My latest post on providing health care concluded that the cost of providing them would exceed the benefits. I still reason the government will not approve this important legislation because of the costs it will incur (and because of prejudice towards gays). Of course, my prediction could be wrong.
But, however grim my analysis may be, I still believe that health care benefits should be granted to all same-sex partners of federal employees because it is an entitlement that we should enjoy just as much as heterosexual partners. Cost and benefits cannot overshadow civil rights.
In this case, civil rights trumps economics. So, to answer that post's concluding question "Are health care benefits worth the cost?", the answer is yes.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Social Networking Venn Diagram
Now that CNN is on Twitter, the venn diagram helps explain why their news coverage sucks. It all makes perfect sense to me now. Thanks Despair Inc!
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
On Being Gay and Jewish
Phil, at Ameriqueer, is going to be posting a dozen or so original guest posts dealing with Queer Spirituality this week, with contributors representing each of the world's major religions. He asked me to contribute to the conversation as the token Jew. I am glad to write about my experiences with being gay and Jewish, and I want to share my narrative with you.
When asked to write about what it means to be spiritual and gay, I was given the premise that we gays all know how difficult it is to be both. I want to make it clear at the outset that this premise is mistaken. This assumption does not fit my experience as a gay Jew. I cannot remember a time in my childhood or young adulthood where there was conflict between my sexual identity and spirituality. The closest difficulty I have faced is not being able to find that nice Jewish boy that my mom wants me to meet.
I come from a liberal, Chicago suburban Jewish family. My father's family has been here since the mid-1800s but my mom's father escaped the Holocaust, fled to Israel, and finally settled in Chicago. I grew up knowing distinctly that I was a Jew. My mother emphasized that we were unique, and that our situation, despite the tolerance we Jews have in America, was always precarious and that Israel was our only protection from persecution. So, I grew up with this sense of "otherness". At times, I rebelled, but most times, I was very proud to be a Jew. Today, I have a secure and evolving sense of my Jewish self.
Around that same time, I began to have feelings for boys as well. When I was in fourth grade, I stared at attractive boys in my class a lot and loved to be around them during recess. I knew intuitively I was gay at this time but I didn't know what to think about it in Jewish terms. Homosexuality was not discussed in my Sunday school classes. No one told me it was bad, but no teacher had told me it was good either. I never heard my rabbi preach about the sin of homosexuality ever. I did not grow up even with the sense that there was a conflict between being gay and being Jewish. There simply was not any condemnation, let alone any mention, of it in my religious upbringing.
I now know why this is now. There are two types of Judaism, loosely. There is the liberal branch, consisting of the Reform and Conservative movements in which I grew up, that is tolerant of homosexuality and then there is the Orthodox community. Unlike the liberal branch, the Orthodox has a much more austere and critical perspective of homosexuality.
When I did bring up the issue of homosexuality with my mom one time, she had said that we Jews understand it as a product of its place and time. The Torah actually does says that homosexuality is an abomination. In ancient times, however, the world population was very scarce; people and infants died all the time. It was imperative that the Jews survive and only through a sexual relationship between a man and a woman could that be done. Same sex love between men or between women did not help to ensure the survival of mankind and the Torah accordingly condemns and discourages homosexual practices. However, Reform Jews don't believe the ancient rabbis believed that same sex love was immoral. Reform Judaism rejects any suggestion that being gay is any kind of sin when we look at the Torah in its ancient context.
Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, understand homosexuality as grave a sin as Catholics, evangelical Christians, and many young Orthodox gay Jews are not as fortuitous as I to grow up in such an open-minded and liberal household. Many succumb to family pressures to marry, and some unfortunately commit suicide. I heard of one religious Jew who, in order to purge himself of his homosexuality, survived on a diet of cigarettes and water. My heart goes out to him because I do not know Judaism as a faith whose precepts would make a man go to such gruesome depth to suppress his identity.
On the contrary, my parents support me and remind me of their unconditional love all the time. They cherish me as their son, and my sexual identity does not compromise that. Despite this, though, there are times when I get so depressed because the feeling of being different overwhelms me. Knowing that I am both gay and Jewish, and knowing the hardships that both groups face within and outside each community, exhausts my soul sometimes. I become inarticulate, despondent, and withdrawn from friends and family. I can speak, but only tersely; I can think, but my thoughts are convoluted; I can live, but I barely survive.
