Are Gay Men Really Rich? A New Freakonomics Radio Podcast

(Photo: Ludovic Bertron)

(Photo: Ludovic Bertron)

Our latest episode is called “Are Gay Men Really Rich?”  (You can subscribe to the podcast at iTunes, get the RSS feed, or listen via the media player above. You can also read the transcript; it includes credits for the music you’ll hear in the episode.) It began with a question from Freakonomics Radio listener Danny Rosa:

ROSA: I’m wondering why gay men are so affluent and successful. If you walk around neighborhoods like West Hollywood in Los Angeles, the Castro in San Francisco, and Boystown in Chicago, they are all very well-kept, expensive, and highly sought-after. So, I’m thinking, what is it about gay men and the gay culture that makes them so wealthy?

In the episode, Stephen Dubner explores the “gay men are rich” stereotype and learns what the data can — and, importantly, cannot — tell us. Along the way, you’ll hear from Lee Badgett at the Williams Institute, a UCLA think tank dedicated to sexual-orientation research; Dan Black, a professor of public policy at the University of Chicago; and Keith Ericson, a professor of public policy at Boston University. You’ll also hear from Steve Levitt on why gays choose to live where they do (he talked about this in an earlier episode). In the end, you’ll learn a lot about income and sexual orientation, but you’ll also learn that nearly everything you learn is, on some level, suspect. As Badgett reminds us: 

BADGETT: The most important thing to know is that it is actually pretty hard to get good data on lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.

This episode drew on the following papers and studies, which you might wish to look through if the topic is of interest. Thanks to Gary Gates at the Williams Institute for helping us sort through the data:

Audio Transcript

[MUSIC: Know One, “Near Hit” (from The Ballad of Know One & DamNathan)]


Stephen J. DUBNER: Hey everybody. A Freakonomics Radio listener named Danny Rosa recently got in touch with us. He’s 22, recently graduated from the University of Chicago. He works as a youth advocate at the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center. Danny himself is gay, and he has a question for us:


Danny ROSA: Hey, Freakonomics. I’m Danny Rosa and I’m wondering why gay men are so affluent and successful. If you walk down neighborhoods like West Hollywood in Los Angeles, the Castro in San Francisco, and Boystown in Chicago, they are all very well-kept, expensive, and highly sought after. So, I’m thinking, what is it about gay men and the gay culture that makes them so wealthy?


DUBNER: What is it about gay men that makes them so wealthy? It is true that the gay neighborhoods that Danny mentions in L.A. and San Francisco and Chicago – as well as similar areas in New York and Washington and elsewhere – are very nice neighborhoods. And if you watch even a little bit of television these days, you’ll get the same idea...




DUBNER: So, yes, it’s pretty easy to get the impression that being gay is a ticket to affluence. But today, on Freakonomics Radio, we ask this: how real is that rich gay stereotype?




ANNOUNCER: From WNYC: This is FREAKONOMICS RADIO, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything. Here’s your host, Stephen Dubner.


DUBNER: Okay, so the question we’re trying to answer today seems pretty simple: why are gay men affluent? That, of course, presumes that gay men are more affluent, so we should probably start there.


[MUSIC: David M Young, “Iridentalism”]


DUBNER: Let’s take a look at U.S. Census data. According to some analyses, median household income for heterosexual couples is about $86,000. For gay male couples, meanwhile, median household income is…$105,600, or nearly 20 percent more. And, for what it’s worth, lesbian couples have lower median income than heterosexual couples, about $84,000. So Danny Rosa seems to be right – gay men do seem to earn more. So the next logical question is … why? Lee Badgett is an economist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. She says it appears that gay men tend to have higher-than-average education levels. Now, there may be a lot of explanations for that. Here’s one you may not have considered:


Lee BADGETT: One possibility is a gay person says, well, I know I’m going to face some stigma and discrimination in the labor market, maybe my best defense against having an income disadvantage is to get a lot of education. So that’s one possibility that it’s trying to overcome the effects of discrimination.


DUBNER: Now, as we know, more education usually translates into more earnings. Here’s Steve Levitt, my Freakonomics friend and co-author. He’s an economist at the University of Chicago:


Steven D. LEVITT: The best estimates that economists have are that each extra year of education that you get is worth about maybe an 8 percent increment to your earnings each year for the rest of your life.


DUBNER: So someone with a college diploma will, on average, outearn someone with only a high-school diploma by about a million dollars over their lifetime. If, therefore, gay men get more education, that would go a long way toward explaining why they earn more. Plus which, men generally earn more than women, so having two working men in a household should also lead to higher incomes. So that’s the earning. What about the spending? Are there big differences between how a gay couple and a straight couple spend their money?


