** 'Elite gays'?, discrimination, & tyranny of the majority
Topics: AA, Democracy
22 Aug 1994
From: ervan
In the Chronicle last week there was an article entitled:
Study knocks 'gay elite' myth
Homosexuals earn less than their straight counterparts
The study by economics professor Lee Badgett at U of Maryland showed that
gay men make 11 to 27% less than straight men and lesbians make 5 to 14%
less than straight women. Behaving like a social[ scient]ist instead of a
'hard' science scientist, she fearlessly found causality in correlation and
concluced that "Lesbians and gay men are experiencing discrimination that
actually hurts them economically,". Even worse, in this case, the correlate,
prejudice, was just assumed and not even measured in any way (*). BTW, U or
Maryland is a refuge of sorts for left leaning economists (presuming one
grants that is not oxymoronic).
It's very difficult to conclude anything gays because identifying who is gay
is all but impossible. It may even be that ultimately it's a hopeless
sliding scale (I'm completely agnostic on this question). Any study is
seriouly in doubt. One of the previous studies referred to was done by a
gay research center. They presumably had a sample of gay men, both 'in' and
'out'. The Badgett study was conducted by calling people on the phone and
asking them if they were gay. How pathetic of a sample can one have? It
did not deter the Chronicle from reporting as straight fact the conclusion
though.
The next step in this curious bit of twisted reasoning is the assumption
that salaries for gays and straights must necessarily be the same. Let's
suppose (and I'm *not* asserting this to be true) that gays are more likely
to be artists and less likely to be engineers. Maybe it's part of the gay
culture, maybe it's an effect of being gay, maybe some root causes makes
both be true. It doesn't matter. The effect would be that gays would make
less than heterosexual men. But it would demonstrate nothing whatsoever
about discrimination. Presumably the Badgett study corrected for
occupation, but I have my doubts. We have seen the same sort of flawed
studies showing that women are economically discriminated against. Also, I
would not be surprised to find all sorts of biases in how likely gays are to
admit they are gay based on the job they have. If you are a dancer, so
what, admit it. If you are a CEO, discretion might be called for. Even
within the same occupation these sorts of sampling biases could exist. As
an opposite hypothesis, maybe being gay causes people to escape to 'liberal'
universities where they get a good education and better, higher paying jobs.
Maybe there is simply a marginal effect of not getting tied down with
children prematurely and thus being free to pursue more career options.
It's impossible to conclude anything based on the evidence available.
Now, as it turns out, both studies could be right. The Badgett study looked
at individual incomes and the previous studies showing gays to be better off
looked at family income. Well, it's not surprising that couples without
children have more income than couples with.
The greater irony in all of this is that the same liberal attitude that is
so concerned about discriminating against gays in the work force is hard at
work using the government to discriminate against gays to end this
advantage. The tax code is an obvious screw job for gays. Deductions for
dependents, the ever so misnamed 'earned income tax credit', and even the
tax financing of public schools force gays to pay for other people's
children. It doesn't end with the tax code either. The "Family Leave Act"
forces men and women who do not have children to subsidize women who do (the
effect on men with children is more difficult to analyze). Many insurance
laws do the same (e.g. forcing kids to be covered as part of family plans).
The current health deform plans will greatly exacerbate this situation.
Well, the list goes on. (I'm deliberately leaving the question of lesbians
having children out of the point in this paragraph.)
Departing momentarily from economic issues, in the case of the conservaties
having historically won and currently keeping anti-sodomy laws, it's a
direct case of tyranny of the majority, intentionally harassing a minority
for no better reason than idiocy and paranoia, using tax money taken from
other people to pay the police to enforce such laws nonetheless. I'll
paraphrase David Friedman's question: if people had to pay for their own
security, how much would they waste on hunting 'perverts'?
A more interesting question is: are liberals so cleverly mendacious as to
hold onto their hypocrisy without letting the mask slip? Hardly. There is
something deeper at work here: unconscious tyranny of the majority. Most
people will be parents (or, at least, most people plan to be). Here is a
clear, reasonably cohesive, majority that votes its own interest. It does
not matter that many may be voting contrary to their philosophical opinions
on tolerance. It does not even matter whether or not they know they are
doing so. The nature of the system is such that it produces this effect,
whatever majority that can be formed will exploit the minority, whether or
not that is the conscious intent.
-----------------
(*) In case there is any doubt here, I should add that, yes, I realize there
is real, ugly prejudice against gays that is utterly deplorable. The extent
to which it has economic relevance is a much tougher issue without obvious
answers. And, in any case, bad research is bad research and basing public
policy on it is dangerous, which is more the point here. [okay, okay, I
admit public policy is dangerous, period, but that's a different argument].
---Ervan
Home