Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 November 14

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.

November 14

Iraq earthquake.

Is there any information about whether the earthquake in Iraq was purposely caused by the "Alaskan HAARP Technology" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.105.242 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. What are you talking about? High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program#Conspiracy theories? What a crock. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

If the US actually had the technology to cause earthquakes (very unlikely), why would they set one of in an isolated, mountainous border area between Iraq and Iran, which has hurt their Kurdish and Iraqi allies? Wouldn't the North Korean nuclear facilities make a more obvious target? Wymspen (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't engage the troll. The best and total answer is "No". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Especially considering that all the places where earthquakes are supposed to have been engineered are naturally susceptible to them and where they frequently occur. 82.13.208.70 (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That's just what they want you to think!!1! --47.138.163.207 (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Music theory: Perfect intervals.

C in any octave and C in the next octave, are considered to sound the "same" note, because the frequency of C in the next octave is twice as much as that of C in the original octave, so the frequency of the higher sound - becomes a multiple of the frequency of the lower sound. The same is true for C in any octave and C in the next-next octave: They are considered to sound the "same" note, because the frequency of C in the next-next octave is four times as much as that of C in the original octave, so the frequency of the higher sound - again becomes a multiple of the frequency of the lower sound. Now I wonder about C in any octave and G in the next octave: Why aren't they considered to sound the "same" note? (Are they?) Please notice that the frequency of G in the next octave is three times as much as that of C in the original octave, so the frequency of the higher sound - again becomes a multiple of the frequency of the lower sound. HOTmag (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

They are the same note if they are one or more octaves apart - that is the ratio of the frequencies is a factor of 2. C4 to G5 is (in principle) a ratio of 3 which is not a factor of 2. Note that most modern instruments do not make G5 exactly 3 times the frequency of C4. See Equal temperament for more about this than you could ever want.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

From a purely mathematical point of view, The number 2 you have mentioned, is an arbitrary integer, isn't it? The only mathematical virtue/merit of 2 I can think of, which can have something to do with perfect intervals in music, is the following one: Since the frequency of C in the next octave is twice as much as that of C in the original octave, so the frequency of the higher sound - becomes a multiple of the frequency of the lower sound. Thus, the number 2 makes sense. The same it true for the number 4, whereas any note in the next-next octave is also considered to sound the "same" note as the one in the original octave. So why should the number 3 be treated differently, whereas it has the same mathematical virtue/merit mentioned above? As for your last comment about "most modern instruments": As far as I know, most modern instruments, as well as most human ears, disregard that a small difference of less than one Herz (it's really less than one Herz even in G5). Further, you could very easily replace G5 by a very close note whose frequency is exactly three times as much as that of C4. HOTmag (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You have to remember that much of how western music is defined is somewhat arbitrary. Why are there 12 semitones in an octave? Why is an octave defined as a doubling of frequency and not an increase of 3x? Why does a major scale go TTSTTTS? It's just the way it now is. So if we accept the octave=doubling feature of current western music, we have to reduce intervals to being no more than one octave apart to define relationships. So C3 to C5 is one octave plus one octave = same note. C3 to G4 is one octave plus perfect fifth = different note. Incidentally, note that not everyone would accept your assertion that a hertz is too small to worry about. See this, for example. In just intonation, being one hertz out would cause serious beating and so tuners would work to smaller margins than that.--Phil Holmes (talk) 11:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that every human ear, and not only a "western" one, would admit that C4 and C5 sound the "same" note. As for your second comment about one Herz: Please notice that I didn't assert (what you've ascribed to me), that "a hertz is too small to worry about". I've only asserted that "most modern instruments, as well as most human ears, disregard that a small difference of less than one Herz". Tuners, are not a part of "most ears" I spoke about. HOTmag (talk) 11:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• 2 isn't quite arbitrary. It's the integer greater than 1, but with no smaller integers greater than 1. If we defined "tritaves" [sic] so that A and A were three times the frequency, then there would be intervening notes within that span which were approximating the current octave spacing, thus confusable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Confusable"? I'm talking about a person who is listening to (say) C4 and G5, and not to any other sound, so no other sound can "confuse" the listener. Further, when (say) C4 and C5 are played simultaneously, then the listener may think they're hearing one sound only. So why won't they think they are hearing one sound only, when (say) C4 and G5 are played simultaneously, without any other "confusing" sound? HOTmag (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You may find it helpful to look at Harmonic to clarify whether musical instruments ever actually play C5 when a C4 is sounded. They will also play G5 as a further harmonic. The only real exception to this is electronic sine wave generators.--Phil Holmes (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

