Miscellaneous desk
< September 4	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 6 >

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

September 5

1935 Labor Day hurricane in Key West, FL

About 15 years ago I read a snippet in some book that there's a monument in Key West dedicated to the protection of a certain Patron Saint, for someone prayed for protection and therefore despite the overall destruction of the hurricane, nobody died in Key West. Of course memory can play tricks at fifteen years, and what I remembered might be drastically different from what that book said, but just in case:

Can anyone confirm the veracity of this story?
- Were any persons recorded killed on land in Key West itself?
If this story is true, or partially true but remembered incorrectly, what is the name of the patron saint?

Thank you. 38.88.99.222 (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 1922 section of this history of the parish of Key West about Sister Louis Gabriel seems to fit the bill. Dalliance (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Labor Day not on the 1st of May like Labour day?

See above. Labour Day is traditionally on the 1st of May in most places. How did the current date for Labor day came about?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎131.251.254.131 (talk • contribs) .

See Labor Day, the Wikipedia article about the holiday, which explains why the date was chosen. --Jayron 32 13:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. It only states why it's not on the 1st of May, not why the current date was chosen. If you can't give good answers, why do you answer? ‎131.251.254.131 (talk · contribs)

It does EXACTLY state the September origin, in the first paragraph of the section titled "History". I'll not further insult you by directly quoting it. --Jayron 32 18:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, expect of course it just states that's when a labour conference was. Not WHY that was then, and not WHY it wasn't on May the 1st. The IP, if rude, is correct. Stating that something is a at given data is not the same as stating why it is at a given date. Fgf10 (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve the references in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes it clear that the September date started with a September labor conference. At some point you reach the initial cause, and there's no reason to suspect the conference was NOT the initial cause. You could, I suppose, go back forever asking such questions. Like, why was the Labor Conference held in September. Then if we found a reason for that, we could ask "Why did THAT event happen in September" and then we could ask "Well, why did THAT happen when it did". Infinitely recursive why's are generally the domain of 3-year olds and not generally entertained as serious questions. The answer to "Why is Labor Day on September" is "Because a labor conference was held in September 1882, and after that an annual commemoration of said event was planned". --Jayron 32 13:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't sign your posts, and can't avoid being a jerk, why are you here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, your initial question was why is it [NOT] on May 1. The article makes it abundantly clear why it was not on May 1. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original poster's wording was intending to contrast "Labor Day" (US) with "Labour Day" (elsewhere and probably May 1), in which case they did not ask what you thought they did. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Why is Labor Day not on the 1st of May" is clear as a bell. And the OP, whose apparent real purpose was to cause ill will, has vamoosed, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you said they said why it is on May 1. Never mind, not important. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "NOT" - now corrected, thank you. Not that the OP will see it, being long gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short version, both Europeans and Americans were advocating for a worker's holiday in the 1880s. The European workers chose to co-opt the existing May Day holiday traditionally celebrated in many European countries when defining a new "Labour Day". By contrast, May Day was never very popular in the US, and there was concern at the time that creating a holiday at the start of May would remind many of the Haymarket massacre, so preference was given to a September date. Since the September date was a new holiday, and not merely a rebranding of an existing holiday, the American workers arguably got a better deal. Dragons flight (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pragmatically, national governments want to "spread out" days off, and the U.S. has had its May holiday with Memorial Day for several decades before Labor Day existed. Current Federal holidays in the United States (i.e. when just about everyone has a day off of work) are fairly well spread out, with 10 holidays occurring during 8 different months (November and January each have 2). The longest stretch without one is the February - May stretch, though with many schools taking a spring break during that time, many workers with children also schedule a week of vacation at the same time. --Jayron 32 14:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning school... When I was a child, a very long time ago, school began on the day after Labor Day. So, it was not just a three-day holiday, it was the end of summer vacation and the beginning of school. When I left New York in the late 60s, it seemed to me that everywhere was the same. Now, it appears that schools start in August. I don't know when that change happened. But, I felt that it was a bit on purpose that Labor Day would end summer and begin school. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many places moved the start of school back to the middle of August because that puts about 90 days before Christmas break and 90 days after Christmas Break which makes a convenient break for midterm exams. If school starts after labor day, midterms fall in middle-late January, which is a bit of a pain in the ass. --Jayron 32 14:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to this,[1] the first attention-getting Labor Day in America was held in early September of 1882, and it's apparent that it quickly became traditional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I can see how this came about. The first Labor Day was on 5 September 1882 to coincide with a Labor Union parade. The parade became an annual event. I don't follow Jayron's reasoning, however. If school begins in the middle of August ninety days before Christmas break that means Christmas break begins about 15 November. Can this be right? Then he says that if term begins after Labor Day (three weeks later) midterms fall about three weeks after Christmas. In this country the autumn term ends a few days before Christmas and the spring term begins begins a few days after new year. Our article Semester#United States suggests the Christmas holiday arrangements are similar to what they are here.