[MUSIC: Carson Henley, “Fire” (from 100 Hours)]


DUBNER: Well, the most obvious difference, and probably also the biggest, goes by a famous acronym DINK. That’s Dual Income, No Kids: Dan Black is an economist who teaches public policy at the University of Chicago. He says there’s a rank order as to what kind of couples are more likely to have kids:


Dan BLACK: The hierarchy sort of goes heterosexual couples, lesbian couples, followed by gay male couples.


DUBNER: Okay, here are the numbers. In the U.S., 43.5 percent of straight couples are raising kids under age 18. Among lesbian households, that number is 22 percent. And only 10 percent of gay male couples are raising a child. So a straight couple is more than four times as likely as a gay male couple to be raising a kid. And when you’re not raising a kid, as Dan Black points out …


BLACK: You have more disposable income because you’re not making the expenditures associated with having children.


DUBNER: And what kind of expenditures are we talking about for having children? Well, one government estimate says that American parents spend an average of nearly $175,000 per kid from birth to age 18. So a couple without kids – gay or otherwise – has that money to spend in some other way. How is it spent? Well, here is some data. The average same-sex household, we’re told, makes 16 percent more shopping trips than the average straight U.S. household. Also, gay households are said to spend 50 percent more on pet care products – so if you’re a dog, and you want to be pampered, having gay parents seems like a good idea. If you don’t have kids, you don’t have tuition bills and orthodontist bills, kick-boxing lessons to pay for. You don’t have to stay home with the kids when they’re young. Here’s another financial advantage of childlessness:  


BLACK: So if you, you know, want to live in San Francisco it’s nice if you don’t have to buy a five-bedroom house.


DUBNER: That’s Dan Black again. He co-wrote a paper called “Why Do Gay Men Live In San Francisco?” So why do they? One reason is that they can afford to! But also, Black’s research shows that neighborhood amenities are a particular draw for gay men. Here’s Steve Levitt again.


LEVITT: So when economists talk about location they use the word amenities to mean the kinds of things that people are willing to pay for. So access to theater, or to nature, or to a good bar scene or things like that.


[MUSIC: The Mackrosoft, “Life It Too Short” (from S.E.M.E.)]


DUBNER: So all the evidence seems to confirm the hunch that Danny Rosa, our Freakonomics Radio listener, got in touch to ask us about. That gay men are more affluent, probably because they’re more highly educated, and because they’re much less likely to have kids, which means they have the money to live in really nice neighborhoods. BUT, as you know, this show is all about using data to look at the world. And some data is much better than others. So what if the data that we’ve been looking at here … just isn’t very good?


BADGETT: The most important thing to know is that it is actually pretty hard to get good data on lesbian, gay and bisexual people.


DUBNER: Coming up on Freakonomics Radio, why everything that we just told you is probably kind of wrong.




ANNOUNCER: From WNYC: This is FREAKONOMICS RADIO. Here’s your host, Stephen Dubner.


[MUSIC: Euforquestra, “Obatala” (from Explorations in Afrobeat)]


DUBNER: On today’s show we’re talking about the stereotype of the high-income gay American male, and how true that stereotype may be. So far, we’ve given you some pretty convincing-sounding data. But it’s probably not as convincing as it sounds. Keith Ericson is a professor of public policy and law at Boston University. There is a problem, he says, with just about everything we’ve told you so far:


ERICSON: Data about LGBT individuals that we have is really data about individuals

who choose to disclose their sexual orientation. And that’s not necessarily a representative sample of gay people for instance.


DUBNER: Okay. So one problem is that not everyone who’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is going to say so when a stranger with a Census form knocks on their door. But even before that, you have to back up a step:


ERICSON: Well, the first problem that we’d have is that the census doesn’t ask directly about sexual orientation.


DUBNER: Ok, so if the Census doesn’t ask directly about sexual orientation, how do we know what we’ve been telling you about – that, for instance, gay couples earn about 20 percent more than straight couples?


ERICSON: What people have been able to do at the census is look at people who report being in a same-sex-partnered household. And obviously that’s a sub-sample of gay people as a whole. It’s a sub-sample because not all gay people are partnered, and it’s also a sub-sample because not all partnered gay people would want to disclose that to the census.