As soup for my soul, I turn to the Torah, Judaism’s holiest book to uplift my spirits. I remember that the Torah forbids the suppression of identity and I remind myself that I wasn’t created in error. For instance, we Jews emphasize heavily that each person is made in the image of God. Since I was made in His image, God did not make me as a pile of junk. I must believe that I am valuable because I was created for a purpose and to have purpose in life. This Jewish philosophy gives life to my gay identity more than any gay bar or pride parade every can.
Torah also teaches me that self-love is self-acceptance. Because I want to better synthesize my identities, I have being helping revise the LGBT Jewish student group at the Hillel at the University of Illinois. The group is called Naches, which is the Yiddish word for Pride. The mission of Naches is to create a vibrant, welcoming Jewish LGBT community where students can explore and celebrate all aspects of their identities. I want to help gay Jewish students feel empowered to embrace and fuse both of their identities through social and educational programming. This past year we held queer-themed Shabbats, which were very popular.
The premise that we gays all know how difficult it is to be both gay and spiritual is far from the truth. I know many gays who, yes, do feel uncomfortable with religion, are agnostic or atheist, and for them that is entirely ok. But, my experience shows that spirituality and being gay are reconcilable and that having a spirituality can help make being gay more holy and more meaningful. I am grateful that I have been ‘twice blessed’ to be both gay and Jewish. It is such a blessing in my life.
When asked to write about what it means to be spiritual and gay, I was given the premise that we gays all know how difficult it is to be both. I want to make it clear at the outset that this premise is mistaken. This assumption does not fit my experience as a gay Jew. I cannot remember a time in my childhood or young adulthood where there was conflict between my sexual identity and spirituality. The closest difficulty I have faced is not being able to find that nice Jewish boy that my mom wants me to meet.
I come from a liberal, Chicago suburban Jewish family. My father's family has been here since the mid-1800s but my mom's father escaped the Holocaust, fled to Israel, and finally settled in Chicago. I grew up knowing distinctly that I was a Jew. My mother emphasized that we were unique, and that our situation, despite the tolerance we Jews have in America, was always precarious and that Israel was our only protection from persecution. So, I grew up with this sense of "otherness". At times, I rebelled, but most times, I was very proud to be a Jew. Today, I have a secure and evolving sense of my Jewish self.
Around that same time, I began to have feelings for boys as well. When I was in fourth grade, I stared at attractive boys in my class a lot and loved to be around them during recess. I knew intuitively I was gay at this time but I didn't know what to think about it in Jewish terms. Homosexuality was not discussed in my Sunday school classes. No one told me it was bad, but no teacher had told me it was good either. I never heard my rabbi preach about the sin of homosexuality ever. I did not grow up even with the sense that there was a conflict between being gay and being Jewish. There simply was not any condemnation, let alone any mention, of it in my religious upbringing.
I now know why this is now. There are two types of Judaism, loosely. There is the liberal branch, consisting of the Reform and Conservative movements in which I grew up, that is tolerant of homosexuality and then there is the Orthodox community. Unlike the liberal branch, the Orthodox has a much more austere and critical perspective of homosexuality.
When I did bring up the issue of homosexuality with my mom one time, she had said that we Jews understand it as a product of its place and time. The Torah actually does says that homosexuality is an abomination. In ancient times, however, the world population was very scarce; people and infants died all the time. It was imperative that the Jews survive and only through a sexual relationship between a man and a woman could that be done. Same sex love between men or between women did not help to ensure the survival of mankind and the Torah accordingly condemns and discourages homosexual practices. However, Reform Jews don't believe the ancient rabbis believed that same sex love was immoral. Reform Judaism rejects any suggestion that being gay is any kind of sin when we look at the Torah in its ancient context.
Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, understand homosexuality as grave a sin as Catholics, evangelical Christians, and many young Orthodox gay Jews are not as fortuitous as I to grow up in such an open-minded and liberal household. Many succumb to family pressures to marry, and some unfortunately commit suicide. I heard of one religious Jew who, in order to purge himself of his homosexuality, survived on a diet of cigarettes and water. My heart goes out to him because I do not know Judaism as a faith whose precepts would make a man go to such gruesome depth to suppress his identity.
On the contrary, my parents support me and remind me of their unconditional love all the time. They cherish me as their son, and my sexual identity does not compromise that. Despite this, though, there are times when I get so depressed because the feeling of being different overwhelms me. Knowing that I am both gay and Jewish, and knowing the hardships that both groups face within and outside each community, exhausts my soul sometimes. I become inarticulate, despondent, and withdrawn from friends and family. I can speak, but only tersely; I can think, but my thoughts are convoluted; I can live, but I barely survive.
