Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 July 22

= July 22 =

Economics: how do you share utilities in 2 apartments?
I am in the process of dividing a single family home into 2 apartments, each with a separate entrance. The house has 1 central air unit. I will have 1 electric bill, 1 oil bill and 1 propane gas bill for the total. Upstairs apartment has the thermostat and thereby controls the furnace and air conditioner. Downstairs apartment has no thermostat but could use a space heater or window air conditioner or could simply open the windows if he chooses.......My initial plan was to "estimate" utilities for downstairs renter (how, I'm not sure) and include utilities in the rent. Then upstairs renter would control the utilities and pay the bills (less "estimate"). Even if this worked, I wonder how the relationship between the 2 renters would evolve since they would have to be interdependent......One additional point of information. Upstairs renter has lived in the whole house 9 years and so we have a history of utility use for that period. I decided to divide the house because upstairs renter can't afford it by himself anymore. My taxes and expenses have been rising drastically and I think I can get more rent out of 2 apartments than out of 1 house......Economic and philosophical feedback is welcome.Quakerlady (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Having lived in an apt similar to the downstairs one you describe, the fairest thing to do is to have utilities "included" in the downstairs apartment's rent. It's not fair to charge them a fluctuating rate for utilities that they have no control over. You could charge the upstairs renters a fraction of the utilities based on their percentage of of the building giving them an incentive to conserve since they control the thermostat, but not charging them for heating/cooling the other apt. —D. Monack talk 05:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like this suggestion. It seems straightforward and fair. Thank you.Quakerlady (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even for the utilities his options use (window AC unit uses electricity, etc)?--droptone (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you asked the utility companys about the cost of installing separate meters? Since they will get more money (two standing charges, etc.) they may not charge much for the initial work. Depending on your market you may want to install private coin meters. When I was a student this was common, you would use the coin meter and the land-lord would empty it and pay the main bill. He made a mark-up on this, and it had the advantages that students are notorious for moving on without paying bills or leaving a forwarding address. Of course up market renters would not want to bother with coins for meters. -- Q Chris (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, the Utility submeter article is interesting. I just added a section on Utility submeter to describe the type of submetering I have experienced in a few European countries. This may not be relevant to the OP, who I assume is from the USA. -84user (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a former landlord, please believe me that, unless you want arguments every which way and bad feeling between your tenants, you need separate thermostats even if you are including the HVAC costs in the rent. It will always be colder upstairs in winter and hotter in summer and your downstairs tenant will thus be too hot in winter and too cold in summer because of the choices of the upstairs tenant. (And just wait to see what happens when one tenant has a new baby or the other has her very old and ill parent move in.) I don't know of coin meters in North America; I have only ever seem them in England, Scotland and France. The more separate you make things and the more you put under the control of the tenant in each space, the fewer the arguments and the fewer the complaints -unless you are a big fan of midnight phone calls. ៛ Bielle (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm almost entirely in agreement with you, Bielle, but I think you've got the temperatures half-switched. The upstairs will always be warmer - summer or winter. If the guy upstairs cranks the AC in the summer to cool his apartment off, the guy on the bottom will freeze. Come winter, the guy upstairs will be toasty long before the guy below can warm up. Matt Deres (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that, in science, heat rises, but my experience in houses says that it only goes as far as the ceiling on any given floor when you are talking furnaces. Unless there is a separate heat source for the upper floors, the lower ones all seem to "bleed off" most of the furnace's efforts before warm air reaches upstairs. Perhaps it is because of the longer ducts, or a deflection of the air to the lower floors first, in a forced-air system, or because, with rads, the hot water reaches the lower rads first, but I have never known a house in winter where the second floor was warmer than the first. (I have never lived in a house with electric heat; that may make a difference.) Whatever the differences in our experiences, however, they both point to giving each tenant his/her own controls. ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The top floor also loses more heat to the environment, in winter, through the ceiling. StuRat (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Heat doesn't just rise "in science" y'know; it rises everywhere. ;-) My post wasn't specifically based on an understanding of thermodynamics though, but on experience; there's at least a five degree difference between top and bottom levels in my five-level back-split, perhaps more. I've endured lived in student apartments on many different levels and never found any to the contrary of that, though the effect seems less in the winter. So in conclusion, yeah, he should get a separate thermostat. :) Matt Deres (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You could get a situation where the two tenants have opposing devices running continuously, say the upstairs tenant has the A/C on while the downstairs tenant has the space heater on. This can even happen unintentionally.  So, I concur that you need to separate the utilities as much as possible. StuRat (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Poem suggestions for a composer


Once before I’ve asked for help finding specific poetry for me to set to music here (I’m a composer), and the desk responded admirably. Might I trouble you again for a similar favor?

