Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 September 21

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

September 21

Squeaky shoes

When I was a child, my grandmother would always say, with a half-smile, on hearing shoes squeak "They squeak because they aren't paid for." I am sure she never had a credit card, and would have scorned even the modest credit of a lay-away plan or a Christmas club so I doubt there was an implied "yet". I always assumed she meant the shoes had been stolen, but this doesn't really fit with her personality. Is/was the phrase a part of anyone else's life? Does anyone know where it came from? Bielle (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Buying on credit was very common in past days, but it worked differently. If you lived in a town where everyone knew each other, with like maybe one store in the whole town, it would not be uncommon for patrons to have a line of credit with the store, and would settle up periodically (say, at the end of the month or so). I'm getting a hard time finding hard information, since any combination of the words "credit" and "history" turns up pages of "freecreditscore" spam. But I'm working on reference for how this used to work. --Jayron32 06:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

See http://www.e how.com/about_6468229_consumer-credit-history.html (take the space out of ehow, it trips the spam filter) that explains how store credit worked in the pre-credit card world. It's only got a paragraph or so, but it explains breifly how it worked. Still looking for more. --Jayron32 06:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And this page and This paper, which describes in some detail how buying on store credit, or buying on installment plans, worked pre-credit-cards. --Jayron32 06:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

And note that there are still some places where the regulars can "run a tab", like bars/pubs. StuRat (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Bielle - Your user page tells me where you've been, but not where you are. Should I guess America? My old dad, born in 1916 in Geelong, Australia used to use that saying too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The OP is the notorious Northern Bielle. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Before credit cards became widely available after the 1960s in the UK, if you wanted to buy large or expensive items, you could use hire purchase which was known as "buying on tick". Many shops used to run store schemes as has been noted above, or savings schemes or Christmas clubs. More often though, people used to buy things and not pay for them at that time; rather a collector would come round once a week and collect the money. I'm particularly thinking here of roundsmen such as bread, milk, groceries or newspapers. In the case of shoes, I would have thought it would be a shop credit payment scheme. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(EC)::In the UK, it used to be common for shops and pubs to run "a slate" for regular customers. The shop keeper or landlord would keep a writing slate or blackboard under the counter; regular customers would be allowed to buy things on credit and it would be chalked on the slate. When the debt was paid, it would be wiped off and the customer would have "a clean slate". BTW my mum (from Scotland but grew up in southern England) used to say the same thing. There were a number of similar adages - red ears means somebody is talking about you behind your back, or a sudden shiver meant someone was "walking over your grave". I suspect that actually having unpaid-for shoes would have been something to embarrased about, so it was just a way of teasing others. Alansplodge (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. It would be interesting to know what social class the OP's grandmother belong to. It was common in good middle-class families that the 'Lady of the house' (wife) never soiled her hands with cash. Therefore, she would have had her husband set up accounts with the proprietors of all the businesses that she frequented, leaving her husband to pleasure of settling them. Posh people in the UK still have such accounts. The proprietor sends out the current invoice on the quarter (i.e., 3 month intervals) . By the time the invoice arrives and gets settled (paid), the shoes would have stopped squeaking. I would imagine grandma’s smile was due to the habit that old folks have, when the want to indicate that they know something that you don't. Another reason that 'household accounts' were very useful, was it enabled the wife to buy her womanly essentials without having to suffer the embarrassment of finding out just how much they cost. I won't explain that any further, as in this day and age of female emancipation it might ruffle a few feather boas. Yet, it is a bit like very posh high class restaurants not showing the prices on the menu.

"Tick" is apparently from "on ticket", says the OED. "Hired" in Anglo-Indian was "ticca, but this seems to be a coincidence! Andrew Gray (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Remembering that a woman of that class and time period walking out of the house improperly dressed or groomed would result in her neighbours gossiping not about her but about her husband - and that gossip would be spread to their husbands and could lead to very real problems for him. The last thing a landowner, financier, or parliamentarian needed was gossip regarding his financial solvency; the old saying was, a man's purse could be estimated by how much of it went to his wife's toilette. --NellieBly (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a hire purchase article.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A fragment of Roger Miller's mid-1960s song "Kansas City Star": "...I got credit down at the grocery store..." A relic of the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting speculation. Thanks to Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM for correctly identifying my location. My grandmother came from a homestead outside of Rainy River, Ontario. While she and her sister, born 1890 and 1888 respectively, did graduate high school, they were never anything but farmers and/or working class. It is possible that their parents held credit accounts at the town's stores, borrowing in spring and repaying after harvest, but that would be about it. Bielle (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that their borrowing habits enter into it. It's just a rather tame and well-known joke at the expense of the person with squeaky shoes. Alansplodge (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a universal saying, maybe more a superstition than a joke. I've heard it in dutch, google gives results from Norway, Scotland, someone claiming it's an old Hungarian saying... Didn't find it in Current Superstitions Collected from the Oral Tradition of English Speaking Folk,~but there are worse things than squeaking it seems: When a couple are married and are driving off, if old shoes are thrown after them for good luck, and one of the shoes lodges on the coach or carriage, it is a sign that one of the party will die before the year is out. Makes you wonder, were these opposite beliefs, or did people go "As long as I don't hit the roof rack, it's gonna be fine." Ssscienccce (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Mrs. Toth, late of Passyunk Avenue, made Hermione Gingold (pictured) look like Julie Andrews in a wimple.

