Miscellaneous desk
< September 14	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 16 >

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 15

Anamation studio jobs

I have a question. I am creating a list of jobs for an animation studio.. What jobs are there?
Story Board -
Character Design -
Object Design -
Environment Design -
Audio Effects -
Audio Voice Overs -
Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 01:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(homework?) Try looking in the Occupational Outlook Handbook from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Find the entry for "Animators" and it will give you a job description, salary, and such, but most importantly, it should have a list of related jobs. As with most government publications, it's a huge book (literally about 1500 pages of microscopic print) but one hell of a resource. Xenon54 / talk / 01:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not homework, I swear. Just a question a friend has.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 01:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I work for a video game company - our animation department consists of:

Environment Artists - who model 3D objects other than the actual animated characters.
Character Artists - who model the geometric meshes for the characters.
Texture Artists - who specialise in painting the surface materials of the objects.
Technical Artists - who seek new techniques for the other artists to use in daily production.
Shader authors - who write software that describes the subtle processes involved in how objects and characters look.
Riggers - who place imaginary bones inside the characters and connect them together with handy controls ("rigging") such that the animators can use a single control to (for example) make the character bend over without having to move each bone by hand.
Animators - who use the rigs to create the actual motion.
MoCap engineers - who run the motion-capture machinery.
MoCap actors - who wear the suits with the shiney dots on them to act out motion to use as a starting point for naturalistic animation.
Lighting engineers - who place the lighting into the 3D scene.
Designers - who arrange the objects produced by the artists to make full scenes.
Software developers and maintainers - who program the computers for making pretty pictures.

And - story boarders, concept artists, an army of quality assurance people - people who keep the IT infrastructure running smoothly, build engineers, asset managers who keep track of where all of the individual models are stored and make sure that they are all QA'ed, etc. Subject matter experts. Purchasing department. People who'se job is to work with cheap overseas outsourcing (mostly for 'background' characters and environment art). There may be AI engineers - specialists in things like fight or dance choreography. Then you have directors, producers and other management layers. We have a 'scrum master' who keeps track of hours worked and progress made and who collects data to estimate the cost of future work. Human Resources, Catering, Janitors. There may also be musicians, foley artists, sound editors. Lawyers...lots of lawyers!

However, in most small companies (such as the one I work for) - there is considerable overlap between these roles. When I started at my job a year ago, all of these jobs were shared between just 15 people! We're up to maybe 60 people now...but there is still a lot of overlap.

There is a considerable range of skills, responsibilities and pay scales between these people. A programmer can easily earn twice what an artist will bring in - who in turn could be earning twice what a QA person would get.

SteveBaker (talk) 02:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the credits at the end of any recent animated feature film. By the time all the jobs and names have rolled up the acreen you will probably be sitting in an empty cinema but you may also have noted some regular names in the industry. I used to do this in the Golden Age of American animation and remember the name Mel Blanc appearing after almost every cartoon. (Add voice actor(s) to the list.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt many companies keep a voice actor on-staff. For starters, there generally isn't enough work to keep them busy for more than a few weeks a year. We use short-term contracts for voice actors. At Midway, the programmers and artists often acted all of the minor parts. I'll never forget the time - soon after I got my first game programming job when my desk was situated just outside one of our conference rooms. One day, I'm sitting there, minding my own business - when this enormous ruckus starts up inside the conference room...there is an incredible amount of really vicous swearing and cursing and calling someone the worst things imaginable. I couldn't concentrate - so I wandered off to the lounge area to play some pinball. About an hour later, I see one of our managers and someone who I didn't recognise going into the conference room - and again - a HUGE bust-up. Tremendous arguments. I'm beginning to dread having meetings with this manager - he clearly has a way of upsetting people beyond reason! Of course it turned out that they were interviewing voice actors...but it had me convinced! In general, the audio folks are a very small team compared to programmers and artists. Probably just one or two percent of the creative staff. SteveBaker (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

