James Withers, over at the 365 Gay Blog, posted an interesting commentary today about the recently published study entitled, "Poverty in the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community." The study, published by The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, sheds light on the presumption that members of the LGB community are, generally speaking, better off economically than their heterosexual counterparts and have more disposable income.
The introduction to the study states:
This report undertakes the first analysis of the poor and low-income lesbian, gay, and bisexual population. We find clear evidence that poverty is at least as common in the LGB population as among heterosexual people and their families.
The executive summary of the report continues:
After adjusting for a range of family characteristics that help explain poverty, gay and lesbian couple families are significantly more likely to be poor than are heterosexual married couple families.
I must admit… up until reading this study (I'm not a researcher and can't comment on the validity of the study and the methods employed in conducting it), I have been prone to believe that members of the LGB community must be better off during these times of economic crisis than their heterosexual counterparts. Since the majority of LGB folks don't have kids, I've simply assumed that they must be able to dedicate more of their financial resources to themselves versus spreading them across a family that includes children.
Indeed, a piece of research from 1987 states:
Many homosexuals may be more financially able to take early retirement than heterosexuals. Gays often have more disposable income than non-gays.
What to believe given the new Williams Institute study?
Regardless of the truth, I think this is one of those beliefs that is constantly reinforced through word-of-mouth.
As professional communicators, we often create and plan word-of-mouth programs for our clients. This new study is making me think about how many times I may have repeated the statement above… and the power of word-of-mouth in establishing awareness and assumptions.
What do you think about the new study and its findings?
SUBSCRIBE
I think the issue is that the marketing surveys tend to focus on wealth/expenditure plus the means used to collect data can result in an inherent bias with some exclusion of those not connected to the “traditional” gay community. This is improving with the internet and as survey numbers increase.
However the purpose of this research was in their own words the “first analysis of the poor and low-income lesbian, gay, and bisexual population. We find clear evidence that poverty is at least as common in the LGB population as among heterosexual people and their families.”
In reading the report what they found made perfect sense. Lower education meant the LGB population was likely to be poorer than their hetero counterparts. It basically highlights those in the LGB community who are in the “blue” collar industries are more likely to be further disadvantaged where sexuality is one further item where they are discrimated against whereas those in the “white” collar industry are likely to be better placed and not likely to suffer from discrimination.
Finally it is always important to understand the source of the data. Who does it include/doesn’t – sometimes it doesn’t matter but sometimes it does.