For superstitions regarding shoes, you might want to read The White Goddess and listen to Fairies Wear Boots. As for Hungarians, never let one who is a witch leave your home except through the door by which she entered, and never let one leave an article of clothing behind. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hungarians are witches?! (l'o'l) Ssscienccce (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you never met Mrs. Toth of West Passyunk? (I also assume that if you are a native English speaker you understand that "As for Hungarians, never let one who is a witch..." does not imply all Hungarians are witches.) μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Minor correction for the OP - a Christmas club is a way of saving, not borrowing. --Tango (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough, in Japan, children's shoes that are designed to squeak are all the rage. There are two reasons for this: A) The little 3/4/5-year-old wearing them likes the sound, and therefore runs around exercising the legs and strengthening them; and B) You know where your kids are because you can hear them (except when you're working in a kindergarten, and there are hundreds of them all wearing the same type of shoes upon arrival and departure, or during the after-lunch 1-hour break in the playground - VERY noisy). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Millions Donated; Minimal Value

I loved the idea of Wikipedia when it started, but for years it has turned me off. Wikipedia solicited and received MILLIONS while promoting incorrect info. Editing oversight is sorely lacking, with countless avoidable errata. (Yes, I could edit -- that's the beauty of the Wiki beast, right? -- but I don't even want to engage in that exercise.)

In short: I avoid reading Wiki articles, and dislike the fact that they turn up first in Googles searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertmehnertroverboies (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia Reference Desk, not the Complaints Desk. Do you have a question we can provide a reference for? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interestingly, many scholarly studies have been done and found that Wikipedia is more accurate and reliable than print encyclopedias: this study back in 2005 (Wikipedia's rebelious teenage years) found Wikipedia more accurate, and this article from May 2012 found the same thing. People want Wikipedia to be less accurate because of the open editing model, but study after study have found that not to be true. Now, in some fringe articles that few people read or know about, that may not be true, and of course there is always the problem of vandalism, but in general Wikipedia does better than almost any other reference work, especially in heavily visited pages. --Jayron32 06:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That is interesting. I'm not an academic, so editing WP history articles has been a real eye-opener on how much writers of apparently reliable popular histories have been willing to skew the facts to enhance the line of their argument. Hopefully, if the editors of WP articles are making contentous claims or repeating popular myths, they will sooner or later be edited out or flagged as such. Alansplodge (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

In my experience this happens very quickly in mainstream articles and subjects. In fringe subjects or things like histories of small villages questionable things can remain longer, but I would imagine they will get edited out eventually. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you good folks please not engage in this? The OP made a complaint. About Wikipedia. We have no role here except maybe to redirect them to a more appropriate forum if they can't come up with a question, which they've so far failed to do. Entertain this person, and we may as well kiss goodbye to having any parameters within which to operate, and say welcome to institutionalised anarchy. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The OP made an account specifically to make this complaint (while, of course, providing no examples at all). It seems sufficient to tell that we do the best we can, and that if he doesn't like how wikipedia operates he could either work to improve it, or go somewhere else. The fact that wikipedia so often turns up at or near the top of google searches indicates how much use it gets - which merely demonstrates that we have an obligation to try to keep articles as well-referenced and as neutral as we can. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

All true. But consider this: If he'd asked for opinions or started a debate, we'd have told him we don't do that and sent him packing. But a complaint actually produced opinions and a debate from us. Seems the Squeaky Wheel Syndrome is alive and well. There's no evidence he wanted any kind of discussion. Or even a single response. The evidence is that he came here to vent, pure and simple. That deserves the kind of response I gave first. No more. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the actual, and rhetorical question he asked, there are a couple of questions buried in there. Unless he wants to talk further, those questions will stay buried. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I gave him the opportunity of talking further by way of asking a question of us. He has so far not done so, which is why I believe he just wanted to vent. That should not have attracted a defence of WP, because that is exactly what a debate is. And debates are exactly what we "say" we aren't interested in. Hmmm. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to delete everything from 11:36 and below, within this threat. Everything above 11:36 constituted reasonable and useful information... even if the OP was essentially trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Is that a thread or a promise?  :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a thread, just a needle. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, that's a threat. These days, anyway. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nah, just a poke in the side. A ribbing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he's looking for: Wikipedia:Criticisms, Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great or a more appropriate forum. Ssscienccce (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The first one is for published criticisms in reputable journals. This isn't that. We have various ways of and places for handling specific issues with WP. But we seem to have no dedicated place for the handling of non-constructive general rants about how the site operates. (WP:Teahouse, WP:Help desk, WP:Village pump and WP:Questions are all roughly sort of in the zone, but not really.) Which is probably a good thing, because it would be generally assumed that those who don’t like it and don’t want to be involved would simply choose, well, not to be involved. Coming here and spraying one’s spleen all over the place does nobody any good. It’s no use defending WP in the face of such jejune rants – you’ll either have a debate on your hands, which will almost surely end badly; or you’ll find yourself talking to a wall, which seems to be happening in this case. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Apple shares

