Showing posts with label Gay Numbers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gay Numbers. Show all posts

June 8, 2017

Home Prices in Gay Neighborhoods are Going thru the Roof

At the nadir of the housing market in 2012, homebuyers had to pay an average premium of almost 29%, or $209 per square foot, to live in communities with a higher share of gay, lesbian and bisexual residents. This year, homebuyers will need to pay a premium of nearly 37%, or $320 per square foot, to live in these same neighborhoods, according to a study released Wednesday by real-estate website Trulia and online dating site OKCupid IAC, -0.85% The conclusion? “Clearly, America’s gay neighborhoods have recovered at a faster rate than non-gay neighborhoods.”
Typically, researchers had to use U.S. Census data on same-sex couples in order to determine where gay populations concentrate. There is an obvious downside to that methodology, however. Not all LGBT people are in relationships and researchers may be inaccurately measuring where they live. To address this, Trulia and OKCupid developed the “Neighborhood Pride Score,” using OKCupid data on the location of gay singles combined with U.S. Census data on the location of gay couples. The researchers then cross-referenced this with house prices in those areas.
The highest premiums were in West Hollywood, the Castro District in San Francisco, Uptown in Dallas, Palm Springs, Hillcrest in San Diego and Edgewater in Chicago. The legalization of same-sex marriage in June 2015 may have led to more married couples buying homes together in those neighborhoods. That said, since gay individuals and couples tend to have fewer children and higher disposable incomes, they may seek to live in neighborhoods with more desirable amenities, or alternatively, they may simply attract such amenities after they move in.
Demand to live in communities were measured by “Neighborhood Pride” scores. To calculate the “Neighborhood Pride Score,” the researchers added the percentage of OKCupid users in each ZIP code to the percentage of households that are same-sex couples, based on the 2015 Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. So if 30% of OKCupid users in one ZIP code were looking for love, and 15% of those households were same-sex couples, they got a score of 0.45. These scores spiked in New York, New Orleans and Boston, and fell the most in Miami, Buffalo and San Francisco.  
Another theory: “If you are not raising children, you have two male incomes and have more money to devote to improve their home environment,” says Gary Gates, the recently retired distinguished scholar at the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the University of California. There are possible limitations to house-price rises within a “gayborhood.” It may need to be “socially liberal” for an increase in same-sex households to increase house prices, a 2011 study by researchers at Konkuk University in Seoul and Tulane University in New Orleans found.
Diversity is good for the economic development and housing prices, Richard Florida, an urban theorist and author of “The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community, and Everyday Life,” concluded. Florida found that high-tech hot spots followed the gay neighborhoods. His own separate “Bohemian Index,” which measured the prevalence of artists, writers and performers, had similar results. “Artistic and gay populations,” he wrote, “cluster in communities that value open-mindedness and self-expression.”



August 4, 2015

It’s Time the question goes beyond male or Female its time for Numbers


As long as the LGBT community is semi invisible they will be those in position of power that will make the mistake of dismissing us and try to abuse us like Trump is doing with the poor sector of the Mexican migrant community. He does it because those people can’t vote. No matter how much flack he gets from all hispanics around the world still they can’t vote here. That is all this one track minded millionaire has made his money on ; By zeroing to properties with money problems and taking them over with the help of the tax payers in many cases. One track mind to be able to observe what is lacking in any particular asset and supply it but under his name. 

Before seriously running for President he was a friend of the Mexicans. He was using them in his casinos as workers and in the slot machines as customers. Now he has a higher ambition in which they can help him in a different way. When they yell out of pain when his shoe drops on them ‘he loves it.’  He knows that the Republican party is run by white older guys that are both bigots and homophobes. They are also against women rights and any scientific advancement that raises the bar for the religious conservatives in explaining where god was or is in those parts of evolution or nature which do not jive 100% with certain popular religious believes. Because he is a narcissist and possesses this need to be looked at and admired,  higher he was not going to alienate so many people unless there was a paiy off for his current ambition. In this case is a political pay off and if you are keeping track of the GOP Primary political polls then you will probably agree with me.

My point is that in this world wether we talk money (economy) or politics (power), is all based on numbers. To not know the number puts you in a special category by itself, that of invisible (Powerless). 

 For the LGQBT community is about  time we show more than our faces, its time we show our numbers. When you ask the question of how many of us there are the answer comes back in low or low-high depending how homophobic or not the respondent is. Why does anyone needs to know?

