Miscellaneous desk
< July 25	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 27 >

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.

July 26

timing belt replacement

I have a 1998 Honda Civic 5 speed with 40k miles (I don't drive it very much). I took it into the dealership for an oil change and the guy advised replacing the timing belt and water pump, a rather expensive procedure, despite the low miles, because of the car's age. I see at [1] there is a recommendation of changing the timing belt after 105k miles or 84 months, and I guess the car is somewhat older than that now. Still, it's been in mild weather the whole time, no freezing temperatures or anything like that. How seriously should I take the recommendation? All in all the guy wants to do about $800 of maintenance ("intermediate" service interval $300 involving valve adjustment and stuff like that; wheel alignment $150 or so, and this timing belt / water pump deal). I think I had a "major" ($400) service when the car was about 5 years old and it did seem to run better after that. Plus I guess I've had 10 normal oil changes (3750 mile interval) at around $50 per. The car has been pretty much problem free, I can spend the $800 without financial hardship if it's a sensible expenditure, and $2k on maintenance in 10 years isn't so bad, but it came as a surprise that I was advised to plop so much cash down unexpectedly. Any thoughts? Thanks. 97.157.187.238 (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't judge what the probability of belt failure is, but I can tell you that, if it happens, the consequences will be severe. When the cylinder valves open they project into space that, at other times in the cycle, is occupied by the piston. The timing belt ensures that they only open when the piston is not there. If the belt goes the valves and piston may try to occupy the same space at the same time. For a ten year old car, this is likely to put it beyond economical repair.

