Good afternoon! In the article https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00172091 says "This hypothesis has a longish history, dating back at least to Leibenstein (1957)." and "Leibenstein H (1957) Economic backwardness and economic growth. Wiley, New York". How do you check the existence of these theses in that source, if it is not on the Internet? Thank you in advance. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This book? (You can search it without borrowing it.) I don't know what I'd do, if it wasn't on the internet. In principle there are libraries of physical books and librarians who could be convinced to check things for you, if you wanted to go to the trouble of contacting them. That's probably the way. Or another option would be to buy an old copy and resell it later, but this requires a certain dedication to checking facts. I see the page you provided also has a link to Google Scholar.

One quote from the book:

We distinguish among three types of utility to be derived from an additional birth and two types of cost. The types of utility are: (1) the utility to be derived from the child as a "consumption good," namely, as a source of personal pleasure to the parents; (2) the utility to be derived from the child as a productive agent, that is, at some point the child may be expected to enter the labor force and contribute to family income; and (3) the utility derived from the prospective child as a potential source of security, either in old age or otherwise.

There's more like this on subsequent pages. I recommend a search for "old age" (in quotes).  Card Zero  (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but there are only 14 pages. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on where you live you may also have the option to lend it through your library even if they do not themselves have a copy. In some countries public libraries cooperate through a system where one library can request a book from another library for a limited time. You have to pay a fee and it may take a few days (or even weeks depending on availability), but it may still be cheaper than to buy the book. Some libraries also offer to send you a scan or copy of short sections of books for a fee; as with the first option you usually have to be a member/user of a different library in the same system.

Also, Wikipedia has a system where volunteers with access to good libraries help other users to get sources they need for their work on Wikipedia articles: WP:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request-- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. If you look at the link on the page below, where the nationality of people born in the UK is described, you can read before the 'breakdown' of the three constituent Nations, that most people of white ethnicity born in Britain prefer to put their national identity first despite being British citizens. However, I want to focus on England alone; if most white people call themselves 'English', why under the heading of England alone is everything 'turned on its head', so that most people tend to call themselves British instead of English? Perhaps the white population is not taken into account or is it in the minority in that particular context? Thank you very much. http://projectbritain.com/nationality.htm 93.41.98.58 (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First let's be clear, this is the work of one Mandy Barrow of Woodlands Junior School. Barrow may be an expert, or may just be someone trying to help 6 year-olds out; whatever the case, the site has no relationship with Wikipedia. Mathematically her claims are just possible. Of the 60 million living on the island, "most" could be as little as 31 million. If all the Scots and Welsh prefer Scottish and Welsh, then than would mean 25 million English prefer "English" and 31 million "British". As I said, mathematically possible but absolutely no authoritative sources are quoted and the "facts" are dubious in the extreme. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National identity, England and Wales: Census 2021 from the Office for National Statistics says:

In England:

*15.3% of people selected an "English" only identity (a decrease from 60.4% in 2011)

*56.8% of people selected a "British" only identity (an increase from 19.2% in 2011)

*72.1% of people (40.7 million) selected either an "English" only or "British" only identity (a decrease from 79.6%, or 42.2 million, in 2011)

*14.3% of people selected both "English" and "British" identity (an increase from 9.1% in 2011)

It suggests that the decrease in those identifying as "English" only, might have been because "British" had been moved to the top of the list on the census form issued in England. Make of that what you will.

However, the assertion that "most people of white ethnicity born in Britain prefer to put their national identity first" is obviously just plain wrong.Alansplodge (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Sex Please, We're British. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

I want to ship a 15 pound box (containing mostly clothes) from California to New York. It is not fragile and delivery is not urgent. The contents won't fit in a USPS flat rate package ($22.80) and the online price calculators for random boxes that weight at USPS, UPS Ground, Fedex etc. are all $60+. That seems pretty crazy since I can get a plane ticket for around $120 with a bit of advance planning. Any suggestions of a cheaper way to ship? Greyhound apparently stopped doing package delivery a year or so ago. USPS Media Mail would be around $13. This box doesn't qualify as media, but that rate shows how gouged the other prices are. Thanks for any ideas. 2601:644:8500:C9F0:0:0:0:38B4 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exact destination and package size will determine your cost. I just did a quote check at ups.com for a medium size package to Buffalo NY from Beverly Hills CA and it is showing $18.15 for ground shipping. This is for the flat rate shipping that is up to 50 pounds. Going to a larger box is $24.55. It likely varies depending on the source and destination address, so you may just want to talk to someone there on the phone directly to get some assistance. RudolfRed (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the large flat rate box is about 0.5 cubic foot which is too small for these bulky clothes. Alternatives seem to cost a fortune. I have indeed been using shipping calculators that take the src and dst addresses, weight, and dimensions. I haven't talked to anyone on the phone yet but I guess I can try. I was hoping for "try XYZ discount shipping at [url]" or something like that. I know big online stores can't pay nearly as much for shipping as USPS/UPS/etc claim to charge. 2601:644:8500:C9F0:0:0:0:38B4 (talk) 23:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added: this looks promising, 1 cubic foot for $26.05. This didn't show up through normal navigation on the UPS site or their rate calculator. I found a mention of it through a wider web search. I think I can pack the stuff I want to send into 1 cubic foot. 2601:644:8500:C9F0:0:0:0:38B4 (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See if splitting it into multiple smaller packages is cheaper. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison with a plane ticket is somewhat flawed: with a bit of advance planning, your ticket will be cheaper than average. At $120, it's barely enough to cover the fuel cost (around 100 litres/passenger). You are self-loading cargo, your package isn't. Last mile delivery is also quite labour intensive. The driver of the van with medium packages spends several minutes handling your package only. A smaller package (as suggested above) may put it in a different van, handling far more packages per hour. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]