The economic impact of gay marriage

[Mursilis]

I'm starting a new thread (and putting in Discussion Club) because my question below isn't really about gay marriage per se, and I want to avoid getting sidetracked in that debate.

I was out with some friends when the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision came up, and Friend A remarked that this decision will be a big boon for the economy because all the gay weddings will spike consumer spending, leading to higher economic growth. Friend B suggested the spike, if any, would be minimal, because discretionary income hadn't risen for gay couples, so any money spent on a wedding would be money not otherwise spent on its prior intended purpose, i.e. any other consumer product, such as a vacation, a new car, home remodel, etc. It's been a while since I took any macro-economics case, but my initial impression was with Friend B's conclusion - even if there is a spike in wedding-related spending, the economy itself will not experience higher growth simply because more gays will be getting married.

Thoughts?

 

[ControlD]

Well, perhaps gay couples will actually see a rise in discretionary income though. Right now I assume that gay couples each have to carry their own health insurance. With this change, it seems like you can instead be covered under your spouses insurance. The money that was being spent on that second health insurance plan now becomes freed up for other purposes doesn't it? That's how it worked for my family anyhow. My wife switched over to be covered by my insurance (which is provided free of cost) and we no longer had to pay her monthly premiums.

 

[sandorski]

Not enough to make much difference. Unless your business relies on Weddings and is located in the right area.

 

[Mursilis]

Well, perhaps gay couples will actually see a rise in discretionary income though. Right now I assume that gay couples each have to carry their own health insurance. With this change, it seems like you can instead be covered under your spouses insurance. The money that was being spent on that second health insurance plan now becomes freed up for other purposes doesn't it? That's how it worked for my family anyhow. My wife switched over to be covered by my insurance (which is provided free of cost) and we no longer had to pay her monthly premiums.

Interesting, hadn't thought of that. That certainly would cause a rise in discretionary income for gay couples, but probably not much.

It's funny how that whole conversation irritated me. I've got no problem whatsoever with gay marriage - I think the Court reached the proper result - but it annoys me when people try to justify it for the wrong reasons ("It's an economic stimulus!"). It's like the whole medical marijuana debate. I've heard all sorts of unsupported claims about the medicinal power of pot, even that it cures cancer, etc. If someone wants to smoke pot, I'm fine with that - just don't make things up to justify it.

 

[cabri]

Small bump in spending over next year.

Then
Figure $200 per couple each month that does not get sucked into health insurance
($300 existing coverage less $100 spousal additional coverage)

Given the amount of gays that wold be getting married compared to the overall marriages each year, this would be a drop in the bucket.

 

[woolfe9998]

A "rise in discretionary income" isn't necessary. They'll put their wedding expenses on their credit cards like so many people do. Hard to say in a given case whether the added expenses will take the place of other expenditures.

Still, I doubt any economic bump will be statistically all that significant in macro-economic terms.

 

[sm625]

Insurance companies do not have to provide coverage to spouses at a discount rate. What we are more likely to see is a simple doubling of rates for married couples with no children compared to singles. Since health care is in such a bubble, this will probably be the largest economic impact, and it would be a net negative. Another economic impact will be the increasing numbers of gay marriages that are engineered for the sole purpose of getting people into the country legally. This will provide a net boost to the economy. A single marriage could potentially bring half a dozen or more new citizens into the country. I cant help but wonder if they will change the name of the Green Card to the Rainbow Card. :biggrin:

 

[cabri]

Insurance companies do not have to provide coverage to spouses at a discount rate. What we are more likely to see is a simple doubling of rates for married couples with no children compared to singles. Since health care is in such a bubble, this will probably be the largest economic impact, and it would be a net negative. Another economic impact will be the increasing numbers of gay marriages that are engineered for the sole purpose of getting people into the country legally. This will provide a net boost to the economy. A single marriage could potentially bring half a dozen or more new citizens into the country. I cant help but wonder if they will change the name of the Green Card to the Rainbow Card. :biggrin:

I expect that this will not be the case.

There are plenty of people that could be bought without having to use the same sex issue.

With the hetero-sexual "purchase" involving a gay spouse; there is less of a feeling of having to fully participate.:sneaky:

 

[dank69]

Insurance companies do not have to provide coverage to spouses at a discount rate. What we are more likely to see is a simple doubling of rates for married couples with no children compared to singles. Since health care is in such a bubble, this will probably be the largest economic impact, and it would be a net negative. Another economic impact will be the increasing numbers of gay marriages that are engineered for the sole purpose of getting people into the country legally. This will provide a net boost to the economy. A single marriage could potentially bring half a dozen or more new citizens into the country. I cant help but wonder if they will change the name of the Green Card to the Rainbow Card. :biggrin:

I don't understand why you think the bolded will happen. There would have had to have been a large number of people that were willing to fake a marriage but unwilling to fake a hetero marriage.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

More using the marriage tax credits will reduce government revenue but it's hard to imagine that the imapct will be that significant.

 

[soulcougher73]

It will help out businesses catering to wedding needs, but that's about it. So overall not much a boon to the economy IMO.

