Earnings Differentials of Males and Females in Same-sex and Different-sex Couples in Canada, 2006-2010

1. Earnings Differentials of Males and Females inSame-sex and Different-sex Couples in Canada, 2006-2010 Richard E. Mueller Department of Economics

2. Introduction • Gays and lesbians have been able to marry legally since July 2005 – although such marriages recognized before this date in most jurisdictions • Discrimination of the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited by Chapter 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms • Have these rights also extended to the workplace in terms of equal earnings?

3. Previous Literature • Most US studies find that gay men earn less, and lesbian women more, although more recent studies show no difference – degree of “gayness” is important • Only four previous papers in Canada • Mueller (2007) – uses the GSS • Carpenter (2008), Lafrance, Warman and Woolley (2009) and Harris (2012) all use various waves of the CCHS • All basically find the gay penalty and the lesbian premiumfor those in couples

4. Identification Problem • What is gay, lesbian and bisexual? • Behaviour-based approach • proportion of same-sex partners? • any same-sex partner? • same-sex partner over past 5 years? • Self-identification • cohabitating with a same-sex partner • direct questioning • Indicator for “gayness” in labour market best, but marriage is a strong signal

5. Data • Only three data sets up to the task • Census – largest samples, but not as confidential and only covers coupled gays and lesbians – hasn’t been used yet • CCHS – broader coverage of GLB, but not as confidential • GSS – only partnered gays and lesbians, but a telephone survey which (arguably) elicits more accurate responses

6. Data • Use pooled GSS data from Cycles 20-24 (2006-2010) • Keep only those • aged 20 to 60 (attached to LF) • who worked in previous year, • without missing data points • earning more than $5 dollars and less than $500 dollars per hour • who are cohabitating (married or CL)

7. Data problem • “Annual personal income” could be from any source, plus it’s a categorical variable • calculate midpoints & transform into 2006 dollars • drop those whose main source of income is not paid employment or SE • do interval regressions (robustness check) • Final sample: 14,021 male (90 gays) & and 11,498 females (118 lesbians)

8. Profile of Gays • Relative to males in different-sex partnerships, gay males • have identical incomes (statistically) • have more education (esp. Bachelor’s degree or above, 51% vs. 32%) • have less experience, work fewer hours per week, but work more weeks (still fewer yearly hours) • less likely to be married, be an immigrant, or have children present • less likely to work in construction and manufacturing, concentrated in prof. services

9. Profile of Lesbians • Relative to females in different-sex partnerships, partnered lesbians • incomes about 40% higher • have more education (esp. Bachelor’s degree or above, 57% vs. 33%) • work more hours per week • less likely to be married or have children present • More likely to be in construction and prof. services, less likely to be in health and SA

10. Results • Build up model in a stepwise fashion by adding variables for education, experience, weeks and hours worked, occupation, industry, children, etc. • Compared to those of in heterosexual partnerships: • Gay males have an income penalty of 4-5 percent (but not significant) • Lesbians earn about 16 percent more (and this is significant) • Results reasonably robust to changes in model and estimation technique

11. Results • But (even though results are mostly insignificant): • comparing married gays and lesbians to either CL gays and lesbians or married heterosexuals reduces their relative incomes • limiting the sample to only the self-employed increases their relative incomes

12. Conclusions • Gays in partnerships have a relative income penalty of about 5% (but not significant) • Lesbians have incomes 16% higher • Comparisons with earlier Cdn. literature • increases in relative incomes (but comparisons a bit shaky) – real change or bias due to confidentiality? • Weak evidence of discrimination • higher SE income • lower incomes for married gays and lesbians

13. Thank you!