Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 April 7

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.

April 7

Why job perks?

What is the point of paying for certain things for employees? (Like hiring a massagist for your office workers). Wouldn't it be more motivating to pay that little bit more that the perk costs? XPPaul (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it's probably far cheaper to hire a single masseuse for all the employees than to have each hire one on their own (see economy of scale). Of course, they won't actually all want massages (at least not the legal kind). This could be good for the company, too, though, in that they can claim they offer a perk, yet not have to pay for it for those who don't take them up on the offer.

In the US, health insurance is prohibitively expensive for individuals to buy, because health care providers are allowed to charge them more. Thus, this is one of the best things to offer as a fringe benefits.

Another type of perk which makes good sense is offering the company product free or at a discount. This can be viewed as a perk and also increase sales. For an item with a high markup value, this works especially well. If they give employees an item that normally sells for $1000, but only costs them $100, the employees think they are getting a $1000 perk but it only costs the company $100. StuRat (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In my country, Australia, we have something called a Fringe Benefits Tax. (It probably exists elsewhere too, but I don't pretend to know.) That tax makes it financially advantageous to the employee for the employer to pay for some benefits rather than pay the employee more. HiLo48 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

How does taxing fringe benefits make it better to get them ? Is it because they are taxed at a much lower rate than income ? StuRat (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, but it's an even better deal in nations without any taxes on fringe benefits. StuRat (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No doubt. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Except the Fringe Benefits Tax in Australia is payable not by the recipients of the fringe benefits (the employees) but by the providers of the fringe benefits (the employers). I think the rationale was that, if an employer can afford to provide a fringe benefit, they can also afford to pay the tax on it. So I can't see how the tax particularly advantages the employee, because they win whether they get a fringe benefit or increased pay. All it does is disadvantage the employers, who might feel disposed to not provide a fringe benefit in the first place, and instead increase their employees' pay. Or not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, the advantage comes from the employee not having to pay a tax on something that, if it were paid in the form of cash, would form part of their taxable income. They avoid the tax entirely if they get the benefit in the form of a fringe benefit. It has nothing to do with the rate of tax levied on fringe benefits. In fact, I think the rate is higher than the standard income tax rate. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 08:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Perks" may be things that employees want, and could afford, but are too frugal to buy if they had the choice. Or they can be things that only the company can provide in a certain quality. In my case, the company offers a small, but well-stocked fitness area. After work, I change into my jersey and sneakers, and go up for two hours, then cycle home. Sure, I could go into a commercial studio, but that would mean extra time lost on the way, on changing, on dealing with clerks, contracts, and lockers, and so on. And I probably could not set the TV to Star Trek or Star Gate ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There's (in my view) good arguments to say that more pay alone does not increase motivation (e.g. Two-factor theory). Whilst benefits come in the same 'hygiene' area as pay in the two-factor theory the logic behind fringe benefits like free-massages is that they create a 'culture' within the workplace that can ultimately lead to increased productivity/employee satisfaction. Money as a reward is vital but it's reasonable to suggest that psychologically being given money for something is 'emotionless', whereas being given slightly less money but offering benefits (can) build a feeling of compassion/care with the business. They don't just pay you - they pay you AND they offer free massages, or they offer flexible working hours, or paid holidays etc. ny156uk (talk) 10:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Could not disagree more. “Fridge benefits” are just a fad promoted by pseudo industrial psychologists to hood-wink management into buying into their pseudo-science. Politicians, Bankers and the other movers and shakers know, that it boils down to one simple rule: If you want rich people to work harder you pay them more but if you want poor people to work harder -you pay them less. Simple. Just look at the US of A for proof of this.