[Ratmagiclady]

Just thought I'd share this one, for those who claim equality is a 'distraction' and support the injustice, anyway:


Waymon Hudson: Election 2012: LGBT Equality Is an Economic Issue

While some may try to separate the need for a focus on jobs and economic recovery from LGBT equality, the two are closely connected for many in the LGBT community. While media portrayals of affluent, white gays dominate the airwaves, the truth is that LGBT people face higher rates of joblessness, lower wages, and higher rates of poverty than their heterosexual counterparts, due in large part to the compounded issues of workplace discrimination and a slow economic recovery.

LGBT people, particularly LGBT people of color, face significant discrimination in the workplace due to their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. Recent studies show that anywhere from 15 to 43 percent of gay people experience some form of discrimination and harassment at the workplace. For transgender Americans, the situation is even worse, with a staggering 90 percent of transgender workers reporting some form of harassment or mistreatment on the job.

To be clear, it is still perfectly legal to fire, or to refuse to hire, someone for no other reason than the fact they are gay or transgender, or even perceived as such, in the majority of states. Only 21 states and the District of Columbia have laws barring employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, while just 16 states and the District of Columbia have laws that ban employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression.

This pervasive discrimination against LGBT people leads to vast socioeconomic inequalities. Discrimination directly causes job instability and high turnover, resulting in greater unemployment and poverty rates for LGBT people, which strikes doubly hard in tough economic times.

The discrimination also leads to a wage gap between LGBT and straight workers. Gay men earn 10- to 32-percent less than similarly qualified heterosexual males, while older gay and lesbian adults experience higher poverty rates than their heterosexual counterparts. Findings also show that lesbian women across the board are consistently poorer than their heterosexual counterparts. Transgender people are twice as likely to be unemployed and are four times as likely to live in poverty. Nearly 20 percent have been or are currently homeless due to the issues stemming from workplace discrimination.

The economic news for LGBT families is startling, as well. Being denied the legal protections and economic safeguards provided to married heterosexual couples and parents contributes to higher economic insecurity for LGBT families. A 2009 Williams Institute report, "Tax Implications for Same-Sex Couples," finds that same-sex couples often pay more in taxes than heterosexual couples because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriage. The report shows that the economic impact of marriage discrimination is significant: Same-sex couples are not able to file federal joint tax returns, cannot transfer property tax to their partners freely, and are not eligible for Social Security survival benefits.

And again, all these numbers multiply when factors like race and gender are added to the mix for LGBT people and their families.

Toldya so, eh?


So, the real question is... Can our economy really afford this unnecessary and expensive burden?

(Most especially by the standards of the very things the GOP claims is 'good for it?')

[ihasa]

I have to admit, and I'm sorry RML, that I can't see that equal rights for LGBT people would have a transformative effect on the economy. The negative impacts are shouldered squarely by LGBT people, unfortunately.

Promoting LGBT equality is something that is right to do, though, apart from economic factors. It's actually quite horrifying how much of a way the USA has to go on these issues.

[Jasvox]

I want to know what either candidate is going to do about the segment of the population who wear spectacles? Those members of the population who are "ginger"? The portion of American women who have unusually small breasts or men who have moobs? Economic pull comes in all sizes, colors and smells and by God we need focus groups now!

Jason

[ihasa]

I want to know what either candidate is going to do about the segment of the population who wear spectacles? Those members of the population who are "ginger"? The portion of American women who have unusually small breasts or men who have moobs? Economic pull comes in all sizes, colors and smells and by God we need focus groups now!

Jason

I'm sorry, this is dumb. If being gay in America was as inconsequential as being a ginger, or being flat chested, you would have a point. But when was the last time ginger people were denied the right to legally marry each other, or someone denied a job for having man-boobs?

