Lgbt project presentation 3

363 views

Published on

Published in: Spiritual, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
363
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Lgbt project presentation 3

  1. 1. The Economics of Being Gay Matthew Kinoshita Alliant International University, Irvine December 7, 2011
  2. 2. The Question• This project began with a question. • “Does being gay come with a financial cost?”
  3. 3. An Overview• There have been several studies which attempted to answer whether there is discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual income. There are a variety of policies and factors which have influenced the wage gap. This presentation is a condensed aggregate of a few influential studies, their findings, and my ideas about the implications for our work as therapists.
  4. 4. The Economic Cost of Homosexuality by Baumle & Poston • Method: The researchers utilized regression analysis to analyze their data • Sample: Included only individuals who indicated being part of an unmarried partnership (hetero or homosexual) or married partnership (different-sex)Baumle, A.K. & Poston, D.L. (2011). The economic cost of homosexuality: Multilevel analyses. Social Forces, 89 (1), 1005-1032.
  5. 5. The Economic Cost of Homosexuality by Baumle & Poston • Variables • Dependent Variable = Logged Earnings • Key Independent Variable = Sexual Orientation Other independent variables of Other independent (contextual) personal character: variables of the state level: Level of education Presence of 2 types of sodomy laws Occupation Percent of population voting Experience Republican Median earnings of occupation Per capita gross state product Race Manufacturing gross state product English fluency Presence of antidiscrimination laws Children present Prevalence of gay populations Percent Southern BaptistBaumle, A.K. & Poston, D.L. (2011). The economic cost of homosexuality: Multilevel analyses. Social Forces, 89 (1), 1005-1032.
  6. 6. The Economic Cost of Homosexuality by Baumle & Poston • Baumle & Poston conducted two tests. 1. They conducted OLS (ordinary least squares) Regression analyses 2. They then conducted multilevel HLM (hierarchical linear model) analyses The implications of these different tests are that the HLM model can integrate the two groups of variables mentioned in the previous slide. Thus the individual variable data can be studied first then studied within the context of the state level variables as well. HLM models are preferred when dealing with “nested” (sets within other sets) of data.Baumle, A.K. & Poston, D.L. (2011). The economic cost of homosexuality: Multilevel analyses. Social Forces, 89 (1), 1005-1032.
  7. 7. The Economic Cost of Homosexuality by Baumle & Poston • Results: OLS Analysis Found: HLM Analysis Found: 1. Gay men earn on average 1. Gay men earn on average 10.7% less than married men 12.5% less than married men 2. When compared to cohabiting 2. When compared to cohabiting heterosexual men, gay men heterosexual men, gay men earned 2.1% more earned .15% less NOT 3. Compared to married statistically significant women, lesbians earned 4% 3. Compared to married women, more lesbians earned 3.5% more 4. Compared to cohabitating 4. Compared to cohabitating heterosexual women, lesbians heterosexual women, lesbians earned 8% more earned 9% moreBaumle, A.K. & Poston, D.L. (2011). The economic cost of homosexuality: Multilevel analyses. Social Forces, 89 (1), 1005-1032.
  8. 8. The Economic Cost of Homosexuality by Baumle & Poston • Discussion 1. Baumle and Poston (2011) emphasized, “the difference between the OLS and multilevel models emphasizes the relevance of considering contextual characteristics.” (p.1022) 2. Much of the difference in income could be attributable to marital status. 3. Some of the difference for heterosexual married couples may be attributable to traditional gender roles, but the effect on same sex couples is uncertain. 4. A large and statistically significant earning advantage exists for lesbians in both the OLS and HLM analyses.Baumle, A.K. & Poston, D.L. (2011). The economic cost of homosexuality: Multilevel analyses. Social Forces, 89 (1), 1005-1032.
  9. 9. Discrimination Versus Specialization by E.D. Schmitt • In this article, Schmitt (2008) examines the possible reasons for the economic disparities between homosexual and heterosexual individuals. She analyzed the results of seven different earnings studies and drew conclusions about the possible reasons for the gaps in earnings.Schmitt, E.D. (2008). Discrimination versus specialization: A survey of economic studies on sexual orientation, gender and earnings in the UnitedStates. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12 (1), 17-30. doi: 10.1080/10894160802174250
  10. 10. Discrimination Versus Specialization by E.D. Schmitt Schmitt then explained three various groups of information that economists study to determine influences on wage differentials. These three groups of information are: • Human Capital • Discrimination • Household SpecializationSchmitt, E.D. (2008). Discrimination versus specialization: A survey of economic studies on sexual orientation, gender and earnings in the UnitedStates. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12 (1), 17-30. doi: 10.1080/10894160802174250
