Multicultural Economy 2013

8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013

1/172

THE

ECONOMYMULTICULTURAL2013

Jeffrey M. Humphreys


2/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM

2

Selig Center for Economic GrowthTerry College of BusinessThe University of Georgia

Charles B. Knapp, Interim Dean Terry College of Business

Jeffrey M. Humphreys, Director

Selig Center

Lorena M. Akioka, EditorBeata D. Kochut, Research AnalystStephen F. Kuzniak, Data AnalystMary T. Evans, Administrative Professional

The Multicultural EconomyCopyright 2013 by the Selig Center

for Economic Growth. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS

Part 1 The Multicultural Economy, 1990-2018 3

Part 2 Buying Power Statistics By State for All 50 States 69

For more information on the Selig Center,visit our Website at www.selig.uga.edu


3/172

Part 1

ECONOMY

MULTICULTURAL

1990-201



4

The Multicultural Economy

T

Total Buying Power Statistics

he Selig Centers estimates and projections of buying

power show that minoritiesAfrican Americans, Asians,

Native Americans, and Hispanicswield formidable eco-

nomic clout. The numbers are impressive. For example,

in 2013, the $1.2 trillion Hispanic market is larger than

the entire economies (2012 GDP measured in U.S. dollars) of all but

fifteen countries in the worldsmaller than the GDP of Indonesia

and larger than the GDP of Turkey.

The buying power data presented here and differences in spend-

ing by race and/or ethnicity suggest that as the U.S. consumer market

becomes more diverse, advertising, products, and media must betailored to each market segment. With this in mind, entrepreneurs,

established businesses, marketing specialists, economic development

organizations, and chambers of commerce now seek estimates of the

buying power of the nations major racial and ethnic minority groups.

Going beyond the intuitive approaches often used, the Selig Centers

estimates provide a timely, cost-efficient, and quantitative way to

assess the size and vitality of the national and state racial and ethnic

markets. This study provides a comprehensive statistical overview of

the buying power of African Americans, Asians, Native Americans, and

Hispanics for the U.S. and all the states. Estimates are provided for

1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018. Majorityor whitebuying power

and multiracial buying power are also reported, but the estimates forthese groups are not discussed.

Simply defined, buying power is the total personal income of resi-

dents that is available, after taxes, for spending on virtually everything

that they buy, but it does not include dollars that are borrowed or that

were saved in previous years. It is not a measure of wealth, and it does

not include what tourists spend during their visits. Unfortunately,

there are no geographically precise surveys of annual expenditures

and income of all the nations major racial and ethnic groups. Even

estimates of expenditures by race or ethnicity are difficult to find,

especially for individual states.

The Selig Center addresses this problem by providing estimates

of black, Native American, Asian, white, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic

buying power for the nation, the fifty states, and the District of

Columbia. Due to funding limitations, the Selig Center no longer

provides estimates for metropolitan areas and counties. These current

dollar (unadjusted for inflation) estimates and projections indicate the

growing economic power of various racial or ethnic groups; measure

the relative vitality of geographic markets; help to judge business

opportunities for start-ups or expansions; gauge a businesss annual

sales growth against potential market increases; indicate the market

potential of new and existing products; and guide targeted advert

ing campaigns.

The estimates supersede those previously published by the Se

Center. The buying power estimates should be considered only

the first step toward a more comprehensive analysis of the mark

Anyone considering the investment of substantial capital in a n

enterprise, a new product line, or a new advertising campaign w

need extensive feasibility analysis to determine market opportunit

more precisely.

The Selig Center projects that the nations total buying pow

will rise from $4.2 trillion in 1990 to $7.3 trillion in 2000, to $11

trillion in 2010, to $12.4 trillion in 2013, and to $15.2 trillion f

2018. The percentage increase for 1990-2013 is 193 percent. Fro

2000-2013, total buying power will rise by 70 percent. From 2010

2013, total buying power will rise by 12 percent. The percentage ga

in total buying power far outstrips cumulative inflation. For examp

the U.S. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) w

increase by approximately 81 percent during 1990-2013, which

about two fifths of the 193 percent increase in total buying powFrom 2000 to 2013, the U.S. CPI-U increased by 36 percent where

total buying power rose by 70 percent. Total buying power will expa

by 12 percent from 2010 through 2013, and by 22 percent from 20

through 2018.

Diverse forces support this substantial growth. The 29-year sp

encompasses a mild recession in 1990-91, the longest economic expa

sion in the nations history from 1991-2000, another mild recessi

in 2001, a modest expansion from 2002-2007, and a severe recessi

that began late in 2007 and continued through mid-2009. As this

written, the U.S economic conditions can accurately be described

expansionary, and the assumptions underlying the baseline forec

call for modest growth in 2013-2018.