[magkelly]

Being ginger isn't a disadvantage in America actually. If it was red hair dye wouldn't be so popular and the hair salons wouldn't be doing a fair amount of business dying people's hair different shades of red. Ask your local stylist. Ask the beauty clerk at your local pharmacy which dyes sell out the most. Blond is still the favored choice but not by much. I'm naturally a medium ginger-brown, albeit I make mine darker and more red via a box of hair dye once in a while. I get loads of compliments, always have. People love the combo of red hair and green eyes. I've never gotten the loathing of the color elsewhere actually because here it's actually hugely popular...

Gay people make up something like 8% of the population supposedly, but more importantly they tend to be more politically active than a lot people who are not. Don't underestimate the power of the gay vote or the impact of gay $$$ on the economy. It may not matter so much in some little town but in a nice sized city it can have a nice impact on the economy and on politics there actually. Gay people have to eat, travel, work, play and live just like the rest of us. If they don't have money to do all that with it most certainly does make an impact on where they live.

That being said I'm not very supportive of people who make their sexuality their identity, particularly at work. I don't care what gender you like I don't really want to know who my co-workers sleep with. It's not my business, at least not while on the job. I very much want gay people to have equal rights, hello, big supporter here, but sometimes I just wish they'd see themselves as "people" and not "gay people."

I just don't believe who you sleep with should define you to that degree and I get tired of hearing about other people's sex lives. I don't know. Is it just an American thing or do people in general make too much out of their sexual preferences here? It's not just being gay. Whatever the preference it's almost always a case of TMI. People will openly discuss their sex lives period, even talk about bondage, swapping and shiz, like that. I mean come on, why a person would even discuss any of that at work is beyond me. Anyone asks? Tell them it's not their darned business what goes on in your sex life and move on.

I think all adult people should have the same rights. I don't like discrimination at all. But I just don't think making your sex life a thing all the time is very good for your work life. It shouldn't be that way but it's a fact that most employers just don't like to hire anyone who they feel can't represent them or more importantly their customers. If you insist upon looking or acting otherwise, fine, but then don't complain when you don't get the job. FYI, straight people have to live with stupid dress codes and people assuming wrong things about them too. Being different in ANY way is usually counter productive when it comes to working in normal jobs. Either make the attempt to fit in or say "Screw it!" and find a job where you can be 100% yourself.

You want them to change? Then don't support their industry or even attempt to work in it. Why even give them your time and talent if they're not accepting of you? It's like gays in the Catholic Church. I have never understood why they don't just walk out en mass and tell the Pope and Co to F- off. But no, they have to give some old guy in a white robe the ultimate power over their lives even though what he says about them is utter BS sometimes. Might as well wear a hair shirt and flog yourself if you're actually going to listen to that crap...

There are some things in this life that just never change no matter how much you'd like them to. I just stay away, find my own way. I don't waste my time or resources on things or people like that. If a company is like that? I don't want to work for them and I don't. I left one of the companies I worked for out west for a few reasons, but one of the main reasons was how they treated one of the other managers who was gay and who came up HIV+ while working for them. They were so gay supportive supposedly, but it was really all just PC correct talk. Their real attitude came out very quickly when they found out about him. Two months after revealing he was HIV positive to our owner and he was out on his ear supposedly for other reasons which probably would never have held up in court.

I wanted to see him sue them so bad but he just refused to go there. Didn't want the stress he said. But after that? I just could not stomach working for them at all. I was already pretty ticked off about money issues, lies they'd told me about reimbursements and such, but that was just the final straw for me what they did to him. I must admit watching their whole business tank a couple of years later didn't bother me at all. In fact I was tempted to crack a bottle of champagne the day they finally closed because I felt they got exactly what they deserved. I never expected them to change though. I knew they wouldn't. Karma got them eventually. That's good enough for me....:P

[Jasvox]

My examples, as inane as you think they are, were given purely because if we separate and continue to compartmentalize our lives and how we should all be catered to as political demographics will only lead to complete governance of special interests and niches. Hell, we all have our preferences and the way we are as individuals, but that does not mean the world revolves individuals or "titles" only. I am all up for compete equality, across the board, but when that day comes, I hope we can all get over ourselves too.

Jason

[mikemike]

I have to admit, and I'm sorry RML, that I can't see that equal rights for LGBT people would have a transformative effect on the economy. The negative impacts are shouldered squarely by LGBT people, unfortunately.

