Humanities desk
< February 26	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 28 >

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.

February 27

US Federal Government pay scales

How does this work? I've got the fact that a college degree starts you at GS-5, but what are the "Step __" columns and how does one progress up this most confusing chart? If an example is needed, try someone starting in this position and working their way up to this position...i.e. what steps does this person go through moving up the pay scale until they reach their full salary? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing the specifics and purely looking at the table I would assume that you progress through the steps whilst within your current 'role' and that you only move up 'grade' when you are promoted to a new role. In one of my previous roles I was in a position of 'admin' level - it had pay-levels up to 16k but I started on 10k, every 6 months if I met certain criteria I could 'step' to a higher pay amount (say 10.5k) within my salary band. I suspect this setup is the same. ny156uk (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's most likely that your job determines your grade and your time in that job determines your step. There will probably be other factors affecting step as well (qualifications, experience, etc.). --Tango (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You go up one step after each year of service, until you reach the maximum. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessarily true. I work for the DoD, and my understanding is that the first three steps are yearly, the next three are every two years, and the last three are every three years. Kingsfold (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What determines your starting step? --Tango (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting step is usually 1. Sometimes they'll put you higher, the most common reason being that you're being transferred to a new job at a low grade and they don't want to explicitly cut your pay. There was a program for step increases based on performance, but I've never seen it used. Grade is determined by the position description, and most positions have multiple grades where you're automatically promoted based on time in service.

For example, a job I'm familiar with allows you to be hired as a GS-5 (straight out of college), GS-7 (Master's), or GS-9 (higher qualifications). Once hired, the employee is automatically promoted through the grades on an annual basis until the employee reaches "journeyman" level at GS-12. After that, they receive steps on a scheduled basis (1-3 at one year intervals, 4-6 at 2 year intervals, etc...). The step increases can theoretically be denied based on employee performance, but I've never seen this actually happen. SDY (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That clears up alot of my confusion...thanks much! Only one other question...taking the examples above, say a person had reached GS-10 at the intern job and then took the MIC job. Would he then return to the GS-7 level (assuming a master's degree) as a starting pay, or would he continue at GS-10? In other words, can taking a promotion result in a pay cut like this, or do you continually move up the pay scale even if you gain a new job title? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general, once you've held a higher GS-scale position they will not downgrade you, but if they do they will bump you up a few steps to equalize the pay difference. I'm not sure if they're required to do so (may be OPM rules, may be an agency-specific decision). It's unusual that any desirable transfer would lead to a lower GS position, the only time I've seen people take lower positions is so-called "hardship transfers" where their spouse is moving or a similar non-work reason that forces a geographic move where their old position is not available. SDY (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When promoted to a higher grade, what step would you move to? If you start from step 1 again, that would often be a paycut, so that wouldn't happen, but if you stay in the same step you were in the lower grade then anyone that has been in the service more than a few years would be at the top step and the system breaks down. Presumably you would be moved to a step that corresponds to a small pay rise, but who determines the size of that raise? --Tango (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proportion of the population (not households) of the UK without car transport

If for example a household has one car, but that car is used by one member of the household to drive to work, then the other members of the household are car-less during that time. Also, children, the very elderly, and the unemployed do not have a car. So what proportion of UK individuals would walk or use public transport to get around?

This could be estimated by the number of cars in the UK divided by the total population, unless anyone has a better idea of how to do it. Thanks. 78.149.201.215 (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of registered private vehicles subtracted from the total population might give a better measurement of the numbers without a car - which could then be calculated as a proportion of the total population. You might also want to take into account that those aged under 17 are not permitted to drive in the UK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the figure below of 29,101,000 registered motor vehicles, and the 2007 total population of 60,975,000, there would be 31,874,000 without the possibility of driving a car at any point in time - that is, 52.3% of the total population. In reality the proportion would be higher, because some registered vehicles are not in private ownership, and some single-person households have more than one car. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly 30 per cent (of households) are carless, according to this BBC article from yesterday. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:P.S. I'm sorry - just realized that wasn't what you were asking for. My apologies. WikiJedits (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a lot of us walk, cycle or use public transport even if we do have access to a car. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better answer.

(1) EU statistics from 2007 (see the "means of Transport" file) say there are 476 cars per 1,000 inhabitants, or 29,101,000 registered motor vehicles in the country.

