Is it worth $8.5 billion and 185,000 jobs?
The Texas economy stands to lose $8.5 billion and 185,000 jobs if anti-LGBT legislation passes in next year’s session, according to an analysis from the Texas Association of Business, the state’s chamber of commerce.
The TAB analysis is based on actual or projected losses in four states where lawmakers have passed or considered anti-LGBT legislation in recent years — Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana and North Carolina.
TAB determined that anti-LGBT legislation would cost Texas roughly 0.5 percent of its gross domestic product, mostly from decreased travel and tourism. The analysis cites hundreds of millions of dollars worth of potential losses related to events such as the Super Bowl, NCAA championships and Austin’s South By Southwest festival, in addition to reduced investments by major employers including Apple, Google, Marriott, IBM and PayPal.
“We’ve done our homework, and we feel very confident in the numbers,” TAB President Chris Wallace told the Observer. “There will be a significant economic impact in Texas if we continue down this path of legislation that is very much discriminatory. Why go there when we’re one of the top states in which to do business?”
Wallace, who provided a one-page executive summary of the analysis to the Observer, said TAB’s full report will be released in early December.
In September, TAB’s board overwhelmingly approved a resolution opposing anti-LGBT legislation. But the state chamber’s position appeared to have little impact on Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, who subsequently reiterated his push for an anti-transgender bathroom bill, one of his top priorities.
A spokesman for Patrick didn’t respond to a request for comment on the TAB analysis.
Last week, the Quorum Report reported that Patrick has been pressuring business leaders to get on board with an anti-trans bathroom bill, allegedly telling them, “You’re either with us or against us.” Because they must work with Patrick on other issues affecting their bottom lines, some business leaders may be reluctant to defy him by publicly opposing an anti-trans bathroom bill.
See here and here for some background. I think we know that Dan Partick neither believes that passing an anti-LGBT bill will have any negative effect on Texas nor cares if he’s wrong. So this all comes down once again to the question I’ve been asking these business types every time one of these stories appears. Are you going to keep rolling over for Dan Patrick even though he does all these things that are harmful to your interests, or are you going to grow a backbone and stand up to him? Will you meekly support him after he pisses on your agenda because you fear him, or will you work to defeat him and elect someone who actually does care about the things you say you care about, even at the risk of making him mad at you? It’s totally your choice.
All Texas has to do is……nothing. We don’t need any new bathroom laws, for OR against.
Dan: just Let. It. Go.
GBLT rabble rousers: just Let. It. Go.
Call me old fashioned, but I wouldn’t call advocating for fair play or engaging in reasoned opposition to elected officials who display authoritarian tendencies “rabble rousing” no matter which letter of the alphabet applies.
@Voter:
I would agree with you, if the GBLTers were simply advocating fair play and engaging in opposition to Dan’s presumptive potty bill. Getting gay marriage legalized was the right play, even if it was done the wrong way, by legislating from the bench.
What we have seen, however, from the GBLT camp is not that. Case in point: the HERO. Had it not been ramrodded (pun intended) down the throats of Houstonians, there would have been no need to vote it down. The status quo was working just fine, as it is statewide. There aren’t tens of thousands of gays who have had to get their wedding cakes made elsewhere, or been denied an apartment, or been denied jobs lately running around. That overt discrimination ship sailed long ago, without passing feel good (no pun intended) laws.
Making it easier for butthurt people (again, pun intended) to sue for having their feelings hurt is not in the best interest of Texas. It is also not in the best interest of Texas for Dan to pass a potty bill that will cause politically correct outrage and fallout for us.
Bill, how do you know there is no discrimination? Do you hang out in gay bars and listen in? You sure there is no discrimination against blacks, latinos, or veterans? You don’t know at all. You ask everyone else to let it go, but everyone still has to listen to Bill talking out of his $%%.
LOL. I’m not going to be hanging out in any gay bars. But let’s talk about all that rampant discrimination against blacks, Latinos, and veterans, in the city of Houston. Other than the black guys trying to shake down the Gas Lamp bar for charging a cover charge (the horror), when’s the last time you heard of anyone in Houston claiming discrimination by a business in Houston? I can’t think of any other examples, myself, and considering how claims like that would be welcomed to promote the “everyone’s a victim, safe space, trigger warning” agenda, you’d think stories of alleged discrimination would be front page news, and appear nightly on the 6pm news.
@ Bill, Just because you don’t see it, or fail to recognize it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Btw those guys are not upset because they was being charged a cover fee, they are upset because only black men were charged that fee. This has happened to me. Maybe you should take some time and think about the situation from shorter person’s perspective instead of automatically dismissing what they have to say.
Well said!
Bill is using gay-baiting, overtly racist memes and condescending, dismissive language to argue that an anti-discrimination ordinance isn’t necessary. Good job, extra points for foot-shooting. He suspects some kind of agenda, like the nasty one he and his right-wing pals have. The real agenda? Fostering an inclusive atmosphere for business. People don’t go into places and spend their money if they feel that they are likely to be treated badly. People don’t come to cities for conventions and vacations if they have feeling the trip might be ruined by ill-treatment, especially in the South. Since Houston has sadly got on the national map for voting for discrimination, we are already losing out.
@AssClownBillDaniels. Whatever the reason for your post, I’ll forever look at your posts with a hint a sadness and little to no respect for your opinion. Too bad, as I occassionaly enjoyed your dissenting point of view. You’ve demeaned yourself to obscurity. Re: ‘The status quo was working just fine, as it is statewide’. Interesting that’s your position…. Many took the position that a dry Heights was/is the status quo working just fine as well. Wasn’t it you that argued in favor of the HEB ?
@C.L.:
Personal attacks aside, my position FOR booze in the Heights is logically aligned with my position that no legislative action, for OR against more GLBT laws should be proposed or passed. Legislating a dry area is anti-business, regardless how long it has been that way, and results in the government artificially picking winners and losers. A store in the dry zone has an unfair disadvantage against a store not in the dry zone, and that’s not right.
Legislating things like HB2 in North Carolina, the HERO locally, or Dan Patrick’s potty bill statewide are also ALL bad for business in their own respective ways, and thus bad for the local and state economy. IMHO, threading the needle of neutrality means…..doing nothing.
Personally, I think that’s actually a pretty moderate position to take. For gay marriage? Check. Against Dan’s proposed potty bill? Check. Against the HERO? Check.
If my choice of puns offended you, I apologize. Call it low hanging fruit (no pun intended, really.)
Now, back to election results watching.
@Bill… I’m with you, grocery stores in the dry zone [Kroger, Fiesta, etc.] didn’t get to sell beer/wine, but they knew that going in, ergo made that ‘disadvantage’ decision to locate there long after the dry zone was established. Did Kroger build at 11th/Shepherd ’cause it was outside the zone ? In all likelihood, sure, but to claim they were financially disadvantaged without having built inside the zone to begin with is a stretch. They made a decision to build where they did for financial reasons. Props to ’em.
re: “…results in the government artificially picking winners and losers.” Am fairly certain the free market is picking the winners and losers, not the Govt. To claim Fiesta’s gone ’cause they couldn’t see beer/wine completely disregards their booze outlet 3 or blocks to the north.