Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 October 29

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities 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.

October 29

Short story composed of vanity plates text

Years ago, maybe 20 maybe more, there was a one-page short story, written entirely with vanity plate text. The story might have appeared in a publication like NYTimes Magazine, or New Yorker. The gist of the story was a young man who has moved to California from New York. His mom writes him about all the dangers in California, like earthquakes, and implores him to come home. He writes back about how great the place is. They write back and forth 3 or 4 times. Its hilarious, brilliant, but I can't find it by googling. Can anybody help me find this creative short story? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A447:A6CD:1:5871:6585:DAF6:937F (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this helpful? --Jayron32 13:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, it might be helpful, but the link goes to the Chicago Trib, and I'm in Europe, and the content is blocked, because, you know, cyber security, new European laws, and modern life. Is there any way around that to whatever it was you sent? (Have to say, I'm 100% sure that the original source where I saw the story wasn't the Chicago Tribune.)

Jayron32 - thanks, your link sortof did get me on track. I'm looking for the short story 'Yminla?' written in 'Pl8Spk', by Daniel Nussbaum. There's a book with that title, which surely has the short story, and I think I'll be able to find the original story somewhere in a magazine archive. You helped. If anyone finds a working link to that short story - great if you can post it here. Thanks (as always) Wikipedia.

No problem. If you are having trouble accessing a source, The Wikipedia Resource Exchange at WP:REX is a service at Wikipedia that can look up sources for you and send you a copy you can work with. Maybe they can help? --Jayron32 17:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if you're still looking for the source Jayron32 posted but this archival link [1] should work if the original does not. Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

USA banks question.

More than 5 years ago, all these big banks like Chase and Bank of America, the savings/checkings you had to have more than $300 in order for the account to not charge a monthly fee. Then, at I guess seemingly the same time, they all got together and upped it to $1500/month. This was only the big banks, which caused a lot of people to close accounts and move to smaller banks. Any idea why this is? I suspect it was the federal government that wanted it? And put a divide between big and small banks? Thanks. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

All manner of bank fees have been increasing over time. I feel like in part this must be compensation for loss of revenue from other unethical sources, such as the infamous debit vs. credit card transaction fees, or processing order overdrafts. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Banks operate via the free market, and outside of regulations designed to curb abuse, will otherwise follow the rules of the market, which are simple: charge as much money as you can get away with to maximize your profits. The reason why banks suddenly increased the minimum deposits, and raised fees on customers is 1) it makes them more money to do so and 2) there is no #2. --Jayron32 17:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

well, there is a #2 : make sure you get rid of unprofitable customers, without losing too much profitable. Gem fr (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a corollary of Rule #1 --Jayron32 18:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't. rising fee could turn profitable customers away, just like in any business Gem fr (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

If the bank is losing more money by increasing fees then clearly 1 does not apply. Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind my original question was not about overdraft fees going up (I don't even know if they have), but a big decision for big banks to make the minimum bank accounts size from $300 to $1,500. By doing so, it causes people to close their accounts and move to smaller banks, which causes big banks to lose money. But the fact that all these big banks did it at the same time (so doing it together) makes me think is it a coincidence, or something or someone(s) wanted it that way? And also that both went from $300 to $1500, also a coincidence? And I'm guessing possibly other large banks followed that trend too. It probably doesn't help big banks to have so many low-income people have bank accounts with only $380 on it so, maybe it was an opportunity for the big banks to give the smaller banks a chance too, which helps stimulate economy? Also around 2015, Chase bank discontinued the coin deposits for free, and then Bank of America followed a few years later, so I suspect, if you wanted to exchange coins for cash, you would have to go to the smaller banks too. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