(2) You can also get a UK-specific file. There's a table called "1.4 Trips per person per year by main mode1 and purpose: 2006" which says that out of every 1,037 trips made, 249 are made on foot, 658 by car and 103 by public transit. (This doesn't add up to 1,037 because you didn't ask about bicycle and other methods). Anyway, your proportions look like 63 per cent of all trips are made by car and 34 per cent by walking or transit. Keep in mind as AndrewWTaylor said that there are probably very few people who use one method exclusively. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, I'd forgotten about bicycles - I should have included cycling with walking and public transport. 78.149.201.215 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Dad's taxi? "Dad, drive me, to...., boy-frind's" etc. Famales are versatile. & Statistics do lie! You cannot depend on them!

MacOfJesus (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highest award for successful entrepreneurs

What is the highest award for successful entrepreneurs/businesspersons? Nobel Prize is not awarded for business, is there any equivalent international award? --Gortpok (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not being subjected to antitrust suits? Seriously though, I know they give out awards of this type to young entrepreneurs, but seasoned veterans of industry? I really hope not. Just helming a successful business is all the reward these guys need, I should expect. Vranak (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, entrepreneurs sometimes get knighthoods or other honours (OBEs and CBEs usually). I don't know of any international awards specifically for entrepreneurship and business. The usual reward is earning lots of money... --Tango (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said "there is no such award because the generated money is the reward, and things like the Nobel Prizes are intended to incentify behavior not normally directly associated with money", but a quick googling shows lots of entrepreneur and business awards — granted, I never heard of any of them, so maybe they're obscure. The Stevie Awards are allegedly awards for individuals and businesses. Googling "entrepreneur awards" shows many such awards; the first hit is an award that Ernst and Young gives out. I've no idea how 'genuine' the awards are, or whether any of them are essentially bought and paid for. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're genuine, but as Vranak says, they are usually for young entrepreneurs. The E&Y award you mention is called "Young Entrepreneur Of The Year", for example. --Tango (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Business Person of the Year? DOR (HK) (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Awards for Enterprise is according to that page the highest award for British businesses, although it goes to companies rather than individuals. Category:Business and industry awards may have something. --Normansmithy (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metric city blocks in Melbourne?

City block says that downtown Melbourn has a grid measuring 200m×100m. Since the city was founded long before the metric system was implemented in Australia, why is there a metric grid? Was the entire downtown somehow reorganised after metrication? Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the metric measurements are approximate. See Hoddle_Grid#Specifications for the layout of the oldest part of the city - it is defined in terms of chains, an imperial unit commonly used in construction. It just happens that 10 chains is 201.16800 metres, which has, apparently, been rounded to 200m in the article. --Tango (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Anonymous, 10:15 UTC, February 28, 2010.

£ v. $

Would a decline in the exchange rate for the pound mean that it was expected that US interest rates would be higher than UK interest rates in the future, and vice versa? Are changes in expected future interest rates responsible for the great majority of the change in the £:$ exchange rate? Thanks 89.243.151.239 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interest rates are a large factor in the currency markets due to the carry trade, but there are plenty of other factors. Even with just interest rates it is complicated. The carry trade is determined by the interest rates charged by banks and brokers (which is usually related to the LIBOR), not the rate set by the central banks, so if you are looking at the central bank rates you need to also factor in the difference between that and LIBOR (which is far from constant). Also, a decline in the exchange rate doesn't necessarily mean the US rate is expected to be higher than the UK rate, just that the difference between the two is now expected to the higher than the previous expectation of the difference. Changes in market prices result from changes in expectation, not from the expectations themselves. Apart from interest rates, things like inflation, economic growth and international trade all play a big role. --Tango (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is partly covered (no pun intended) in the article Interest rate parity. Jørgen (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying the factors causing exchange rates to move is an excellent way to get into serious financial trouble. Trillions of dollars move around the world at a pace and volume that creates its own momentum, and can easily swamp any interest rate or other policy initiative. In theory, but rarely so cleanly in practice, capital is encouraged to flow to where interest rates are higher relative to the risk or cost of devaluation, depreciation, capital controls, taxes and other nasty surprises. The theory works just fine until some currency trader on the other side of the world has a bad day, and decides to take it out on your favorite medium of exchange. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding another user to work on the same new article

