). This is assuming you and your spouse get a courthouse marriage, never have any medical problems, and don't need to eat. Or $137,000 if you have a wedding.

Wages

Minimum wage in the US is $7.25/hour. 14 and 15 year olds can only work 3 hours on school days (up to 18 hours a week on school weeks), 8 hours on non-school days (up to 40 hours a week on non-school weeks). Most states require around 180 school days a year, although they're generally M-F, which means that at least 36 of the 52 weeks of the year are "school weeks." With things like three-day weekends or holidays, it could easily be 40 weeks a year. This is why most employers won't even take applications from anyone under 16. During school weeks, a 14 or 15 year old can only earn $130.50 a week.

Employers who give a shift of more than five or six hours generally must provide a half-hour unpaid lunch break, and some of them will just cut your shift short of that time. Employers generally do not need to insure part-time employees, so they will cap a minimum wage worker's weekly shifts to 30 hours a week if at all possible (or off set the following week to average things out). And you still don't get overtime until you hit 40 hours, and employers will do their damnedest to make sure you don't get a single penny of overtime. I could have convinced my last employer to pay me $20 out of his wallet to clock out at 39.5 hours instead of 40, even though $20 more than 39.5 hours would have been something like 43 hours. Years ago, Walmart considered firing me for repeatedly working 39.5 hour weeks (because it was totally my fault they didn't hire or schedule enough the three positions I was covering under their orders). That means $217.50 a week for non-school weeks (or after age 16).

So, someone age 14 and 15 can earn about $7810 a year. Age 16 to 18, $11,310 a year. That's a total of $38,240 assuming they start working on their 14th birthday and do not spend a single penny (which is only theoretically possible and practically impossible even for a steel-minded adult who has offset all of their responsibilities onto someone else). Now, if they stay with the same employer starting at age 16, they should get small increase in wage over time. This might be just an extra $0.25/hr for every year. But these calculations also assume the impossibility that the kid doesn't spent a single penny, which well more than balances those increases out. Assuming they work through college and manage to get their bachelor's in four years (That's not how that works anymore!), that's another $45,240 for a total of $83,480. So, they need to save about 120% of their earnings.

This involves a completely unrealistic best-case scenario, however, which should show why Millennials are having children significantly later than before.

TL;DR: the economy is fucked and the American dream is dead for anyone under 40. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potplants popular in the 1920s

What types of potplants were popular in the 1920s? I'm helping to decorate a coffee shop that has an art deco style with elements from movies such as The Great Gatsby. I'd like to put small potplants on the tables, but have no idea what plants would be in keeping with the style/era. They need to be small plants, no taller than 20-30cm (8-12"). Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious example is the Aspidistra, popular enough to be referenced (admittedly in the 1930s rather than the 1920s) by both George Orwell and Gracie Fields. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In the UK, the aspidistra was the king of respectable pot plants, as referenced by The Biggest Aspidistra In The World (1938) and Keep the Aspidistra Flying (1936). They also named a wartime radio transmitter after it. The Sansevieria trifasciata or mother-in-law's tongue also springs to mind. "This plant has been very popular since the early 1930s" says one blog. Alansplodge (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Aspidistra is far too big. I need a plant to put on small cafe tables as a centrepiece - the pots would be not much bigger than an average coffee mug. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spider plant? Even I can grow those and they must have been around for a while. This blog has other suggestions with some information on their introduction dates. Alansplodge (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a website: "House Plants Experts". that has a forum which might be helpful. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dracaena sanderiana (lucky bamboo) can fit any coffee cup and budget (and may bring more tips if placed next to a large tip jar). Cheaper than a teapot-sized bonsai, which the coffee shop owner might afford if the bamboo (not really bamboo) lives up to its name. Japonisme influences predate and survived well into the Art Nouveau and Art Deco periods in America - just like these hardy and striking potted house plants, such decorative accents almost never die. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pelargonium (often incorrectly called geranium) perhaps? Jahoe (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone, the owner has chosen Dracaena sanderiana, it blends well with the rest of the decor. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Krone or Faroese Krone

The Faroese currency (FOK) is officially the same as the Danish Krone (DKK) issued by the Danish National Bank and is also treated as such. It even uses the Danish currency code. In a given situation about Faroese trade, should the currency be referred to as Faroese Krone or Danish Krone?