When I mentioned "most instruments", that was not with regard to two sounds played simultaneously, but rather with regard to "less than one Herz" (in any octave under C6). Similarly, When I mentioned C4 and C5 and G5, that was not with regard to any instruments, but rather with regard to most human ears. HOTmag (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• HOTmag has tripped over the circle of fifths without knowing it; the "C - G" relationship is a perfect fifth in the same octave, which you'll notice is exactly 3:2, thus by definition, C4 to G5 would be 3:1 (since C4 - G4 would be 3:2, and G4 - G5 is 2:1. Math!). These intervals work where others do not because the intervals allow for particular harmonics between the waveforms. The fifth interval forms the basis for most commonly used chords in music (specific variations are just additional notes to the fifth). Thus, the C5 power chord is just "C G", while the C major chord is "C E G" and the C minor chord is "C Eb G" and the C major seventh chord is "C E G B". The root-fifth combination provides the harmonic anchor that holds a chord or harmony together. --Jayron32 13:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not quite true with modern even tempered instruments. If you follow the circle of fifths all the way back to where you started, you don't actually get back to where you started - this is the problem with just tempering. A modern piano will play a G above C as around 1.498 times the frequency, not 1.5. Some people (but not many) can tell the difference. This was the subject for my dissertation for my music degree.--Phil Holmes (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That is true, but the circle of fifths is still a useful tool for music composition and analysis. Understanding how to use notes to build chords and chords to build progressions and progressions to build songs can be aided by using models like the circle of fifths. --Jayron32 15:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jayron, I'd known that obvious fact, but it has nothing to do with my original question: I have asked, why - when C4 and C5 are played simultaneously - then we think we're hearing one sound only, whereas we don't think we are hearing one sound only - when C4 and G5 are played simultaneously, even though the higher sound (whether it's C5 or G5) - in both cases - is a natural multiple of the lower sound (C4). So how can the issue of the C5 power chord have anything to do with my original question? HOTmag (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Who says that playing a C4 and a C5 at the same time sound like only one note? Simply not true - it's trivial to tell the difference on our piano, and if one was using pure sine waves, as you suggested, it would be astonishingly obvious that both notes were being played.--Phil Holmes (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Like Phil Holmes, I am befuddled why you think that playing the octave results in people hearing the "same sound" as playing one note or the other. That is plainly not true. When one plays two C notes from different octaves it is obviously different than playing one C or the other C. Your premise that people do not simply isn't true. --Jayron32 16:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, that when I listen to C4 played alone, I hear something quite different from what I hear when I listen to C4 and C5 played simultaneously. However, even then, I still feel (don't you too?) that I hear the "same" note. I have put now the word "same" between quotations marks, as I had in my first post, because it's not really heard as the same note, but rather as the "same" note, i.e. I feel as if both tones merge into one sound. Don't you feel that? HOTmag (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

All pairs of notes "merge" into one sound, the question is what emotional effect that sound has on us. Some pairs of notes sound more "pleasing" to people (for whatever definition of "pleasing" that is), or cause different responses, and those responses we have determine how we think of those notes. The way in which notes "feel" when paired together to make a simple chord results from the ratio of the frequencies of those notes. That's it. What we call those notes or what we call those ratios are arbitrary; it's a secondary consideration to what the mathematics of the way the frequencies interact with one another. By convention, we call the ratio 2:1 the octave, and assign them the same letter. That 2:1 ratio produce the same impression regardless of what the first frequency actually is so long as the second is double it. We have musical conventions (like the 12-note system of notation, the A440 tuning standard, etc) so that we can have some way to communicate music simply, but the underlying physics is that if you play two notes simultaneously so the frequency of one is double the other, the arbitrary numbers we choose doesn't matter as much as the relationships between the numbers. There's nothing magical about C4 - C5 to make this relationship, NOR is there any particular reason why we had to call both of those notes "C" except that our musical notation was built around it. As with any system like this, it is at once both arbitrary, but usefully consistent. The second point being the only relevent one. --Jayron32 20:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why you had to tell us that "There's nothing magical about C4 - C5 to make this relationship". Please notice, that when I wrote C4 and C5, this was an example only, and I'd referred to the generalized case of all Cs - in my first post. Of course, C itself was an example as well, so you didn't have to say what you said about "What we call those notes or what we call those ratios".