Hello,

I am a new user attempting a new article. I'd like to have my colleague access the same space to work on our draft. How do I do that? Thanks! Pamsmith30 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Create your article at User:Pamsmith30/Sandbox. When you and your colleague are finished writing, you can move the sandbox page to the title you want your article to have. In the future, if you have questions about using Wikipedia, you'll likely get a faster response if you go to the Help Desk. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One point - when you're happy with the page, _don't_ list it at WP:RM (as the link posted above might imply). Instead, add the {{move draft}} template to the top of the page when it's ready to go live. Tevildo (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason not to just copy and paste the article since it's moving from userspace to article space? I don't see a ton of value in this case in preserving the history. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary for attribution purposes. If only one person has edited the draft, there is no problem, but the OP is talking about sharing a draft so it is necessary to keep track of who wrote which bits. --Tango (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May '68 - Quotes

These quotes are listed in the Wikipedia-article:

Boredom is counterrevolutionary
We don’t want a world where the guarantee of not dying of starvation brings the risk of dying of boredom.
In a society that has abolished every kind of adventure the only adventure that remains is to abolish the society.
...

Who said that and what's the source? -- 89.247.73.34 (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "the Wikipedia-article" you of course mean May 1968 in France.

Wikiquotes suggests that the first may be Guy Debord, but the quote listed is "Boredom is always counter-revolutionary. Always" (emphasis mine), and says that it's from 1963 in a work titled "The Incomplete Works of the Situationist International".

I couldn't find either of the other two you listed with a quick google search, but I think that that's going to be the way to go (though a lot of anarchist blogs and such pop up as well. Good luck). Keep in mind that it is just graffiti, so not all of it may not have a known or notable author (that is, the kids may have just made it up on the spot). Also, seaching any of the phrases listed will pull up sites that have lists of even more phrases than are listed in the Wikipedia article, in case you're planning an anarchist riot right now, and are short on slogans. Buddy431 (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the article. It bothers me when questioners will refer to an article without telling us which one it is or assuming we know which one they were reading. Dismas|^(talk) 13:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have better luck searching for the French version of these quotes. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What book?

Character names include Cornelius Barrington, Muriel Arbuthnot and Godfrey Tudor-Jones; and the obsessively catalogued tokens of class and status which preoccupy all but the working class. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Cut a Long Story Short by Jeffrey Archer. - Nunh-huh 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is To Cut a Long Story Short. -- kainaw ™ 23:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is the bit of water in the Pope's ...

question designed to be insulting rather than productive. No answer needed.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

on narrow, and technical, theological grounds, I have come up with the conjecture that the water in the Pope's toilet must be holy, and I was wondering if this is the commonly held belief among theologians? 82.113.106.199 (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a commonly held belief. - Nunh-huh 22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you give some clarification? I'd like to see where my argument failed and it would help if you gave some details as to why not. 82.113.106.199 (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not every object that the Pope touches or touches him is "holy"; they have to be explicitly blessed. Otherwise the CO2 he breathes out would be holy, his soiled underwear would be holy, his faeces and urine would be holy, the coffee he drinks in the morning would be holy, and the ivory keys on his piano would be holy. Need I go on? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read Holy water for more insight on the matter. I wonder if holy water is kept in holy buckets? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...all this changes once the pope has been canonized: then everything he has touched becomes a relic of the second class.--Wetman (talk) 01:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. I doubt this sort of thing transfers does it? I.E. It's not like everything that's been touched by something the pope touches is a relic. Perhaps it's just me, but I don't make it a habit of touching the water in the toilet without reason. In other words, his toilet may be a relic, but does it mean the water is? Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he did an extremely large dump and some of the water splashed up and hit his backside before dripping back into the bowl. --Tango (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would only be a tiny bit of water though. There would be far more urine as a relic if you want relic water. (Although the article says items he wore or he used, not anything he touched unlike the OP, so it's not clear if urine would qualify even under a liberal definition. His toilet still would. I guess you could argue he used the water since he drunk it and used the toilet water presuming he flushes but it's a bit of a stretch.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 82.113 is missing out on the fact that theologians are generally interested in matters of propriety, piety, and salvation, not the minutiae of what is holy and what is not. Vranak (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Whoever squished it thought that the questioner didn't miss the point, he was just being provocative. Blessing the water is part of a religious ritual. Mundane activities are not generally religious rituals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]