Also, I don't know if your mechanic even offered the option, but it is possible to change the belt without changing the pump, which will be cheaper. This removes the possibility of catastrophic engine damage, but you're then taking a risk on the water pump. The pump is powered by the timing belt; for the last ten years it has been happily running and bedding in with the current belt, but the new one will impose slightly different forces on it, which the old seals may not accommodate. The pump might leak. This isn't catastrophic in itself, but the necessary repair will cost about as much as changing the belt because the same things have to be dismantled. This is why the water pump is usually changed at the same time as the belt - you only want to pay the guy once to take those things apart. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the aftermath of a timing belt failure - essentially the engine tears itself to pieces in a spectacular fashion. I'd get the procedure done if you want to keep running the car. Exxolon (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to get the work done at the dealership. Many competant mechanics should be able to obtain the parts and do it for you. I don't know how it is in the US, but here in the UK the dealerships often charge a fixed £100+ per hour for the labour plus the price of the parts, while an independent mechanic will charge £30 per hour for labour plus the same price parts. Replacing the timing belt is generally a lot of labour (3 hours at least) and a few low/medium cost parts (£35 for the belt comes to mind). The other thing to not is that dealerships work on a fixed set of work - if the standard job is to replace both timing belt and water pump, then they will only do both parts even though it is just the belt which actually needs replacement; an independent generally only does the work you ask them to do. Astronaut (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to contradict Astronaut, but just some things to keep in mind. Rubber parts get brittle with age. Sometimes it's cheaper if your mechanic changes things that are known to wear out at about the same time, than you taking it in for two separate jobs. My old Olds is about twice as old as your Pontiac but I've recently had it in the shop 3 times in a row to exchange parts that, with a little bit more foresight, could have been done in one go. If one rubber part is worn out due to age it's a good idea to have them look at others in the same category. Getting a second opinion generally is a good idea. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly the case that rubber gets brittle with age - and regardless of the number of miles on the car - the timing belt does need to be replaced periodically. The consequences of the timing belt breaking varies dramatically from car to car. Many years ago, the timing belt on my Ford Ranger pickup broke. The truck wouldn't drive anymore - but I was able to replace the timing belt myself in an afternoon - it cost me $10 - and life was good. The lack of the proper timing of the engine valves (either when the belt snaps - or if it 'skips' enough) can cause the rising piston to hit either inlet or exhaust valves that are incorrectly opening instead of being tightly shut. In my truck engine - the cylinders were set up such that no matter how far 'off' the timing is - the valves never descend low enough to hit the piston (this is called a "non-interference" engine). So the timing goes haywire, the engine stalls out and that's all. But on engines that have valves that open far enough to potentially hit the piston then VERY BAD THINGS happen. Typically, the valve stems get bent - often the piston gets chipped, sometime the bearings on the piston are cracked...in short "game over". It is common to have to scrap almost the entire engine following a timing belt snappage. Hence - if you have a non-interference engine, you can be rather relaxed about changing your timing belt. The worst that can happen is that you don't get where you're going and need a tow to the nearest garage. But if you have an "interference engine" then you'd better change that belt at least as often as the manufacturer recommends - or sooner or later, you're going to be spending thousands of dollars on a new engine. Trust me - if the garage says "Change the timing belt" - you change the timing belt! SteveBaker (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to inspect the belt's condition without pulling everything apart? I think I had mine changed just a few years ago, but unfortunately I didn't keep records and I'm not really sure. --Trovatore (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - the belt itself is likely to be ridiculously cheap - almost 100% of the bill will be labor. Once you've gotten the car to the point where you can see the belt, you might as well change it even if it looks 100% perfect...and indeed that's what any reputable garage will do. Replacing the water pump is also often indicated because when you've pulled enough bits off to get to the timing belt, you've probably already pulled off the water pump. However, the cost of a replacement water pump is a lot more than a timing belt - and the consequences of a broken water pump are unlikely to be anything like as severe as a broken timing belt on an 'interference' engine (unless you ignore the temperature warning light/gauge of course!) - so if your budget is tight, you might want to forget about doing the water pump until it breaks...but again - if you have to change the water pump, then changing the timing belt at the same time is ridiculously easy - so you should certainly do that. If your engine is definitely of the 'non-interference' type - you could certainly be more lax about the whole thing and not bother to replace the timing belt until it fails - but if you have an 'interference' engine - then you're gambling the cost of a new engine if it breaks - so err on the side of caution! The reason cars have maintenance logs at the back of the owner's handbook is so you can find out when things like timing belts were replaced - but many garages (particularly the ones that aren't dealerships) are very lax about filling them out. However, you might want to look in your log book and see if the garage maybe left a note saying that they changed it. Also, if you had the water pump changed they probably changed the timing belt then. Timing belts need changing at least every 50,000 miles. SteveBaker (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve, just FYI: In the Volkswagen/Audi/Porsche universe, 80K or 90K miles is a more-likely timing belt replacement interval. And in my 1978 VW Scirocco (which was a "non-bender" engine), I got ticked off when the local dealer told me, at 20K miles, that my timing belt was going to break. So I let it go and sure enough, 100K miles later, the dealer was right! The timing belt broke. But I didn't have that dealer change it ;-). -- Atlant (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it doesn't show any obvious signs of being crap (glazing, cracking, etc) it's probably a better idea to just get a new one than take a chance of bricking your engine. If you're really worried about it you should go see another mechanic but for the love of God don't ask people over the Internet who can't even see your car Z S 06:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What kinda car is this?