  11. 11. Discrimination Versus Specialization by E.D. Schmitt • Schmitt (2008) defines human capital in two different constructs. • 1. Education • 2. Experience (work) The implication of sexual orientation on each of these constructs may be powerful. Schmitt (2008) explains, “sexual orientation may affect earnings through its impact on the return to human capital investment (discrimination) or through its impact on decisions about the accumulation of human capital (discrimination and specialization)”(p.21). In plain English, if you are homosexual, you may be treated differently and paid less or you may make decisions about investing in yourself thinking that you will be paid less anyway, so why bother to gain valuable education or experiences building your career.Schmitt, E.D. (2008). Discrimination versus specialization: A survey of economic studies on sexual orientation, gender and earnings in the UnitedStates. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12 (1), 17-30. doi: 10.1080/10894160802174250
  12. 12. Discrimination Versus Specialization by E.D. Schmitt • Schmitt’s critical thoughts on discrimination and the measurement of such constructs: 1. Sexual orientation is not easily observable, some may be able to pass as heterosexual and not be subjected to discrimination 2. The expectation of making less money for equal work could lead to decisions not to invest in human capital (education, experience) 3. Homosexuals may be making conscious decisions to work in occupations that are more accepting or easier to hide their sexual orientation (compensating differential)Schmitt, E.D. (2008). Discrimination versus specialization: A survey of economic studies on sexual orientation, gender and earnings in the UnitedStates. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12 (1), 17-30. doi: 10.1080/10894160802174250
  13. 13. Discrimination Versus Specialization by E.D. Schmitt • Schmitt’s critical thoughts on household specialization: 1. In traditional heterosexual gender roles, women will occupy their time with household supporting work while men will plan for and invest in a career, thus leading to higher wages for heterosexual men and lower wages for heterosexual women. 2. Lesbians will prepare for and invest in human capital expecting to work in the marketplace without employee benefits of a partner, thus resulting higher wages. 3. The household specialization model is less helpful in predicting earning differentials in male homosexual partnerships.Schmitt, E.D. (2008). Discrimination versus specialization: A survey of economic studies on sexual orientation, gender and earnings in the UnitedStates. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12 (1), 17-30. doi: 10.1080/10894160802174250
  14. 14. Discrimination Versus Specialization by E.D. Schmitt Results of cited studies: Study Earnings Premium (penalty) Earnings Premium (penalty) Gay/Bisexual men Lesbian/Bisexual women Badgett (1995) (11%-27%) (12%-13%) Berg & Lien (2002) (22%) 30% Black et al. (2003) (14%-16%) 20%-34% Blandford (2003) (30%-32%) 17%-23% Klawitter & Flatt (1998) (26%-32%) 17%-21% Clain & Leppel (2001) (16%-22%) Premium (size not given) This table shows that studies consistently show an earnings penalty for gay/bisexual men when compared to heterosexual men. It also shows an earnings premium for lesbians in the majority of studies.Schmitt, E.D. (2008). Discrimination versus specialization: A survey of economic studies on sexual orientation, gender and earnings in the UnitedStates. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12 (1), 17-30. doi: 10.1080/10894160802174250
  15. 15. Discrimination Versus Specialization by E.D. Schmitt • Hypotheses for the disparity in earned wages 1. Discrimination: Are heterosexual men favored when compared to homosexual men? Are lesbian women favored when compared to heterosexual women? The findings suggest that discrimination may be creating the earnings gap 2. Household specialization theory predicts the lesbian wage premium. As a result, lesbians are probably more likely to work than raise families, stay at home, or expect to benefit from partnership 3. There may be measurement problems: The data sets analyzed all rely on self-identification of sexual orientation. The variance in different studies results suggest inconsistencies in data measurement.Schmitt, E.D. (2008). Discrimination versus specialization: A survey of economic studies on sexual orientation, gender and earnings in the UnitedStates. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12 (1), 17-30. doi: 10.1080/10894160802174250
  16. 16. Sexual Orientation and Earnings by Ahmed & Hammarstedt • This study examined the same constructs as the previous two, except the data is of Swedish citizens. • In Sweden, homosexual relationships are recognized as valid civil unions! • The data sets were robust and did not rely on self- identification, however single homosexuals and partners who had not married were not accounted for.Ahmed, A.M. & Hammarstedt, M. (2009). Sexual orientation and earnings: A register data-based approach to identifying homosexuals. Journal ofPopular Economics, 23, 835-849. doi: 10.1007/s00148-009-0265-4
  17. 17. Sexual Orientation and Earnings by Ahmed & Hammarstedt • Results: Earnings Earnings premium premium (deficit) Non- Metropolitan (deficit) in areas Metropolitan Areas Gay Men (10%-15%) (15%-20%) Lesbians No No significant significant difference differenceAhmed, A.M. & Hammarstedt, M. (2009). Sexual orientation and earnings: A register data-based approach to identifying homosexuals. Journal ofPopular Economics, 23, 835-849. doi: 10.1007/s00148-009-0265-4