There's a similar deficiency as regards Mother's Day. I am aware that countries like Australia and the United States observe it sometime in May whereas we have it three weeks before Easter. The originator trademarked the phrase "second Sunday in May" to herself, but why that date? The article also contains an error regarding the date in Greece. It says the date observed there is Candlemas "of Julian Calendar". But the Greek church fixes this date using its "political calendar", (i.e. the calendar used by the Greek government) which means that for the time being it falls on the same day as it does here. 92.24.110.225 (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the math for you, using common US holidays. If the school year started in 2017 on September 5 (Today, as it used to and still does in some places in the U.S.) then you get the following school days for the first 90 day semester:

9/5 - 9/8, 9/11 - 9/15, 9/18 - 9/22, 9/25 - 9/29 = 19 days in September

10/2 - 10/6, 10/9 - 10/13, 10/16 - 10/20, 10/23 - 10/27, 10/30 - 10/31 = 22 days in October (43 total so far) (many school systems no longer take off Columbus Day, but if they do, that's 42 days so far)

11/1 - 11/3, 11/6 - 11/9 (Veterans Day = 11/10), 11/13 - 11/17, 11/20 - 11/22 (11/23 & 11/24 are Thanksgiving), 11/27 - 11/30 = 18 days in November (61 so far)

12/1, 12/4 - 12/8, 12/11 - 12/15, 12/18 - 12/22 = 16 days in December, that's 77 days before Christmas Break. That leaves 13 days to do in January to reach the midpoint of the school year.

If instead, you start three weeks earlier (which this year would be the week of August 14) you can get all 90 days before the winter holidays. A start date of August 16 would actually get you to exactly day 90 on December 22. Math is hard. --Jayron 32 18:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, much actual math is quite easy. Don't scare people away! What is hard is getting clear specifications from the customer. You moved the goal post from "days" to school days. That might have been your model the whole time, but it was not obvious to me. And 90 school days to midterm suggests 180 school days per term and 360 school days for the year, which seems implausible even with 6 days of school and no long summer break (added info: in my mental model of the planet in this quantum branch of the universe, a year has about 365.25 days, so around 52 weeks with 52 weekends - as a rough rule, we assume 250 work days, minus personal leave). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., most school districts mandate 180 school days per year.[2]. 180 is the only number for which 90 is 1/2 of, so context should have made that clear as well. But it's more fun to put on the pretense that one didn't understand that. --Jayron 32 10:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that I come from Germany, my implicit assumption was two terms per year - and at least when I taught in Miami, there was a midterm exam in the middle of the semester and a final at the end of the semester, so I assumed that would be similar for normal schools. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that in Germany, 90 is still half of 180. --Jayron 32 13:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant School holiday#United States. 92.24.110.225 (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting weekends and holidays, you only get about 20 days of school a month, not 30. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this country the Labour Conference happens in September. Why? Probably because it's when everyone is back from their summer holidays. 92.8.216.51 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are US salaries SO high even by Western standards.