Promoting LGBT equality is something that is right to do, though, apart from economic factors. It's actually quite horrifying how much of a way the USA has to go on these issues.

I agree, the morality of the issue is the reason to push for equal rights and trying to present this issue or other similar issues of society overlooking certain groups as an economic or national security issue just distracts from the fact that it is a moral issue.

Gay men earn 10- to 32-percent less than similarly qualified heterosexual males

Gay men are much less likely to have families to support. On the flip side, lesbians earn more than heterosexual women because their careers are less likely to be interrupted by maternity leave and disrupted by child rearing activities. The differences in gross income and tax disadvantages are more than compensated by the difference in expenses and the result is that the gay community has higher average disposable income than the heterosexual community. The communist philosophy "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" justifies paying homosexual men less than heterosexual men.

[Ratmagiclady]

I have to admit, and I'm sorry RML, that I can't see that equal rights for LGBT people would have a transformative effect on the economy. The negative impacts are shouldered squarely by LGBT people, unfortunately.

Dude? If the Right is complaining about marginal tax rates for the already-rich, exactly why do you think suppressing a random five-to-ten-percent of the taxpayers is insonsequential to the economy? (We're *not aliens, dude.* ) We're *part* of the economy, at least as long as no one successfully cuts us *out* of it... Even people who weren't made disabled when we didn't have to be... they try to prop up housing prices for the banks' sake while *suppressing* a percentage of the population's rational interest in even *owning* homes that their discrimination won't let us be secure in?

That' we'd pay two or three times the taxes on and not get the legal protections that you take for granted?

How is that *separate* from the economy? *Especially* if people claim 'Not paying too many taxes will make the economy go, this is vital, ...unless you're LGBT. In which case we should do the opposite.'


The very simple fact of it is, is that if my sweetie and I were equal citizens, we'd have *been* homeowners a few years ago, even if it was in Montana, Maine, Missouri, or Michigan, (especially Michigan.) The fact we're *not* means we're both economically-suppressed, not getting health care we need, paying inflated rents and I'm on food stamps to live in a *basement* instead of us being well into being part of a community where I'd be off even the Social Security and doing a little cottage industry. Sweetie's not doing the degree we worked so hard for her to get any justice, either, cause *I can't help her from here.*

Don't you think that affects 'the economy' if you multiply it a million times or three over, assuming not all LGBT people are *that* crippled by pushing us over the line that way?

Promoting LGBT equality is something that is right to do, though, apart from economic factors. It's actually quite horrifying how much of a way the USA has to go on these issues.

Yes, it's just plain the right thing to do, but where do you get off claiming that the 'economic factors' somehow don't apply to *our* lives? Or that the nuts and bolts of a big percentage of the population somehow *don't affect the world around us?* We're not a 'side issue.' This is our freakin' country too, despite certain people treating us otherwise.

[Ratmagiclady]

I agree, the morality of the issue is the reason to push for equal rights and trying to present this issue or other similar issues of society overlooking certain groups as an economic or national security issue just distracts from the fact that it is a moral issue.

People claiming their 'morality' is an issue over us, and then claiming it's 'just the economy' to use their 'morality' to claim that our lives are a 'diversion' from the economy is a proven falsehood.

Gay men are much less likely to have families to support.

Also untrue, you know: they're less likely to have the support of families, but even the parents that disowned them are likely to still be their responsibility, and this is also apart from the fact that while there are *some* gay men who may have disposable income and no kids to spend it on: they are also *less likely than a straight bachelor to have it in the first place.* It's a substantial amount of money spent by a certain few, (important to marketers,) but that doesn't actually define the experience of 'gay men' who as this study shows, ...in fact earn less for the same work if they can be employed so at all.

On the flip side, lesbians earn more than heterosexual women because their careers are less likely to be interrupted by maternity leave and disrupted by child rearing activities.

