Our results show that it is
Posted: Sun Feb 09, 2025 3:54 am
Gender and race-specific differences in earnings have been well-documented, but there has been far less evidence on sexual orientation-based pay gaps. Our research contributes to this debate by showing that household specialisation plays an important role in understanding the pay difference between sexual minorities and heterosexual individuals.
Traditional heterosexual partnerships typically involve gendered specialisation, with the man more engaged in market activities than the woman, particularly given the prevalence of children among usa rcs data heterosexual couples. Even if the degree of household specialisation were the same in heterosexual and gay male households, gendered heterosexual specialisation means that the average partnered heterosexual man will be more focused upon market activities than the average partnered gay man.
By the same argument, the average partnered lesbian will be more focused upon market activities than the average partnered heterosexual woman. These differences should not accrue to non-partnered individuals.
These specialisation-based predictions hold in our data. Our findings that the lesbian premium among partnered individuals accrues approximately equally to lesbians who are self-defined as household heads and lesbians who are not household heads, also supports the idea that there is less specialisation in a lesbian household.
While comparative specialisation within the household is our preferred explanation for most of our results, there is some limited evidence for the presence of discrimination as an explanatory factor. older gay men and partnered gay men that earn less than comparable heterosexual men. It is likely that the lack of a heterosexual marriage becomes more of a signal of sexual minority status as an individual gets older (Carpenter 2007, Frank 2007).
Traditional heterosexual partnerships typically involve gendered specialisation, with the man more engaged in market activities than the woman, particularly given the prevalence of children among usa rcs data heterosexual couples. Even if the degree of household specialisation were the same in heterosexual and gay male households, gendered heterosexual specialisation means that the average partnered heterosexual man will be more focused upon market activities than the average partnered gay man.
By the same argument, the average partnered lesbian will be more focused upon market activities than the average partnered heterosexual woman. These differences should not accrue to non-partnered individuals.
These specialisation-based predictions hold in our data. Our findings that the lesbian premium among partnered individuals accrues approximately equally to lesbians who are self-defined as household heads and lesbians who are not household heads, also supports the idea that there is less specialisation in a lesbian household.
While comparative specialisation within the household is our preferred explanation for most of our results, there is some limited evidence for the presence of discrimination as an explanatory factor. older gay men and partnered gay men that earn less than comparable heterosexual men. It is likely that the lack of a heterosexual marriage becomes more of a signal of sexual minority status as an individual gets older (Carpenter 2007, Frank 2007).