Leading a tickertape parade for the returning Apollo 11 astronauts is a car I don't recognize. Any ideas? The whole series of photos is great. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Eagle is perched atop what looks like the Cadillac shield. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article about the car says it was a Chrysler Imperial Parade Phaeton. (I know next to nothing about cars, but I messed around on Google a bit to find it, so I'm not 100% sure that it's correct.) AlexiusHoratius 17:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be confused with the Volkswagen Phaeton, or any of the other cars named Phaeton. Popular name for car models, I guess. Nimur (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "phaeton" automobile was originally on open four-door vehicle: not a convertible, exactly, but an open car with side curtains and an emergency top. The one in the picture is a "dual cowl phaeton", with a second windshield to isolate the owners from the help. "Imperial" is right[2]. PhGustaf (talk) 17:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty amused that the picture that I asked about is (on Wikipedia) the defining instance of the car. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A good followup question would be, "Where is that car now?" Is it still in operation? Is it in a museum? Did it get retooled into the luxury version of the PT Cruiser? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind, the article says all 3 cars are still in use. Hard to imagine using 50-year-old cars, but they probably don't actually get a lot of use so the the odometer reading is probably not too far off the charts. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the gov't of NYC gives a bit more information than our article does; it looks like the car recently spent 6 months getting rebuilt and restored. (It says each bumper weighed 200 lbs.) AlexiusHoratius 04:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the cars roll only a few times a year, and only at 10MPH or so, they'll probably outlast all of us. It's not as if the market were glutted with new dual cowl phaetons. I'm pretty sure that Virgil Exner made one or two of them when he tried to resuscitate the Stutz and Deusenberg brands, but I can't drag up an example up online. PhGustaf (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism vs. Fascism

I've read the articles Nazism and Fascism, and (while I admit being confused at times by the vast number of '-ism' links) I can't see much of a difference between the ideologies. I've heard people use the terms interchangeably, and don't want to fall into the same trap. The closest thing I could find was at Nazism#Fascism, which starts with: "In both popular thought and academic scholarship, Nazism is generally considered a form of fascism – a term whose definition is itself contentious." If this is so, can I still distinguish between them? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism is the specific instance of fascism that dominated the political scene in Germany between about 1933 and 1945. "Fascism" also includes non-Nazi groups, such as the Italian fascists, the Spanish fascists, and so on. (Some historians even call the Soviet Union and Imperial Japan fascist, but in my opinion this is a mis-use of the terminology). In fact there is no shortage of more recent pejorative application of the term, ranging from well-thought-out intellectual comparisons, to mindless partisan sniping. Historians at large do not always agree on the boundaries of the applicability of these terms. Some sources claim that "fascism" is merely a pejorative label for any government which has some elements of repression; while other historians and political scientists suggest that it specifically refers to a particular set of policies and practices. The social sciences generally suffer from poor definition of terms; your "confusion" might actually reflect the fact that you have done a more-than-superficial job researching the meaning of these terms; and you have seen them used in contradictory contexts. Nimur (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Fascism, from which the term comes, differs in a number of ways from Nazism. One way I have heard it explained is that Italian Fascism focuses on the state as the prime mover in history, whereas Nazism focuses on the race (and Marxism, in its way, focuses on the class). In the Nazi instance, identifying the race with the state certainly blurred the lines (and similarly, one could argue that no Communist movement actually focused on the "class" in the true sense, but that's another debate altogether). But one could be an Fascist and not a Nazi, if that makes sense, even if one could not really be a Nazi without being a Fascist. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any book about Fascism will go into this question in some detail, although of course their opinions and conclusions will differ. Fascism specifically describes the political movement founded by Benito Mussolini in Italy after World War I, but of course also describes a wide variety of other movements that modelled themselves after this movement, including National Socialism (Nazism). In practice, most European fascist movements were, or later became, anti-Semitic to one degree or another, but this isn't an essential characteristic: before it took a decidedly anti-Semitic turn around 1938, Mussolini boasted that one of the members of the Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party) was the Chief Rabbi of Italy, and it's not inherently self-contradictory to discuss the possibility of Jewish or Zionist fascism. (In fact, fascist movements had a wide variety of attitudes towards Zionism.)

However the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) built by Hitler was inherently anti-Semitic, as seen in its initial 25-Point Program[me]. There is, except in anti-Zionist hyperbole, no meaning to a phrase such as "Jewish Nazism" (although the Nazis did toy with Zionism as a possible aid to removing Jews from Europe). Although he thought of Nazism as a unique renewal movement of the German people, Hitler rarely if ever failed to acknowledge a debt to Mussolini as an inspirer and creator of the fascist idea and fascist methods of organization. When fascists from different countries gathered together (such as at Mussolini's international fascist exposition in Rome), Nazis were prominent participants.

