Economics of the gay community

  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Jul 03, 2015 3:32 AM GMT
    Saw this on Bloomberg and thought it was quite interesting. Particularly the 76% above the average income. Any colour/thoughts on what drives that?

    11143415_10153397205604029_7208810718279
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 3:40 AM GMT
    I don't see any way that sampling bias wouldn't explain a substantial part of the results, *especially* the 76% above average part. Being measured means being out, which probably means being among a subset of the community which is likely to be statistically more clueful and competent.

    Definitely interesting, though. Lots of subtleties to be puzzled over.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 5:02 AM GMT
    Buying power = disposable income.

    A majority of gays don't have children. Therefore, more money to save/spend. See, it even works with straight people too..

    il_570xN.457263093_tsmg.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 5:58 PM GMT
    / True but that might change as more gay guys marry and have kids of their own.

    Businesses are practically doing backflips over being able to officially market to the GLBT community, I've seen an increase in ads (print, TV, online, etc) targeting us more in the past few weeks than ever since it means potential customers and this more $$$. It might just be the East Coast but I've noticed there's an uptick of gay targeted commercials on national TV stations so who knows
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 6:31 PM GMT
    xrichx saidA majority of gays don't have children. Therefore, more money to save/spend.

    Exactly; not having kids makes a huge difference.

    Plus, men are more likely to make more than a woman so when you have a gay couple it's more likely to be two who make more versus a straight couple where one makes less and one makes more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 6:35 PM GMT
    In my family, my dad and stepmother, and my two half brothers, all of the wives work and the money goes into a joint checking account.

    I was surprised to learn that there are a significant percentage of women who work and their money goes into their own checking account. The husband pays the bills; mortgage, utilities, etc. The wives don't contribute to that; they believe that it's the man's job to be the bread winner and pay for that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 7:00 PM GMT
    I wish there was more data given (and/or sources), but I'm pretty sure buying power is not just the disposabe part of someone's income. If you have kids, you have less money because you have to buy things for them. Buying power includes power to buy diapers and food and gas and toys and all the other things that having kids requires.

    I'm not saying that having kids doesn't diminish buying power at all, but I am positing that such an effect is mostly indirect.

    EDIT: I am now seeing some sources use the terms interchangeably. We live in stupid times indeed. icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 7:03 PM GMT
    More propaganda from the gay agenda handbook--a lot of faking it, not so much making it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 7:28 PM GMT
    I really dislike these types of news headlines. Too many variables in how the data was collected and interpreted/manipulated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 7:33 PM GMT
    dustin_K_tx said
    More propaganda from the gay agenda handbook--a lot of faking it, not so much making it.

    Propaganda? Gay agenda? Please explain further...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 7:44 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    dustin_K_tx said
    More propaganda from the gay agenda handbook--a lot of faking it, not so much making it.

    Propaganda? Gay agenda? Please explain further...

    **woosh**
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 7:47 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    dustin_K_tx said
    More propaganda from the gay agenda handbook--a lot of faking it, not so much making it.

    Propaganda? Gay agenda? Please explain further...


    just me being facetious not unlike the Bloomberg people.

    I can never take any pole/survey of gay people seriously, because first they have to admit to being gay and as such have already skewed the results.
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Jul 03, 2015 9:39 PM GMT
    xrichx saidBuying power = disposable income.

    A majority of gays don't have children. Therefore, more money to save/spend. See, it even works with straight people too..

    il_570xN.457263093_tsmg.jpg


    True, but that doesn't explain the above average income
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 11:05 PM GMT
    The above average income thing is a mathematical trick. The percent above the median would be far more informative.

    There is something real behind the number, but there is no way of knowing whether the 76% is an exaggeration (after all, if 76% of gay people made 1% more than average, the statistic would be largely meaningless if still factually correct).

    The fact that the middle stat uses the median and the third uses the mean is what makes me most nervous. I wish they'd provided even a little more detail.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2015 11:15 PM GMT
    Bloomberg
    junk science.
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 321

    Jul 04, 2015 12:07 AM GMT
    anotherphil saidThe above average income thing is a mathematical trick. The percent above the median would be far more informative.