Ranked by percentage change in total buying power between 20

and 2013, the top ten states are North Dakota (136 percent), Distr

of Columbia (130 percent), Wyoming (114 percent), South Dako

(97 percent), Texas (97 percent), Utah (96 percent), New Mexico (

percent), Alaska (91 percent), Arizona (90 percent), and Hawaii (

percent). From 2000 through 2013, the five slowest growing sta

are Michigan (35 percent), Ohio (49 percent), Illinois (50 percen

Indiana (54 percent), and New Jersey (58 percent).


5/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH

Where Blacks Spend More

electronicsutilitiesgroceries

footwear

I

Black Buying Power

The Multicultural Dollar

Where Blacks Spend Less

new carsalcoholhealth careentertainmentpensions

Buying Power Statistics by Race

That the state estimates show differing outcomes is not surprising,

given the differences in labor market performance, industrial bases,

the importance of exports, dependence on federal spending, real

estate markets, labor markets, immigration rates, domestic migration

rates, and natural resources. As always, states with low costs of doing

business, favorable regulatory environments, updated transportation

and telecommunications infrastructure, educated workforces, and an

abundance of natural resources will continue to attract domestic and

international businesses.

In 2013, the combined buying power of blacks, Asians, and Native

Americans will be $1.9 trillion105 percent higher than its 2000 level

of $915 billionwhich amounts to a gain of $964 billion. In 2013,

African Americans will account for 57 percent of combined spending,

or slightly over $1 trillion. From 2000 through 2013, the percentage

gains in buying power vary considerably by race, from a gain of 160

percent for Asians to 139 percent for Native Americans to 78 percent

for blacks. All of these target markets will grow much faster than thewhite market, where buying power will increase by 63 percent.

The combined buying power of African Americans, Asians, and

Native Americans will account for 15.1 percent of the nations total

buying power in 2013, up from 12.5 percent in 2000 and from 10.6

percent in 1990. The 2000-to-2013 gain in combined market share of

2.6 percent amounts to an additional $328 billion in buying power in

2013. The market share claimed by a targeted group of consumers is

important because the higher their market share, the lower the aver-

age cost of reaching a potential buyer in the group. The combined

buying power of these three racial groups will rise to $2.4 trillion in

2018, accounting for 15.9 percent of the nations total buying power.

n 2013, African Americans will constitute the nations largest racial

minority market, but the buying power of Hispanicsan ethnic

groupis larger. Despite the severe impact of the Great Recession,

blacks economic clout continues to energize the U.S. consumer mar-

ket. The Selig Center estimates that the nations black buying power

will rise from $316 billion in 1990 to $601 billion in 2000, to $951

billion in 2010, to $1 trillion in 2013, and to $1.3 trillion in 2018.

The 78 percent increase between 2000 and 2013 outstrips the 63percent rise in white buying power and the 70 percent increase in total

buying power (all races combined). In 2013, the nations share of total

buying power that is black will be 8.6 percent, up from 8.2 percent

in 2000 and from 7.5 percent in 1990. African-American consumers

share of the nations total buying power will rise to 8.8 percent in 2018,

accounting for almost nine cents out of every dollar that is spent.

The gains in black buying power reflect much more than just

population growth and inflation. Of the many diverse supporting

forces, one of the most important and enduring is the increasing

number of blacks who are starting and expanding their own business

The 2007 Survey of Business Owners(released by the U.S. Census bure

in June 2011) shows that the number of black-owned firms was

percent higher in 2007 than in 2002, which more than three times t

18 percent gain in the number of all U.S. firms. Also, compared to t

1997-2002 period, the overall rate of growth in the number of bla

owned firms acceleratedas did the rate of growth in the number

all U.S. firms. Between 2002 and 2007, the receipts of black-own

firms grew by 55 percent compared to the 34 percent increase in treceipts of all U.S. firms.

Still another positive factor underpinning the groups buyi

power is that African Americans continue to become more high

educated, which should allow proportionally more blacks to en

occupations with higher average salaries. Census data show that

2012, 85 percent of blacks over 25 years of age had completed hi

school or college, far better than the 66 percent reported in 1990 a

the 79 percent recorded in 2000. Despite this, the percentage of Afric

Americans who are high school graduates or better was still lower th

the percentage of whites (88 percent) and Asians (89 percent). Al

the Current Population Surveyindicates that 21 percent of blacks h

a bachelors, graduate, or professional degree compared to 31 perce

of whites and 51 percent of Asians. Nonetheless, the percentage

blacks who had completed college in 2013 (21 percent) was highthan in either 2000 (17 percent) or in 1990 (11 percent).