As soup for my soul, I turn to the Torah, Judaism’s holiest book to uplift my spirits. I remember that the Torah forbids the suppression of identity and I remind myself that I wasn’t created in error. For instance, we Jews emphasize heavily that each person is made in the image of God. Since I was made in His image, God did not make me as a pile of junk. I must believe that I am valuable because I was created for a purpose and to have purpose in life. This Jewish philosophy gives life to my gay identity more than any gay bar or pride parade every can.
Torah also teaches me that self-love is self-acceptance. Because I want to better synthesize my identities, I have being helping revise the LGBT Jewish student group at the Hillel at the University of Illinois. The group is called Naches, which is the Yiddish word for Pride. The mission of Naches is to create a vibrant, welcoming Jewish LGBT community where students can explore and celebrate all aspects of their identities. I want to help gay Jewish students feel empowered to embrace and fuse both of their identities through social and educational programming. This past year we held queer-themed Shabbats, which were very popular.
The premise that we gays all know how difficult it is to be both gay and spiritual is far from the truth. I know many gays who, yes, do feel uncomfortable with religion, are agnostic or atheist, and for them that is entirely ok. But, my experience shows that spirituality and being gay are reconcilable and that having a spirituality can help make being gay more holy and more meaningful. I am grateful that I have been ‘twice blessed’ to be both gay and Jewish. It is such a blessing in my life.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Health Care Benefits to Gays...Is It Worth The Cost?
Here is the transcript that Professor MV Lee Badgett, a preeminent scholar in the economic lives of LGBT men and women, presented to Congress this month. She addresses HR2517, also known as “Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009” which is pending legislation in Congress. The bill is about extending health care benefits to government employees. If you don't get a chance to peruse her testimony, here are the main bullet-points verbatim with my own commentary in parenthesis.
Here are some more numbers that further illustrate the economics. Doing some arithmetic shows that the benefits of extending health care cover approximately 33% of the costs. Also, the net benefit (i.e., benefits minus costs) of extending health care is -$449 million. Again, the negative sign says the government does not gain from passing HR2517.
Although disheartening, from these numbers I doubt Congress will approve this legislation, definitely not with the cost of the stimulus package lingering in their conscience and with Obama pushing for the nationalization of health care adding to the deficit. MV Lee Badgett needs to adjust her accounting in order to better persuade Congress that beyond the scope of economics the amorphous psychological benefits of providing health care benefits is very real to gays. While economics says no to extending health care benefits, my moral conscience says yes.
So, are health-care benefits to gays worth the cost?
- This important legislation would put the federal government in the mainstream of modern compensation practices with respect to the equal treatment of the same-sex partners of federal employees. (As the agent of equal rights, its time the government cath up to the private and state sectors)
- A study that [she] recently co-authored found that 20% of people in same-sex couples are uninsured, a rate that is significantly higher than average in the United States and is as least partly the result of employers’ failure to offer domestic partner benefits.
- [They] estimated that providing these vital benefits for non-postal employees would cost approximately $41.0 million in the first year and $675 million over ten years. The majority of these costs are concentrated in the areas of employee health benefits and retiree health benefits.
- Health benefits for the same-sex partners of federal employees (including postal service employees) and their dependent children would cost $60.4 million in the first year – that is a 0.41% increase in health care spending for employees in 2008. (0.41% increase is minimal, at least when you consider it next to the cost of the stimulus package and the impending health care takeover)
- Over ten years the additional tax revenue associated with granting domestic partner benefits to federal employees would be approximately $118 million. Also, the retirement savings program would actually see a reduction in annuity payments over the short-term as federal employees opt for survivor benefits for their same-sex partners. This reduction amounts to $108 million over ten years (Not a huge chunk of change, in fact fairly paltry, but at least the government is earning tax revenue)
Here are some more numbers that further illustrate the economics. Doing some arithmetic shows that the benefits of extending health care cover approximately 33% of the costs. Also, the net benefit (i.e., benefits minus costs) of extending health care is -$449 million. Again, the negative sign says the government does not gain from passing HR2517.
Although disheartening, from these numbers I doubt Congress will approve this legislation, definitely not with the cost of the stimulus package lingering in their conscience and with Obama pushing for the nationalization of health care adding to the deficit. MV Lee Badgett needs to adjust her accounting in order to better persuade Congress that beyond the scope of economics the amorphous psychological benefits of providing health care benefits is very real to gays. While economics says no to extending health care benefits, my moral conscience says yes.
