Sexual orientation and wage discrimination: evidence from Australia

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to document the wage effects associated with sexual orientation and to examine whether the wage gap has improved following recent institutional changes which favour sexual minorities. Design/methodology/approach Ordinary least squares and quantile regressions are estimated using Australian data for 2010–2012 and 2015–2017, with the analysis disaggregated by sector of employment. Blinder–Oaxaca decompositions are used to quantify unexplained wage gaps. Findings Relative to heterosexual men, in 2015–2017 gay men in the public and private sectors had wages which were equivalent to heterosexual men at all points in the wage distribution. In the private sector: highly skilled lesbians experienced a wage penalty of 13 per cent; low-skilled bisexual women faced a penalty of 11 per cent, as did bisexual men at the median (8 per cent penalty). In the public sector low-skilled lesbians and low-skilled bisexual women significant experienced wage premiums. Between 2010–2012 and 2015–2017 the pay position of highly skilled gay men has significantly improved with the convergence driven by favourable wage (rather than composition) effects. Practical implications The results provide important benchmarks against which the treatment of sexual minorities may be monitored. Originality/value The analysis of the sexual minority wage gaps by sector and position on the wage distribution and insight into the effect of institutions on the wages of sexual minorities.

Sexual orientation and earnings: a meta-analysis 2012–2020

“…Additionally, given the research questions, the present study did not utilize estimates on intersectionality, such as black gay men's earnings against white heterosexual men's earnings (del Rio and Alonso-Villar, 2019;Douglas and Steinberger, 2015). Furthermore, this study did not consider estimates on pooled sexual orientation groups, such as lesbian women's earnings versus heterosexual men's earnings (Preston et al, 2019).…”

Guest editorial

“…In the Special Issue, we are interested in the emerging puzzling pattern and provide new insights. Preston et al (2020) present patterns from Australia suggesting that gay men experienced the same wages as comparable heterosexual men in both public and private sector wage distributions. In addition, Martell (2020) ascertains that in the US cohabiting lesbian women experienced a wage penalty of around 11% in comparison to married heterosexual women.…”

“…How can social and political progress positively impact on gay men's wages and negatively impact on lesbian women's wages? In the Special Issue, Preston et al (2020) and Martell (2020) provide relevant evaluations. For instance, following Carpenter's (2008) reasoning, Martell (2020) suggests that the wage penalty against young cohabiting lesbian women may arise as a result of lower incidences of family support stemming from intolerance of a minority sexual orientation, which might contribute to reduced access to traditional social networks that promote success in the labour market.…”

“…Since 2015, studies on sexual orientation and wage outcomes have contradicted the bulk of the existing literature. The most recent studies have found that gay men received either the same wages or higher wages compared to heterosexual men, while lesbian women have been found to receive lower wages in comparison to heterosexual women (Preston et al, 2020;Martell, 2020;Aksoy et al, 2018;Bryson, 2019;Carpenter and Eppink, 2017). Given the emerging sexual orientation wage pattern, we shall call for increased attention to the potential implications this might bring.…”

“…In the Special Issue, Preston et al (2020) and Martell (2020) have provided new evidence on an emerging puzzling pattern of sexual orientation and wages, while Flage (2020) has offered the first ever meta-analysis of field experiments on occupation access discrimination based on sexual orientation. Dilmaghani (2020) and Sidiropoulou et al (2020) have examined sexual orientation, life satisfaction and workplace experiences by utilizing the moderating role of marital status and family support, and the first ever literature review of in-person studies, correspondence tests and scenario experiments on occupational access discrimination based on gender identity has been conducted by McFadden (2020).…”