There are more subtle parallels, differences and distinctions that could be made — such as attitudes towards religion (especially Roman Catholicism), Lebensraum and mass-extermination — but I'll leave that to the experts. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the clarification points. I have just read the Simple English Wikipedia's articles on the subject, and I found them to be excellent clarification as well. I feel I know enough that I can accurately distinguish them in context, or at least tell when one term or the other is used incorrectly.--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to this a little, an important distinction is that Nazism had a lot of aspects fascism (and I mean fascism in general, rather than any specific form) doesn't: a cult of personality, racism, eugenics, militarism, etc. Nazism contains elements of fascism, certainly, but it's a lot more wide-ranging ideology than fascism alone. At its core, Nazism was based on an specific image of national pride and identity, as well as a specific political and cultural set of circumstances: it was an identity for Germans and Aryans. Fascism, by contrast, isn't limited to a single country any more than democracy is, because it's an overarching ideology. It's a little like saying that Coca-Cola is a soft drink, but not all soft drinks are Coca-Cola, really. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Nazism had characteristics that aren't so common in fascism as a general phenomenon, but I disagree with Capt. Disdain as to the nature of those differences. Most fascist movements heavily emphasised their leader (or leaders), and most were militaristic. The English, for example, aren't much given to cults of personality but the British Union of Fascists (later British Union of Fascists & National Socialists) was built around Sir Oswald Mosley, and would have had little without him. While fascism as an abstract ideology or concept isn't peculiar to one particular country or race, individual fascist movements identify pretty closely with one people or family of peoples (British, Scandinavians, etc.)

For some theoretical discussions with varying conclusions (which I've long since forgotten), see the essay "Fascism: Left, Right and Center" in Seymour Martin Lipset's Political Man; Three Faces of Fascism (Action Française, Italian Fascism & National Socialism) by Ernst Nolte; and The Rise of Fascism by F.L. Carsten. Varieties of Fascism by Eugen Weber is a short, lively Van Nostrand Anvil Book with useful extracts from fascist authors in a dozen countries, together with brief descriptions of their parties' histories. I no longer accept Weber's overall analysis, but he distinguishes Italian fascism as "pragmatically activist, National Socialism theoretically motivated, or at least expressed." —— Shakescene (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really disagree. My point is just that -- to generalize a little -- you could be a fascist in 1940 even without idolizing Germans, supporting Hitler and hating Jews, but you couldn't be a Nazi. I certainly wasn't trying to define fascism, I was illustrating what distinguishes Nazism from fascism in general. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of calling Nazism a form of Fascism is supposed to have originated in the propaganda of the Soviet Union. Since Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were allied during World War II, this idea was easy to pick up by others too. There were similarities between the two ideologies, but also many differences (as has been pointed out above). Also, the Austro-Fascists were not all happy for the annexation to Germany (Anschluss) in 1938. E.G. (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployed educated people in an information society