Anyway, our article harmonic series says:

the octave series is...and people hear these distances as "the same" in the sense of musical interval.

The word "people" refers to every human being - and not only to the western people, and I guess you agree with me, as you said:

That 2:1 ratio produce the same impression...so long as the second is double it.

This takes me back to my original question: Why does the ratio 2:1 (e.g. C4 and C5), as well as the ratio 4:1 (e.g. C4 and C6), "produce - the same impression" (using your words) - i.e. produce "the same [sound] in the sense of musical interval" (using Wikipedia's words), whereas the ratio 3:1 (e.g. C4 and G5) does not, while not only the first two ratios - but also the third one - involves a higher sound whose frequency is a natural multiple of the frequency of the lower sound? Actually, If the sounds are made by sine wives, then I can see no reason for the distinction between the ratio 4:1 and the ratio 3:1, while in either ratio - the sine waves of both sounds (played simultaneously) merge every 4 (or 3) periods (respectively).

Actually, my question is even stronger than what you may think. Try to think about C4 with D7, played simultaneously: Is that a consonance or a dissonance? Please notice that the combination of C4 and D7 reflects the ratio 9:1, i.e. the sine waves of these sounds merge every 9 periods, so the frequency of amalgamation of the sine waves of both sounds - is even higher than the frequency of amalgamation of the sine waves of C4 and C8, having the ratio 16:1. So, since the ratio 16:1 (as in C4 with C8) is heard as a perfect consonance to every human ear, then also the ratio 9:1 (as in C4 with D7) is supposed to be heard as a perfect consonance to every human ear, isn't it? (or rather: is it really?)... HOTmag (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The point is, there's is nothing magical about the 2:1 ratio vis-a-vis THAT ratio over others, just that every 2:1 ratio has the same musical effect. Similarly, the 3:2 ratio would, as would the 3:1 ratio, or any other abitrary ratio. That is, the 3:2 ratio has the same effect regardless of whether it is G - D or E - B, because it's the same ratio. However, the 3:2 ratio is different than the 2:1 ratio. So the G - D effect is different than the G' - G effect. 3:1 is NOT the same as 2:1, so the effect is not the same. I know you're hung up on the denominator of these fractions, as though there is some magic in having the same denominator. There isn't. It's the ratio, and recursions of that ratio that have the effect. The fact that the series we call C4 - C5 - C6 - C7 has the same effect isn't merely because the denominator of the ratio is 1 from C4-C7, it's because the successice ratios are identical, so the C4 - C7 relationship carries that value. 9:1 does not fit into that pattern. There is no way to successively apply 2:1 ratios to get 9:1. --Jayron32 13:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"there's is nothing magical about the 2:1 ratio". See: Paul Cooper: Perspectives in Music Theory: An Historical-Analytical Approach (1973), p.16: "The octave is...the basic miracle of music". This statement is quoted in the lead of our article Octave.

Anyway, I agree with you that there is nothing magical about the ratio 2:1. I'm only asking about the reason for the distinction, between the ("dissonant") impression produced by the ratio 9:1, vis a vis the identical ("consonant") impressions produced by even ratios - including 16:1 (e.g. in C4 with C8). As opposed to what you've ascribed to me, I'm not hung up on the denominator of those ratios, but rather on the amalgamation of the sine waves of sounds played simultaneously. The sine waves of C4 and C5 (played simultaneously) merge very soon - after a few periods, while that amalgamation makes the listener feel they hear "the same" thing/phenomenon (if I may use Wikipedia's words in our article harmonic series). The same is true for the ratio 4:1 (e.g. in C4 with C6), and for the ratio 8:1 (e.g. in C4 and C7), and for the ratio 16:1 (e.g. in C4 with C8), so why can't the same ("consonant") impression - be produced also by the ratio 9:1 (e.g. in C4 with G7), even though the frequency of amalgamation of the sine waves of C4 and G7 - is even higher than the frequency of amalgamation of the sine waves of C4 and C8, having the ratio 16:1? This is what my question is hung up on.

