Photo by Jopwell
The other day, I came across an article in the Financial Times about something called the "lesbian pay premium." The gist of it is this: several academic studies have found that, on average, lesbians earn more than straight women with similar backgrounds. Intrigued, I did what any curious person would do—I Googled it.
A bunch of articles popped up, offering explanations like: "Lesbians tend to share household chores more equally, freeing up time for both partners to focus on their careers" and "Lesbians might avoid or delay the “cost” of childcare, boosting their financial stability". They don't have men to hold them back, another one wrote. An article came up in the World Economic Forum.
Sure, these reasons make sense, but it felt like not explaining the whole truth. Then, I stumbled on a study by the Williams Institute that totally reframed my perspective. It analyzed poverty rates in the U.S. by household and couple type, and here’s what it found: households led by female same-sex couples are 3.4 percentage points more likely to be in poverty than those led by different-sex married couples. This was true back in 2013, and the data from 2019 was pretty similar.
At first, this felt like a contradiction. How can lesbians earn more individually but still be more likely to live in poverty as a household? But when you look at it as complementary instead of contradictory, it starts to make sense.
Yes, lesbians make more than straight women. But they’re still women, and women earn less than men. Period. The gender pay gap is so entrenched that even just having one man in a household boosts its income. Meanwhile, gay men—the top earners among same-sex couples—pull those average poverty rates down so much that, overall, same-sex couples appear less likely to be poor than straight couples.
So, is the lesbian pay premium real? In a limited sense, yes—lesbians out-earn straight women. But when you zoom out, not really.
This is a new kind of post for us and I’d love to hear your thoughts!
Comments