The Danish National Bank states that the Faroese bill should be treated as foreign currency and therefore not accepted in any other place than the bank itself. This contradicts with the fact that you can use Faroese bills in supermarkets like "Bilka", "Føtex", "Quickly" and "Fleggaard".

An interview with the Danish National Bank stated that the single dealer themselves can decide weather they want to accept the Faroese Krone but they are never obliged to.

A few reference in the first link seem outdated because they are referring to 80 year old law whereas the Danish National Bank issued new laws from 2012 concerning this topic.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroese_króna - 30/04/2018, 18:50 GMT+1> <http://www.nationalbanken.dk/da/sedlerogmoenter/faroerne/Sider/Default.aspx - 30/04/2018, 18:52 GMT+1> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/dk.videnskab.jura/x_83_bYOUZU - 30/04/2018, 19:24 GMT+1> 2003:79:4F26:AE28:D92A:94FB:2078:3B82 (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This page states "The currency in the Faroe Islands is 1 króna and the exchange rate to the Danish banknotes is 1:1. The Faroese banknotes are regarded as a foreign currency in Denmark thus they are not legal tender in Denmark, nor are Danish banknotes legal tender in the Faroe Islands. However, Faroese banknotes can be encashed to Danish banknotes free of charge at Danmarks Nationalbank in the same way as Danish banknotes can be encashed to Faroese banknotes in the Faroe Islands.The coins in the Faroe Islands and in Denmark are the same." I hope that helps! --Jayron 32 17:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I visited there in 2014, I never saw any Faroese kroner. Just Danish.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which "there"? —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Faroes.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How did the old Tibetans take in enough vitamin D? (Vitamin D deficiency)

Dear All

I am currently reading about Tibetan Buddhism and was wondering how the people from Tibet got enough vitamin D in the cold region where they live. By the way, how do people get enough vitamin d who do not live in a region with enough solar radiation and who didn't have modern Western medicine? I assume that they must have had some way, otherwise they all would have died out, right?

Thank you for your answers

Withg kind regards--2A02:1205:502E:4030:394E:2008:BFDE:583E (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article in Science Daily, most Tibetans have a variant of a gene that "plays a role in vitamin D metabolism and may help compensate for vitamin D deficiency, which commonly affects Tibetan nomads."

This article says that "Tibet has abundant solar energy resources since it lies at a low latitude and at a high altitude" and blames vitamin D deficiency on clothing and diet instead of location. It may be cold because it's further away from the core, but it's about as close to the equator as Morocco or South Carolina. Most of Tibet further south than most of Italy or Korea.

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As to the second horn of the question: people who couldn't get adequate vitamin D from either sun exposure or diet got sick. I believe you can't die directly from Vitamin D deficiency, unlike with some deficiencies like scurvy and pellagra. However, you will be in rather bad shape, which makes it easier for something else to kill you. It's believed that this selection pressure is the primary factor behind human skin color variation. Note that some peoples who live at high latitudes, like the Inuit, eat lots of fatty seafood, which happens to be high in Vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency is not only a thing of long ago. It was identified because severe deficiency resulting in rickets became widespread in industrial cities of the late 19th/early 20th centuries, because of people spending almost all of their time indoors. There is debate over where to set the threshold for deficiency, and depending on where it's set many people in even developed countries may have mild deficiency. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your answer. I am allergic against the most of the vitamin D supplementation drops. I tried several different types and yet always suffer the same symptoms: high blood pressure, tachycardia and massive nervousness. My doctors do not know what to do, that is why I am looking for an alternative way to treat my vitamin D deficiency.--2A02:1205:502E:4030:F508:8BED:E95C:7EFA (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]