--Aspro (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Fridge benefits" = fringe benefit for babysitters ? StuRat (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Too right. My baby-sitters seem think in terms of well stocked fridge benefits. If there’s a couple of bottles of good French châteaux in there too, then those liquid assets will evaporate as well. Then they will turn the thermostat right up and open all the windows to air the rooms!!! I would be cheaper to employ a live-in cordon-bleu chef and eat in, every night -but that would not do my waist line much good... and how could I take my doggy bag home? --Aspro (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Just how bad does your house stink ? :-) StuRat (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Perks help advertise that the company care about your staff, and most people care about more than money if they're not starving. Offering staff only money makes everything look like it's on an impersonal, commercial level. Most people want to feel valued on a personal level, being looked after, and working alongside people who're not looking to screw them over for pennies. Perks say "we like you, you're part of the family". Many businesses consider this a good way to motivate staff. (Although sometimes the perks are so derisory that it just makes the company look bad: I've been in jobs where they consider it's a great thing that they provide free instant coffee, even though they don't provide milk or cups.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Where I work, they give us free coffee, in those little "pods." They have a pod-using machine on my floor. Pretty exciting. The floor pod machine probably cost them a few hundred dollars, and the floor goes through probably $50-$100 in "pods" per month. Now there are some 200 people or so on my floor. The individual cost of this investment is tiny — the "extra" money per person would probably be less than a dollar. So getting "more money" isn't really an option here, at least not in a meaningful way. And for this small investment, they also make the workplace feel more friendly, and they get to addict us to a performance-enhancing drug. So it's really pretty win-win, wouldn't you say? Most of the other benefits are like this — they don't cost much per individual (or, in the case of health insurance, are risk-pooling) but the organizational payoffs are pretty high. (I don't actually drink coffee, so am I getting ripped off, by having to contribute? I don't think so. The amount contributed is tiny, and I benefit from working in an organization where the others are happy as well.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It can attract employees for less money than you'd otherwise have to pay if it's perceived to be worthwhile, and it may be providable at a marginal expense. In 1979 I joined British Rail as a trainee computer programmer; since they ran trains anyway, it effectively cost them little to allow their staff to buy tickets at a quarter of the public fare, with an annual allowance of free travel, and a free daily commuter mileage (40 miles if working in London, 8 miles elsewhere). As you worked up the organisation you got entitlements to first class travel, almost unlimited free travel within one of the 5 regions the country was divided into, and ultimately (if you make it to a very senior grade) free travel nationwide. After privatisation, many staff ended up working for businesses which no longer ran trains so the value of this perk became fully taxable to the employer; I remember the IT company I worked for offered an extra £800 a year salary for people to give up the perk - one of my colleagues did this and was made redundant a few months later, so ended up with nothing. I was made redundant in 2002, but since I'd worked more than 20 years and not surrendered my travel facilities, I'm considered "retired" and keep my facilities for the rest of my life. It can be a bit odd to have a plastic card with your name and photo on it marked "retired" when you're 43 years old... -- Arwel Parry (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