So I'm looking at all sorts of jobs in the US just to compare with the UK. Jobs paying 60-70k seems pretty typical (especially in a relatively well of area such as NYC or SF. Granted, the cost of living is high there, too. But seriously, a $70k job is the equivalent of over £50k here. Easily obtainable I'd imagine with a college/university degree. That's sort of wage here is considered VERY good. Alas, the average salary for FTE is about 26-28k here. After 5 years experience (depending on field) 50K is potentially reachable but 30-35k is more likely. It's almost makes the UK seem like a third-world (or atleast Eastern european) economy.

So what gives, is the grass really THAT green on the other side of the pond (give or take a few unstable politicians that is)

Yes. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to consider is that, in some countries, it's conventional to report after-tax income, whereas salaries in the US are always reported on a before-tax basis. I don't know what the convention is in the UK. --Trovatore (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at a few sources including this cosmo article UK wages seem quite low to this Canadian. this source shows low-median-high ranges (in $/hr) for hundreds of jobs in Toronto. Of 19 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind is the NHS ("free" health insurance) in the UK and the very different social security systems. I'm not sure how the system in the UK works, but in Germany employers and employees contribute equal shares to various (state) insurance schemes, and only the employees part is counted as part of the salary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the system in the UK is similar, with salaries being quoted before tax. Tax and Employees' National Insurance contributions are deducted by the employer and paid direct to HMRC, so the employee typically receives about 80% of gross salary to spend (more for low-paid, and considerably less for higher-rate taxpayers). Dbfirs 11:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth keeping in mind exchange rates. Today £30k = $40k, but only 10 years ago £30k = $60k. Or put another way in 2007, the GDP per capita in the UK was 4% higher than the US after accounting for exchange rates. Today, the GDP per capita in the US is 45% higher than in the UK. The combination of the European financial crisis and Brexit (and arguably poor leadership) has served to harm the UK's economy in ways that might not be entirely clear to the people living there until you start to compare the value of the Pound to other currencies around the world. Because exchange rates tend to move much faster than wages, the nominal value of labor in the UK has gone down sharply during the last decade. Dragons flight (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the average British wage buys British things (i.e. houses and labor costs on bus tickets and Apple Store products) they shouldn't notice. The euro isn't doing so good relative to the dollar either (it was $1.6+ in 2008) so imports from there wouldn't be affected as much. The weaker pound vs. some currencies would help Britain to the extent that exports to there are a percent of their economy so perhaps it's not too surprising that the wages are so different at the moment. There are a lot of nice places that use euros to take vacations in. These could commandeer part but not all of the demand for American vacations. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Euro was introduced (as book money) in 1999, with an exchange rate of US$ 1.1743 per Euro, nearly the same as today. It was introduced physically in 2002 at about US$ 0.90 per Euro, but quickly reached parity and then went up further (that was the one time in my life when I was paid in US$...). But over the 20 years of its existence, EUR and US$ have developed about the same, if with large fluctuations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most statistics do support the notion that the US has relatively high income. But if you're talking about general terms rather than only talking about the UK (your question seemed to focus on the UK but your topic said 'Western standards'), I'm not sure if the difference is as stark as you suggest. For example if you're looking at OECD data on averages wages, the US is 59.7k. But there are 9 (or 8 excluding Iceland) countries [3] which while below the US, are still at 48k or more. There's another 5, including the UK (albeit per Df's point, there's a resonable chance it's gone down since then) which are 41.9k or higher. (And 2 above the US.) Since many reports are on the mean, median data is more hard to find. Still this Gallup poll based data suggests again that while the US is fairly high it's not as starkly high as your comment seems to suggest [4]. Comparing the difference between the OECD (or other) average figures and median is also interest although especially in light of Df's point above, it would be good to get some from the same source or at least covering the exact same time which the same exchange rates. Note that other data does suggest inequality in the US is relatively high as well [5], as perhaps suggested by the difference between the median and mean. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]