any U.S citizens in the British line of succession

are any of the people in line to be the next British king or queen U.S. citizens? how far along?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Payneham (talk • contribs) 02:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Line of succession to the British throne. David Cook is American, though he is not the first American in line. No, of course he would not become king of the US. Algebraist 02:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US doesn't have a king or queen. See President of the United States. Dismas|^(talk) 02:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have a King or Queen, but it did once have an Emperor... --Jayron32 03:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With every bit as much authority and reason as Norton had, Garfield Goose claimed to be "king of the United States". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the line of succession does not have nationalities or citizenship. that is my question. who is american on the list? Payneham (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our list runs some 1617 people long (not counting people who are listed on that page, but are inelligible to inherit). There are undoubtedly some Americans there, but many may be private citizens, and may not have much to write a Wikipedia article about them. Perhaps someone so dedicated could assign nationalities to all 1617 people, but it does not appear to have been done yet. --Jayron32 04:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And our list isn't close to being complete. Algebraist 04:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a much longer list here which goes up to 4973. Hut 8.5 13:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That list contains a number of people who are ineligible due to Catholicism, and is out of date. It does claim to have been complete when compiled, though. Algebraist 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've found an American on the list: Catherine Oxenberg. Hut 8.5 18:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe anyone in the line of succession is entitled to British citizenship, so I expect if someone that wasn't British became monarch they would choose to become a British citizen. I don't know if that would involve renouncing any other citizenships (it may depend on what the other citizenship is - I don't believe an adult can have duel US/British citizenship [my cousin did until she turned 18 and had to renounce her British citizenship]). It may even be a requirement to assume the throne - I would have to look that up. --Tango (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that's not true. United States nationality law#Dual citizenship says dual citizenship is accepted in the US which has always been my understanding. Naturalising citizens (which doesn't apply to your cousin) are required to technically annouce all former citizenships but most countries which allow dual citizenship ignore this (those who don't also don't care, they'll cancel your citizenship whatever the case). The UK since 1949 doesn't care at all British nationality law#Dual nationality and dual citizenship although British subjects and protected persons are treated differently. If your cousin was entitled to British citizenship but not registered and never lived in the UK for any real period of time then it's possible they lost their rights when they turned 18 although I'm not sure about that (it probably varies depending on several factors including time period). Mind you, if you don't live in the US I can understand people wanting to renounce U.S. citizenship particularly if they live in a country without a double taxation agreement or want to have the freedom to live in such countries. AFAIK, the US is one of the few countries that does tax their citizens who aren't living in the US as mentioned in Taxation in the United States#Federal income tax. Nil Einne (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW in terms of the citizenship thing, while it would probably be a hiderance in this modern world (although anyone from outside the UK and heck, anyone that far down the line of succession is going to have major issues) I don't believe there's any real requirement. I was thinking of this earlier but didn't post. Unlike with e.g. the Catholic thing, I doubt it's really an issue. Traditionally it wasn't that uncommon for the monarch to originate from elsewhere. And more importantly perhaps British citizenship means being subject to and swearing allegiance to the monarch. Technically I think it's questionable whether the reigning monarch can even be called a British citizen. And it's questionable if the monarch can actually commit treason against themselves (a queen consort can) so it's not as if you have to worry about the monarch commiting treason because of their split loyalties. Perhaps an argument would be made that such a monarch would not fulfill their duties to their people but that's about it. As I said, I'm not saying it wouldn't be a big problem nowadays, just that I think it's easy to understand why there's probably no technical requirement. Nil Einne (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "citizenship" is well beneath the monarch. Its the sort of stuff that commoners need to worry about. In a monarchy, the concept of citizenship is closely tied to the concept of "subjectship", and the idea that the monarch is a subject of himself is patently rediculous. The monarch just is and doesn't worry himself with the day-to-day silliness of what his citizenship status is. Heck, they don't even worry about last names or stuff like that. These sort of paper-pushing bureaucratic issues are simply not taken into account in succession law. There have been many British monarchs who were not residents or subjects or citizens of Britain, it has never been a requirement to become King or Queen, which is, after all, an inheritance issue, and such issues are not based on nationality at all. Could not a Briton name an American as a benefactor of his will? Cannot an American descendent inherit a title of Peerage? An American inheriting the throne should be no different. --Jayron32 21:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what with the historical encouragement of intermarriages between royal houses, there are quite a number of quite notable non-Britons in the line of succession. The King of Norway is number 63, Princess Margarita of Romania is 86, the Hereditary Prince of Yugoslavia is 95, there's a Grand Duchess of Russia at 112, the King of Sweden at 193, the Queen of Denmark at 222, the Crown Prince of Greece at 237.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it would appear that nothing short of a thermonuclear world war 3 would result in getting all the way down to an American then? Googlemeister (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps now, but the succession is highly fluid. Given that the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th on the list are male and single, all it'd take is a single intercontinental Hayden Panettiere to reorder the top of the table radically. -- 87.113.10.108 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or a deadly pandemic affecting only those with questionably structured chins. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article I, section 9 (last clause), of the Constitution of the United States forbids anyone holding an office of trust or profit under the United States from accepting without the consent of Congress, "any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state." So any letter carrier, Social Security clerk or census-taker, let alone a high-ranking civil or military officer, might conceivably have a problem, although I haven't read the enacting legislation (if there is any). —— Shakescene (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if a U.S. mailman got a letter notifying him that he had just inherited the throne of England, he would probably figure he could give up the postal job. Unless he really liked delivering mail and said, "No, thank you," to that cushy position. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously. Probably even if he or she were Undersecretary of Commerce or a major-general in the Armed Forces of the U.S. But the phrasing in Article I, section 9, doesn't make it clear what happens if the title is conferred on someone who's holding an office of trust or profit under the U.S. Technically, I think, one would accede to the British throne upon the death or abdication of the reigning monarch, which could occur in the middle of your working day, although it would be easy enough to leave the civilian service of the U.S. (or perhaps get the necessary special bill through Congress) before the coronation (a little harder with a military post). And in theory, the enacting legislation could punish violations far more severely than just discharging you from U.S. government service. But I guess the operative Constitutional words are "accept of"; you could accede, I suppose, to the Throne before or without accepting it. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defo had a royalty ruling over america you wern't always independant :PChromagnum (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't even a US General, if he were made king of England just leave his army post without legal consequences simply because he would have gained diplomatic immunity? Googlemeister (talk)