The answer to that is simple and the problem here is not complicated. One answer might be that there is power in numbers but is less simplistic when you get to specific organizations such as Universities, colleges, and schools of higher education. These institutions need to know how many of us there are  to adjust their curriculums to teach students what correlates with the gay community. How are these places of study going to adjust their teachings to include our history and elements that might only be of interest to our community if they don’t have the numbers? They need the numbers to be able to get the material they need but also help like other minority group in recruiting and getting help from the government to get LGBT students and to qualify those that excel in our studies. 

Adam Gonzalez

Scott Jaschik in Inside highered.commade this point for the schools:

In 2010, when Campus Pride urged the Common Application to add optional questions about gender identity and sexual orientation, the idea was novel. No colleges at that time included such questions, and early in 2011, the Common Application rejected the proposal.

But in August 2011, Elmhurst College became the first college to add such questions and others have followed. Among them are such large and prominent institutions as Duke University,Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Iowa. With the University of California system adding the question this year, a huge applicant pool will face the questions -- optional as they are at all institutions that have adopted them.
When the Common Application rejected the idea in 2011, a statement from the organization said that it might review the concept “later this decade," based, among other things, on "evolving cultural norms."

On Friday, 25 organizations that are advocates for gay and lesbian and transgender students, or are civil rights organizations, sent a joint letter to the Common Application saying that it's time for the organization to add the questions. The letter notes that many more students want to answer those questions and may not identify with the standard male/female distinction traditionally found on applications. With hundreds of colleges using the Common Application, organizers of the letter see it as key to their view that applicants should have the option of answering these questions.

The letter cites several reasons. "More and more LGBTQ students are living openly when they apply to college and want to be able to self-identify -- just as they do with their race, ethnicity, and religion. The questions that we are proposing on gender identity and sexual orientation would be optional, so that LGBTQ students who are not living openly or not comfortable disclosing do not have to do so,” the letter says.

Further, the letter states that "a growing number of colleges and universities are seeking to track data related to openly LGBTQ students applying, being accepted, and enrolling in their institutions. The lack of questions on LGBTQ identity on the Common Application makes obtaining this data more difficult, which hinders the ability to address their academic retention and success.”

The letter says that this tracking is needed because "LGBTQ youth, specifically LGBQ youth of color and transgender youth of all races, experience multiple oppressions and are much more likely than other students to struggle academically and personally in college. In order to positively impact their college experience, institutions must have the ability to identify these students.”

The signatories to the letter include Campus Pride and the Consortium of Higher Education LGBT Resource Professionals, which tried to get the Common Application to change five years ago, and many other groups. They include such prominent gay rights organizations as the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and the Point Foundation, and other groups, such as the Japanese American Citizens League and ACPA: College Student Educators International.

Aba Blankson, a spokeswoman for the Common Application, said that she did not think of the 2011 decision as a rejection of the idea, because of the view expressed at that time that attitudes might evolve. "As a member association, we take our cue from the colleges and universities in our membership – and this is a topic that we have been and continue to discuss," she said via email. "As the national conversations move forward, we will continue the discussions to determine how the colleges and universities in our membership would like gender and identity reflected in the shared portion of the Common App.  I am confident that we will handle in the most progressive manner possible.”

When the Common Application rejected the idea in 2011, organization leaders noted that students involved in gay-rights activism could list that among activities in which they participated, although others quickly noted that that many high school students who join groups to promote gay rights at their schools are straight.

The 2011 statement also said that "many admission officers and secondary school counselors expressed concern regarding how this question might be perceived by students, even though it would be optional. One common worry was that any potential benefits to adding the question would be outweighed by the anxiety and uncertainty students may experience when deciding if and how they should answer it.”

Privately, some admissions deans at the time of the 2011 discussion also said that the diversity of Common Application colleges complicated the issue. Among the members are many institutions that have large and active gay student groups, and where campus leaders speak out in support of gay rights. Other Common Application colleges, however, are religious colleges affiliated with faiths that have a range of views (some not supportive) about gay people. 

August 5, 2014

Republicans Pissed not enough Gays-Closeted gays you better come out!

For the second time in 30 days Im posting an article by Mark J Stern. I really like the insight to his writing. One thing is to give your opinion another thing is to tell why you believe and the facts that made you believe what you write. This is him and the subject at hand are the all of a sudden disappearing minority. Who else but the gays? The Republicans for one thing first denied their existence (homosexuals) and then deny them anything that everybody else had (cicil rights). Now the GOP its been soul searching about this since there are so many of them that are gays and many famous ones have come out. They also figure that no matter what the say together with the crazies that say gays will destroy their marriage or gays will destroy procreation, gay marriage is coming and once gay marriage is the law of the land everything else all of a sudden legally gets so much easier. Now comes a half ass study from the CDC and there are almost no gays! 
Now that is a problem for those that were thinking of changing their minds by the way the wind blows and all of a sudden wish the wind was blowing a little stronger.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure a good guess based on the people that are out and the rough percentage of those that are not. How can you figure that out? First you figure out how many people say they are straight vs. those that say they are not and you will see the difference between those two groups. That you ad to the gays side. You see? Not bad. Actually there is a better way and is the way we use to guess who is leading on  elections. If we take a non bias pollster with enough amount of samples. The problem is finding the fair believable pollster without a hand on this fight.