  18. 18. Sexual Orientation and Earnings by Ahmed & Hammarstedt • The authors discuss possible reasons for their findings: In general for men and women: 1. Homosexuals may choose to live in more gay friendly places (usually metropolitan areas like Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmo, the three largest Swedish cities), hence the smaller gap in metropolitan locales For men specifically: 1. Gay men are subject to more hostility 2. Gay men are more likely to be considered mentally ill 3. Gay men are statistically more likely to contract HIV/AIDS and as a result, employers may discriminate against them 4. If a gay man chooses a more traditionally female gender role, he will stay home and therefore be earning considerably less money. As a result, these men will skew the earning results of gay men downward For women specifically: 1. Lesbians may me perceived as more independent, assertive, aggressive and confident than heterosexual women, in essence, more masculine and good for workAhmed, A.M. & Hammarstedt, M. (2009). Sexual orientation and earnings: A register data-based approach to identifying homosexuals. Journal ofPopular Economics, 23, 835-849. doi: 10.1007/s00148-009-0265-4
  19. 19. The Verdict• After analyzing a number of studies on the subject, it is suggested that gay men consistently suffer from earnings disparities in both the context of American culture and in Swedish culture. Lesbians, on the other hand, appear to have an earnings advantage in the United States, but no advantage in Sweden. Nevertheless, women seem to have it much better than men when it comes to sexual orientation’s effects on earning differentials.
  20. 20. The Implications • As clinicians, how can we use this information to more effectively treat our clients? This is the perfect opportunity for the WSIM Model! By employing the WSIM model, Croteau et al. (2000) discovered we can expect the client to gain proficiency in managing behaviors with regard to “workplace rewards such as income and promotion, workplace climate factors such as support or hostility, interpersonal relationship factors such as intimacy and separation and personal reactions such as satisfaction with level of disclosure, sense of integrity, and sense of personal safety” (as cited in Lidderdale, Croteau, Anderson, Tovar- Murray and Davis, 2007)Lidderdale, M.A., Croteau, J.M., Anderson, M.Z., Tovar-Murray, D., & Davis, J.M. (2007). Building lesbian, gay and bisexual vocational psychology: A theoreticalmodel of workplace sexual identity management. In Bieschke, K., Perez, R., DeBord, K. (Eds.) Handbook of Counseling and Psychotherapy withLesbian, Gay, Bisexual a nd Transgender Clients, 2nd Ed. (pp.245-270). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  21. 21. The Intervention • The WSIM model consists of four stages: 1. Developing learning experiences about sexual identity management 1. Developing personally acceptable identity management strategies 1. Choosing and implementing sexual identity management strategies 1. Learning from outcomesLidderdale, M.A., Croteau, J.M., Anderson, M.Z., Tovar-Murray, D., & Davis, J.M. (2007). Building lesbian, gay and bisexual vocational psychology: A theoreticalmodel of workplace sexual identity management. In Bieschke, K., Perez, R., DeBord, K. (Eds.) Handbook of Counseling and Psychotherapy withLesbian, Gay, Bisexual a nd Transgender Clients, 2nd Ed. (pp.245-270). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
  22. 22. Final Thoughts• After discovering the WSIM in our literature a few ideas stood out to me as helpful and important. I am always interested in structured ways in which clients may be able to understand their experience with greater meaning and personal agency. The WSIM is designed to assist clients through this process. Context is also critical to honor and explore when presented with such complex issues such as wage discrimination. As we can now see, the wage gap is very real, and affects so many from the LGBTQ community. As therapists, with tools and competency, we may better serve our clients.
  23. 23. My Questions to Ponder• Were the findings surprising to you? Do you have other ideas why the results may have looked the way they did?• Do you have ideas about how this issue may be addressed?
  24. 24. ReferencesAhmed, A.M. & Hammarstedt, M. (2009). Sexual orientation and earnings: A register data-based approach to identifying homosexuals. Journal of PopularEconomics, 23, 835-849. doi: 10.1007/s00148-009-0265-4Baumle, A.K. & Poston, D.L. (2011). The economic cost of homosexuality: Multilevel analyses. Social Forces, 89 (1), 1005-1032.Schmitt, E.D. (2008). Discrimination versus specialization: A survey of economicstudies on sexual orientation, gender and earnings in the United States. Journalof Lesbian Studies, 12 (1), 17-30. doi: 10.1080/10894160802174250Lidderdale, M.A., Croteau, J.M., Anderson, M.Z., Tovar-Murray, D., & Davis, J.M. (2007). Building lesbian, gay and bisexual vocational psychology: A theoretical model of workplace sexual identity management. InBieschke, K., Perez, R., DeBord, K. (Eds.) Handbook of Counseling andPsychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Clients, 2nd Ed.(pp.245-270). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

×