A person who accedes to the throne cannot not accept it. They may not like being the monarch, but they are the monarch nevertheless, because the law has made them the monarch. If they don't want it, they have to ask the UK Prime Minister to submit a bill to the parliament to change the law so that they are deemed to have abdicated. They will still appear in all future lists of UK monarchs showing them as the monarch for whatever short period of time they reigned. If they got to be next in line, and made it clear they were not interested, the law would probably be changed to exclude them before they ever got to the point of acceding. -- JackofOz (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the first sentence is incorrect. But they aren't supposed to just refuse to show up, they're supposed to go through a formal process of abdication. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can certainly refuse to show up. They can't be physically forced to leave Dry Gulch if they don't want to. The only formal process of abdication is the submission of the abdication bill to the parliament, the parliament passing the bill, and the monarch signing it into law (Royal Assent). That signature on the bill is their effective instrument of abdication, not whatever other document they may choose to sign, because a UK monarch cannot unilaterally abdicate. The only way they can leave the post is to give Royal Assent to the bill of abdication. That signature can be done anywhere; it doesn't have to happen in some royal palace in Britain. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pancreatic cancer.

what is the pancreatic cancer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.98.156.25 (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article Pancreatic cancer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: After I posted the above, I learned of the passing of Patrick Swayze from that form of cancer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herbal Remedies

Are there any proven herbal remedies to help someone quit smoking?LVledic (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Proven" is a very tricky term in these contexts, as the placebo effect is quite powerful, and proof of causation is difficult to establish. However, our article on smoking cessation notes some herbal treatments (without statement to efficacy) and herbal tobacco replacements (likewise). — Lomn 13:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, herbal remedies do not have to be tested by the Food and Drug Administration. Therefore, you may have a hard time finding any credible data from the US. See also Herbalism. Dismas|^(talk) 13:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bicycle use