Favorable demographic trends help, too, since the black popu

tion continues to grow more rapidly than the total population. Fro

2000 to 2013, the nations black population grew by 16.3 perce

compared to 7.7 percent for the white population and 12.3 percent

the total population. From 2013 to 2018, the nations black populati

is projected to grow by 5.9 percent, which exceeds the 4.5 perce

growth estimated for the total U.S. population. Also, the black popu

tion is younger: the 2010 Current Population Surveyindicates that t



6

With a sizable populationunder 18, it is not surprising thatblacks are consumer trendsetters.

median age of blacks is only 31.4 years compared to 38.2 years for the

white population or 36.7 years for the total population. Compared

to the older white population, larger proportions of blacks will enter

the workforce for the first time or will move up from entry-level jobs.

This will provide an extra push to the groups overall buying power.

Conversely, smaller proportions of blacks have reached their career

pinnacles or are of traditional retirement age. In 2010, only 8.6 per-

cent of blacks were over 65, compared to 13.8 percent of whites or

12.7 percent of the total population. So, black buying power may beslightly more resistant to reforms of popular government entitlement

programs for retirees (e.g., Social Security and Medicare), especially if

those reforms focus benefit reductions on higher income households.

Because they are much younger, African-American consumers in-

creasingly are setting trends for teens (and young adults) of every race

and ethnic background. This isnt surprising given that 29.4 percent of

the black population is under 18 years old compared to 23.3 percent

of the white population or 24.6 percent of the total population.

The youthful profile of the black

population has its downside, however.

Compared to people who are either more

established in their careers or retired,

young adults, regardless of their race or

ethnicity, are more exposed to job losses

in economic downturns. So, in this re-

gard, black buying power is vulnerable

to the effects of economic recessions, but

over time the above-average growth of black buying power has more

than compensated for that high cyclical exposure.

Due the unusual severity of the Great Recession, employment

growth no longer can be cited as one of the main forces behind

the above-average gains in black buying power. From January 2000

through April 2013 (the most recent data available at the time of thiswriting), the number of jobs held by blacks had increased by only 1

million, or a paltry 0.5 percent per year. Furthermore, from its pre-

recession peak in January 2007 (when blacks held 16,212,000 jobs)

through April 2013 (when blacks held 16,167,000 jobs), the number

of employed African Americans dropped by 45,000. The black unem-

ployment rate therefore soared from 7.9 percent (January 2007) to 16.8

percent (March 2010). By April 2013, the employment-to-population

ratio for blacks stood at only 53.4 percentit was 59.4 percent in

January 2007.

The jobs losses have been very heavy because recessions with

credit crunches and housing busts are always deeper and longer than

other recessions. The financial panic didnt help. This unusual setof events brought the economy to its knees, and it erased a decades

worth of job growth for African Americans. At the time of this writing,

it appears that the period of job losses is over, but the labor markets

recovery is anemic, especially in states hit the hardest by the housing

bust.

In 2013, the ten states with the largest African-American markets,

in order, are New York ($101 billion), Texas ($92 billion), California

($77 billion), Georgia ($76 billion), Florida ($75 billion), Maryland ($64

billion), North Carolina ($50 billion), Illinois ($46 billion), Virginia

($46 billion), and New Jersey ($41 billion). Of these, however, Geor

and Maryland are the only ones that did not rank among the top t

markets for all consumers.

One characteristic that sets the African-American consum

market apart from the Hispanic and Asian markets is that it is n

concentrated in a handful of states. This vibrant consumer marke

very widespread, and therefore is an attractive customer segment

many of the states. In 2013, the five largest African-American mark

account for 39 percent of black buying power. The five states with tlargest total consumer markets account for 38 percent of total buyi

power. Similarly, the ten largest black markets account for 62 perce

of the African-American market and the ten largest total consum

markets account for 55 percent of total buying power.

In order, the top ten states ranked by the rate of growth

black buying power between 2000 and 2013 are North Dakota (2

percent), South Dakota (262 percent), Vermont (234 percent), Ida

(187 percent), Arizona (174 percent), New Hampshire (159 percen

Maine (152 percent), New Mexico (1

percent), Nevada (137 percent), a

Iowa (127 percent). All have flourishi

African-American consumer markets, b

none is among the nations ten larg

black consumer markets.

In 2013, the ten states with the la

est share of total buying power that

black are the District of Columbia (2

percent), Mississippi (23.6 percent), Maryland (23.1 percent), Geor

(22.1 percent), Louisiana (19.8 percent), South Carolina (17.7 percen

Alabama (17.4 percent), Delaware (15.1 percent), North Carolina (1

percent), and Virginia (13 percent).

The 2.6 percent, 2.2 percent, and 1.7 percent increases in Afric

Americans share of the consumer markets in Georgia, Maryland, aDelaware were the three biggest share shifts in the nation from 20

to 2013, respectively. There also was a 1.6 percent advance in Neva

and a 1.4 percent gain in Florida.

