 |
|
December 3, 1998
WASHINGTON, DC---A new study resoundingly debunks widely held beliefs about the economic status of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people. Contrary to conventional wisdom on the subject, GLB people do not earn more than heterosexuals. In fact, they may even earn less.
Released today by the Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, Income Inflation: The Myth of Affluence Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Americans is a startling study of the economic status of a frequently stereotyped population of Americans. M.V. Lee Badgett explores the inaccurate notion that GLB people are an economic elite, insulated from discrimination by wealth and disconnected from society by a privileged status. After examining data from seven different surveys, she finds that none support this stereotype.
"The evidence from many different scientifically sound data sources points to the same clear conclusion: gay, lesbian, and bisexual people do not earn more than heterosexual people, either as individuals or as couples," reported Badgett. "Now that we have credible data, we can stop relying on flawed studies designed to find high-income gay people."
Right-wing organizations and individuals perpetuate and exploit the myth of gay wealth to bolster attacks against the GLBT community. The myth is so pervasive that even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia injected it into the dissenting opinion in the Colorado Amendment Two case.
"We have long known that the myth of gay wealth is just that - a myth," said Urvashi Vaid, director of the NGLTF Policy Institute. "Income Inflation shines the light of truth on yet another of the Right's distortion of the facts."
>>My household income is probably about the same as that of my neighbors, but since I don't have four kids, my income after living expenses is probably much higher. Does that make me wealthier?
It's the same issue as with DINKs (Dual Income - No Kids).
>>....queer leadership has contributed to the myth of gay wealth. Rarely do community leaders take on class issues, or concern ourselves with queer access when it comes to anti-poverty organizations, homeless shelters, or low cost medical clinics. And while we have taken on some of these issues as they relate to HIV or AIDS and gay or bisexual men, there has been little attention given to single lesbian or bisexual women with children.
I believe that queer people in rural areas have an intuitive understanding of the fallaciousness of this myth.
>>Another group for which statistics would be interesting, are those of us who have been disowned by families. Economic consequences vary, depending on when this happens. Young adults may lose the financial advantage of living at home while attending school, and may have to leave high school to support themselves. Others lose the family contribution towards higher education. When one has to enter the workforce earlier, with less education, s/he will have reduced earning potential for the future, until such time as they can get a degree, unless they're in a field where experience brings significant economic reward.
>>Did the study look at the difference between men's income and women's income? A family living on one male and one female income (straight) may have less money than one living on two male incomes -- which is often enough the case with gay men, even some of those with children. I think these double-male-income households are probably what the myth of gay wealth is based on -- though they may be in the minority. And a family living on two female incomes is likely to have proportionately less. This "class" difference between many gay men and many lesbians has sometimes been discussed and debated in the gay/lesbian press.
>>Let's think about which queers we see in the media: Ellen and Anne, Elton John, George Michael, Barney Frank, Andrew Sullivan, Rosie O'Donnell, Chastity Bono. Not exactly a cross section of our community. Queer people are often portrayed as middle or upper class in movies: The Opposite of Sex, Object of My Affection, Basic Instinct. Let's see, we're absent on the television, unless we're talking about Will & Grace or cable. And on the radio, mostly NPR, we're talking about 1) AIDS, 2) Gourmet Food, or 3) Life in New York.
>>I agree that money DOES buy access and visibility. How many poor queer people are asked to be on boards of directors of non-profits? The wealth that these people enjoy means they are able to give TIME and MONEY to a cause. When I think of some of the wealthier people queer people I know, MOST of them are using their money to support gay organizations, and do a lot of committee work to support them! Thanks to those people for doing the right thing!
>>In Vermont, however, I feel we are better about encouraging participation from all walks of life, not just the well off. This might be because most of the queers I know in Vermont are here for our great lifestyle, rather than money. I see much greater class issues in the big queer centers like NYC and SF.
>>The problem with the gay media is that it is trying to sell ad space, and so they actually promote the idea that gay men have more money than anyone else. Bay Windows runs an ad that shows a white guy in a suit under the headline "Gay market muscle" and has quotes such as that gay men are twice as likely to buy name brand booze than cheap beer or whatever.
These magazines also target gay men with money, and those of us without money don't read the Advocate or Bay Windows. When they talk demographics they are talking about their readership, not the queer community. Unfortunately the right wing which has used this marketing info does not make this distinction.
One encouraging survey I saw though, showed that gay men tend to give a greater percentage of income to Nonprofits than any other group.