Why do they exits? Shouldn't they be like a commodity, that is always traded if the price is low enough.--Quest09 (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people simply aren't willing to work for less than they think they are worth. Also, the employment market is highly illiquid, so the usual rules don't exactly apply. It takes a long time to get a job even if there are plenty available since the process is so long (applications, interviews, etc.). Also, people don't accept pay cuts when they are no longer worth what they were being paid before and often won't change jobs to get higher wages if they quite like the job they have. --Tango (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) There is latency in the system and there is a minimum level for wages; and these are enough to produce the phenomenon. There's also the concept of inelastic demand ... I probably only want one or two employer, not 4 or 8 or 16. No matter how the price falls, I'm not going to greatly up the numbers I employ - not least since there are appreciable costs associated with employment apart from wages - think office space, equipment, supervision &c. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a cost to employees for being employed. They have to pay for things like commuting, childcare, eating out, etc. If the wage that they are offered doesn't look as though it might cover that, they'll stay at home till a better offer comes along. They also won't take a lower rate for a certain period, because it's unlikely they'll be hired at a higher rate by the next company once they started working for the lower rate. There are certain idiosyncrasies in hiring. An applicant who has waited out a slump, let's say a trained engineer, will be considered more qualified than someone with the same qualifications who worked as an office assistant for a year. The cost of looking for and taking a job also increases exponentially (idiomatic not mathematical use) with the distance from one's residence. If the employee has to move there are costs like down payment for a house or a security deposit for an apartment. Loss of (free) services from their establish3ed social network. Costs associated with moving kids to a new school. etc. If you were employed in widget manufacturing and it looks as though the market for widgets is shrinking, moving to another place that still makes widgets might be uneconomical vs. retraining to become a whatchamacallit maker. So the widget manufacturer in Podunk will have an opening while you register as unemployed in South-Hazard. (All this is just the tip of a very large iceberg. Things are just not quite that simple.) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is also the question of specialisation. Someone who makes it through high school - but no further - generally has a pretty broad-based education - they know a little about everything. But once you've done 3 or 4 years through college, you come out with expertise in one very narrow field - but no better education than the high-school graduate in the wider aspects of knowledge. So if you have law degrees out the wazoo - but there are no lawyering jobs around - you can't just decide to become a chemist or an architect because your knowledge of those subjects is no better than a high-school graduate. That's not perfectly, 100% true - there is scope to use the ability to learn (that you have demonstrated by graduating in law) to perhaps parlay your way into a higher level position in a 'nearby' field. But generally speaking, that narrowness of field is what mostly results in unemployed yet highly educated people. SteveBaker (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a lot less than 100% true. A large proportion, perhaps even a majority, of graduate jobs just ask for "a degree", they don't care what in. (I've recently graduated and am job hunting, so I know a little of the graduate job market.) Specialisation probably isn't really a problem until you've got a few years work experience. If that work experience is in something specific then you are likely to have to go for entry-level jobs in any other field, which will entail a pay cut. (It may go the other way with enough work experience as you are likely to have managerial experience, which isn't so field-specific.) --Tango (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this also depends significantly on which country you're talking about. In the States, most students are taking General Education requirements for at least the first two years of a four-year undergraduate program, and very often they'll take at least some classes outside their major-plus-related-fields all four years. In Continental Europe, on the other hand, university students are much more specialized, so much so that often medical doctors and lawyers have only a first university degree. I have the notion that the UK is somewhere in between, but that's just an offhand impression. --Trovatore (talk) 02:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm one of these people, and it's more of a matter of personal ethics than economics. You couldn't pay me enough money to do something I didn't see the point of. If someone wants to make car commercials or build houses that's their business, but I won't waste my energy on such questionable ends. It helps that I have a good relationship with my parents so I don't have to starve on account of my principles, I should point out. Vranak (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Building houses is a questionable end? FFS, if I may say so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most houses are so poorly-ventilated that are something of a health hazard to anyone in them. When architects start thinking about air quality a little more, I'll retract my skepticism. The thing is, most of the new houses in my area, although they look pretty, are full of windows that don't open. This is not good, unless you are in the business of selling drugs to lung cancer patients. Vranak (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR you'll outgrow that once you're standing on your own legs. I used to not want to work for a long list of companies, like in the chemicals industry, nuclear power, big oil, logging, etc. etc. That fizzled into How much will they pay and when do I start? :-)71.236.26.74 (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. I'd rather starve to death than take part in mindless industry. Vranak (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find it exceedingly difficult to find an industry that isn't in some way "mindless". Houses without windows are that way for some sort of sound business reason - maybe they are cheaper - maybe there is some kind of local law - maybe that's what their customers are demanding - there must be a reason. That's not to say it's a good reason...but there's the problem. Every business is stuck with some kind of bad decision or something that's been going on so long that it's hard to change. SteveBaker (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the basic economics of supply and demand, too. If there is a glut of employers but a shortage of potential employees, it's more likely a person will be hired with little or no experience. When there is a glut of employees, as there was in law when i graduated, employers may pick and choose more readily, and will expect experience, hence someone without experience will not have much success. Hence, I opened my own practice, which never got to the point where I could take on anyone else as an associate. (Then I got burned out went back for another degree, and the economy stunk by the time I was done with that.)