Due to differences in per capita income, wealth, demograp

ics, educational attainment, occupational distribution, geograph

distribution, and culture, the spending habits of blacks as a gro

are not the same as those of non-black consumers. Thus, as Afric

Americans share of the nations total buying power expands, bu

ness-to-consumer firms can be expected to devote more resources

developing and marketing products that meet the needs and mat

the preferences of black consumers.

Data from the 2012 Consumer Expenditure Survey indicate ththe average black household spent in total only 73 percent as mu

as the average non-black household, reflecting blacks lower medi

household incomes. The values are for money income, which diff

somewhat from buying power, but nonetheless offers some insigh

into spending by black consumers.

Despite lower average household income levels, African America

lead in some categories. For example, on average, black househo

spent more than non-black households on natural gas, electrici

audio equipment, and footwear. Also, blacks spent a significan



T

I

Native American Buying Power

Asian Buying Power

higher proportion of their money on housing, groceries, phone ser-

vices, furniture, clothing, car insurance, and gasoline and motor oil.

These findings strongly imply that energy utilities, telecom firms, car

insurers, gas stations, grocers, clothing stores, and shoe stores would

do well to market themselves directly to black consumers.

Blacks and non-blacks spent about the same proportion of their

income for groceries, housekeeping supplies, appliances, childrens

clothing, used cars, tobacco products, cash contributions, and life

insurance. Compared to non-blacks, however, blacks spent much lessof their total outlays on restaurants, alcoholic beverages, new cars,

health care, fees and admissions, pets, toys, and pensions and Social

Security.

The same survey indicates that black households are slightly

more likely to have children under 18 (0.7 persons for blacks versus

0.6 persons for whites and others). Blacks have only 1.3 vehicles per

household compared to two vehicles for white and other households;

and they are more likely to be renters rather than homeowners.

he Selig Center projects that the nations Native American buying

power will rise from $20 billion in 1990, to $40 billion in 2000,

to $83 billion in 2010, to $96 billion in 2013, and to $123 billion

in 2018. Native American buying power in 2013 will be 139 percent

greater than in 2000. The 2000-2013 percent gain is larger than the

increases in buying power estimated for whites (63 percent), for the

U.S. population as a whole (70 percent), and for blacks (78 percent).

It is smaller than those estimated for Asians (160 percent) and His-

panics (142 percent), however. Despite this fast-paced growth, Native

Americans will account for only 0.8 percent of all U.S. buying powerin 2013, up only slightly from their 0.6 percent share in 2000, when

they accounted for only $40 billion in buying power.

Many forces support the continued growth of Native American

buying power, but one of the most important is that the Native

American population continues to grow much more rapidly than

the total population. From 2000 through 2013, the Native American

population grew by 46.4 percent, outpacing the projected gains of

16.3 percent for the black population, 12.3 percent for the total U.S.

population, and 7.7 percent for the white population. From 2013 to

2018, the nations Native American population is projected to grow

by 7.9 percent, which far exceeds the 4.5 percent gain projected for

the total population and the 2.8 percent gain for whites.Historically, entrepreneurial activity has been a force powering the

growth of Native American buying power. The 2007 Survey of Business

Owners,released by the U.S. Census Bureau in July 2010, shows that

the number of Native American-owned firms increased by 18 per-

cent from 2002 to 2007, which equals the 18 percent increase in the

number of all U.S. firms. But, compared to the 1997-2002 period, the

overall rate of growth in this group dropped sharply even as the rate

of growth in the number of all U.S. firms accelerated. Between 2002

and 2007, their firms receipts grew by only 28 percent compared to

the 34 percent increase in the receipts of all U.S. firms.

Although comprising only 1.2 percent of the countrys popu

tion in 2012, Native Americans will control $96 billion in disposa

income, which makes this diverse group economically attractive

businesses. In 2013, the ten states with the largest Native Americ

markets are California ($18.4 billion), Oklahoma ($8.7 billion), Te

($8.2 billion), Arizona ($5.7 billion), New York ($5.3 billion), N

Mexico ($3.9 billion), Washington ($3.3 billion), North Carolina ($

billion), Florida ($2.8 billion), and Alaska ($2.7 billion). This markeslightly more focused on a few states than is the total U.S. consum