Again, the actual facts say the opposite. My sisters have both had babies and *still* earn more than I ever did. And I'm supposedly the 'genius' in the family. And I might add, I raised a daughter *without* the help of extended family. (Actually while actively *hiding* from them, but that's another story. Try getting a legit job when you are on the run. Cause of what.. 'Family values.' Yah. )


No. 'Lesbians' don't 'earn more,' ...that's the opposite of the *facts,* kids or not. And when we *are* raising kids, *that's* more expensive.

And, again, as a couple, my sweetie and I could have been homeowners, throwing less at redundant bills and moreover being secure in our property enough that the 'marriage penalty' we'd in fact be paying, most especially regarding the severe cuts my disability would take over it.... would both be worth it to us, cost the 'gummint' less, and in fact cost us *less* over the medium term simply because our family unit would be more resilient than a couple of single people who are legal strangers to each other. And we wouldn't have to *fear* so much the whole while. We'd also be doing a lot more in the consumer economy than *this.*

That's the *reality* ...also the figures you ignore for your justifying an abstraction that is *counter* to the real numbers.

The differences in gross income and tax disadvantages are more than compensated by the difference in expenses and the result is that the gay community has higher average disposable income than the heterosexual community. The communist philosophy "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" justifies paying homosexual men less than heterosexual men.

So, you're saying it's OK to be your idea of 'Communist' as long as it hurts gay people through the 'free market?? What happened to your 'free market?'

Again, you're claiming the opposite of the actual facts is 'true' to justify the very thing you're denying is the case: that we're real people who are treated unfairly, and you somehow think that by impoverishing us, especially by unfair levels of taxation and being insecure in our property, that somehow 'The economy will prosper cause gay people don't count according to this thing I demand to do and ascribe to Commies and my idea that people who are paid less for the same work are somehow 'affluent?'

That's nonsense, Mikemike, even by your own terms.

[mikemike]

A couple of quick google searches can ferret out the facts that are available on this subject...

"Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay men" (University of Chicago Press, 2001), by University of Massachusetts economics professor Lee Badgett..

Badgett's book seems to be the first serious book on the subject. But what makes it particularly valuable is a quality that often irritates the general reader. For instance, in Chapter 2, "The Economic Penalty for Being Gay," she concludes:

"Lesbian/bisexual women earn 11 percent more than heterosexual women. The difference is not statistically significant. ... Gay/bisexal men, however, ... earn 17 percent less than heterosexual men with the same education, race, location, and occupation."

Some Economics of Being Gay ? IGF Culture Watch

Montreal, Canada – October 29, 2008 – A new study in the Canadian Journal of Economics provides the first evidence on sexual orientation and economic outcomes in Canada. The study found that gay men have 12 percent lower personal incomes and lesbians have 15 percent higher personal incomes than heterosexual men and women.

Christopher S. Carpenter of The Paul Merage School of Business at the University of California Irvine used data from the Canadian Community Health Survey which includes standard demographic questions as well as self-reports on sexual orientation.

Like previous patterns found in the U.S. and the U.K., results show that gay men have significantly lower personal incomes than similarly situated straight individuals, while lesbians have significantly higher personal incomes than straight women.

Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Sexual orientation and personal income

Your personal situation is, as usual, contrary to the typical experience.

There is a difference in household size of adults depending on sexual orientations because homosexuality makes it biologically impossible to have a child with your partner and there are high economic hurdles (and social hurdles as well) to IVF for lesbians, finding a surrogate for gay men, or adopting as a gay couple putting that off limits to most gays while it is a constant possibility for any sexually active heterosexual.

While you may not know, recognize, or been privied to business decisions regarding raises, promotions, or layoffs people's personal situations are often considered and if it is a decision between letting go one of two people who are equally competent but one is a bachelor while the other is married with children to support the people making that decision will often (especially in smaller companies) choose to keep the latter. Likewise, the need to provide for someone other than yourself gives you a certain extra ambition and push to take your job seriously. In the free market, the people with the greatest needs hustle harder to fulfill them. In reality, decisions are made by people who are empathetic to the impact of their decisions, unfortunately you can't please everyone all the time.