Are there any countries that require a license to operate a bicycle, or that disallow one from using a bicycle on a road under certain conditions (presumably they are not allowable on US Interstate highways)? Googlemeister (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "bicycle license" finds that licensing the bicycle (as opposed to licensing the rider) is quite common -- this easily fulfills your second criterion. Please consider such basic research in the future; you'll frequently get an answer far more swiftly than by posting here. — Lomn 16:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Googlemeister has been around the reference desks long enough to know the benefits and drawbacks of asking a question here ;) TastyCakes (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there are a whole lot of roads in Amsterdam where you wouldn't be allowed to use a bicycle, what with the vast network of bike lanes right next to the roadways. Franamax (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And per Sec. 185 (2) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, it's certainly possible for a municipality to restrict bike riders on "highways" within their jurisdiction, though I'm not aware of a particular example. Onatrio also has a pretty impressive list of things you can't do on a bike [1], including riding the wrong-way on a one-way street. Does that meet your criterion? Franamax (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think there's a blanket ban on bicycles on the interstate. In California, at most freeway entrances (interstate or otherwise) there's a sign that says "Pedestrians, equestrians, and bicycles prohibited" (I could have the order wrong). But if you're headed north on I-5 coming off the Grapevine, as you reach the valley floor and the speed limit goes from 65 to 70, you'll see a sign that says "all bicycles must exit".

Now, admittedly, by strict logic, this does not imply that bicycles are permitted south of that sign, but by legal logic, I think it does (though I'm not a lawyer). See exception that proves the rule? --Trovatore (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK, bicycles (and some other things - horses, mopeds, pedestrians, carts, etc) are prohibited from motorways. I have also heard of the police being able to apprehend you if you cycle whle drunk. In general, I believe much of the Highway Code also applies to cyclists. That said, there is no bicycle license or insurance requirement, so quite what sanction the police or law could apply is unclear to me (though I wish they found a way to clamp down on cyclists ignoring traffic lights and pedestrian crossings, perhaps with some stiff fines :-) Astronaut (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I heard the other day that being arrested in the UK for cycling while drunk can result in points on your car license if you have one. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. What motoring offence are you guilty of? --Phil Holmes (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the principles of UK highway law, but in California you would be in violation of the California Vehicle Code, specifically a moving violation, and so it makes sense to me that points could be assessed on your license. Whether they are or not, I don't really know, but I kind of suspect they are. The key principle is that a bicycle is a vehicle, even though not a motor vehicle; the rules for bicycles are mostly the same as the rules for cars, and completely different from the rules for pedestrians. --Trovatore (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant UK laws are here. "Riding a bicycle while unfit through drink" (Road Traffic Act 1988) appears to be the one. It's a separate offence to be "Drunk in charge of a motor vehicle". AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that most freeways are off-limits to those things here, as well. Exceptions are apparently made for some specific stretches where there is no practical alternative route. Does that not happen in England too? You might want to check (I'd bet that most people here would assume you can't drive a bicycle on any part of Interstate 5). --Trovatore (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have exceptions like that, no. But then, motorways having only come about in the 60s and later, I think it's assumed that there will still be a non-motorway route to anywhere you might want to go. The only exception I can think of is motorway service stations (I'm envisaging young workers in McDonalds or whatever who don't have a car) but even there they often have an access road if there's a non-motorway road nearby for it to connect to. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most service stations (maybe all) in the UK have a local access road as well as a motorway link. Up until about 15 years ago you could often use these as "unofficial" exits, but now they seem to have card-operated barriers. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few stretches on freeways (including interstate highways) in the United States on which bicycle traffic is allowed on the shoulders. Typically these are stretches where there is no nearby non-freeway road, particularly going over bridges and through mountain passes. This is most common in empty parts of the western United States, where the pre-freeway local road was simply converted to a freeway, since it would have been very expensive to construct a freeway alongside the local road, and there is little need for a local road since there are no homes or workplaces along that stretch. The I-5 through the Grapevine is one such example. I-93 through Franconia Notch is another. Marco polo (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume most violations of the highway code by cyclists in the UK would be subject to fines and in some cases may be even prison. At least that's how it would be here in NZ with violations of the road code by cyclists. There may be additional exceptions and requirements (e.g. for signalling, lighting, helmets, cycling abreast). These may not be enforced very often (for example warnings may be given most of the time) but the possibility is there. Is it not the case in the UK that most violations of the highway code by drivers are subject to fines as well? If so I don't really get the relevance of the licensing and insurance part. These allow additional sanctions in the form of a demerit point system and also allow easier identification and easier recording of warnings but aren't essential to the imposition of penalties. Note that while I'm not aware of any actual countries that do it, you don't need licensing to allow you to ban people from cycling if they are repeated violators for example. Obviously the lack of registration and plates off bicycles makes identification difficult if you use some sort of red light camera or whatever but that's different from licensing Nil Einne (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a legal requirement to have a light fitted and in use whilst riding a bicycle in the dark in the UK. Can't find the exact Act of Parliament though, sorry. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of name "Kalaw"?

