Miscellaneous desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

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.

June 20

Johan Quist the Danish Architect who lived in Copenhagen in the latter 18th Century

Was he the same Johan Quist who built the Castle at Keta in Gold Coast, now Ghana, in West Africa around the same time? And did he have a brother, if so what was his name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danequist (talk • contribs) 06:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't know the answer to either of your questions about Johan Martin Quist. No information on the net in Danish provides the name of the architect behind the rebuilding of Fort Christiansborg in the second half of the 18th century. The Danish article on da:Johan Martin Quist claims that all his architectural work was done on buildings in the Copenhagen area, but it is unsourced so not exactly a reliable statement. I will check out the standard work on the Danish colonies to see if it provides any answers, however it will probably take a couple of days. Regarding the second question I would advise you to ask that question at this Danish genealogy forum, where they are happy to answer questions in English as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is apparently about Fort Prinzenstein (Fort Prinsensten) at Keta and not Osu Castle (Fort Christiansborg) in Osu. I don't know the answer. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B.Pharma + MBA job prospects

My friend from India plans to come to America in several years with B.Pharma and MBA degrees, having come from one of the best colleges in India. Would he be able to receive accreditation to operate as a pharmacist? With those degrees, what's the job market for him going to be like when he comes five years from now?--24.4.83.231 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What type of job is he looking for with those degrees ? Working as a pharmacist is a possibility, with the goal of becoming the chief pharmacist at a particular store. Since the US population is getting older and more dependent on prescription drugs, that's a growth industry right now. Note that the US has the strange practice of breaking open the sealed packages of meds that come from the manufacturer, then putting them in new containers and adding their own label, introducing possibilities of errors in medication, dosage, and labeling (as well as theft, substituting counterfeit meds, and adulteration). So, your friend might need some additional training to minimize these risks, if they don't do this in India. The billing and insurance may also be quite different. And, of course, he would need good English skills. StuRat (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The friend needs much more than "some additional training". Anyone trained at a foreign institution who wishes to practice in the US must have an undergraduate 5-year Pharmacy degree or a D. Pharm, and then must take a qualifying professional course, as well as sit the courses' exam and a special TOEFL. See here for specifics. After that, your friend then must qualify, usually by way of more exams, if not more courses, for licensing in specific states. Bielle (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His best bet might be to try to work for a pharmaceuticals manufacturer with sales in India. He should start researching such companies early, and take opportunities for work placements in multinational companies. That way his Indian background will be a positive asset, not a liability. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is having an investment portfolio considered doing business?

Is having an (independent) investment portfolio considered as doing business / engaging in business activities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.254.27.55 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Portfolio for trading shares[reply]

Considered by whom ? If you are seeking a job managing the portfolios of others, then managing your own successfully might qualify as usable experience. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be verging on legal advice, which we don't provide. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they meant it for tax purposes, such as trying to deduct equipment used to maintain their portfolio, like a home computer. StuRat (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what context the OP is defining his terms in. In the broadest terms of course he would be engaging in trade, probably free trade, be a capitalist, and be engaged in what the US government would see as regulable interstate commerce. But a janitor who described himself as a businessman because he had a 401k (retirement account) would be seen by his friends as putting on heirs. Nevertheless, Miott Romney was absolutely right to say corporations are people. μηδείς (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Heirs", really? FiggyBee (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Miott"? Anyway, don't mind Medeis. He's just putting us on. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say "heirs"? Oh, my. But I did mean what I said, even if I didn't spell it right. μηδείς (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your spelling is better than your orthography may indicate. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tooshay! μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like it's asking for advice on the terms of a particular regulation/contract (maybe for insurance, a rental agreement, application for state benefits, property zoning regulations, hire purchase/mortgage, tax return, etc, all of which may want to know if an individual is pursuing any business or property is being used for a certain purpose). It's impossible for us to give advice on what other people consider to be doing business / engaging in business activities, especially when you don't say who those other people are, or in what context. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my usage, "doing business" means providing a good or service for compensation. Doesn't include investing, unless you're doing it for someone else and being paid for it. So, short answer is "no". --Trovatore (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(However, as Colapeninsula notes, that may not be the answer for the purposes of any legal matters you're involved with.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike and Ike?