    There is something real behind the number, but there is no way of knowing whether the 76% is an exaggeration (after all, if 76% of gay people made 1% more than average, the statistic would be largely meaningless if still factually correct).

    The fact that the middle stat uses the median and the third uses the mean is what makes me most nervous. I wish they'd provided even a little more detail.



    Also true that median is more relevant in looking at what the broad population is making. However, the average is generally skewed higher, making for a higher bar to clear. This also doesn't explain the 23% higher median income (which ignores children and any other cost that most heterosexual couples incur that same-sex couples don't).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2015 12:14 AM GMT
    If you're poor you're less likely to be out. You have to be independent in order to be out!
    Also, conspicuous consumption seems to be more common among the G part of the community at least.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2015 12:28 AM GMT
    maxferguson said
    anotherphil saidThe above average income thing is a mathematical trick. The percent above the median would be far more informative.

    There is something real behind the number, but there is no way of knowing whether the 76% is an exaggeration (after all, if 76% of gay people made 1% more than average, the statistic would be largely meaningless if still factually correct).

    The fact that the middle stat uses the median and the third uses the mean is what makes me most nervous. I wish they'd provided even a little more detail.



    Also true that median is more relevant in looking at what the broad population is making. However, the average is generally skewed higher, making for a higher bar to clear. This also doesn't explain the 23% higher median income (which ignores children and any other cost that most heterosexual couples incur that same-sex couples don't).


    Careful there: The infographic doesn't say how much higher the average gay income is than the average overall. You're correct that medians-to-medians is generally the most useful, but what I'm really trying to say is that if you're going to use averages, averages-to-averages would be a clearer comparison. This is like comparing the median of a subpopulation to the average of the larger one, which could almost have been designed to be misleading or confusing.

    (EDIT: I think I'm seeing something I missed previously in your response, but I'm having a hard time even finding the median-mean gap for the general population. If that gap is wide enough then this is significant indeed, but even then I don't see why they don't just compare medians to medians in the first place. icon_confused.gif )

    The 23% statistic is the one I *like* to ponder (the 76% just bothers me for reasons I can't quite explain). If I'm assuming correctly that 'households' are couples and/or those with dependents, I want to think that in addition to a smaller income penalty for time spent rearing children, that perhaps gay people tend to start families later and/or in more stable financial situations in the first place. That, and I think that living as a gay household will have demanded a certain amount of resolve and focus that isn't so much required to start a heteronormative household in this day and age.

    There's some smugness there, but it's all thought experiment for me. I don't have any hard data, for better or worse.
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jul 04, 2015 2:29 AM GMT
    Hum. Interesting. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs the 2014 average income at $47,230. Bloomberg I saying that 76% 0f the gay community earn over -- or more than -- that $47,230. We may begin to see real numbers as men marry men and women marry women and begin filing taxes. that would of course only be for the "married" group of us and I'd bet young poor gay men aren't too inclined to marry.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2015 4:02 AM GMT
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/myth-gays-make-more-money-than-non-gays/2011/03/04/gIQA26CexQ_blog.html

    "We gays only have ourselves to blame for this idea that LGBT are a moneyed tribe. Seemingly through sheer will and fabulosity, we swoop into under-utilized, ignored or forgotten neighborhoods and transform them into swank destinations to live and dine for everyone. And then we move on. Of course, our nomadic nature is driven as much by economics (cheap rent and housing stock) as it is by safety. Still, our handiwork is there for all to see here in Washington, New York City, California or on Bravo. But this doesn’t reflect the reality. Just like most Americans with families, the gays don’t make a lot of money. Actually, they make less."


    Just another made-up reason to hate on the gays...

  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jul 04, 2015 4:11 AM GMT
    Erobert said/ True but that might change as more gay guys marry and have kids of their own.