Hi all,

I have to call a potential employer on the phone, and would like to have a better-than-odds chance of pronouncing his name right first time: how would you pronounce "Kalaw?" Would you go for "KAY-law," "KA-law" or "k'LAW?" Any recommendations appreciated! — Sam 76.24.222.22 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if we knew what nationality he was. Where are you/do you know anything about his potential nationality?Popcorn II (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, sorry. I assume he's American, and his first name "Gene," but family could be from anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.222.22 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got his voice mail, and apparently it's "k'LAOW.' — 76.24.222.22 (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests to me a good strategy, which I may use in future. Wait 'til you're sure the person is not at their phone, call from a number (payphone, friend or parent's phone) unrelated to your own, listen to their voice-mail message. Interesting... Franamax (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strategy I've used before. I have to read lists of names for ceremonies on occasion. If I can't get a hold of them to ask, often their voicemail/answering machine gives me the correct pronunciation.

If you can't do that, it's usually quite polite to ask if it's an exotic seeming name. Steewi (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consequences of "fixed" American healthcare

I've been thinking... They say that healthcare in the US costs over 15% of its GDP, compared to about 7 to 11% in comparably developed countries. Were this to be magically fixed and the amount spent on health care brought more in line with the rest of the world, what would be the effect on the American economy? Surely many thousands of people would find themselves economically redundant? The defense lawyers without torts to defend doctors from, the insurance salesmen with no-one to insure (or deny insurance?), the pharmaceutical companies no longer selling to over-prescribed patients or limited by government price caps found elsewhere in the world? Have any studies been done on the effect freeing up that 5% of America's GDP would have, both positive and negative? TastyCakes (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If, for example, the U.S. were to entirely nationalize the health care system, there would still need to be a large bureaucracy to run that system; you need actual people, with experience in health care, to staff that bureaucracy, so many (though certainly not all) people from insurance companies would find themselves jobs working for the government. However, none of the current plans actually propose anything like that. The most drastic change being offered on that front is a government run corporation that would sell insurance on the open market in competition with private companies; such a government run insurance company would still be required to be solvent, as it would recieve all of its operating budget from its own revenue. This is the so-called "public option" that is the center of the debate right now. All other plans feature even less drastic changes to the system. So, so far, the biggest change on the table right now is "everything stays the same, except we start a new insurance company". Also, consider that much of the cost of health-care is currently being born by companies like major manufactures (the auto-industry, lets say), who spend up to 1/2 of their annual spending on "legacy costs", basically half of everything a company like Ford spends is spent on health care for retired workers. The arguement is that if the Government picked up that bill, rather than Ford, then Ford could be more competitive with a company like Toyota or Volkswagen, who do not have to pay those costs. So much of the "lost" GDP in healthcare wouldn't disappear, it would transfer to the sorts of industrial jobs we have been bemoaning the loss of for decades. --Jayron32 18:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand the changes being suggested are limited in scope. My question is more of a mind experiment of what would happen if the health industry became significantly more efficient, in line with other countries. What if America as a whole spent trillions less on health care and health care related industries. Presumably, the large companies that pick up the bill now would benefit, as would many smaller companies, as would medicare. But also, presumably, all that money was paying somebody. What happens if a huge industry were to become 2/3 or even 1/2 of its current size? Above I tried to identify groups I think would be hurt by increased "efficiency", lawyers, insurers etc, but I may be way off. Who else would be hurt? Where is that money coming from? Medical care has been one of the few growth industries in America for some time now. Would "fixing" the system to severely reign in costs change that? Would unemployment boom? Could America's "unnecessary health care jobs" be part of the reason it has had lower unemployment than Europe over the past decades? TastyCakes (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the short term there would I presume be some loss of jobs. In the long term, the money has to go some where and it's likely to go some where where it would be more productively spent. At least this is the simplistic capitalist answer. (Any money that's 'wasted' is better spent somewhere else.) In terms of the growth industry/employement point, I don't think it's proves much. As far as I'm aware many developed countries have health care as growth industries. BTW in the magical sense you're describing it's likely a some of the money would come from reduced salaries and profits, including for