I’m looking for a few somewhat satirical poems (or excerpts of text). The poems should still be thought provoking and skillfully written. I was thinking of something that would be the poetic or prose equivalent of Marriage à-la-mode. Any suggestions?

The text must also be public domain since I’m creating a derivative work with them. --S.dedalus (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's the Robert Southey dedication to Don Juan (Byron), but it might all be a bit obscure. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about Dorothy Parker's "From a Letter from Lesbia". (Granted, it might perhaps be a bit too self-referential for your request ;-) ---Sluzzelin talk  10:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * First thing this reminded me of: Ogden Nash's little quip on marriage (To keep your marriage brimming, / With love in the loving cup, / Whenever you’re wrong, admit it; / Whenever you’re right, shut up.). :)  Anyway, what about a modern reworking of one of the songs in John Dryden's Marriage A-la-Mode play? Or an excerpt from Chaucer such as The Shipman's Tale. I also saw that the satire article has several links to ancient and medieval satirical texts (eg Horace), best WikiJedits (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How about The Rape of the Lock? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MelancholyDanish (talk • contribs) 03:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This may be a little too heavy, but many of William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience are satirical and already have a musical quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukesnyder1027 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Large Field Promotion
In the book Starship Troopers, there is a discussion of a Napoleonic era (or war of independence?) Midshipman who had a temporary field promotion to Captain due to a convoluted series of events. Heinlein called it the largest in-field promotion in history, and said the boy (who was 16 or so) was later court-martialled. Was there any basis to this, or was Heinlein fictionalising an example? If it's true, I imagine there's an article, but I couldn't think how to look it up without the name. Steewi (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * William Sitgreaves Cox. Algebraist 11:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly sounds like Horatio Hornblower territory and the article mentions a few people that inspired those novels. Heinleins novel Starman Jones has a young man go from stablehand to captain on one voyage so its obviously a theme... 125.237.91.81 (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * David Feintuch's Midshipman's Hope is a SF novel with a similar theme. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  11:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Assuming the responsibilities of an incapacitated superior is not a field promotion, it is merely a responsibility of your position. A field promotion occurs when a superior officer says "You are promoted." For the temporary assumption of a higher position, there have surely been higher jumps than the four levels given by Heinlein. (e.g., sargent to colonel.) However, they occur in situations that are so disastrous that no record is available. -Arch dude (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At least in traditional European armies, a seargent with the acting rank of colonel can't happen: a seargent is a non-commissioned officer, while a colonel is a commissioned officer. --Carnildo (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are captains and there are Captains. There will have been hundreds of midshipmen over the years who were captains, that is the senior officer of a ship. The rank of Captain, or Post-Captain, was permanent. So any officer, including warrant officers, could be a temporary captain, but nobody could ever be a temporary Captain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cox was the one I was looking for. Thanks for the help on that. Steewi (talk) 03:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Declining Economy in the USA
Despite all major banks and mortgage companies currently suffering losses in the US economy, is there someone or entity that is actually profiting from all of this? Is there an entity that exists in the US in which the US economy problems is not affecting them but actually benefiting them? --JennaHunter (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oil companies are apparently doing well. ConocoPhillips, in 2nd quarter earnings, posted a profit of $5.19 billion, compared with $3.13 billion in the comparable period in 2005. NY times article. COnocoPhillips is one of the first oil companies to report 2nd quarter profits this year.
 * The companies that pump crude out of the ground are doing well, but refiners (like Valero) and retail operations (like your local gas station) have small margins now. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I read about companies that are paid by banks to fix up foreclosed homes that have been growing.
 * In addition, with higher food prices, especially with corn, farmers might be doing better than usual. Spencer  T♦C 14:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not just farmers, but companies like Monsanto that sell to farmers. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The farmers I hear from in Iowa aren't entirely sure if they're happy with the situation; like you say, they're getting more money, but their costs are higher, too. It's their suppliers and the processors, I think, that are making the money. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * People who sold real estate or stocks in real estate or financial companies at the peak made money, at the eventual expense of the people whom they sold to. People who have short positions in those stocks are doing well now.  -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As Coneslayer suggests, the real beneficiaries are the high-flyers in the financial industry who gamed the system and produced bubbles first in stocks, then housing, and now perhaps in commodities. They have reaped huge gains in the form of salaries and bonuses, which they get to keep when the bubbles pop and the deals that they made go bad.  In effect, their gains come at the expense of passive investors, such as people holding retirement funds.  Governments of oil-exporting countries obviously also benefit from high oil prices, as do some oil companies in the U.S. and petroleum infrastructure companies such as Halliburton.  Marco polo (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone who buys up cheap real estate now will do quite well when the prices rebound. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Real estate prices in many regions are still quite high relative to incomes in historical terms, and relative prices generally overcorrect after a bubble to below the historical mean before reverting to the historical mean, so it seems unlikely that real estate prices in most regions will rise above present levels in real, inflation-adjusted terms. Marco polo (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In every single transaction, there is a buyer and a seller. When markets rise, buyers benefit by obtaining an item (stock, house) at a price that is lower than the price later in the day / week / month / year. When markets are falling, it is the seller who benefits. As long as we recognize that "up" is not good, and "down" is not bad, the rest follows easily. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it's a bit late but. . . overfed (and the question below). Anyway, I found this thread interesting. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Liquor companies always do well in recessions.  Plasticup  T / C  17:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wal-Mart is making a killing, because people who ordinarily shop at Sears or Penney's are now shopping at Wal-Mart instead. There's a category of goods whose sales goes up when the economy goes bad -- Spam, perhaps, and maybe camping supplies for those who would otherwise go to Florida. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe that will stop the protectionists from turning this into a full-blown depression. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's worth reviewing Inferior goods and, perhaps, Giffen goods. Demand for the first of these increases when consumer income falls; demand for the second increases as its price increases. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The word countercyclical is often used in finance to describe companies that do well when the economy is doing poorly. They are usually companies that sell inferior goods, as tagishsimoon mentioned.  The countercyclical article doesn't mention the finance defitition, only the economics one.  I am too tired to find a source to cite right now, but I assure you, it's used on CNBC all the time. NByz (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Spam: The Ultimate Inferior Good -- Coneslayer (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Current News in Layman's Terms
Is there a website that list the current news of the world and explains it in layman's terms? For exapmle, a US man is not familiar with the goings on in Africa but just read an article about the unrest in the Congo. Is there a website that not only reports the current news of the Congo but also gives a bachground history as to why this is happening in the Congo? I hope I am explaining this correctly.... --JennaHunter (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The BBC usually has country profiles linked from news articles. They often have a background panel which links to more BBC articles such as key facts. BBC's country profiles can be found here. -84user (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And dare I suggest it, if the coverage is there, Wikinews usually links information back to Wikipedia. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The New York Times website has this neat feature where you can double click a word/name/proper noun and it will give you the definition/biography/mini-encyclopedic article about it. It makes their stories much much better, as any confusion can be cleared up without leaving their site.  Plasticup  T / C  17:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the legal age to get a tattoo in California, United States?
I would like to find out this information, and could not find it elsewhere. Thank you.--BurgerMan08 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this (seems reasonably reliable) it's 18, without exceptions. Fribbler (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No exceptions? Really? Not even if you are 16 and have (both) your parents' permission? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The way that I read what he said was that if you are at least 18 then there isn't an exception such as "you can get a tattoo but only if your parent signs a consent form". And the source seems to confirm this.  It also confirms that if you are under 18 it is illegal, even with parental consent.  Dismas |(talk) 10:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

help finding correct term
A while ago I played a flash game on the internet about seducing black girls with unnaturally dyed blond hair. The game gave this stereotype of person a specific name, but for the life of me I can't remember it. It was specifically black or dark colored women who dyed their hair blond. Anyone? 79.76.186.83 (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Aviation blonde" refers to women who have dyed their hair blonde, according to the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=aviation+blonde). Perhaps the term you're thinking of is similar?  --Bowlhover (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ganguro. 64.236.80.62 (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * YES!!! Thank you :) 79.76.186.83 (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)