Then you try to answer my question by claiming that "it's because the successive ratios are identical". What's Identical? The ratio 2:1 is not identical to the ratio 4:1, is it? Further, I can't understand how your argument about the "the successive ratios" has anything to do with my question, about C4 and D7 played simultaneously, without adding any other pair of sounds of any other "successive ratio"... HOTmag (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Because 4:1, 8:1, 16:1, etc. are whole number powers of 2:1. 9:1 is not. Therefore C4 to D7 will not produce the same effect as octaves will. C4 - D7 is a major second and 3 octaves, so thats 9:8 * 8:1. That's where the 9:1 comes from. Major seconds are considered dissonant intervals. --Jayron32 14:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't claim that C4 to D7 should have produced the same effect as octaves produce. However, I do claim that the ratio between C4 and D7 (i.e. the ratio 9:1 which is a whole number power of the ratio 3:1 already known to be a consonance) - should have produced a consonance, just as the ratio between C4 and C8 (i.e. the ratio 8:1 which is a whole number power of the ratio 2:1 already known to be a consonance) produces a consonance.
• You claim, that the ratio 8:1 should have the same effect as that of the ratio 2:1 because, the ratio 8:1 is a whole number power of the ratio 2:1 - whereas the ratio 9:1 is not. Are you sure your argument explains why the ratio 9:1 does not have the advantage the ratio 8:1 has? If you think your argument does, then another person - following your argument - may have an analogous argument for explaining why the ratio 8:1 does not have the advantage the ratio 9:1 has, as follows: The ratio 9:1 should have the same effect as that of the ratio 3:1 - which is already known to be a consonance (being a perfect fifth), because 9:1 is a whole number power of 3:1 - whereas the ratio 8:1 is not. Conclusion: the ratio 8:1 does not have the advantage the ratio 9:1 has...
• Further, you claim that the ratio 8:1 should have the same effect as that of the ratio 2:1, because the ratio 8:1 is a whole number power of the ratio 2:1, i.e. because there exists a whole number n (being three) - such that 2 to the n-th power equals 8, whereas there exists no whole number n - such that 2 to the n-th power equals 9. So, following your argument, another person may claim, that 6:1 should have the same effect as that of the ratio 2:1, because there exists a whole number n (being three) - such that 2 multiplied by n equals 6. Another person may claim, that 5:1 should have the same effect as that of the ratio 2:1, because there exists a whole number n (being three) - such that 2 plus n equals 5. HOTmag (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

For common musical instruments I expect the perception of two notes being played together to depend on how well the overtone spectra blends together. C5 is the first overtone of C4; it is present and prominent in the spectrum of many instruments. Also, all the overtones of C5 are present in the spectrum of C4. So, if C4 and C5 are played together on the same instrument, they may blend so well that you perceive the sound as a single note, with maybe a slight change in timbre compared to C4 being played alone. G5 is the second overtone, which is often weaker. Of course all of its overtones are also present in the overtone spectrum but somewhat more rarefied. That may lead to a stronger change in timbre. If you play D7 together with C4, you enhance overtones that are usually rather weak, so the perception of their consonance may be that of two notes rather than one. I don't think it's dissonant (I'm not even sure whether "dissonance" is a good description for large intervals). For the case of two sine waves, I guess C4 and C5 blend together because C5 is a naturally strong overtone for many instruments. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about instruments producing no overtones, e.g. an ocarina or a vessel flute. Do C4 and C5 blend together on those instruments? Aren't you sure that the combination of C4 and D7 is a dissonance on those instruments (e.g. on two ocarinas used simultaneously)? HOTmag (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Hi User:HOTmag, this is a perennial question, and as such searching the archives pays off [1]! I was able to find some of my references from the last time this came up here [2]. There are lots of good points and references in that discussion, here I will simply repeat a quote from this [3] research article on auditory perception in infants (N.B., using infants avoids effects of enculturation):