So, are health-care benefits to gays worth the cost?
Friday, July 17, 2009
URL Change Notice...
UPDATE! As the address bar above reads, the URL for this blog is now http://matthewkrugmiller.blogspot.com. I tried to search my blog earlier and this URL change seems to cause some search complications on blogsearch.google.com. So if you found my blog by route of an arduous and painstaking search, then welcome! This change is, for me, a bit more idiosyncratic, however I have left the title as is: iGay (cause I'm gay and I live in the i-generation).
A Right To Marry? I Say Duh...
I'm on a bit of a hiatus right now studying for the GRE for further tertiary pursuits (namely grad school). But, in the meantime, peruse this article in Dissent Magazine while I'm on recess. I admit I have only browsed the article so let me know what you think. It is about the right to marriage with allusions to classical homoeroticism, I believe. I will get to it once I master the geography of the GRE math, and hopefully verbal, section.
Ciao for now!
Ciao for now!
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Why Do Gays Smoke?
Why do gay men and women smoke so much? Here are some of my observations and hypotheses.
What I have noticed:
- Gay men and women smoke much more than upper-middle class straight people.
- To be candid, self-image is very vital to gay self-esteem, and yet smoking can tarnish physical appearance with the effects of wrinkles, rancid breath, and fatal cancer.
- With costs of health-care rising, and with gay partners excluded from healthcare in many job sectors, the financial risk of smoking to gays is higher than it is for heterosexuals.
- Gay men and women have been the "target audience" of cigarette companies more than straight communities. Companies focus more heavily on them because their demand for cigarettes is higher and they are an under-tapped market that can provide high profits.
- With the prevalence of AIDS in the LGBT community, anything less fatal than AIDS is shrugged off as trivial such as smoking. This makes them less risk-averse or risk-neutral, so they behave with a higher propensity to smoke.
- Gay men and women tend to have lower incomes, which places them in lower social classes. I don't have the statistics to back this up, but I have noticed that lower-income individuals smoke disproportionately more than upper income folk.
What do you think?
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
On Paul Krugman's Conscience
Economics is one of my primary interests (it is my major anyway) so I like to stick my toes into econblogging intermittently too. With that said, let's talk about the stimulus package again. Paul Krugman loves to hear himself talk in his op-eds about this and that on the economy. If you ever read his NY Times column its as if you can hear his yelps of outrage and his bangs of frustration upon the keyboard as he types and types away his polemics. But it his his liberal conscience, not the nasty things he writes, that I question.
By his account, he claims that the stimulus package Obama signed into law was too small and thus ineffective. To fix this problem, he proposes the government pass yet another stimulus package. Do not forget that he is calling for a third stimulus package; we already have the monolithic waste Obama signed this year and the relatively smaller junk Bush executed in 2008. His liberal conscience seems to tell him that $787 billion does not cut it as a government rescue. Maybe he thinks that the third time is a charm.
He has forgotten that not only are individuals budget constrained, but the government is as well. And with "health-care reform" also on the table, who will finance this new stimulus sequel? Oh yeah...the taxpayers....maybe China too...
Contrary to Krugman's proposal, we do not need another stimulus package to add to the government deficit. Just look at where the national accounts are now. For example, the average deficit amount from 2005-2007 before the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka the stimulus package) was roughly $800 billion already. As of today, BBC News reports that the US deficit has moved above $1 Trillion. Robert Barro is right in saying that the government's current macro policy is a version of Keynes's 1936 "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money." He emphasizes strongly that this current financial crisis does not " invalidate everything we have learned about macroeconomics since 1936." And from the things we have learned in economics, he proposes that the optimal fiscal policy is to provide incentives for people to save, invest, and produce more instead of throwing money around superfluously.
I mean how does the government solve a financial crisis that was caused by too much leverage by issuing more and more debt? I don't mean to say debt is always bad. A college education is good debt, so is investing in a house within your means with a down payment and a fixed APR, but more spending on highway construction and bridges to no where like splurging on a new wardrobe from the GAP is not. The government needs to see the difference between good and bad debt. And surely more stimulus is just bad, as well as Krugman's conscience.
He has forgotten that not only are individuals budget constrained, but the government is as well. And with "health-care reform" also on the table, who will finance this new stimulus sequel? Oh yeah...the taxpayers....maybe China too...