One hidden benefit might be taxation. One previous employer, rather then giving us company cars, preferred to give a "car allowance" of £400 a month. We were taxed on that, but no where near as high as if we had a company car (a very heavily taxed fringe benefit that attracts no end of government paperwork). With my current employer, if I received cash rather than fringe benefits, my higher salary will push me into the highest tax bracket; meanwhile fringe benefits like subsidised commuting costs are of use to the company and I don't have to pay out of my (taxed) salary simnply to get to work.

On the other hand, is is quicker and easier for the employer to remove fringe benefits or freeze their value, than is to do that with salary. For example, the previously mentioned car allowance was increased just once in the 10 years I worked there, and that was by just 4% when I got a promotion. Astronaut (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture from a film set

For a project I am doing, I would like to find two pictures to illustrate that not everything is what it seems. I was looking for picture 1 (taken from the front), showing a picture of a building; picture 2 (taken from the side, or at least at an angle) showing the same “building” but this time it is obvious that it is a two-dimensional film set.

I have spent ages looking on Google but can’t find two pictures of that same “building” illustrating the illusion. Anyone got any ideas please? CoeurDeHamster (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no ideas about buildings and facades but would suggest looking at the extraordinary work of Julian Beever if you want to see something that is not what it appears. Richard Avery (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This page has some shots of the set for the 2010 version of True Grit. There's at least one shot of the frames behind the façade. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Try www.moviepicturedb.com . Here is a sample: http://www.moviepicturedb.com/picture/68f02aa2 . If you found a side picture of Titanic to go with this one then you may have a solution. To find this one only took a moment using the google search criteria of ... Behind-the-scenes site:www.moviepicturedb.com . As there are plenty of front-on images I suggest you find your behind-the-scenes picture first. Here is another http://www.moviepicturedb.com/picture/fb613c3a paired with http://www.moviepicturedb.com/picture/2d4fb567 . Have fun Benyoch (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of buildings in the UK that have had the facades preserved while having the other 3 sides demolished and entirely new buildings constructed. This is one such in Sheffield (scroll down for the full story). There are others, but I've not been able to find the one I was particularly looking for because it's been completely rebuilt now, and it was about 15 years since I used to drive past a brick facade being held up with scaffolding! --TammyMoet (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The practice is called façadism or façadomy; it's commonplace in Washington, DC as well. Acroterion (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Not from a filmset, but the facade of numbers 23 and 24 Leinster Gardens in Paddington, London is a famous example. The houses were demolished to make a ventilator for the Circle line (London Underground) in the 1860s, and a dummy front was constructed to match the rest of the terrace. Full details are here. Alansplodge (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could use a clip from Fellini's Intervista: we see a row of elephants that look real until some klutz knocks one over. —Tamfang (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There is also a classic scene from the movie Blazing Saddles in which the residents of Rock Ridge build a replica of their town made entirely of false fronts of buildings, in order to fool Sheriff Taggart and his band of ruffians.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 09:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Investment games recommendations

I've heard of investment games that allow players to practice making investment decisions using virtual game money. What are some good ones that you would recommend? Also, are there investment games that are based on virtual timelines so that you can see how your investment strategy may play out, say over a year's time, without actually playing for a year? Thanks. --98.114.146.104 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Date of University Boat Race

Can anyone tell me how it is decided on which date the University Boat Race between Oxford and Cambridge is held? I thought it might be the first Saturday in April as it was this year, but see in other years that has not always been the case so I'm curious. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Could it be something to do with the university terms? --Colapeninsula (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Could it have something to do with the Easter weekend? Roger (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Boat Race article says in the third line that it is usually on the last Saturday in March or the first in April. I think the timing also has got something to do with the tides on the Saturday afternoon. The race is usually rowed on a high slack tide - or as near as possible. Richard Avery (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes that would make a lot of sense. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - see our article on The Championship Course (ie, the route the Boat Race follows); "Since the Boat Race moved to this course in 1845, it has always been raced on a flood tide from Putney to Mortlake except in 1846, 1856 and 1863" (my emphasis). Alansplodge (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I've often wondered about it. I think this information should be mentioned somewhere in the Boat Race article so I'll look into adding it when I get a chance. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

POWs = "civilians" ?

I haven't been able find an answer to the following: could I refer to the deaths of (concentration camp) POWs as "civilian casualties"? (relating to this for notes here) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The POW article says that POWs can be either civilians or military. If the POWs killed in your question were civilians, then you can call then civillians. Otherwise, I would say not, because then they would be military deaths. I can't tell from the Acrona article if that ship was transporting civillians at the time of sinking or not. RudolfRed (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

See here: Neuengamme_concentration_camp E184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that POWs are by definition captured enemy soldiers. Imprisoned civilian citizens of an enemy country would surely be termed Internees? Roger (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps sources refering concentration camp prisoners as prisoners of war are using incorrect or misleading terminology (?) -- I believe referring to them as "civilians" would be proper. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Concentration camps by definition do not house POWs. Roger (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Done

