[{"id":15942,"content":{"content_unique_indicator":"60-page_180","content_descriptor":"page 180","text":"for the West, as well as for the East (not noted in 1990), over the Midwest and the South, there was nothing remotely resembling the 1990 finding that three in seven lesbians and gays lived in the Western states. The LGB population in 1992 is found spread all over the country.\nSize/type of locality. In like manner, in part because of the larger number of women, Mid westerners, and Southerners in the 1992 LGB sample, the proportion living in central cities was somewhat reduced: only about two-fifths of the LGB respondents reported living in a city of fifty thousand or more, versus more than half in 1992. However, this may partly reflect the simple fact that the sample as a whole was somewhat less urban, and more suburban and rural, than in 1990. Compared with the rest of the population, LGB voters, especially men, remained far more likely to be urban dwellers.\nIncome. It has been widely stated, both by LGB advocates and their opponents, that because of a hypothesized tendency among LGBs toward double-income householders in professional and managerial occupations without children to look after, LGB people have much more disposable income than do non-LGBs. The 1990 data, however, produced no evidence to support this theory: no statistical or apparent difference was found between lesbian/gay and nongay incomes. In 1992, indeed, the exact reverse of the anecdotal hypothesis was found: LGB self-identifiers had significantly lower incomes than did the rest of the voters in the sample (first reported in Edelman 1993).\nBecause of the disproportionate youth of the LGB sample, a control test was run by age category. Although part of the difference is attributable to the large number of young people, there is no significant difference between the incomes of “baby boomers” based on their sexual self-identification—and older LGBs have generally lower incomes than non-LGBs in the same age bracket. Also, there is no significant difference in incomes between LGB men and women that would account for these differences.\nOccupation. Homemakers and retirees continued to be underrepresented among LGB voters, although not to the same extent as in 1990. Interestingly, in the 1992 sample, disproportionately large shares of LGBs are either full-time students or unemployed people seeking work, which was not the case in 1990.\nA most curious statistic for which I cannot account is that, in 1992 (unlike 1990), a disproportion of the self-identifiers (22 percent) said they were schoolteachers. This group appears to account for the disproportion of LGBs among union members in 1992, which was not found in 1990. Given that there is no evidence of, and no theoretical reason to suspect, a huge influx of open lesbians, "},"document":{"title":"The Lavender Vote","author":"<NAME>","publisher":"New York University Press","id":60,"isbn":"9780814735305"},"context":null,"occurrences":[],"localid":"page_180","pagenumber":{"filepath":"/ops/xhtml/chp06.html","pagenumber_tag":"<a id=\"page_180\">","css_selector":"#page_180","xpath":"a[@id=\"page_180\"]"},"next_location_id":15943,"previous_location_id":15941}]