[MUSIC: Soulglue, “Steve McQueen” (from Arboretum)]


DUBNER: So you see the problem, yes? You probably also see why, in the earlier part of our program, we told you about the income of gay couples but not individuals. But as Keith Ericson points out, even that data isn’t necessarily a good representation of the gay-couple population. And why is that? Well, maybe a high-earning gay couple is more likely to divulge their sexuality to a census-taker than a low-earning couple. So in a way, the more we learn here, the less we seem to know. Maybe we should go back even further back, to something really basic – like: what share of the U.S. population is LGBT? A Gallup poll tells us the number is about 3.4 percent.But again, keep in mind, that’s survey data. Keith Ericson says the LGBT headcount is “substantially underestimated.”


ERICSON: So we find that even when we ask people anonymously, if we ask them directly, they aren’t necessarily willing to reveal that they are LGBT. But when we ask them in this private, veiled way so that we don’t know anything about a particular person, then our reported LGBT identity goes up substantially, about a 65 percent increase in our data.


[MUSIC: Druu, “Ride”]


DUBNER: So if a group of people is under-counted – and many of them may be unwilling to disclose information about themselves, it makes it pretty hard to get reliable data about their income, doesn’t it? So how can we find out if the affluent-gay stereotype is really true? Here’s economist Lee Badgett again.


BADGETT: We have a few studies from the Williams Institute that look at income…


DUBNER: The Williams Institute is a think tank at UCLA that specializes in issues around sexual orientation. Badgett is one of their scholars. The studies she’s talking about tell a completely different story about gay income.


BADGETT: Gay and lesbian people tend to have higher-than-average education levels, so you would expect them to have higher-than-average incomes. But when you compare gay and straight people with the same education level, actually the gay people earn less.


DUBNER: Did you hear that? Badgett says that, while her data may not be so great either, it appears that if you took two observationally equivalent men -- same background, same education, and so on – that the gay man would earn less than the straight man, not more. In fact, earlier this year, Badgett and two co-authors released a Williams Institute study which found that gays and lesbians are more likely to live in poverty than observationally equivalent heterosexuals. Now, you may be a bit suspicious of such a claim made by an institute dedicated to sexual-orientation issues – but, assuming it’s legitimate, the next obvious question would be: why aren’t gays earning more? Dan Black, from the University of Chicago, has a couple ideas:


BLACK: I think there is some good evidence that gay men do take occupations that are, you know, they look more female like, and of course female occupations traditionally pay a little bit lower so that could explain a part of it.


DUBNER: Now, again, keep in mind, an analysis like this relies on self-identified gay men who live with a same-sex partner – but, among that group, a gay man was about 16 times more likely than a straight man to teach preschool or kindergarten. About 5 times more likely to be a librarian or a registered nurse. Not the highest-paying jobs. Dan Black says that if gay men do indeed earn less, there may be another reason:


BLACK: I wouldn’t be shocked to find that a good portion of that was actually due to discrimination.


[MUSIC: The Sound Room, “Dub”]


DUBNER: Now, how does an employer discriminate against someone they think is gay? Here, according to Black and Badgett, is one way it can happen:


BLACK: You send... just send a resume in...


BADGETT: ...and it’s just one little line that’s buried in there on the resume.


BLACK: And you know, down halfway through the resume you list a membership, or not, in a gay or lesbian group.


BADGETT And it employers, you know, who are seeing resumes with and without that line tend to notice it apparently, because in one study that was done by a sociologist recently here in the U.S., Andras Tilcsik, for every, for every eight jobs a straight man applied for, he got invited to an interview. But gay men had to apply for eleven jobs to even get just one interview. So that’s just at the interview stage. And I suspect that that differential treatment between the gay and the straight applicants is likely to be seen in other ways, if we could actually study this further into the employment process.


DUBNER: So how much might discrimination affect what gay men earn? You remember Keith Ericson, from Boston University?


ERICSON: Hi, yes...


DUBNER: Well, as he tells us, there might be more discrimination than we think, because there’s probably more homophobia than we think too …


ERICSON: We find that people are also hesitant to reveal that they don’t support gays and lesbians, that they hide their anti-gay sentiment. So when we ask in a private, veiled way, people are more likely to admit that they would be uncomfortable having a gay manager, or that they think it’s okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians.


DUBNER: A study that Ericson co-authored found that when people could answer questions totally anonymously, they were much more likely to express anti-gay feelings. So of course this would help explain why so many gays and lesbians are unwilling to admit they’re gay or lesbian. It also helps explain why it’s so hard to do something as simple as collect basic income information. Now, this will likely change as society moves on. Same-sex marriage is increasingly being recognized and legalized in this country and elsewhere.  What kind of changes will that bring? Over the past 20 years, it appears that the rate of partnered gay men becoming parents has nearly doubled. What happens if that trend continues? Here’s Dan Black again:


BLACK: Well it could have negative effects on economic outcomes in the sense that in particular I think giving greater access to adoption on the part of gay and lesbian couples might induce them to suffer, if you will, the consequences of having children, and of course achieve the obvious benefits to having children as well.