Contrary to Krugman's proposal, we do not need another stimulus package to add to the government deficit. Just look at where the national accounts are now. For example, the average deficit amount from 2005-2007 before the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka the stimulus package) was roughly $800 billion already. As of today, BBC News reports that the US deficit has moved above $1 Trillion. Robert Barro is right in saying that the government's current macro policy is a version of Keynes's 1936 "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money." He emphasizes strongly that this current financial crisis does not " invalidate everything we have learned about macroeconomics since 1936." And from the things we have learned in economics, he proposes that the optimal fiscal policy is to provide incentives for people to save, invest, and produce more instead of throwing money around superfluously.
I mean how does the government solve a financial crisis that was caused by too much leverage by issuing more and more debt? I don't mean to say debt is always bad. A college education is good debt, so is investing in a house within your means with a down payment and a fixed APR, but more spending on highway construction and bridges to no where like splurging on a new wardrobe from the GAP is not. The government needs to see the difference between good and bad debt. And surely more stimulus is just bad, as well as Krugman's conscience.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Economy Not Obama's Katrina
I woke up this morning to this article. James Pinkerton's thesis is that the ailing and anemic economy is Obama's Katrina. Thinking about the states of both the economy and Katrina, I do not agree with his interpretation of Obama's response to the economy because his argument suffers from a plethora of fallacies. First, his point of view is tainted by his republican ideology and it is obvious that he is writing for a mostly anti-intellectual audience who will believe anything anyone from Fox News says. Second, the purpose of his analysis is to not actually critique the efficacy of the stimulus package, but to personally attack Obama.
With that said, I too am skeptical of Obama. Also, I am anti-stimulus package, but it is not explicit whether Pinkerton is as well because his analysis is just a smorgasbord of bad analogy and ad hominem at the stimulus and Obama respectively. Pinkerton claims that Obama has not done much to help stimulate the economy (similar to Bush's glacial response to Katrina). This is wrong. First, Obama took immediate action to try to stimulate the economy, while Bush was hesitant to respond to Katrina. Second, $787 billion is a lot of stimulus money and that counts as something, not nothing, even though unemployment continues to rise and I don't agree with his macro policy. I would have argued alternatively that while the empirical reality is that excessive government spending correlates negatively with GDP growth, I think Obama pushed for the stimulus package to strengthen public confidence in the economy more so than to foster real output.
Pinkerton also argues that the New Deal was successful in bringing America out of the Great Depression. Again, this claim is just not true; statistics from that time and economic theory conclude this. In fact, the New Deal stopped the economy from achieving a speedy recovery and elongated the depression until 1939. Everyone keeps asking when the recovery will start. The answer is the stimulus package has hampered it and on top of a lengthy recovery the economy is going to get even worse than it is now. For more information, peruse this scholarly paper.
Let's not judge Obama on the economy. Yes, he could have focused on incentives to save, work, and produce more, but doing nothing "big" would have destroyed his popularity almost instantly. And Pinkerton could have realized too that Obama, with probably little more than an introductory economics education, surrounds himself accordingly with a team of populist, Keynesian economists who favor deficit government spending. Let's blame them for their disregard for sound macroeconomic policy and for whispering sweet nothings into Obama's ear. Instead let's judge him on his inertia to advance gay rights, his lackluster responses to the Iran uprising and getting it wrong again with the latest Honduras coup.
This is NOT Obama's Katrina. You heard it here first.
With that said, I too am skeptical of Obama. Also, I am anti-stimulus package, but it is not explicit whether Pinkerton is as well because his analysis is just a smorgasbord of bad analogy and ad hominem at the stimulus and Obama respectively. Pinkerton claims that Obama has not done much to help stimulate the economy (similar to Bush's glacial response to Katrina). This is wrong. First, Obama took immediate action to try to stimulate the economy, while Bush was hesitant to respond to Katrina. Second, $787 billion is a lot of stimulus money and that counts as something, not nothing, even though unemployment continues to rise and I don't agree with his macro policy. I would have argued alternatively that while the empirical reality is that excessive government spending correlates negatively with GDP growth, I think Obama pushed for the stimulus package to strengthen public confidence in the economy more so than to foster real output.
Pinkerton also argues that the New Deal was successful in bringing America out of the Great Depression. Again, this claim is just not true; statistics from that time and economic theory conclude this. In fact, the New Deal stopped the economy from achieving a speedy recovery and elongated the depression until 1939. Everyone keeps asking when the recovery will start. The answer is the stimulus package has hampered it and on top of a lengthy recovery the economy is going to get even worse than it is now. For more information, peruse this scholarly paper.