It is the minimum bank account size to charge fees. They'll let you keep a smaller account, you just need to pay them for it. Why? Because that makes them more money. --Jayron32 18:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Jayron, you seem to have entirely missed the point of the question. They have always had the goal of making as much money as possible, so why didn't they charge such fees before, on small depositors ? That is, what has changed to cause this change in the fee structure ? The first reply, if true, does get to this point. That is, if other sources of revenue have been cut off, then all banks would need to find new sources of revenue, and increasing fees on small depositors, which before would have driven those customers to their competition, may no longer do so, if their competition also needs to increase the same fees to stay profitable. A secondary Q may be why the same doesn't apply to smaller banks. This could be due to lower overhead (fewer retirees, less expensive/impressive buildings to maintain, etc.). It could also be due to them needing to attract customers who would otherwise go to a bank they've actually heard of. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Because smaller depositors cost them more money than they would make on the money those small depositors keep at a bank. Just having a customer costs a certain amount of money; if that customer doesn't deposit enough money for you to make back what it's costing you to provide that customer with services, then you're losing money. Banks, like any business, aren't in the business of losing money. See rule #1. It all comes back to maximizing profits at all times, by any means necessary. --Jayron32 19:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You're still ignoring the critical "what changed" part of the question. That is, why didn't they raise prices on unprofitable small depositors long ago ? SinisterLefty (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Regarding bank size; larger banks have a greater proportion of their deposits from large institutional depositors, so can afford to jettison individual poor people and actually make more money doing so. Small, neighborhood banks have most of their business from those individual poor people, so need to maintain them as customers. --Jayron32 19:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Point is, did all these big banks conspire to change their policies together? And do smaller banks benefit to have poor customers more? If so, how so. Anyways, I had thought the federal government leaned towards this: you know when 2 big airlines wanted to merge, the justice department was against (but not when a bigger airline buys a smaller airline) or when 2 big cell phone companies want to merge, the department of justice against it, but not so much when a bigger cell phone company buys a smaller cell phone company. So I wonder if these banking policies benefit the big and small banks as a whole. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC).

Depends on what you mean by "conspire". One tries a new policy, then the others watch to see if it makes them more money. If it does, the rest do it. That's not "conspiring", which implies the desire to cause harm for its own sake. The word you are looking for is capitalism. --Jayron32 20:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

There could be collusion, which is where they meet in secret and agree to a common price-fixing scheme. But that isn't typically necessary (or legal). SinisterLefty (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

One of the reason is cheap money. This has 2 effects. 1) banks make less out of small deposits 2) those small deposit are less useful, they can be easily replaced by borrowed money. All banks feel the heat of cheap money at the same time Gem fr (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The kind of free market, that is, where regulation strongly discourages new competition. —Tamfang (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Monthly fees are a minor income source for banks. They get much more from winning your trust and get you into their extended services or (financial) offers from other companies.Investment banking has become a giant part of the banking sector and for example Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and alike are the most successful banks in the world now.

They dont sell "peanuts" - they have no interest in you if you barley make 3000 $ per month. Deposite 50 000 $ on your account for a start and they may start welcoming you by name and offer you special deals. --Kharon (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

These sources suggest that an elimination of free cheque accounts and an increase in minimum balance requirements came about in part due to banks looking for ways to make up for lost revenue from the Dodd-Frank Act and other regulatory and legislative changes mostly coming out of the 2007-2008 financial crisis [2], [3] (per BI came from NerdWallet which I can't link due to the blacklist and weirdly BI has that quote from the CEO of JP Morgan Chase that seems absent in NerdWallet), [4], [5], [6]. While the Forbes op-ed, CEI/FEE and Reason posts are clearly of the 'Dodd-Frank like most regulation is evil' variety, the WaPo and NerdWallet seem more neutral. MotherJones also talks about the 2 without explicitly linking one as a consequence or even saying it's new [7] Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

BTW most of what these sources say is already partially dealt with by some of the answers above anyway even if Dodd-Frank wasn't mentioned. One point hinted at but which maybe needs to be made clearer, the idea that big banks are losing money by losing these poor customers seems unproven and really needs a source if the OP is going to continue to assert it. If these customers are directly profitable they don't seem particularly so and they may not be were it not for these changes. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It occurred to me that I could have misinterpreted that comment. Maybe "lose money" wasn't intended to mean losing profits from these customers but losing their deposits. That is obviously true, but the fact remains, it probably isn't particularly significant to the banks. I mean realistically, even if they lost 10 million customers with $1,500 each, that is only US$15 billion which is likely insignificant [8]. Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

More importantly, if it costs them more to service those customers than their deposits would earn the bank back in interest, they literally make more money by jettisoning them. --Jayron32 11:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

How does this argument not go both ways? How does it help the small banks to have small customers? I thought all of this was for the big banks to give the smaller banks a chance but now you guys are making it seem that it's to make the big banks richer. By the way, I would think your statement is more true the earlier you go back. I remember as a 5th grader in 1999, when I would get like 38 cents a m~onth in interest rate, the bank would mail me my statement. But for them to put a stamp on the envelope, was like 32/33 cents? So it would have caused them to loose money to mail the statements, something banks generally discontinued as you can just view them on-line. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC).