Factoid about lawyers, the number went from 400 to 1600 in the Akron Bar Association from 1980 to 2000, if memory serves. You can see why there was a glut. :-)Somebody or his brother (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although it doesn't make total sense according to intuitive logic (half a loaf being better than none) for this to stop an educated person taking up a new field for less compensation, there are many professions where the cost of education or training has to be paid back or amortised (e.g. student loans for law or medical school). The previous job may have paid enough to cover this, or helped directly with the payments (e.g. forgiving government loans to those who take up teaching or military service) while a new job might not. Or some loans may be suspended during periods of unemployment, but require resumption of payments when any job (at any rate of pay) is taken.

But these are rather specific practical concerns. The broader general question is much more interesting. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessful dilettantes like me can always be made uncomfortable by President Calvin Coolidge's smug aphorisms about Persistence:

Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Calvin_Coolidge/ —— Shakescene (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Coolidge said that? All at once, or over the course of a week or so? --Trovatore (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem excessively wordy for Silent Cal. I've also seen that attributed to Teddy Roosevelt, which makes me wonder who really wrote it. I'm guessing it was an early telemarketer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we may have a shortage of people with a particular skill/qualification set (lawyers perhaps) - that drives up salaries and makes jobs plentiful. Kids entering college look at that and go "Wow! I've gotta become a lawyer and earn the big bucks!" - so they grind away at that for anything from four to eight years - but in that time, the economy has changed - and four to eight years worth of law-school outpourings have entered the market - so by the time they emerge with degree in hand - the jobs have dried up, the salaries have plummetted and they're in deep trouble. The economy changes in considerably less time than it takes to earn the qualification. Fortunately, in many instances, it swings back again...but there can be painful times in between.SteveBaker (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Sticky (economics) for more on the economists' eternal lament that "nominal wages are sticky." - Banyan Tree 13:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cattle herding

When did people start using horses to herd cattle in Europe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.9.164 (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using horses to herd cattle is rarely done in Europe. Farm land there is quite fragmented and I bet they invented fences before their herds got big enough to use a horse to herd them. There may be areas in Europe that did so, but off-hand none come to mind. Traditionally there were either peasants working for a feudal owner or free farmers. For the latter the land owned was often split between heirs, so farms were small and kept getting smaller. In some areas the firstborn son would inherit the farm and any farmland that was brought into a marriage by the bride could sometimes be swapped with other farmers to get plots closer together. Cattle farming in large herds was also not that widespread in Europe AFAIK. Land that was suitable to be ploughed and planted with crop was used that way. Goats, sheep and donkeys often took the roles of cattle in less favorable areas. A couple of heads of cattle can be herded by cowherds without using a horse, which would have been rather uneconomical because it costs a lot to feed and has only limited use as meat animal. Child labor often was cheaper. Horses were more commonly used in war, for transportation and Draft horses instead of oxen. Draft horses aren't mobile enough to herd cattle, ponies are too small and the Spanish more nimble breeds were usually used for hunting or pulling carriages for nobility or by mail couriers. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm utterly ignorant, but weren't dogs (e.g. the bulldog) sometimes used for this purpose as they're now used to herd sheep, or only to guard cattle against predators and thieves? —— Shakescene (talk) 06:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Bulldogs were ever used for herding. European herding dogs include various types of Herders and Heelers; Sheepdogs and Shepherds; Collies; and even Corgis and some terriers. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the bulldog article, I see that it's apparently the other way 'round: they were used for bull-baiting in England (which I should have thought of), but at least once to round up cattle in New York. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cattle in new york?? there arent any cattle in new york! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Questionabout"theman" adolf (talk • contribs) 12:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York is a state, not just the island of manhattan and it would seem very likely that at some point in history there has been cattle reared there (assuming that comment wasn't just a joke, in which case my humour-sensor needs replacing). ny156uk (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the comment as humo[u]rous, but the reference was to the city rather than the state, as reading the actual Wikipedia article on bulldogs will show (I knew none of this until reading it):