Let's not judge Obama on the economy. Yes, he could have focused on incentives to save, work, and produce more, but doing nothing "big" would have destroyed his popularity almost instantly. And Pinkerton could have realized too that Obama, with probably little more than an introductory economics education, surrounds himself accordingly with a team of populist, Keynesian economists who favor deficit government spending. Let's blame them for their disregard for sound macroeconomic policy and for whispering sweet nothings into Obama's ear. Instead let's judge him on his inertia to advance gay rights, his lackluster responses to the Iran uprising and getting it wrong again with the latest Honduras coup.
This is NOT Obama's Katrina. You heard it here first.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Queer Liturgy
As my 'About Me' states I am Jewish. I'm also gay. This past year I have tried to synthesize my two identities. To accomplish this I have helped bring more queer Jewish programming to my campus. I've started a group called Naches, which in Yiddish means Pride, and events that we have had include LGBT Shabbats and a gay Tel Aviv beach party. For this upcoming school year, I have ambitions to incorporate the group more into the Jewish community here with social and educational events, like late-night challah baking, bring in gay Jewish speakers among many more.
Naturally I like to stay abreast of Jewish news. So intermittently I browse Jewcy.com, a hip 21st century website for the 20 something Jew. Someone posted an article called "Queer Liturgy" about a new LGBT Siddur (siddur is a Jewish prayer book). I am excited to get a taste of this siddur. Here is the article.
Do you know of any other religions that have "Queer Liturgies"?
Naturally I like to stay abreast of Jewish news. So intermittently I browse Jewcy.com, a hip 21st century website for the 20 something Jew. Someone posted an article called "Queer Liturgy" about a new LGBT Siddur (siddur is a Jewish prayer book). I am excited to get a taste of this siddur. Here is the article.
Do you know of any other religions that have "Queer Liturgies"?
Thursday, July 2, 2009
When is the right time to "Come Out"?
I have to admit that I am fierce advocate of coming out. I view the 'coming out' process as a powerful instrument for social and political change. However, 'coming out' cannot be done irrationally or with haste. To have an ideal coming out process a gay agent must act in his own self-interest and have a rational basis for coming out. This means that the benefits of coming out must equal the costs of coming out.
Parenthetically, if the benefits exceed the costs, you can only benefit not lose from coming out. then by all means be as flamboyant as you can and maybe wear some drag to work. Have fun!
However, if the costs exceed the benefits of coming out, then it would be irrational to come out. MV Lee Badgett, professor of economics at UMASS, posits the costs of coming out are income losses resulting from workplace discrimination and subsequently termination. Additional costs that she does not consider are alienation from the family, which can have adverse financial implications. For example, parents that do not accept their son's homosexuality might divest from or refuse him his endowment (ie. 'trust fund', college allowances, etc). This can lead to lower aggregate consumption and less leisure time to enjoy over the gay son's lifetime.
And think of the 'benefits' of coming out, although amorphous, as better self-confidence and its psychological ilk.
So, while I encourage you to come out, you can not let any other person decide for you when it is the proper time to do so. Only you can do it when it fits bests with your self-interest and you think rationally about the consequences of doing it.
Parenthetically, if the benefits exceed the costs, you can only benefit not lose from coming out. then by all means be as flamboyant as you can and maybe wear some drag to work. Have fun!
However, if the costs exceed the benefits of coming out, then it would be irrational to come out. MV Lee Badgett, professor of economics at UMASS, posits the costs of coming out are income losses resulting from workplace discrimination and subsequently termination. Additional costs that she does not consider are alienation from the family, which can have adverse financial implications. For example, parents that do not accept their son's homosexuality might divest from or refuse him his endowment (ie. 'trust fund', college allowances, etc). This can lead to lower aggregate consumption and less leisure time to enjoy over the gay son's lifetime.
And think of the 'benefits' of coming out, although amorphous, as better self-confidence and its psychological ilk.
So, while I encourage you to come out, you can not let any other person decide for you when it is the proper time to do so. Only you can do it when it fits bests with your self-interest and you think rationally about the consequences of doing it.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Insurance Premium...A Question.
I wonder how much household income gays and lesbians would be willing to give up today to obtain full civil rights tomorrow?
i.e., What's the insurance premium on gay rights?
Just a thought....I'll need to find an answer.
i.e., What's the insurance premium on gay rights?
Just a thought....I'll need to find an answer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