market. In 2013, for example, the five largest Native American mark

account for 48 percent of this groups buying power, whereas the fi

largest total consumer markets account for 38 percent of U.S. buyi

power. Similarly, the ten largest Native American markets account

64 percent of Native American buying power and the top ten to

consumer markets account for 55 percent of total U.S. buying pow

Ranked by the rate of growth of Native American buying pow

over 2000-2013, the top ten states are the District of Columbia (3

percent), New York (234 percent), Illinois (210 percent), Texas (2

percent), Hawaii (204 percent), Wyoming (189 percent), Georgia (1

percent), Massachusetts (181 percent), Delaware (180 percent), a

Pennsylvania (178 percent). Many of these states have relatively sm

flourishing markets, but Texas stands out from the other leading sta

as the fourth largest Native American consumer market in the natio

In 2013, the ten states with the largest Native American sha

of total buying power include Alaska (8.2 percent), Oklahoma (6

percent), New Mexico (5.5 percent), South Dakota (3.5 percent), Mo

tana (3.3 percent), North Dakota (2.5 percent), Arizona (2.5 percen

Wyoming (1.6 percent), California (1.2 percent), and Nevada (1

percent). From 2000 to 2013, Native Americans share of the mar

will rise the most in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Californ

and Arizona.

n 2013, over 17 million Americans5.2 percent of the countr

populationwill claim Asian ancestry, which makes the group

powerful force in the U.S. consumer market. This racial grou

shares of the population were 3 percent, 4 percent, 5.2 percent, a

5.4 percent in 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2013, respectively; and th

enormous economic clout continues to attract more attention fro

businesses and advertisers. (The Selig Centers data for Asians combintwo race categories, including those who identified themselves as Asi

or as Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.)

The Selig Center projects that the nations Asian buying pow

will climb from $115 billion in 1990, to $274 billion in 2000, to $5

billion in 2010, to $713 billion in 2013, and to $962 billion in 20

The 160 percent gain from 2000 through 2013 exceeds the increa

in buying power projected for whites (63 percent), the U.S. as a wh

(70 percent), blacks (78 percent), Hispanics (142 percent), and N

tive Americans (139 percent). At $713 billion in 2013, the U.S. Asi



8


Where Asians Spend More

foodhousingclothingeducationpersonal insurance

Where Asians Spend Less

utilitiesused vehiclesalcohol and tobacco

health careentertainment

market already outshines the entire economies of all but twenty-two

countriesit is smaller than the 2012 GDP of Saudi Arabia and slightly

larger than the GDP of the Netherlands.

The groups fast-paced growth in buying power demonstrates the

increasing importance of Asian consumers and should create oppor-

tunities for businesses that pay attention to their needs. Because the

group includes consumers of so many national ancestries, languages,

and such diverse cultures, firms that target specific subgroupsChi-

nese or Filipino, for examplemay find niche markets particularlyrewarding.

Despite the severity of the Great Recession, employment gains

can still be cited as one of the forces supporting the growth of Asian

buying power. From January 2000 throughApril 2013 (the most re-

cent data available at this writing), the number of jobs held by Asians

increased by 2,296,000, or 40 percent. That cumulative gain is impres-

sive when compared to the 1,264,000 jobs gains realized by whites (a

much larger racial group). But, even though the number of jobs held

by Asians is up considerably from where it was at the beginning of the

decade, the Great Recession took its toll. From the peak in November

2007 (when Asians held 6,960,000 jobs) to its trough in January 2010

(when Asians held 6,431,000 jobs) the number of employed Asians

dropped by 529,000. In April 2013, the employment-to-population

ratio for Asians stood at 60.6 percentit was 63 percent in January2000. Meanwhile, the number of unemployed Asians has more than

doubled: 7.5 percent of Asians were jobless in January 2010 compared

to 3.2 percent in 2007. Nonetheless, in terms of jobs, Asians as a group

are still well ahead of where they were at the beginning of the millen-

nium.

Demographics are a key, too. The Asian population is growing

more rapidly than the total population, mostly because of strong im-

migration, a trend that is expected to continue. In 2013, the Asian

population will be 17.2 million, or 53.9 percent higher than its 2000

base of 11.2 million. This 55.9 percent gain in population excee

that projected for any other racial group and it nearly equals the 54

percent gain estimated for the Hispanics. From 2013 to 2018, the U

Asian population will grow by 14.9 percent, just slightly lower th

the 15.1 percent gain expected for Hispanics.

Moreover, the Asian population of the U.S. is younger than t

overall U.S. population: The 2010 Current Population Surveyindica

that the median age of Asians is 35.4 years compared to 36.7 years

the total population and 38.2 years for whites. Compared to whitlarger proportions of Asians are either entering the workforce for t

first time or are moving up on their career ladders. Also, a much smal

proportion of Asians are of traditional retirement age. For examp

in 2010, only 9.6 percent of Asians were over 65, compared to 13

percent of whites. Another factor contributing to Asian buying pow

is that nearly all Asians are urbanites.

