Notion of rich gay people is “myth”
March 23rd, 2009
Portrayals of affluent gay people on TV shows such as The L Word and Will and Grace hide the truth of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) poverty, say the authors of a new report on poverty in the USA.
Lesbian couples in the USA are much more likely to be poor than heterosexual couples, according to a report by The Williams Institute, which compared the poverty rates of LGB people with those of heterosexuals using data from three surveys, including the 2000 national census.
24% of lesbians and bisexual women were found to be poor, compared to 19% of heterosexual women, 15% of gay and bisexual men, and 13% of heterosexual men.
‘Poor’ is defined as living in a family with an income below the federal poverty level. For an individual, this is an annual income of less than $10,400 (approximately £7,000). In 2007, 12.5% of Americans were officially counted as poor by the United States Census Bureau.
Women in same-sex relationships with children were also more likely to be poor. 9.4% of lesbian families were classified as poor, compared to 6.7% of heterosexual couple families and 5.5% of gay male couple families.
African American same-sex couples are three times more likely to be poor than white same-sex couples, and lesbians aged 65 or older were twice as likely to be poor as heterosexual women.
“The myth of gay and lesbian affluence is just that – a myth,” says co-author Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
“Poverty in the United States is a persistent problem and LGB people and families are not immune.”
Discrimination plays a significant role in the poverty rates, believes Badgett: “Policies that promote equal treatment of LGB people and in the workplace and in access to marriage may improve LGB family incomes and lift some families out of poverty.
“Advocates, policy makers, administrators, and caseworkers interested in reducing poverty and assisting poor families would do a better job if they question and then revise procedures and policies that assume all poor people are heterosexual.”
Just a thought; could it be that some of these ‘poor’ people just don’t declare as much income? For example, my dad owns his own business and does very well, but he doesn’t declare all of his income. It’s just an observation…
Kristin ∼ March 26th, 2009 1:42 amKristin - is there any reason why lesbians would be more likely not to declare income? If not, then they’re probably still disproportionally poorer.
I agree that this isn’t a great measure of well-being, although it’s probably the most convenient: for example, it doesn’t look at how resources are divided within a household. Though it’s still good to see some debunking of the ‘pink pound’ image (as we call it in England).
Rachael ∼ March 27th, 2009 4:50 pmOf course lesbians are more likely to be poor, there still exists a large wage gap between men and women. If a household is composed of two women (rather than a woman and a man) and women earn less than men, then the household will have lower income.
Elena ∼ March 27th, 2009 10:44 pmI think this situation is relative. Gay men can be as wealthy as normal people.
GayPeople ∼ April 23rd, 2009 7:22 pmOwners of gay massages places can be even wealthier. This business runs well.
GayMassage ∼ April 23rd, 2009 7:24 pm