    Businesses are practically doing backflips over being able to officially market to the GLBT community, I've seen an increase in ads (print, TV, online, etc) targeting us more in the past few weeks than ever since it means potential customers and this more $$$. It might just be the East Coast but I've noticed there's an uptick of gay targeted commercials on national TV stations so who knows


    My perspective is anecdotal, but I believe it's regional. I'm regularly in NYC, Miami and Tulsa. Miami and Tulsa tend to run "national" ads. Literally, a lot of companies have special ads that target New England and the east coast (e.g., NYC). I remember one time I was watching TV in NYC and I said to my mother on the phone (because it just played) "have you seen that gay friendly XYZ commercial?" (the exact commercial escapes me, but it made me pause so it was probably Ford, Coca-Cola or something big) and she was like "no, that's never aired here." And since then I've noticed that commercials I see in Manhattan are NOT always the same as commercials airing elsewhere. In fact, I'd guess that about 5 to 10% of the commercials in the NYC area are area-specific (and I don't mean "local commercials" which are everywhere, I mean area-specific in a national sense wherein that commercial replaces the 'normal' national ad), and some of those are LGBT inclusive. It's totally a regional phenomenon.

    For example, did you know there's a black McDonald's website that white people don't know about? It's only advertised in black "rags" and on black cable channels. It's called 365 black. That's just one example of targeted advertising at its "best." (I don't mean to say I support McD's having a 'black section', I only mean to report the fact and reserve judgment...I will say my gut doesn't care for it, but that's a decision for another day).
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jul 04, 2015 4:18 AM GMT
    maxferguson saidSaw this on Bloomberg and thought it was quite interesting. Particularly the 76% above the average income. Any colour/thoughts on what drives that?

    11143415_10153397205604029_7208810718279


    It's more or less true. We have more income because we--tend to--have less of an obligation to squander money on self-indulgent children icon_cool.gif

    But what's more, I've seen that gays tend to be remarkably stable, wealthy (or trending that way, just give it time), stable and fierce leaders, or tragic, addicted, poor wastes. There is, literally, no such thing as an "Average Gay." You're either a hero or a zero, at least as compared to the norm of MOST straights.

    For some unknown to me reason, you're either more likely to find a gay working the pole, shaking for scratch at the bar, or funding an eight person table at a charity auction and jet setting to London for a four day vacation. It's like night and day in the gay community. Most straight people are not that either/or. Most straight people are just 9-5, more or less ordinary, their big high is a trip of the AC or Vegas, and their big low is a stint working at the local Barnes and Noble. With gays, it's either extreme wealth or extreme poverty. I'm not exaggerating, it plays out that way. I'm not sure if it's our bar culture, or the discrimination we have to deal with, or what, but there's driving factor that needs to be uncovered by social scientists because it's uncanny how "successful" or "pathetic" we are.
  • waccamatt

    Posts: 1918

    Jul 04, 2015 5:37 AM GMT
    The thing to remember about any surveys about the LGBT community is that at least half of our community is still in the closet and won't be counted in these surveys. People of independent financial means are more likely to be out because they don't have to worry about the support of their parents, etc.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2015 5:40 AM GMT
    Gay men generally aren't the superior bourgeois class that they pretend to be.

    It's all based on credit (and overextended credit, at that).

    Gay men exemplify the definition of "living beyond your means," and tend to be more impulsive and always begging for approval based on superficial ostentations.

    Gay men are more likely to be nurses than doctors.
    Office managers than CEOs.
    Community organizers instead of senators.

    These wages are similar to plumbers and electricians. Yes, gay men are the glorified blue collar working class. They renovate neighborhoods and then straight men with wealth take over.

    I find it kind of sad how many gay men give up their dreams of reaching the top because they are afraid or stigma, of rejection, of having "hurt feelings," of not fitting in. Too many timid souls in the community.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2015 5:53 AM GMT
    timshel said...
    Gay men are more likely to be nurses than doctors.
    Office managers than CEOs.
    Community organizers instead of senators.
    ...


    If I didn't know any better, I'd think you meant this in a bad way. icon_confused.gif