The economic rewards of education also provide a big boo

Asians are much better educated than is the average American, a

thus hold many top-level jobs in management, professional, a

scientific specialties. Compared to the overall population, Asians

much less likely to hold jobs in agriculture, forestry, construction, a

government. According to the 2012 Current Population Survey, 51 p

cent of Asians over 25 had a bachelors or advanced degree compar

to 31 percent of whites.

The increasing number of successful Asian entrepreneurs a

helps to increase the groups buying power. The 2007 Survey of Busin

Owners (released in 2011) shows that the number of Asian-owned fir

increased by 40 percent from 2002 to 2007, which is more than dou

the 18 percent increase in the number of all U.S. firms. Compared

the 1997-2002 period, the overall rate of growth in the number

Asian-owned firms acceleratedas it did for all U.S. firms. Betwe

2002 and 2007, the receipts of Asian-owned firms grew by 55 perce

compared to the 34 percent increase in the receipts of all U.S. firm In 2013, the ten states with the largest Asian consumer marke

in order, are California ($230 billion), New York ($66 billion), Tex

($51 billion), New Jersey ($34 billion), Illinois ($28 billion), Haw

($27 billion), Washington ($24 billion), Virginia ($23 billion), Flor

($22 billion), and Massachusetts ($18 billion).

Compared to the overall consumer market, the groups spendin

much more focused geographically. In 2013, the five and the ten sta

with the largest Asian consumer markets account for 59 percent and

percent of Asian buying power, respectively. In contrast, the five a

the ten largest total consumer markets account for 38 percent and

percent of U.S. buying power, respectively. One positive implicati

of this extreme geographic concentration is lower marketing cosStill, zip-code mailings, the use of selective media, the Internet, a

other techniques can be used to reduce the costs of reaching Asia

in states where the groups market share is slim.

In 2013, California stands out as the largest Asian consum

market. Despite the geographic focus, Asian buying power is atta

ing critical mass in more states. In 2000, only six states had over $

billion in Asian buying power. In 2013, fourteen states have reach

this mark, and by 2018, twenty states will have done so.

Ranked by the rate of growth of Asian buying power over 200



T

Hispanic Buying Power


Where Hispanics Spend More

tobaccohealth careentertainmentnew vehiclespersonal insurance

Where Hispanics Spend Less

groceriesphone servicesapparel and footwareused vehicles

2013, the top ten states are the District of Columbia (294 percent),

Wyoming (289 percent), Arkansas (280 percent), South Dakota (269

percent), Arizona (253 percent), Nevada (248 percent), Virginia (234

percent), Texas (230 percent), North Carolina (225 percent), and

Alabama (214 percent). Texas (ranks 3) and Virginia (ranks 8) are the

only two of these states that are among the nations ten largest Asian

consumer markets. North Carolina (ranks 16), Arizona (at 17), and

Nevada (ranks 18) are among the nations rapidly emerging Asian

markets, however. Nationally, Asian consumers share of the nations total buying

power will increase from 2.7 percent in 1990, to 3.8 percent in 2000,

to 5.4 percent in 2010, to 5.7 percent in 2013, and to 6.3 percent in

2018. In order, the ten states with the largest shares of total buying

power that is Asian in 2013 are Hawaii, where Asians account for 46.8

percent of the states buying power, California (14.8 percent), New

Jersey (10 percent), Nevada (8.7 percent), Washington (8.1 percent),

New York (7.3 percent), Virginia (6.6 percent), Maryland (6.4 percent),

Massachusetts (5.6 percent), and Illinois (5.4 percent). Except for Ha-

waii, where Asians market shares dropped by 3.8 percent, the share

of buying power controlled by Asian consumers rose in every state

from 2000 to 2013. The 4.7 percent gain in Asians share of Californias

consumer market (10.1 percent in 2000 to 14.8 percent in 2013) will

be the largest share increase in the nation, followed by the 4.2 percent

increase in market share in Nevada (4.5 percent to 8.7 percent). Asians

share of New Jerseys total buying power rose by 4.1 percent, from

5.9 percent in 2000 to 10 percent in 2013. Also noteworthy are the

3 percent increase in share estimated for Washington (5.2 percent to

8.1 percent) and the 2.9 percent gain in share estimated for Virginia

(3.7 percent to 6.6 percent).

The Consumer Expenditure Surveyindicates that Asian households

spent 21 percent more than the average U.S. household, reflecting their

higher median household incomes. Asian households spent dramati-

cally more than the average U.S. household on groceries, restaurants,

housing, clothing, shoes, new cars, public transportation, education,

and pensions and Social Security. Asians also spent more than the

average household on auto insurance and health insurance. Asian

households spent less than average on alcoholic beverages, utilities,

housekeeping supplies, used vehicles, health care, TVs, pets, toys,

tobacco products, and cash contributions.

