National impact from New York marriage law: experts

[dps]

If you're bringing up slavery in this, you're about a century off.  We didn't really have a welfare state until Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

But it seems you're implying that the descendants of the slaves, the poor Blacks in the Northern ghettos and rural South were not a permanent underclass before Lyndon Johnson.

Which seems preposterous, to put it mildly.

Did you read the part about being unemployable?

[Valmy]

They weren't unemployable though, as in Marty's post.  Unemployment was higher among blacks than among whites, and blacks in the main couldn't get the decent jobs, but they could usually find work.  And the situation was a direct result of racial segregation, not an inevitable result of capitalism.

Sorry I joined this conversation in the middle.  I just heard there was no underclass until the Great Society.

[Ideologue]

... while automation makes human labor increasingly pointless and human intelligence increasingly worthless.

Automation not only frees humans to do more productive work but can only replace tasks where human intelligence is ALREADY worthless.

Automation frees humans qualified to do more productive work, to do more productive work.  99% of humanity is qualified to be a ditch-digger.  What fraction is qualified to be an automation engineer?

I think we have an assumption that any human intelligence is malleable enough that, with proper education and discipline, anyone is potentially qualified to participate in the economy, regardless of how advanced that economy is.  While it's based on the historical experience that the labor force has adapted to technological revolutions--hunter/gatherers become farmers, farmers become factory workers, factory workers retrain to become office workers--I don't believe the assumption that they always shall to be true.

I also sharply disagree that automation will only replace physical labor and routine tasks, and leave true, non-routine intellectual activity untouched.  But this is a separate issue, and depends on how you feel about strong AI.

Now, I am not a luddite, and I'm not attacking technological progress in itself.  All I'm attacking is the ideological notion that humans are obligatedto participate in the economy, or to participate to the extent they presently do, in order to survive, because I do not believe that this notion will be sustainable once only 75, 50, 25, or 10% of humanity is even biologically equipped to participate.  We are not a race of scientists and artists.

The goal should be (and implicitly has been for at least a hundred fifty years) to put an end to human labor.  You can only hold on to a capitalist worldview and embrace that goal at the same time if you accept the logical result of keeping to both: massive human dieback.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I didn't want to imply most humans can do creative work. I know for a fact they do not. And most of those who do are unwilling to do so. For some reason normal people try to use their brain as less as possible, which is something I always found puzzling.

Wait, we agree?  What the fuck?  This is Languish, Iorm!  You call me a dirty commie!

(Although, I would accept Friedman capitalisism as a workable system. )

[Razgovory]

Did you read the part about being unemployable?

Why do you assume they are now unemployable?  Or they weren't unemployable prior to the 1960's?

[dps]

Did you read the part about being unemployable?

Why do you assume they are now unemployable?  Or they weren't unemployable prior to the 1960's?

The "unemployable" bit came from Marty's post.  My point was that while most blacks were stuck in an underclass prior to the 1960s, they weren't unemployable.

[Razgovory]

Did you read the part about being unemployable?

Why do you assume they are now unemployable?  Or they weren't unemployable prior to the 1960's?

The "unemployable" bit came from Marty's post.  My point was that while most blacks were stuck in an underclass prior to the 1960s, they weren't unemployable.

Are they now unemployable?

[dps]

Did you read the part about being unemployable?

Why do you assume they are now unemployable?  Or they weren't unemployable prior to the 1960's?

The "unemployable" bit came from Marty's post.  My point was that while most blacks were stuck in an underclass prior to the 1960s, they weren't unemployable.

Are they now unemployable?

Not that I know of. 

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/york-braces-gay-wedding-boom-lottery-171558327.html

New York braces for gay wedding boom with lottery

Overwhelmed by marriage applications from gay and lesbian couples who can wed under a new law starting Sunday, New York City is conducting a lottery to decide who will be allowed to marry that day.

City officials said Tuesday that 764 couples were expected to be married Sunday, more than the city's previous single-day high of 621 on Valentine's Day in 2003 and 610 marriages on August 8, 2008.

"We've done our homework and it's clear that the number of couples who want to marry Sunday is more than the City Clerk's offices could possibly handle," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a news conference in explaining the lottery.

Couples can register in the lottery between noon Tuesday and noon on July 21 if they want to marry at any of the five city clerk's offices Sunday. Winners will be selected randomly.

"The fairest way to determine who gets the chance to wed on Sunday and ensure everyone can properly plan for their own big day is through an even-handed lottery system," Bloomberg said.

He urged those who do not win the lottery to consider going Monday or another day.

Bloomberg and other city officials said that 2,661 online applications had been made since July 5, of which 1,728 were same-sex couples benefiting from New York State's Marriage Equality Act, which was signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo on June 24.

The law made the state the sixth and most populous in the United States to allow same-sex marriage.

Clerk's offices are normally closed on Sundays, but officials across the state said they would open them to marry same-sex couples on the first day the law takes effect.

At least two town clerks in the state, citing religious objections, have resigned to avoid being forced to sign licenses for gay and lesbian couples.

"We will be completely prepared and ready," City Clerk Michael McSweeney told reporters. "We look forward to being a part of history."

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who is expected to marry her woman partner under the new law but not enter the lottery, said many judges had volunteered to perform ceremonies and speed up the process.

"That's what happens when you pass laws that expand human rights, you unite people," Quinn said at the same news conference.

"We want to make as many New Yorkers have the most important part of their life be that first Sunday."

[grumbler]

Did you read the part about being unemployable?

Why do you assume they are now unemployable?  Or they weren't unemployable prior to the 1960's?

The "unemployable" bit came from Marty's post.  My point was that while most blacks were stuck in an underclass prior to the 1960s, they weren't unemployable.

Are they now unemployable?

Not that I know of.

  Beautiful!   Best play of a series of red herrings in a thread in weeks.