[ihasa]

Yes, it's just plain the right thing to do, but where do you get off claiming that the 'economic factors' somehow don't apply to *our* lives? Or that the nuts and bolts of a big percentage of the population somehow *don't affect the world around us?* We're not a 'side issue.' This is our freakin' country too, despite certain people treating us otherwise.

Before I begin, let me say that I'm actually in a gay civil partnership, so do have empathy. I just can't see that from the perspective of the overall economy it would necessarily boost the recovery. There would still be the same number of unemployed people, it would just be that they would not be as unfairly concentrated in the LGBT community. I just think this is a difficult argument to make purely in terms of any major effect on 'the national economy.'

What I don't understand is why people would say these issues should be put on hold while focus is put on the economy. The human right of people to be treated equally is NOT a side issue, it is fundamentally important. The legislation is simple, has been implemented elsewhere, and effectively doesn't cost anything, or at least, the costs (e.g. reduced tax income from married couples) balance out. There is no excuse not to press on with reform immediately (and join the rest of us in the 21st Century) in any case.

[ihasa]

The differences in gross income and tax disadvantages are more than compensated by the difference in expenses and the result is that the gay community has higher average disposable income than the heterosexual community. The communist philosophy "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" justifies paying homosexual men less than heterosexual men.

Now, I know you don't really mean that.

We do not live in communist countries. To each according to his worth is the capitalist motto. If I my skills are valuable to a company, I will be paid the going rate, or look elsewhere. If there is an income gap for gay men, it may well be because more of us choose jobs with other motivations than purely financial. I don't know if I'm typical or not, but my dream is to earn enough, and live well, not spend my life chasing the dollar.

[Ratmagiclady]

A couple of quick google searches can ferret out the facts that are available on this subject...


Some Economics of Being Gay ? IGF Culture Watch


Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Sexual orientation and personal income

Your personal situation is, as usual, contrary to the typical experience.

In 2001, or Canada, which had had equality since long before then?

And all of this to claim that Americans having disposable income and not being unfairly-burdened would *hurt8 the very consumerist economy you seek to defend?


While ignoring the actual studies of actual income disparity that actually apply and say the opposite of what you claim, most especially *since* the economy has changed and your beloved Repugs have redoubled the very culture war?


And, no, those things you quoted are not the *typical* experience: they are the experiences of those who manage to *not* be harmed by the very things you demand, and which are still contrary to the very things you claim are 'good for free-market prosperity.'

There is a difference in household size of adults depending on sexual orientations because homosexuality makes it biologically impossible to have a child with your partner and there are high economic hurdles (and social hurdles as well) to IVF for lesbians, finding a surrogate for gay men, or adopting as a gay couple putting that off limits to most gays while it is a constant possibility for any sexually active heterosexual.

Your breeder-centric idea that 'biologically-impossible=You don't have kids,' doesn't make *that* the economic or real reality, never mind make it 'fair' based on your projected, 'You must be a COmmie and think that's OK, so I can do it in the name of 'Free Market' cause I say you're all undeservedly-rich,' either. Especially not when homophobes are trying to demand women get pregnant involuntarily regardless of orientation, and *most* especially when you're quoting statistics from either the peak of the real estate bubble here, or from a place where people like me *do* have something like full equality, as an excuse to preserve policies which mean neither of these things are true *here.* Never mind refuting the actual statistics and real life of the 'here and now.'

No. Actually, you're trying to theorize your way out of *documented* income disparities, children or not.

While you may not know, recognize, or been privied to business decisions regarding raises, promotions, or layoffs people's personal situations are often considered and if it is a decision between letting go one of two people who are equally competent but one is a bachelor while the other is married with children to support the people making that decision will often (especially in smaller companies) choose to keep the latter.

This is an argument for laying off a previous partner when we both could barely keep a roof over our daughter's (Her biological daughter's: born cause she and a queer male were trying to conform) head ...but couldn't call ourselves 'married,' *how?*

Likewise, the need to provide for someone other than yourself gives you a certain extra ambition and push to take your job seriously. In the free market, the people with the greatest needs hustle harder to fulfill them. In reality, decisions are made by people who are empathetic to the impact of their decisions, unfortunately you can't please everyone all the time.