[MUSIC: Ruby Velle & The Soulphonics, “Coming Home To You” (from It’s About Time)]


DUBNER: As someone who has kids, two of them, I’ll vouch for the benefits. I’ll also vouch for the costs. They are for real. As for the question that started this whole conversation, from Danny Rosa -- he wanted to know “what is it about gay men and the gay culture that makes them so wealthy?” He got this idea from seeing the really nice, expensive gay neighborhoods in big cities. Media stereotypes confirm this idea. But as we’ve learned in today’s program, the data doesn’t necessarily confirm it. In fact, the data pushes back against this stereotype. Now, this wouldn’t be the first stereotype that turned out to not be true. Maybe the best lesson to learn from this is about what’s called confirmation bias. That means, basically, that when you already think something is true, you tend to pay more attention to evidence that confirms that idea. So if you already think that gay men are relatively affluent, and then you see a few really nice neighborhoods that happen to be gay neighborhoods – well, it confirms your view. It’s not that you necessarily block out the evidence that runs contrary; it just doesn't register in the same way. This is just one of many ways in which we humans are, alas, not perfect. But we’re still pretty good. Happy holidays.



Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Tarrou says:

    Uhh, that may be less about gay people than “gay people who can afford to move to SF (or NY, Chicago, etc.)”. I live in Saginaw, Mi., a decaying, crime-ridden failed auto-producing town in mid-Michigan. Of my several gay friends, one is a hair-dresser (shocking, no?), one works at a Men’s Wearhouse (solid work, and a job isn’t nothing given near 30% unemployment). His husband works in a coffee shop and does massage out of their living room. Another friend works at a telecom company, and several gay acquaintances shuffle around between low-wage jobs (waitstaff, bartenders, etc.). While the ones with steady work live reasonably well, and pay a lot of attention to their living spaces, I don’t know that they are noticeably richer than my straight friends.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
    • James says:

      Good point. As a (straight) single male software engineer working in Silicon Valley, I appeared pretty affluent, as did all my married acquaintances who lived in places like Atherton.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  2. J296 says:

    Gay people will not have any higher of a percentage of rich/poor people than straights. Aside from who they are attracted to, they are just like all of the rest of us.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
    • NZ says:

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 20
  3. anonymous says:

    They don’t generally have KIDS. DUH.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 3
    • NZ says:

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 16
      • Average.Random.Joe says:

        Collage students ARE kids or at least have the same income effect.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
      • carlosmx37 says:

        In defense of NZ,
        When dad was gone , ( I was 16 ) ,house started to deteriorate,and even when I would like to paint the front door and replace the broken windows,We didnt have the money!

        At the end all finished with a happy “dad and mom are solving their problems” ,and first thing that the guy did was to repair waters leaks at bathroom.
        ( if there is scarcity of food,and clothing,electricity bill,.there is less money for paying a plumber!)

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
      • anonymous says:

        Most college kids don’t have kids. Most college kids don’t have JOBS. I have worked with a few homeless people who don’t have kids, and if you think the college-kid neighborhood looks like crap…

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
      • NZ says:


        Students of collage, or college students generally (not just art majors), are legally adults. They rent apartments and houses, they go to the grocery store, they drive cars, they go out on the weekends. Most of them have jobs too. The lifestyle of a typical college student is much more similar to the lifestyle of a typical gay adult than to the lifestyle of a child.

        Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
      • J1 says:

        Many, if not most college students are kids, the fact that they legally qualify as adults notwithstanding. Most college kids don’t rent apartments, their parents do. They go to the grocery store and spend their parents’ money. If they have a car, it’s usually owned by their parents. They may have a job, but it’s usually the type of job a high school kid would have. I wouldn’t call living off your parents’ money (or borrowed money) equivalent to a gay adult lifestyle, I’d call it a kid lifestyle. My observation in college was that students who were completely supporting themselves while attending school tended to be pretty poor.

        Wouldn’t a student of collage be an art major by definition?

        Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
    • Mike B says:

      Dual Income No Kids means you can afford just about anything you’d want in life. As Lindsay Nagel put it:

      “My purse is full of disposable income.”

      Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
  4. J1 says:

    Seriously? If I didn’t have a non-working spouse and a couple of kids I could trade my Ford in for a Bentley without breaking a sweat, and I’m no “one percenter”. Like J296, I doubt the gay population has a higher percentage of high earners; they just for the most part have essentially no family expenses.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
  5. NZ says:

    I can think of several reasons:

    1. Gay men do indeed enjoy higher average incomes, and thus can afford to buy or rent, and maintain, nicer-looking property. (This turned out to be true of my gay friends from college and high school.)
    2. One aspect of gay male culture, for whatever reason, seems to be an almost Victorian obsession with tidiness. So, not only can they afford nicer-looking property, but they also want it.
    3. I’m pretty sure gay men are somewhat overrepresented (from their percentage in the general population) in fields like arborism, architecture, interior design, and fashion, etc. all of which attract the type of people who care a lot about how their neighborhoods look.
    4. Gay white men, because of their protected status, are able to be a bit more bold about keeping out racial minorities, who tend to put less effort into the appearance of their neighborhoods. (The pervasive racism among gay men in the fashion and perfume industries, for example, is well-documented.)
    5. The types of people who let their neighborhoods look like crap often hold anti-gay sentiments, and aren’t exactly eager to move to places they perceive as heavily populated by homosexuals. (“You’re moving to West Hollywood? What are you, gay?”)
    6. Gay men are less likely to consider their spouses exclusive and for life (see that FAQ put out by the Census Bureau, linked above), meaning they end up spending more time attracting a partner (hah, I almost typed “mate”). Making the outside of your home look nice may be one way for a gay man to show that he is desirable.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 19
    • Lulu says:

      Stereotype, much???

      #6, making the outside of the home desirable to attract a partner… a bowerbird, or a bird of paradise? (snort) … I wish straight men would learn this, it’s astonishing how little thought or effort they put into even doing their laundry or taking out the trash. But a lot of women will put up with squalor, with ANYTHING, just to get a man. So the men don’t have to exert themselves, much.

      Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6
      • NZ says:

        “Stereotype, much???”

        Yeah! I use stereotypes all the time, and recommend you do too! They’re incredibly useful for a wide range of situations, because they help us anticipate outcomes based on just a few data points. This is possible thanks to the magic of patterns, which exist in the world whether you choose to notice them or not.

        Now, stereotypes aren’t always useful–like for instance if being wrong would be extremely costly, or if the pattern on which the stereotype is based is rapidly changing–but for questions like those posed in the blog entry (and for basically any other question where you’re really just interested in gathering hypotheses), stereotypes generally can be a very useful tool.

        And of course we should always keep looking at our stereotypes to make sure they’re up to date. For example, it’s no longer *that* useful to stereotype Progressives as racists who want to put people in jail for doing drugs (it’s only a little bit useful)–but this stereotype would have been much *more* useful a hundred years ago.

        Your comment about my point #6 (that one was more of a possibility, actually) rings true for me. When my wife (then girlfriend) started dating me she considered my living conditions filthy, even though I was very neat compared to some of my roommates and to most of the other bachelors I knew. But for evolutionary reasons, women of a certain age have a strong incentive to find a mate, squalor be damned. Gay men, not having a ticking clock to worry about, can be more picky in this regard.

        Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 9
      • J1 says:

        Stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason.

        Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
  6. Joe J says:

    Dating women is expensive. It is still the norm that the man pays. With gays that doesn’t really apply.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6
  7. LG says:

    Men’s average wage is more than women’s average wage. Hence an average couple with two guys will earn more than an average couple with a man and a woman and more again than an average household with two women.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 4
    • NZ says:

      “Men’s average wage is more than women’s average wage.”

      Is this still true in 2013? If so, it certainly isn’t true of all groups of men. Black men, for example, tend to earn less than black women.

      Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7
      • David says:

        I was surprised no-one has commented on the datapoint given in the podcast; gay couples earned more than straight couples earned more than lesbian couples. I’m pretty sure that previous Freakonomics episodes have asserted that women earn less than men; so discrimination or not, it’s entirely logical that two men earn more than one man/one woman or two women.

        The suggestion of confirmation bias, together with the mention of study which shows the opposite result (that gay couples earn less than straight couples (what about the lesbian couples?)) gave the story an interesting twist in the tail/tale.

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    • Dahkeus says:

      Yes, there is still a very big gap between men and women’s wages. There are a lot of reasons for this, but if you want a simple outline of the numbers from a reliable source, check out slide 13 on the link below from

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Shane L says:

    Haven’t been able to listen to the podcast yet so I don’t know if this is covered, but I would guess that higher educated, richer socio-economic groups are more likely to be tolerant towards different sexualities than lower-educated, poorer groups. Hence poorer gay people may be more inclined to conceal their sexualities than richer gay people.

    Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1