The Economics of Same-Sex Marriage

\ Leave a Comment \ by

Legalizing marriage for same-sex couples in New York would have impacts beyond allowing individuals to make the full legal commitments to their partners that opposite sex couples take for granted. Marriage equality would provide economic benefits to New York State and New York City, especially in the years immediately following enactment of legislation granting this important civil right. The economic benefits would be derived primarily from the increase in visitors from other states who come to New York for the purpose of marrying or attending weddings.

Legalization of marriage for same-sex couples would also entail costs to businesses. In particular, businesses that offer health insurance to employee spouses would be required to cover same-sex spouses. However, this additional cost would be partially offset because many firms already offer coverage for domestic partners.

from Love Counts: The Economic Benefits of Marriage Equality for New York, Exective Summary.

I was listening to Doug Henwood’s radio show Beyond the News the other day, and he had a great interview with Lee Badgett on the economics of same-sex marriage. (I am always behind; this interview is from June 21, 2007.) It’s not that the legalization of gay marriage would by itself create an economic boom, but neither would it be an enormously expensive proposition, as some have argued.

Henwood interviewed Badgett on the occasion of the publication of a report, “Love Counts,” (caution, the above link goes to a .pdf file) by the New York City Comptroller’s Office. What’s important is the way these cool facts can or should counter the crazy myths spread by that small group that fears this sort of equality. Equality is an not a luxury we can’t afford. Badgett has a charmingly old-fashioned website, where you can find out more about her work, here.

Posted in: Economics, Language, Online Places, Writing

The Cult of the Amateur

\ Leave a Comment \ by

The Encyclopedia Britannica is often cited as an example of a best result of the professional system, usually in contradistinction to the amateur efforts of Wikipedia.

However, Britannica’s spectacular failures to report on Einstein’s 1905 writings that fundamentally changed our understanding of this entire universe, along with their simultaneous refusal to change a centuries old attitude towards racism, the roots of World War One, just to name a few instances of brittle Britannica bias, should be enough reason alone to encourage other sources of information.

Marvin Minsky, arguably, “The smartest man in the world,” at least by the standards of Isaac Asimov, says that, “You don’t understand anything until you learn it more than one way.”

How can you learn anything more than one way if the professionals’ attention span is that of a myopic gnat?

What we need is MORE information sources. . .not less!

Michael Hart, Friday, 22 June 2007

Here’s a spirited defense of the flat-hierarchies enabled by the web in general and encouraged by wikis and Wikipedia more specifically. Michael Hart is, as his by-line says, “Founding Member of Project Gutenberg, World eBook Fair & General Cyberspace.” Hart is responding to the book of the same name, and to what he calls, “paid professional punditry,” who find their authority challenged.

It’s odd that there always seems to be this ‘sky is falling’ attitude among some critics, as if you had to have professional opinions or amateur opinions but not both. Interestingly, the pundits fear that the amateurs have an unfair advantage, as if sheer enthusiasm could swamp clear thinking. That may be true in some cases.

It suggests, though, that we need to continue to promote and teach and model skepticism, as Hart suggest. One good rule: never trust a single source of any kind. Perhaps another rule is to never trust one kind of source; to play amateur against professional and vice versa. It’s also important to remember– again, as Hart emphasizes– that the system of expertise always exaggerated the accuracy of its knowledge.

Posted in: Language, Online Places, Professional, Writing

Online Etymology Dictionary

\ Leave a Comment \ by

This is a map of the wheel-ruts of modern English. Etymologies are not definitions; they’re explanations of what our words meant and how they sounded 600 or 2,000 years ago.

The dates beside a word indicate the earliest year for which there is a surviving written record of that word (in English, unless otherwise indicated). This should be taken as approximate, especially before about 1700, since a word may have been used in conversation for hundreds of years before it turns up in a manuscript that has had the good fortune to survive the centuries.

from the Online Etymology Dictionary

I’m going on vacation for a week, so there won’t be any posts until July 11. How about some etymology before we go? Did you know that ‘cool cash’ is one of the oldest uses of ‘cool,’ dating from the 1700s? Or that ‘groovy‘ is related to grave and ditch, and took on its slang sense in the 1930s, like ‘cool’? Yet another debt we owe Black Jazz. Hip, by the way, “probably a variant of hep” (as in cool or groovy) is as old as the airplane.

Posted in: Language, Writing