The same survey indicates that there are 2.8 persons per Asian

household compared to 2.5 persons for the average household. Asians

have only 1.6 vehicles per household compared to 1.9 vehicles for the

average household.

he immense buying power of the nations Hispanic consum

continues to energize the nations consumer market, and Se

Center projections reveal that Hispanics will control $1.2 trilli

in spending power in 2013. One out of every six people who lives

the U.S. is of Hispanic origin, and the U.S. Hispanic population co

tinues to grow much more rapidly than the non-Hispanic populatioOver the 29-year period, 1990-2018, the nations Hispanic buy

power will grow dramatically. In sheer dollar power, Hispanics ec

nomic clout rose from $210 billion in 1990, to $491 billion in 200

to $1 trillion in 2010, to $1.2 trillion in 2013, and to $1.6 trillion

2018. The 2013 value will exceed the 2000 value by 142 percent

gain that is far greater than either the 64 percent increase in no

Hispanic buying power or the 70 percent increase in the buying pow

of all consumers. U.S. Hispanic buying power will grow faster th

African-American buying power (78 percent), and Native Americ

buying power (78 percent), but more slowly than Asian buying pow

(160 percent). In 2013, Hispanics account for 9.6 percent of all U

buying power, up from 9 percent in 2010, from 6.7 percent in 200

and from 5 percent in 1990. In 2018, Hispanics will account for 10

percent of total U.S. buying power.

Of the myriad forces supporting this substantial and continugrowth, by far the most important is favorable demographics. Becau

of both higher rates of natural increase and strong immigration, t

Hispanic population is growing more rapidly than the total popu

tion, a trend that is projected to continue. Between 2000 and 20

the Hispanic population increased by 54.3 percent compared to 6

percent for the non-Hispanic population and the 12.3 percent ga

for the total population.

The relatively young Hispanic population, with proportiona

more of them either entering the workforce for the first time or advan



10

ing in their careers, also argues for additional gains in buying power.

Hispanics spending patterns already help to determine the success or

failure of many youth-oriented products and services. According to the

2010 Current Population Survey, 34.9 percent of the Hispanic popula-

tion is under age 18 compared to 20.8 percent of the non-Hispanic

population. Also, in 2010, only 5.8 percent of Hispanics were over 65,

compared to 15.6 percent of the non-Hispanic population.

The increasing number of Hispanic business owners is another

potent force powering this consumer market. Estimates from the 2007

Survey of Business Ownersshow that the number of Hispanic-owned

firms increased by 44 percent from 2002 to 2007, which is more than

double the 15 percent increase in the number of non-Hispanic firms.

Compared to the 1997-2002 period, the overall rate of growth in the

number of Hispanic-owned firms acceleratedas it did for all U.S.

firms. Between 2002 and 2007, the receipts of Hispanic-owned firms

grew by 56 percent compared to the 24 percent increase in the receipts

of non-Hispanic firms.

Increases in entrepreneurial activity and the rising level of edu-

cational attainment illustrate Hispanics upward mobility. The 2012

Current Population Surveyshows that 65 percent of Hispanics over 25

were high school graduates (up from 57 percent in 2000 and 51 percent

in 1990). The proportion with a bachelors degree or above increased

from 9.2 percent in 1990 to 10.6 percent in 2000 to 14.5 percent in

2012. The Census Bureau cautions, however, that levels of educational

attainment for Hispanics are lower than those for non-Hispanic whites,

blacks, and Asians largely because of the vast number of less educated

foreign-born Hispanics.

As is the case for Asians, despite the recessions severity, employ-

ment gains can still be cited as one of the key forces supporting the

growth of Hispanic buying power. From January 2000 through April

2013, the number of jobs held by Hispanics increased by an impressive

6,681,000 jobs, or 43 percent. But, even though the number of jobsheld by Hispanics is up considerably from where it stood at the begin-

ning of the decade, the recession hurt. For example, from its peak in

November 2007 (when Hispanics held 20,574,000 jobs) to its trough

in August 2009 (when Hispanics held 19,426,000 jobs) the number of

employed Hispanics dropped by 1,148,000. That signifies the loss of

three out of every ten of the jobs (held by Hispanics) created between

2000 and November 2007. The heavy concentration of Hispanics in

the construction and hospitality industries undoubtedly accounts

for many of those lost jobs. Nonetheless, in terms of the overall job

count, Hispanics are still well ahead of where they were at the start

of the twenty-first century.

Hispanic refers to a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban orother Spanish/Hispanic/Latino culture or origin, and is considered an

ethnic category rather than a racial group. Persons of Hispanic origin

therefore may be of any race, and since their culture varies with the

country of origin, the Spanish language often is the uniting factor.

Three out of every five Hispanics living in the U.S. are born here, and

among the foreign born the majority are of Mexican origin, which

suggests that many Hispanics share similar backgrounds and cultures.