A fellow Flickrista wants to know: for whom is the candy Mike and Ike named? The Interwebs mention a 1937 vaudeville duo, possibly a pair of song-and-dance men or comedians billed as "the twins," though (I would suppose) an Irishman and a Jew, respectively. Meanwhile, the candy's current ad campaign has generated enough noise to mask any signal I could detect (before turning here) that would clarify and confirm the history. A more knowledgeable or persistent editor's help is appreciated. -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Just Born doesn't even know, it won't be likely to find them. I think their candy names are kinda like band names -- a bunch of people sit around with sugar highs and blurt out utterances and then someone says, "Hey, that's a cool ~~band~~candy name!" --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well. I immediately recognised the phrase "Mike and Ike" from Placet is a crazy place, a short story by Fredric Brown. I had no idea that it had any significance outside the story. --ColinFine (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Mike and Ike (They Look Alike) was a comic strip by Rube Goldberg, who introduced the identical twin characters in the San Francisco Bulletin on September 29, 1907." Gandalf61 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't car companies give their employees cars ?

The US car companies do give a discount to employees who buy their own cars, but why not take it further, say, by offering $10,000 towards a car purchase per 2000 hours worked, with a corresponding reduction in pay ? The employees would then get a $20K car "free", after 2 years of work, for example. Presumably the companies sell their cars at a profit, so this $10K benefit would cost them less than $10K, especially if some employees pass on the deal.

The same strategy could work for many other types of companies, provided their product is one everybody needs. (Men working at Tampax may not want a lifetime supply of tampons.) :-) StuRat (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who wants a car, let alone a new one every two years? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think most people, especially most people working for car companies. If they don't want a new car every 2 years, they can give some to their spouses or kids. They could also let the money accumulate and buy luxury vehicles, less often. StuRat (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems complicated. What if the employee quits after a year; does he get a $10,000 check? Seems like that would create more problems than it would solve. And I could be wrong, but I'd suspect a clever car company would give you a good deal... if you financed it through them. (So they make money off of you either way, since the financing is where the real profit comes in.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I were the car company, I'd say they either forfeit the money when they quit, or they may still apply it towards the purchase of a car, and pay the rest off themself. Either one should encourage employees to stay on. StuRat (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Th tax man doesn't care how you pay the employee - the tax man is still going to get his cut. Same reason game show winners can't get all their prizes. Rmhermen (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that's why I didn't list "tax dodge" as one of the advantages. StuRat (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It need not be a GMC product. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Dodge is actually from Chrysler, but I can't afford either. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