Yes, they used to be willing to take a small loss on kids accounts, presumably in the hopes of gaining a loyal customer for life. This requires a long-term orientation, though, and these days they seem to only focus on quarterly earnings. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Small banks who start to lose money become fodder for mergers and acquisitions. It is no coincidence that at the same time as all of the above has been happening there has also been massive consolidation of the banking industry into a relatively small number of massively large banks. Also, on your last point, it isn't the cost of the stamp that is the big issue. It's the cost of the people they need to employ to handle you. You, as a customer, require some fraction of an employee to handle your business. I don't know the actual numbers, but lets pretend that the bank has to pay one employee for every 1000 customers. If those 1000 customers do not produce enough revenue to pay that employee's salary, the bank would be better off to jettison those customers. Even more relevant for our discussion, if they bank could re-employee that employee to do something other than deal with those customers, and if they employee's new tasks made the bank more money, then the bank would still be better off jettisoning those customers even if they did not, strictly speaking, lose the bank money. So, if those 1000 poor people were making the bank money, but only a small amount, it may be worth it for the bank to let them go to the smaller banks, while they themselves concentrate on more profitable ventures. The customers needn't actually lose money in an absolute sense, they just need to be less profitable than something else the bank could be doing. --Jayron32 13:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Jayron are you talking about the bank employees who work an 8-hour shift, waiting for customers to come in and help them with service? Or some behind-the-scenes employees? Imo, aren't computers do all the work, calculating interest and such? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC).

All of the above and more. For any one customer, there's likely a fraction of a workday that any of a half-dozen or more different people (customer service reps, IT personnel, accountants, data entry, managers, supervisors, etc.) that at some point over the life of that customer need to do something. These are tiny fractions of time and money, but when you are dealing with thousands upon thousands customers, those fractions add up to real time and real money that needs to be budgeted and accounted for and which could be spent on other tasks if those other tasks made more money. It isn't JUST the teller or the customer service representative (which is the part you interact with) that costs money, it is also every other employee that ever does anything that could impact that customer-business interaction, from the guy who maintains the computer systems, to the lady who cleans the toilets in the bank branch to the supervisor who has to manage all of those employees. All of them represent expenses the bank has to pay out, and if it can use those employees to support more profitable ventures, it will. --Jayron32 13:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Jayron, but when I said hourly employees, they are paid the same regardless of they have 1 customer an hour or 10 customers an hour. People like me however, rarely go to the bank. Only thing my bank accounts do are collect interest once a month, there are cases where I won't have to walk into a bank for months. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC).

Yes, but who is maintaining the server farms that do the calculations that calculate your interest? A real live person needs to. Who is checking the books and auditing the accounts to make sure that everything works well? A real live person needs to. Who is setting the policies and deciding how to manage the money you are depositing? A real live person needs to. Who is designing marketing systems to (perhaps vainly) try to get you to come into the bank branch to utilize more service? A real live person. Who is managing all of these other real-live people? More real-live people. That structure of employees has a fixed cost to the bank, but if their time is spent working on systems at that bank that make less money, the entire system is less efficient. If their work effort was spent supporting institutional customers with billions of dollars in deposits, rather than all the little poor people with a few pennies in their accounts, they could make more money. --Jayron32 16:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Beyond what others have said about smaller banks, consider also that some of the alternatives are not banks. I don't know that much about banking in the US but when I was reading the sources I linked, a bunch of them mentioned smaller banks or credit unions. Credit unions generally operate under different regulations and maybe more importantly are often not for profit. From what I can tell from Credit unions in the United States, this is the case in the US too. Therefore comparing what's big banks do versus what credit unions is problematic without further analysis. Nil Einne (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed some unhelpful and incoherent posts about political party and race/ethnicity written by 67.175.224.138. And to address OP, it's simply not profitable for a bank to hold a deposit account with a few hundred bucks in it, unless the depositor has a larger relationship with the bank including loans and credit cards etc. Such accounts in banker jargon are sometimes referred to as "charity accounts." Further banker jargon includes terms like "reputational risk." Treating poorer customers badly as described super hoc would be a larger reputational risk for a smaller bank. And it's possible that they colluded to change their practices at the same time, but unlikely: they monitor each other's practices and sometimes follow suit. Temerarius (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The same people who answer my science/computers questions are the same people replying here, so it doesn't seem anyone from the finance industry posted here yet. For what it's worth, I've been gotten pure philosophy answers. If you ask a physics professor, "what makes a rechargeable battery, a rechargeable battery, and what makes a non-rechargeable battery, a non-rechargeable battery?" and answering "the difference is 1 is reversible reaction the other isn't" is a pure philosophy answer, something a philosophy professor can answer. Banks in the U.S. have been around since at least the 1800s, right, so why the recent change in policy? So far no 1 from the States have correlated with the Dodd-Frank Act or some other policy change not mentioned. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC).