(The following added after an Edit conflict) The SS Cap Arcona (1927) article states that the prisoners/internees onboard came from the Neuengamme, Stutthof and Mittelbau-Dora camps. These were civilian camps, and not camps for military POWs. However, the situation is a little complicated because of the Nazi attitude to Polish soldiers. In the eyes of the Nazis, the Polish nation ceased to exist after the German invasion, which was seen by them as more of a 'liberation', or as taking back what was 'rightfully' a part of Germany. Poles who fought against Germany were, therefore considered to be civilians under arms, thereby releasing Germany from its obligations towards them under the Third Geneva Convention (the Fourth Geneva Convention which extended protection to civilians only coming in to force after the war). This meant that, rather than being interred in POW camps, such as Colditz Castle or Stalag Luft III, the Poles could be sent to concentration camps. Unfortunately, at the moment I can't find a source for this claim, but I believe I first read about it in Pat Reid's The Colidtz Story (or possibly its sequel, The Latter Days.)

So, whilst the prisoners on the ship may well have considered themselves military captives, it is probable that their captors did not share the view. For this reason I would suggest that phrasing the statement in the linked article as '...was later sunk by the RAF with greater loss of life...' and not making any assertion about status, military, civilian or otherwise, would be the most accurate and least controversial. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There were Polish POWs at Colditz until at least May 1943, according to our Oflag IV-C article.

A number of British special forces POWs ended up in concentration camps in persuance of the Commando Order; the first were seven British soldiers from 2 Commando following Operation Musketoon, who were shot at Sachsenhausen concentration camp in October 1942. The same camp was the final destination of four British POW escapees from Stalag Luft III after the "Great Escape". Alansplodge (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Translating

Every time i want to translate some website in foreign languages, first i have to search it up in google and click translate this page. I wonder if there is any other ways to translate any websites without using google or using any search. Not all the sites i want to translate can be search on google. Let say i go in a site and then click on something to translate it. That's what i want. Any help? Thanks!65.128.167.101 (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

YOu can either cut and paste the page's address into the google translate box, or use chrome which autodetects pages in other languages and offers to translate them. I'm sure there are even better options out there, but these are both reasonable options. Mingmingla (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your Google description sounds like you don't know Google Translate at http://translate.google.com. Any url can be entered there. It doesn't have to be indexed by Google's search. I can click "More" and then "Translate" on Google pages to get to http://translate.google.com. Some other options like Google Toolbar depend on your browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

You might try switching to the Google Chrome browser, as suggested. It automatically recognizes when a page is not in English and offers to translate it for you. It's quicker than searching or pasting. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Or with Firefox, if you right-click on a page, other than your default language, there will be a "translate page" option. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: you will need a google add-on for that. (other translation add-ons also) ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Or if you use Safari like me there's an add-on you can install that lets you click a button and instantly translate the page (it's called Translate by Side Tree Software). Not sure if all the rest do as only use Safari but the neat thing about the one I use is that it translates 'in situ' so the web page still looks pretty much the same but the language changes from say French to English. ny156uk (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Newer versions of Internet Explorer (from IE8, I think), have a series of addons (or accelerators as Microsoft calls them) that will translate a selected piece of text. There is a limit to how much selected text can be translated. Look for a pale blue arrow appearing next to your selected text. Astronaut (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Music

Why are phrases usually 4 or 8 measures? --108.206.4.199 (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Because of the prevalence of Thirty-two-bar form and related forms? --Jayron32 02:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

But I've seen 8-bar phrases in a lot of music that doesn't use 32-bar form. --108.206.4.199 (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Because humans are simple-minded creatures. In general, we're pleased by repetition and variation, which are each most simply done with two things. (As the splendid cellist Pieter Wispelwey once said about Britten (but it could have been almost any musician in the western tradition) "he does something, he does it again, then he changes it"). Comparing successively larger musical chunks leads naturally to 2, 4, 8, 16 and 32 bar patterns. Beyond that, you've escaped the average attention span. Henry^Flower 10:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason why a phrase couldn't occupy 3 measures, or 5, 6 or 7. I'm sure there are examples of all of them. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)