As a general rule, conservatives don’t really like gay people, especially not the annoying ones who clamor for stuff like equal rights. So it’s somewhat surprising to see the right throw a slow-burning tantrum about the fact that there aren’t more gay and bi people living in the United States.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers science, the law, and LGBTQ issues.

This criticism of gay people—there should be more of you, dammit!—probably sounds too weird to be real. But I assure you, conservatives are trying it on for size at this very moment. The impetus here is a new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey that puts the population of openly gay and bi Americans under 3 percent. This figure is on the low side, and a few gay rights groups have noted that it’s probably an underestimate.
Or, as a Breitbart headline put it: “GAY LEADERS UPSET BY LOW CDC POPULATION NUMBERS; ‘POLITICAL INFLUENCE MATTERS.’ ” The accompanying article, penned by the hysterically anti-gay Austin Ruse, explains that “gay leaders are expressing alarm” at the CDC’s numbers. Ruse then scoffs that “most Americans believe the population of gays is exponentially larger,” the subtext being that if Americans knew how rare gay people are, the gay community would be much less powerful.
That subtext takes center stage in the Christian Post, in a profoundly paranoid rantby Michael Brown (who, incidentally, is a leading Jew for Jesus). “People of America,” Brown writes, “you have been duped.” According to Brown, “America has been lied to” about the size of the gay population, “and gay activists have been complicit in the deception, if not actively leading the way in the ruse.” Brown gives us this wonderful bit of logic:
If Americans realized that less than 2 percent of the population was gay rather 10 percent (let alone 25 percent), they would have a very different view of “gay rights.” … You don't overhaul the legal system to the point of attacking freedoms of speech, conscience, and religion based on the sexual and romantic desires of a tiny percentage of the population, nor do you engage in a massive social experiment, like redefining marriage, because of a statistically tiny group of people.
I assume Brown is carving out some kind of threshold rule here: A minority doesn’t deserve rights until it’s big enough to … deserve rights. From Brown’s piece, it’s not clear at what point a group becomes sizable enough to merit equal protection under the law. What’s clear, and not exactly shocking, is that gays don’t make the cut.
Brown’s screed doesn’t really make sense. But at least we know where it’s coming from: a devout belief that homosexuality is sinful. Robert Tracinski’s likeminded article in the Federalist lacks any such belief-based motive, rendering it even more comprehensible. Tracinski, a self-proclaimed atheist, is also irked that we talk about gay rights so frequently, and he wishes we would just stop it. He insists that homosexuality doesn’t have “any great cultural significance”—except when it’s “recruited as a stalking horse for some larger social force.” That larger social force, by the way, isn’t equality or anything like that; it’s “the far left’s desire to smash all institutions that might compete with the state.”
 I will give Tracinski credit for splitting the blame equally: He divides his ire between gays, for over-representing themselves, and Democrats, who seized on gay rights as a “manufactured moral high ground.” But I will not give him credit for making sense, because he doesn’t. Is Tracinski suggesting that the real intent of gay marriage advocates was, all along, to “smash all institutions that might compete with the state”—namely, the church? If so, wouldn’t gay marriage be an unlikely and unwieldy vehicle through which to achieve such a goal? Most important, how, exactly, does extending marital rights to gay couples actually “smash” anything?
Ultimately, Tracinski’s piece relies on the same conspiratorial implications of Ruse’s and Brown’s. To these men, the all-powerful gay rights movement has “duped” us all, tricking us into supporting equality while craftily scheming toward some vague leftist takeover. It’s a highly contradictory form of the persecution complex, wherein gay people’s scarcity somehow becomes an indicator of their strength. I doubt this kind of soft-core vilification will catch on in the mainstream right-wing community, where most people just want to be done with the gay marriage business. But it’s interesting to watch the anti-gay holdouts rage against the dying of the light. 

Featured Posts

Thai Cabinet Backs Allowing Same Sex Unions

                Patpicha Tanakasempipat BANGKOK (Reuters) - Thailand’s cabinet approved a civil partnership bill ...