D'oh! Memory failing as I'm getting Olds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They have a different deal for game shows here in Australia. If you win $100,000, you get to keep every red cent of it. Same with lotteries - it's all yours to do with as you please. I suppose the TV/lottery companies have some arrangement with the ATO so that the latter is not out of pocket, but I don't know the details. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the taxes are paid but the companies are banned from advertising the untaxed value. --80.112.182.54 ([[User talk:80.112.182.54|talk] ]) 13:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before, with references. The difference between the US and a number of other countries like (IIRC) Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand is the later don't regard such windfalls as income since they aren't normally a way people can resonably expect to earn money to help pay for their living. Therefore no income tax is due on such winnings. However this may not apply when people do make it part of their income stream, e.g. by regularly appearings on game shows (although my impression is it'll normally needs to be more then two). There may be additional taxation on the companies like gambling taxation but these are seperate and I believe are also common in the US anyway. Edit: Not sure if it was noted before but also Germany Taxation in Germany Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Around thirty years ago, when quiz shows were serious in Australai, a particularly nerdy friend won two major quizzes on different TV networks. The tax department decreed that he was doing it professionally, and demanded a share. HiLo48 (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GM has what's called "Employee Vehicle Allowance" which is basically what you just described. I was employed in a GM-supplier and everyone was offered similar discounts on GM vehicles. I'm not familiar with other car makers, but I imagine they all have something similar as well. As a side note, this became a minor contributor to GM's downfall, since employees would buy discounted vehicles as often as possible and flip them, thus hurting the retail sales.Anonymous.translator (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I worked for GM in the late 1980's, I only got a discount of about 18% off MSRP, and that came with the requirement that I agree to keep the car for 6 months. (I'm not sure what the punishment would be if I didn't, but probably disqualification from the discount program, at the least.) StuRat (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone sold it, the company would probably never find out. But it's definitely a moral and legal grey area. Looking at the discounts now [1] it's usually less than 10%.Anonymous.translator (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fordism, Truck system. Capitalists have long sought to pay workers in the commodity form rather than the money form, as it forces the costs of realisation onto the work, this is called the Truck system and it is only valuable to workers in a very few cases, (for example, in the Late Soviet period when the nomenklatura crashed the economy, tampon workers could get more by Truck and trade than by waiting on wages that were never paid.) Truck is generally very very very bad for workers. In contrast, Fordism is a broader scale deal. In return for industrial quietescence (enforced with horrific brutality and even more horrific job design), the employer pays a wage that means that the employee can generally afford the worst, cheapest product on the line. This only really works well in Department IIa industries: production of ordinary consumption goods. You can't tell a worker they'll be able to buy 0.002% of a mine's coal output with their new, better wages. You can't tell a worker they'll be able to buy a Raymond Luxury Yacht at the end of four thousand years of work with their new, better wages. Outside of Department IIa, Fordism generally means buying workers off with increased use values and increasing the velocity of realisation of commodities as capital. In reality, with Cars a standard part of the Western consumption bundle, a requirement of life rather than a "cheaper than most luxury," car production employees have access to discounted purchasing programs; kind of a voluntary system of truck. But given that the discount makes up part of their wage, if a Ford worker buys Nissan they're cheating themselves. So more like a Truck system than you'd think. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) If the car company makes $ 500 profit on a 20k car, and this profit is split between company and employee by not lowering the salary with $ 500 / 2 years but for instance $ 250/ 2 years. Then, after 2 years, the employee gets a the 20 k car with a $ 250 discount and the company makes $ 250 profit instead of $ 500. Meanwhile, many forms had to be filled out, a car worth exactly 20k had to be selected 2 years before the employee could drive it, etc. If the company doesn't mind selling the car for 19,750 to his employee with $ 250 profit, why not give him a $250 rebate at any time he wants it? Joepnl (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason the car has to be selected ahead of time, the credit can just continue to accrue until they pick a car. And, in your example, one reason not to just give the employee $250 is that the car company no longer gets it's cut (the other $250), if the employee doesn't buy the company's car. Other reasons are the chance that the employee won't buy a car (then the company keeps all the money) and that the employee may stick around longer, so they save up enough to buy the car. An advantage for the employee is that the car is purchased outright, so they don't have to pay interest on financing and worry about repo men driving it off, if they can't pay. StuRat (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Profit sharing doesn't really exist. Your example regarding the employer's view of their profit appears to be incoherent, could you try explaining it again? The reason not to give an employee $250 is the other $19750—if the employee wants $250, they have to pay $19750. If the employee doesn't own a car, and a car is a necessary use-value in the employee's society, then they will have an incentive to pay $19750 to their employer instead of paying $20000 to another car company. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the advantage is that they increase their market share, sell off excess stock, are able to avoid lay-offs, etc. This does assume a market where they have excess capacity. In a case where cars were out of stock and going for a premium over the MSRP, this plan wouldn't make as much sense. StuRat (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]