However, the bulldog's early role was not limited to sport. In mid-17th century New York, bulldogs were used as a part of a city-wide round-up effort led by governor Richard Nicolls. Because cornering and leading wild bulls was dangerous, bulldogs were trained to seize a bull by its nose long enough for a rope to be secured around its neck. [5]. The use of dogs for fighting with other dogs or other animals was banned in the United Kingdom by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1835, but Bulldogs as pets were continually promoted by dog dealer Bill George[6].

(In the same vein, a Northern California dairy called Berkeley Farms once ran a popular series of radio commercials that asked "Cows in Berkeley?", followed by a loud moo.) —— Shakescene (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See next question posted -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Until they settled in present-day Hungary in 896 CE, the Magyar tribes were nomadic herders of cattle (and some sheep) on horseback, as being traders and raiders as well, they virtually lived on horseback. I am sure they didn't substitute child labour the moment they decided to give up the nomadic lifestyle. The idea was not likely to spread to neighbouring nations that didn't have horses. - KoolerStill (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York City did not always encompass the entire island of Manhattan. In fact, Wall Street, at the very southern tip of the island, was the northern boundary of the city at one point. There were farms throughout the rest of Manhattan. There may have been, and probably were, cattle there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the northern boundary of the city was at the very southern tip of the island, does that mean the city was in the harbor? —Tamfang (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question "When did people start using horses to herd cattle in Europe?" one must remember that Europe is contiguous with Asia (hence Eurasia), and that practices invented in the latter probably spread to the former quite quickly, that is to say over no more than a few hundred years. From archeological and philological studies, it appears that the spread of the Proto-Indo-Europeans' language and culture, arguably from the area of the Eurasian steppes north of the Black, Caspian and Aral Seas, was enabled by that cultures' innovative combination of the wheel (in the form of carts and chariots), the pulling power of cattle (i.e. oxen) and the mobility afforded by riding horses, and (perhaps a little subsequently) also using them as draught animals.

According to our article on Domestication, cattle of the species Bos primigenius taurus are thought to have been domesticated around 8000 BCE in India, the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa; the earliest domestications of other related species, latterly hybridised with B primigenius taurus, in East Asia and elsewhere are either later or undetermined. Horses were domesticated on the Eurasian Steppes (by the Proto-Indo-European speakers themselves or their close neighbors) from at least 4000 BCE, initially as meat herd animals, but evidence of bone and tooth wear suggests use of individuals for draught and/or riding purposes at least as early as 3500 BCE. There is evidence suggesting that the first ridden horses were used to hunt and herd other wild horses, but it seems likely that their use to herd cattle would have been an obvious and early application: the Proto-Indo-Europeans had probably spread to Eastern Europe proper by 2500 BCE, so it's a fair assumption that herding cattle with horses was practiced in Europe at least that early.

The remarks by other Posters above about European land enclosure patterns are true in a recent or modern context, but longer ago fields were restricted to the close vicinity of settlements, so there was ample scope, where economically appropriate, for long-distance cattle droving. In Britain cattle were, for example, annually driven from Wales to London along routes that are still traceable on modern Ordinance Survey maps: one crosses the A33 a few miles north of Winchester at spot called Roman Post, where until a couple of years ago a one-time drovers' inn called Lunways ("London Ways") stood. On Continental Europe the practice of Transhumance is still widely practiced, whereby cattle (as well as other livestock) are driven from lowland winter to upland summer pastures. In some cases the distances involved are considerable, and doubtless horses are sometimes employed. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]