many medical professionals but also executives, bureaucrats, lawyers etc. (Which will of course sometimes result in loss of jobs.) Also increased effiencies would also in some cases mean just from a redistribution of effort. From what I've read, a fair amount of the current inefficiency comes from stuff like many unnecessary medical tests and operations because insurance is paying for it and they pay per procedure. So you spend less (time and money) per patient but treat more patients. The effect of this would be complex. These people would contribute to the economy. Some of them who would have been unemployable may remain employable. On the other hand there would also be people who may have otherwise died who may end up on the unemployement list. However I think very few politicians are going to say one problem with the proposals is we won't kill so many poor people and so there's more to fight over the remaining jobs. Nil Einne (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Start a new insurance company" ... in what way is the proposed new insurance company going to be funded out of taxes, or given special privileges in law? If in no way, then why hasn't somebody already started this new insurance company? 213.122.19.130 (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to the Luddite fallacy, though the WP article on that is short and I think parts of it are a bit off target. In short, people would spend their money on other things (say haircuts) and hence there will be more jobs for hairdressers. Hence, there might be problems if the people you mention have a hard time switching to a different industry, but a lot of those competencies seem like "general" business/bureaucracy and should be easy to translate to something else. Jørgen (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A better article to look at might be creative destruction. This kind of thing actually happens all the time. Interestingly, The Economist has an interesting recent piece on Andy Grove's thoughts on how the health-care industry should be more like the computer industry.[2] (email me for a copy if anyone can't see it)

To continue your thought experiment that perhaps the inefficiency of the US healthcare system has led to decreased unemployment (and presumably better use of capital and labour inputs?), take it the other way. If the inefficency has been good, then why not double the size of the sector? Let's set up entire new companies to duplicate the work of all the other companies. Let's do all MRI's twice, hear all lawsuits twice, review all medical bills twice. When you shift the argument to the opposite direction, does it make any sense? If not, then what makes the current size of the sector optimal? Franamax (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we could do other things more efficiently, such as build cars, then I'm sure nobody would say that was a bad thing, and suggest we didn't do it because of the poor auto workers. No wait, bad example...OK, televisions... DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the medical lobbyists (the well lubricated Luddites of our time?) would say it was a bad thing? ;) TastyCakes (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered about the many American workers who were very very skilled in the design and manufacture of slide rules, and the American capital invested in marking things to great precision on a log scale. What happened to all that? And I remember the great angst as the television industry moved overseas also. Grove describes his own experience as offshore memory-chip manufacturers threatened Intel's original business. Pretty hard to argue that they should have stuck with their original business model, given that Intel turned into one of the most valuable companies in the world after getting out of the memory business. Franamax (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the healthcare workers or the drug manufacturers will be out of work - when close to 100% of people are properly covered - more of them will seek treatment rather than hoping they'll get better without treatment. What one would hope would happen would be that the workload would shift from critical care and emergency rooms to preventative treatment and early treatment. There was a poll of doctors run just recently and 60-some percent of them were in favor of not just reform - but the "government option" for reform...so they clearly don't think this will harm them economically. SteveBaker (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For a comparable situation, note that in 1950, Americans spent 20.6% of their income on food; by 2004, that number had shrunk to 9.5%. ([3]). The change in spending patterns had an effect on the labor force. In 1950, 25 million Americans lived on farms and 12.2% of the labor force worked on them. In 1990, only 3 million Americans lived on farms and only 2.6% of the labor force worked on them. ([4]) This obviously caused major economic dislocation with profound effects for many people. (Remember Farm Aid?) But most people would say now that American society is better for the fact that we don't have to work 1.6 hours a day just to pay for the food we eat as people did in 1950. Note that the total amount spent on food may not have decreased, but the economy has grown far faster than expenditures on food. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of the question is where the savings are to be found. If every component of the entire healthcare system, from bandages to brain surgeons, were to take an equal hit (all prices and fees drop by 40%), there’d be a one-off, $850 billion reduction in spending. Some 15 million people would see their paychecks slashed by 40%, which would have a rather profound effect on their spending habits.