I am probably going to regret asking this question, but here goes. Back in the mid-90s, Apple was not doing so well – indeed, it may even have been on the verge of bankruptcy. But I was a big fan of their desktop computers (I had one of these). I sometimes toyed with the idea of buying shares in the company, but I never did. So if I had bought, say, 1000 shares in Apple on the London Stock Exchange in 1994, how much would I have paid for them, and how much would they be worth today? --Viennese Waltz 14:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Adjusting for stock splits, Apple traded between US$6 and US$10 in 1994. It's now at US$700. So you would have paid between US$6000 and US$10000, and thus made about US$690000 (plus change, including some minor dividends). Inflation eats about 1/3rd of that gain, but it's still a reasonable amount of money... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, great. Thanks very much for that! --Viennese Waltz 15:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You asked for it.  :) Dismas|^(talk) 16:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If he had 1000 shares in Apple in 1994, wouldn't he now have 4000 shares? Wouldn't that mean he now has 4000 * US$700 = US$2.8 million? Or am I misunderstanding something about how stock split works? A8875 (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

At least as far as I can tell, the data is corrected for stock splits. At least, the splits are noted here, but there is not discontinuity in the price. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

So which part am I wrong about? The 1000 * 4 = 4000 part? Or the 4000 * US$700 = US$2.8 million part? A8875 (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The OP would not have had 1000 shares, he would have had 250. The first answer accounts for the stock splits by using a split-adjusted price for the initial value. So, the OP would have started with 250 shares at the original price, and today would have 1000. RudolfRed (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, so it's just different interpretations that's all. By "1000 shares in Apple on the London Stock Exchange in 1994", I took it to mean he brought 1000 shares in 1994. You and Stephan interpreted it as he started with X number of shares in 1994 and currently has 1000 shares, and X turned out to be 250 after calculations. A8875 (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I did mean that I bought 1000 in 1994. I thought that would also mean that I had 1000 now. I meant that I bought 1000 in 1994 and sold my entire holding today. I don't know what a "stock split" is. --Viennese Waltz 06:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In general, there is a preferred range for stock prices - if it's too low, small changes in value cannot be represented and the image of the stock may be bad. See penny stock. On the other hand, if a single share is too expensive, small investors will not be able (or willing) to buy the stock, since even one share represents a significant investment. So if a given stock becomes to expensive, the company can opt for a stock split. In the case of a 2:1 split, each shareholder receives two (or more) shares for each old share, and the price is adjusted so that each of the new shares has half the value of an old share. The total market capitalization is the same, but it is split into smaller shares. Apple had 2:1 stock splits in 1987, 2000, and 2005. Most historical records, including Google Finance show "adjusted prices", i.e. they correct for the effect of stock splits to make comparison over time easier. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

So if OP brought 1000 shares in 1994, he would have 4000 shares today, correct? Sorry to beat the dead horse, but I need to check whether my understanding of stock split is correct or not. If it's not, then I better correct it before I actually lose my retirement fund over a misunderstanding. A8875 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding. Of course, if the safety of your retirement fund depends on my understanding of high finance, you'd better have a strong Plan B. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Value of Apple stock

In the spring of 1987 I knew a guy who had about $4000 of stock in Apple Computer. He sold at that time it to buy a car. If he had held on to it, how much would the stock be worth today? Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

According to Wolfram Alpha, the average price over that spring was $9.35 a share. Today it opened at $702.41. That means $4000 of 1987 stock is worth a bit over $300,000. That doesn't take into account any dividends they may have paid, which would just make it higher. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

How would the payment of dividends make the value of the stock any higher? If he were to sell it today, the gross amount that he had made from that stock would be larger but not his stake in the company. Dismas|^(talk) 16:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That's correct. I interpreted the question as wondering how much his friend missed out on by selling the stocks then. The idea was to point out that not only could his friend have sold the stock for $300k, but he may have been able to collect a decent amount in dividends along the way. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe Apple paid a dividend until 2012.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. My friend used the money then to buy a Mustang. I guess if he had waited, he could have upgraded his choice of wheels. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope it was a vintage Mustang. Cuz the 80's Mustangs looked like the sports-car equivalent of a corrugated tin shack. And I should know, because i couldn't afford one, so I had a used Ford EXP instead, which had all the charm of those Mustangs, but shrunk to about 2/3rds the size and with a hamster-wheel powered engine. --Jayron32 17:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The close price, after adjusting for both dividends and splits, was around $9 in late April of 1987 (I used another quote provider). I assume Wolfram similarly adjusts for both dividends and splits, so I would guess the first estimate is correct. Shadowjams (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)