Exactly how does this justify the very inequality and just plain capitalistic inequity you *demand?* Because of your own bigotry and denial of the *actual facts?* I've seen *that,* too.

You claim, 'Oh, you're not typical.' But if that weren't so... It still wouldn't mean you aren't violating your very own ideology to single out a minority you don't like.

But it's still so, even if you try to rationalize it otherwise.



Also, simple fact is, maybe I'm *not* 'typical.' Maybe I'm just part of a significant percentage of people that really could be doing more for this economy if people like *you* didn't think it was OK to kick me in the knees all the time cause you have some false idea of 'Gay affluence.' You're the same kind of bastard always complaining abut 'Welfare Moms,' now you want to say, 'You should be economically-suppressed, *too,* for not getting pregnant. Which would be 'moral' for you to do, even if you can't, but you should pretend, cause we don't want to 'sanction' people not getting pregnant... '

I mean.... What?


Dude, it's *straight people* who breed out of control and then call people like me too 'immoral' to be part of our *own* families, never mind care for your castoffs, now you want to use that very thing as an excuse to deny us lives and livelihoods at will? Claim, 'Well, if you're married, you'll keep your job, that's why you deserve to lose yours, even if you actually are trying to care for your partner's own biological child that was a result of us telling you to try really hard to be straight or else be subject to what we claim is 'free market' economics, unless I want to say you should be subject to 'Commie' principles if you're gay?

And you use this very thing you say as justifying somehow, 'the definition of marriage not applying to *your* family, RML?' You just *proved* at least one way even your 'separate but equal' fantasy wouldn't be the same as equality. By your own tongue.

I mean, dude? Really?

[Ratmagiclady]

Before I begin, let me say that I'm actually in a gay civil partnership, so do have empathy. I just can't see that from the perspective of the overall economy it would necessarily boost the recovery. There would still be the same number of unemployed people, it would just be that they would not be as unfairly concentrated in the LGBT community. I just think this is a difficult argument to make purely in terms of any major effect on 'the national economy.'

For starters, you're in England, dude. And you also have more rights that you take for granted than you may realize, even in a 'civil partnership,' cause you're not in the same damn *system* as all this.

What I don't understand is why people would say these issues should be put on hold while focus is put on the economy. The human right of people to be treated equally is NOT a side issue, it is fundamentally important. The legislation is simple, has been implemented elsewhere, and effectively doesn't cost anything, or at least, the costs (e.g. reduced tax income from married couples) balance out. There is no excuse not to press on with reform immediately (and join the rest of us in the 21st Century) in any case.

Yes, tis morally-immediate and a no-brainer in that count, but in the *American* 'marketplace' it *fundamentally-affects the profit-based system whether you like it or not* if you suppress *any* segment of the population for any reason. Gigantic coprorations will sue each other for *years and decades* over far smaller margins. Call it 'The free market.' As you can see, Mikemike seems to be trying to spin figures from elsewhere and elsewhen to try and claim that injustice in direct ways overrides both facts, human experience, and his very own economic theories and results, never *mind* them ever being *right* morally.


The point here isn't just that it's injustice, one i know all too well: it's that it's a very *expensive* injustice, by the very criteria the cons here in America seek to impose. They can 'blame Obama retroactively' all they want, but if they're trying to claim the economy was served by pushing me into the liabilities column by repeatedly squeezing Ivy League material out.... I'm not seeing how citations of real estate bubbles and countries where we're free somehow 'proves' it's good for the economy to kick my very expensive education into the gutter. And call it 'morality.'

[mikemike]

I tried to look at the studies linked in the OP article RE pay disparities for gay men and lesbians but they were dead links.

About this stat:

Transgender people are twice as likely to be unemployed and are four times as likely to live in poverty.

How much does gender reassignment surgery cost? How do they pay for it if they are so damn poor? Could medical costs associated with their elective procedures be related to their resultant economic conditions?