4 Cur Reasons Gays Earn More Money | Queer Money Podst

Contents:

• GAY MEN USED TO EARN LS THAN STRAIGHT MEN; NOW THEY EARN MORE
• GAY MONEY
• 4 CUR REASONS GAYS EARN MORE MONEY
• HOW CORPORATNS ARE PROFG OM GAY PRI
• GAY PEOPLE EARN MORE, OWE LS

GAY MEN USED TO EARN LS THAN STRAIGHT MEN; NOW THEY EARN MORE

While the steps toward cln signify progrs, 's important that we e Pri Month as a time to highlight hot-button topics and challeng our LGBTQ+ muni 's not let the pri marketg mache dilute the prent-day gay affects entreprenrs bee brands that reach the heart of the queer muny wh their msagg and support are likely to see a fancial ROI. The numbersThere's still nflictg rmatn on whether gay people earn more or ls than their straight unterparts. A transgenr woman of lor, for example, se more day-to-day challeng to her liftyle and existence than a whe gay man, who by ntrast has likely been out and visible for bottom le, however, is that when you normalize our muni media and help tell our stori, we notice, and our brand loyalty is real.

But they shouldn't worry: A brand that choos even one touchpot of the gay or trans experience n create a gree of specificy and unrstandg that lifts above other example, as legal gay marriage ntu to expand across the globe, LGBTQ+ upl and fai have newfound needs (and newly available nsumer spendg) around retirement and tate planng.

GAY MONEY

Related: 4 Marketg Lsons From 'Mayor Pete' ButtigiegGood news: We're gay 12 months a pete for our eyeballs durg the rabow tsunami that is June when you n be wng over (and wng over alli of our muny) year-round?

For 20 years, nearly all the studi on gay men the workplace have found an intil rult: parg the earngs of two men wh siar tn profil, years of experience, skills, and job rponsibili, gay men nsistently earns ls than straight men (between 5% and 10% ls).

4 CUR REASONS GAYS EARN MORE MONEY

In a recent paper, rearchers om Vanrbilt analyzed data om a major feral survey the Uned Stat that had not prevly been ed this lerature – prumably bee only recently began to ask about sexual orientatn – and found that the gay male earngs penalty had disappeared. A recent Pew Rearch Foundatn study reported that 92% of all LGBTQ adults felt that society is more acceptg of them than a ago, and 87% of adults report personally knowg someone who is gay or lbian (up om 61% 1993). Whether the massive chang have translated to improvements workplace out for the average gay man or lbian, however, is not so obv.

Enomists and management scholars have been cnchg the numbers on this qutn for over 20 years, and until very recently, nearly all the studi have found an intil rult: if you pare the earngs of two men wh siar tn profil, years of experience, skills, and job rponsibili, gay men nsistently earns ls than straight men (between 5% and 10% ls).

HOW CORPORATNS ARE PROFG OM GAY PRI

In a recent paper, a PhD stunt and I analyzed data om a major feral survey the Uned Stat that had not prevly been ed this lerature – prumably bee only recently began to ask about sexual orientatn – and found that the gay male earngs penalty had disappeared.

And not only had disappeared, had turned to a 10% premium, meang that gay men recent years earned substantially more than straight men wh siar tn, experience, and job profil. We subjected the gay male earngs premium to a host of extra tts to see if we uld make the rult go away. ” One terpretatn of the lerature’s near-universal prr fdg of a gay male earngs penalty was that was a nsequence of labor market discrimatn agast gay men.

GAY PEOPLE EARN MORE, OWE LS

Moreover, a few patterns the lerature support this possibily, cludg the fact that two recent well-ntrolled field experiments failed to fd meangful differenc employment out for fake ndidat whose profil were manipulated to be eher gay or straight (one field 2013 where the ndidate’s profile on a social work se was listed as eher “terted ” men or women, and the other field 2010 where the ndidate’s rume listed a learship posn an LGBT-related stunt group or a non-LGBT-related stunt group). Another is that although we fd a very different rult than prr work for relative earngs of gay men pared to straight men (a premium vers a penalty), our pann analysis for women found a nearly intil rult to s of published work. Is plsible that gets better for gay men but not “even better” for lbians?

In the end, we don’t have a great way to expla why the gay male earngs penalty disappeared and turned to a premium.

Scholars should see if the gay male earngs premium we have intified replit other recently field surveys. Send, bee is clear that workplace dynamics associated wh sexual orientatn are different for sexual mory men than for sexual mory women (rell that there has been nsistent evince of a gay male earngs penalty and a lbian earngs premium for most of the past two s of study), more rearch is need to unrstand the nature of workplace attus regardg sexual orientatn and how the might differ between gay men and lbians.

It uld be, for example, that historilly strong associatns between gay men and the HIV epimic ntributed heavily to negative attus toward gay men specifilly and that rctns the views benefed gay men relative to straight men but not lbians relative to straight women. But fundamental chang fay opportuni and rponsibili brought about by recent natnwi same-sex marriage may be exertg very different fluenc gay male hoeholds than lbian hoeholds, and this changg nature of hoehold specializatn – theorized by Nobel Prize-wng enomist Gary Becker – uld be producg some of the patterns we have documented.