In the second quarter of this year, the economy fell 3.9% year-on-year, but if the $850 bn were subtracted entirely in that quarter, the contraction would have been 10.2%. Household spending on healthcare was 11.4% of GDP in the second quarter, which is about 75% of the 15% figure cited. If all the savings in the family portion were spent elsewhere, private consumption would have grown 7.3%, rather than falling 1.8%.

Mwalcoff, the combined spending by US households on food and medical care in 2008 was almost an identical share of total spending as it was in 1950. The mix, however, was different. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you assume in your analysis that every one of those people would sit tight for a 40% reduction in their income, and not even one of them would go chasing after the extra $850 billion that people had to spend on other things? No problem, I'm quite willing to absorb that $850B of new buying power myself, I'm sure I can come up with something! Or, horror of horrors, the US population might even take some steps to correct the negative household savings rate, negative current-account balance, negative trade-balance, and negative government fiscal balance. God forbid! Franamax (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bath of oysters

my housemate bought a load of live oysters which he claims are living out of water and now he has put them in the bath and is having a bath with them, is this ok? Robo-Doug (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he can do whatever he likes. However I'm certainly not going to be eating the oysters afterwards. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a waste of money and, more importantly, tasty oysters. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd have to ask the oysters if they like having naked humans in the bath with them. :)

So long as your housemate doesn't actually try to eat the oysters, didn't drink the bathwater, and doesn't repeat the experience, probably not a problem. I very seriously doubt the oysters are actually alive anymore, and if it was a hot bath, they are likely now cooked oysters. Should get pretty smelly in a day or two. Amusing image though... Franamax (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a fantastic waste of one of nature's most wonderful foodstuff. Other than that, besides being weird as hell, I'm not sure there is anything wrong with your roommate. I would start looking for a new place to live if this happened to me, but then again, whatever works for you... --Jayron32 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He might be trying a variation on a theme. Oysters supposedly have aphrodisiac properties, and maybe he's trying ingestion by osmosis. Good luck. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine they'll live very long - don't they need salt water? Without that, they'll die pretty fast. Even with sufficiently salty water - without plants or surf dissolving oxygen into the water, their chances are slim at best. SteveBaker (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They also gotta eat sometime. I wonder if he stocked his tub with plankton? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those oysters are almost certainly dead. The way to check is to tap on them and see if they make a clacking noise. Googlemeister (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually after reading the oyster article, it says they can live up to 2 weeks outside of water! Googlemeister (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not altogether surprising. The octopus, one of their cousins, can crawl on dry land from one pool to another, seemingly without ill effects. Resilient creatures, those mollusks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One risk is cutting skin on the sharp shells. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This represents cruelty to oysters. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One word: PETO. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jayron32; I'd be more concerned about your roomates mental health than anything that could be caused by the oysters^{I alsothink I just sprained something laughing}Library Seraph (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this an attempt to avoid the Great Pain of Space? —Tamfang (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]