The information here costs nothing, and is at least worth the price. If you're unhappy with the answers you're getting, you could try Quora or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

67.175.224.138, at least one person from the finance industry has in fact addressed your question. Temerarius (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Temerarius, I think my question was to combine the Dodd-Frank Act or such with my question. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC).

@Temerarius: Do never remove or edit other peoples posts please, unless they contain forbidden statements or personal attacks. (read Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Don't_edit_others'_questions_or_answers) --Kharon (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That should also be directed to include Blueboar https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities&diff=923803448&oldid=923803156 67.175.224.138 (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC).

Irrelevant to say, I also feel those posts were deleted because they mentioned race or and ethnic groups. Every mention of race/ethnicity, it either gets deleted, or someone flames you for it. Not just here, but anywhere else in Internet forums where White people post. Not disagreeing that those posts happened to be off-topic, but the fact that race/ethnicity was mentioned furthers the will for them to be deleted. In fact, I would argue for some circles, that it was off-topic is the '2nd' reason why it was deleted - rather than the 1st - and that the 1st reason was because of the mentions. Can't prove it, but just goes to show how people can really feel deep down. Sigh. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC).

"Can't prove it" is what can get race-related things deleted here or elsewhere. If you stick to demonstrable facts rather than making racially stereotyped comments, you're usually going to be on safe ground. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Has a ship ever made tactical blunder(s) cause they didn't know steamships were invented?

And the burning ship(s) they encountered turned out to be not on fire and hostile? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The development of the steamship was not a military secret; it was one of the most well-publicized technological advances of the 18th and 19th centuries, people like Robert Fulton and James Watt were wildly famous in their days specifically for these inventions. Fulton himself designed the first steam powered warship, the Demologos. Still, steamships were a new technology and slow to be adopted by the military, as they were less reliable than good-old sail ships were. See this article for an early history of steam powered military vessels. I can find no evidence, through a good faith search, that anyone ever mistook a steam-powered vessel for one that was on fire, however. --Jayron32 18:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

See Black_Ships#Gunboat_diplomacy. The Japanese didn't quite know what to make of steamships, but those were definitely hostile. The "shock and awe" they produced eliminated the need for them to actually attack. So, the Japanese may have made a tactical error in that the small number of steam ships (4) wouldn't have represented as much of a threat as they imagined. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

That would be a strategic error, not tactical one. But it wasn't. Gem fr (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Rather ironical that the Great White Fleet served a similar purpose 65 years late. --Jayron32 20:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Edo period-Japan was one of the most isolationist nations on earth at the time; its policies resembled that of modern North Korea, except moreso. That they were entirely unaware of technological advances the rest of the world was comfortable with by then is unsurprising. See Sakoku for more background. Some Western knowledge did enter Japan through limited trade with the Dutch, but the first Japanese steam engines only existed a few months before the Perry expedition. See Rangaku#Steam engines. --Jayron32 20:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You're right, Tokyo Bay must've had their best land cannons and isn't a good place to get advantage from sailing upwind unless you're ironclad. Of course they must've known America might get revenge in more favorable conditions if they won the first battle though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, plus there's the notion that an unprovoked attack on non-hostile visiting dignitaries tends to attract much larger fleets of war vessels. If a group of people come to your front stoop, and your first reaction is to shoot them, they're coming back with some bigger friends. The projection of power through gunboat diplomacy is not always that the gunboats intend to attack you now, it's that "we've got more where this comes from if you don't get in line"; but it is also still bad form to sink the ships of a visitor who hasn't actually done anything wrong against you yet. --Jayron32 13:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hence the get revenge. And technically if they were adamant on no negotiating outside Nagasaki they could've just waited till ship supplies ran low. If they started their threatened burning of proto-Tokyo (with hot cannonballs I guess?) then sinking has better optics. Refusing to talk till they're in Nagasaki was probably still less wise than what the Japanese actually did though. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There's a billion different things they could have done. There's only one that they did though. That's how the past works. --Jayron32 16:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)