“ the perceptual similarity of tones an octave apart is thought to be the only property of intervals that is attributable to the structure of the auditory system. ”

(emphasis mine) So that's one potential answer: the octave sounds "the same" to us because the structure of our auditory system reacts in a special way to octaves. See also here [4] and refs 17-20 therein for more about the special status of the octave in human auditory apparatus and perception. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, this sounds very interesting, thank you ! HOTmag (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Paid leave in the USA

I know from personal experience (and our articles on annual leave and list of minimum annual leave by country) that the United States is broadly unique in not requiring employers to provide full-time employees with paid leave. However, the statistics I see here only look at the national situation. Are there any US states or cities that require employers to provide paid leave to full-time employees? In addition, are there particular large companies or industries operating in the US that have paid leave policies similar to the minimums that exist in most of Europe (e.g. ~20 days per year of paid leave)? Dragons flight (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am talking about paid vacation days in general (and not leave for medical reasons, maternity, or other specific conditions). Dragons flight (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No individual U.S. state has such requirements of private employers either. Further reading on the lack of mandatory paid leave in the U.S. and other places can be found here. --Jayron32 13:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Some state statutes will have provisions for paid annual or sick leave to public employees of the state and any subsidiaries thereof, for example - Florida Statute, Title X, Chapter 110, Section 219. These same legal statutes are silent on paid leave for private employers, however, indicating that it is at the discretion of the company. Collective bargaining agreements between employees and employers can include the right to paid holidays or leave, but that is its own separate kettle of fish.--WaltCip (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, here's a link to some USA companies which do provide paid leave [5]. Amgen appears to have the highest rating in the USA for vacation leave (five weeks to start with) according to the list. Ironically, that amount is actually considered average by European standards.--WaltCip (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The legal minimum paid holiday in the UK is 28 days (which includes 8 public holidays). Wymspen (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No. It's actually 5.6 work weeks. [6].--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's 28 days in law (pro rata if you work less than 5 days a week, but with a maximum of 28 days). Dbfirs 14:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I provided a reliable source for saying 5.6 weeks, and here's another. Do you have evidence that the UK Government website is wrong?--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

An I missing something? Your second source does mention the 5.6 work week thing but I don't see where the first one does. The only thing it seems to say is if you work 1 day a week you're entitled to 5.6 days' holiday a year. Anyway your second source does mention the 5.6 week thing but it also says the maximum is 28 days. It doesn't really seem to clearly say whether the law says 28 pro-rated if you work less than 5 days a week or 5.6 weeks limited to 28 days and frankly this seems a matter of pointless semantics but if we really do want to clarify this I think we need a clearer source. Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I've found [7] and [8]. It seems you are mostly right. Since we're being technical here, as far as I can tell, it is 4 weeks + 1.6 weeks with a 28 day maximum minimum entitlement. ([9] while a union document is I assume correct in pointing out some companies screw up because they give 20 days plus the public holidays except timing issues means this doesn't end up being the required 4+1.6 weeks.) P.S. Is it normal that only the original version is available? While I've only looked a few times, when I have most recent NZ legislation had generally been available in amended version from the government site. Not necessarily straight away but I would assume 2007 amendments would have been incoporated in some version by now, and it would probably also note if there are amendments not yet incoporated. Or is this somewhere on the UK government site, I just missed it? Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (and two phone calls) Fair comment, though your additional reference says 28 days and goes on to say that this is equivalent to 5.6 weeks. The Working Time Regulations 1998 article says 28 days, but the original legislation says four weeks plus 8 bank holidays and I can't find the legal case in which this was clarified. We all agree, I think, that 28 days is the maximum legal entitlement (though many employers offer more), and that for someone working five days a week, this is the same as 5.6 weeks, and 5.6 weeks is the figure used for proportioning part-time work. Dbfirs 12:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