 

[Murloc]

gays make up a small section of the population, the gays who want to marry who also happen to live in one of the states where until now they could not are even less. It all amounts to nothing, in economic terms.
It will change stuff for single couples, that's for sure, society won't feel anything though.

 

[piasabird]

In the higher income levels, Gays may actually have to pay more taxes for the Marriage penalty. It is a flaw to make taxes and benefits based on marital status. Taxes and insurance just get more and more difficult with marriage. Your spouse can run up debt and you might be responsible for that in a marriage. Your spouse can also ruin your credit rating. I have seen this in lots of marriages.

 

[piasabird]

Divorce lawyers might make more money.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Yeah I don't see this being a huge boon to the economy in the short term. I see another benefit that could result in long term positive economic impact though. You have to make a lot of assumptions for it to pan out though.

The first one is that gays will begin to get married in droves. Not a huge assumption really, but important to the next part. Once married, many gay couples will want to take the next step, which would probably mean adopting children.

I know there are other options when it comes to getting children, but I'm betting on the overwhelming majority of them resorting to adoption. I'm going to assume that the majority of these couples will make good parents. That seems like a big assumption, but if you think about it these will generally be pretty squared away people with good incomes and a strong desire to prove that their marriage can be as stable and conducive to healthy child development as any other. I'm assuming they are going to be largely successful in that aim, and will take children who would normally be at high risk of joining the criminal element and turn them into productive, law-abiding citizens.

It's this simultaneous reduction in criminals and increase in productive members of society that will ultimately have the lasting impact.

 

[tynopik]

I know there are other options when it comes to getting children, but I'm betting on the overwhelming majority of them resorting to adoption . . . I'm assuming they are going to be largely successful in that aim, and will take children who would normally be at high risk of joining the criminal element and turn them into productive, law-abiding citizens.

There is already a waiting list for adoption

 

[Murloc]

There is already a waiting list for adoption

true, so it's not like there's any advantage in that regard, and international adoptions from poor countries that still have orphanotrophies and no waiting list due to stigma are impossible for gays given that these countries are usually homophobic as well (russia or africa).

 

[piasabird]

Gays represent like 2% of the population. There is little or no impact. There is more impact from the women that have children without marriage and then expect the government to foot the bill. That is the biggest threat to America.

 

[piasabird]

How many gay weddings will be fancy church or church-like weddings with Men-in-waiting? How would that even work out? I imagine justice of the peace and maybe a reception after that.

 

[ControlD]

Gays represent like 2% of the population. There is little or no impact. There is more impact from the women that have children without marriage and then expect the government to foot the bill. That is the biggest threat to America.

If that is the biggest threat to America then we truly have nothing to worry about.

 

[SMOGZINN]

How many gay weddings will be fancy church or church-like weddings with Men-in-waiting? How would that even work out? I imagine justice of the peace and maybe a reception after that.

What do you mean how would that even work out? It works just like it does in any other wedding. Also, not all gay people are men, and even gay men have women friends.

 

[SlitheryDee]

What do you mean how would that even work out? It works just like it does in any other wedding. Also, not all gay people are men, and even gay men have women friends.

Gays really have a lot of options in that respect. They could both have "bridesmen" or "groomsmaids", or some mixture of the two for instance. The church thing is iffy, but there are at least some out there that would allow gay weddings these days I believe. Considering how long they've been waiting for this I guess quite a few want the whole shebang; Bachelor/bachelorette parties, big church wedding, reception where the first man/woman/men/women gets too drunk to make a coherent speech, but does it anyway. I say why not?

It's an interesting question. It's actually the tradition of marriage that gays have been fighting for this long. I believe the civil unions that have been available for some time afforded all the legal benefits of marriage, so that wasn't the issue. It's the recognition that they are a part of the long standing tradition of marriage that was at issue. All the same I see the actual weddings themselves breaking from tradition quite a bit by necessity.

All the gender specific parts of marriage suddenly don't have as much meaning because you can't always expect the participants of a gay marriage to adopt the traditional "roles". If it's two men, one of them may not be the de facto "bride", for instance. Though if one or both of them does want to assume that role, that also seem perfectly acceptable to me. The same goes with two women. One of them may have the kind of character in the relationship that makes assuming the role of the "groom" seem appropriate, or both may be brides replete with bridesmaids and all the other trappings of the traditionally female half of the wedding.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I believe the civil unions that have been available for some time afforded all the legal benefits of marriage, so that wasn't the issue. It's the recognition that they are a part of the long standing tradition of marriage that was at issue.

Civil unions were not avalible. I think only one state tried to do that, and only a few other states were willing to recognise the union.

 

[bradly1101]

Don't some people get married for the gifts? Stock in Crate and Barrel should see gains.

But seriously any added stability to a relationship can only be good for the economy. Combining two incomes adds to buying power; I know that there are things I would have just forgone rather than spend the money but splitting the item/utility makes it affordable. So I think there will be a bump obviously in proportion to the actual amount of gays (less than 2%?).

 

[Cozarkian]

Some may try to cut back on spending to save for a wedding and honeymoon down the road, which will partially offset any increase in spending of others.

I think the only result will be a slight shift in spending toward wedding services and divorce lawyers and away from other luxury goods.