If you follow the helpful links Nil gave, you'll see that the 1998 regulations incorporated the 4 week EU entitlement into law, and the 2007 regulations added 1.6 weeks wef 1 April 2009. So it does still look like the actual law is 5.6 weeks, subject to the maximum of 28 days (to cater for those who work >5 days per week, I presume). The 28 day/5.6 week subtlety is an important distinction - I work in a Citizens Advice where part time working clients have got the wrong impression of their leave entitlement, since they think it's 28 days no matter how many days per week they work.--Phil Holmes (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd somehow missed finding the 2007 regulations. I agree that the law seems to say 5.6 weeks. My experience with Local Government and Union regulations was that the number of days was specified (and pro-rata for part-timers), but they seem to have been interpretations of the law. Apologies for doubting. Should we change the article that says 28 days? Dbfirs 20:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it needs changing - apart from the weeks thing, it specifies that the 1998 directive specified 28 days, when it was actually 4 weeks. The amendment added the 1.6 weeks to take the total to 5.6 weeks.--Phil Holmes (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Done --Phil Holmes (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• The US nominally has what is called a free market. The federal government has no power under the US Constitution to mandate paid leave, although Congress and the courts do tend to ignore any limits on their power, for which see the FMLA Act. In any case, in my first year at my first full-time job out of college I got 2 weeks of paid vacation, one week of "personal days" which could be taken with a day's notice, or even by phone before your shift started, if there was no shortage of other workers. We also had the choice of 5 out of 7 non-official holidays like MLK's birthday, Good Friday, or Black Friday to take off. That makes four weeks right there, and we could take up to 3 days off for illness without a doctor's note, but a note was needed for more days, and an application had to be filed by the doctor for pay for more than a five-day absence due to illness, and excessive illness leaves could eventually lead to termination. But none of this was mandated by the state or federal government; it was a way to attract good employees. μηδείς (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a free market in reality - it's an abstract ideal with several unachievable assumptions. And after John Marshall got away with judicial review, I'd say the courts' opinion on the constitution is more relevant than yours, or that of any other private person. But to put things into perspective: In Germany, we have a legal minimum of 4 weeks of paid vacation (stated as "24 days" on the assumption of a 6 day workweek, which is basically unknown now, but interpreted by courts as the number of workdays in 4 normal weeks). In practice, nearly everyone has 30 days (6 weeks) - I've never had a contract with fewer days. We also have unlimited paid sick leave, with the employer paying for the first 6 weeks per year for any individual sickness, then the health insurer takes over at a reduced rate. That is in addition to 9-13 public holidays (depending on the different federal states). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Stephan, do you understand the difference between "The US nominally has what is called a free market" and "The US has a free market"? Don't answer. After your typical reversion to ad hominem in your second sentence I see no need to point out that our insurer covered full pay for 90 days, then half pay after that--all without a Merkelständiger Dazwischenfunker. Hab Schwein! μηδείς (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe surprisingly, the US constitution does not mention the term "free market" or even "market" at all. Indeed, outside the Bill of Rights (where it occurs in amendments 1 and 2), the term "free" only appears in the (in)famous three-fifths clause. However, the constitution explicitly gives congress the power to "collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises", as well as to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" - in other words to significantly regulate and influence the market. As for the specific question of paid days of leave, it's at least arguable that that would be covered by the "general Welfare" clause (as so much is nowadays). I don't think I've called your feet smelly, or your eyes shifty, or even your character volatile, so I don't see where the ad hominem claim comes from. Disagreeing with your claims is not an ad-hominem. Congratulations on your health insurance. I hope all citizens enjoy similar benefits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

This is total ignorance. The commerce clause was intended to override the states existing powers under the US Articles of Confederation to set their own protective tariffs against interstate trade. Giving Congress sole power to regulate trade outside state borders was a means of forming a tariff-free customs union, not some sort of regulatory power grab. Likewise, what "Welfare clause"? There is no such thing, any more than there is a tranquility or a blessings clause. The government's powers are strictly delimited in the articles of the constitution, none of which provides for a welfare state. There is also the prohibition on Congress against impairing contracts, and there are the 9th and 10th amendments that reserve to the states and the people all powers not granted to the federal government, and protect all individual freedoms whether they are enumerated or not. You have descended into talking points, not the reality or history of the document. μηδείς (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Nil Einne's link is slightly confusing. England's holidays include the "summer bank holiday", which for Northern Ireland is included in the "Eight listed above". The eight days for Scotland include the "summer bank holiday" but it's a different date - the first Monday in August rather than the last. 92.8.223.3 (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The end of August is already winter in Scotland ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)