Nonetheless, spending patterns differ significantly based on country

of origin, and the composition of the nations Hispanic populati

is changing.

Hispanics will comprise 17.4 percent of the countrys populati

in 2013, and will have disposable income of $1.2 trillion. In 2013, t

ten states with the largest Hispanic markets, in order, are Californ

($304 billion), Texas ($224 billion), Florida ($122 billion), New Yo

($91 billion), Illinois ($45 billion), New Jersey ($44 billion), Arizo

($38 billion), New Mexico ($23 billion), Colorado ($23 billion), a

Virginia ($20 billion).

Hispanics and their buying power are much more geographica

concentrated than non-Hispanics. California alone accounts for

percent of Hispanic buying power. In 2013, the five states and t

ten states with the largest Hispanic markets account for 66 perce

and 79 percent of Hispanic buying power, respectively. In contra

the five states with the largest non-Hispanic markets account for on

36 percent of total buying power and the ten largest non-Hispan

markets account for only 53 percent of total buying power.

The top ten states, as ranked by the rate of growth of Hispan

buying power between 2000 and 2013, are Arkansas (288 percen

South Dakota (282 percent), North Dakota (269 percent), Alabam

(267 percent), South Carolina (263 percent), Tennessee (261 percen

Maryland (243 percent), Virginia (241 percent), Oklahoma (241 p

cent), and Mississippi (238 percent). Only Virginia (ranks 10), Ma

land (ranks 17), and Oklahoma (ranks 23) are among the nations

largest Hispanic consumer markets in 2013, however.

The share of buying power controlled by Hispanic consum

will rise from 5 percent in 1990 to 6.7 percent in 2000, to 9 perce

in 2010, to 9.6 percent in 2013, and to 10.6 percent in 2018. Th

share will rise in every state. In 2013, the ten states with the larg

Hispanic market shares will be New Mexico (32.3 percent), Texas (2

percent), California (19.6 percent), Arizona (16.7 percent), Florida (1

percent), Nevada (15.6 percent), Colorado (10.5 percent), New Jers(10.2 percent), New York (10.1 percent), and Illinois (8.7 percent)

New Mexicos 5.3 percentage point shift in Hispanic market sha

from 27 percent in 2000 to 32.3 percent in 2013, is the nations la

est. Texas will see its Hispanic market share climb from 16.5 perce

to 21.6 percent, a gain of 5.1 percentage points. Nevadas Hispan

population will claim 15.6 percent of that states buying power, a 4

percent advance over their 10.7 percent share in 2000. Hispani

share of Californias consumer market will rise by 4.8 percent, fro

14.8 percent to 19.6 percent, which is remarkable for a state with su

a large, established market. Hispanics share of Floridas market a

will rise by 4.8 percent (from 11.7 percent in 2000 to 16.5 percent

2013). Arizonas Hispanics will claim 16.7 percent of that states buyipower in 2013, up 4.2 percent from their 12.4 percent share in 200

Because of differences in per capita income, wealth, demographi

and culture, the spending habits of Hispanics as a group are not t

same as those of the average U.S. consumer. The Consumer Expendit

Surveyindicates that Hispanic households spent in total only about

percent as much as the average non-Hispanic household.

Despite markedly lower average income levels, Hispanic hou

holds spent more on groceries, phone services, apparel, footwe



1

gasoline and motor oil, and car insurance. Also, Hispanics spent a

higher proportion of their money on housing, utilities, and eating out.

They spent about the same proportion of their total outlays as non-

Hispanics on alcoholic beverages, housekeeping supplies, household

textiles, floor coverings, furniture, appliances, public transportation,

and personal care products.

Hispanics spent substantially smaller proportions of total outlays

(and substantially less money) on new cars, health care, tobacco prod-

ucts, entertainment, education, cash contributions, and personal insur-ance and pensions. The same survey found that Hispanic households

are substantially larger than non-Hispanic households (3.3 persons

per household versus 2.4 persons for non-Hispanics), and have nearly

twice as many children under 18. On average, there are 1.6 vehicles

per Hispanic household compared to two vehicles per non-Hispanic

household.



12

METHODOLOGY

Because there are no direct measures of the buying power of African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, Whites, and

Hispanics, these estimates were calculated using national and regional economic models, univariate forecasting techniques,

and data from various U.S. government sources. The model developed by the Selig Center integrates statistical methods usedin regional economics with those of market research. In general, the estimation process has two parts: estimating disposable

personal income and allocating that estimate by race or ethnicity based on both population estimates and variances in per

capita income.

The Selig Centers estimates of disposable personal income (the total buying power of all groups, regardless of race or

ethnicity) are reported in Table 5. Total buying power for 1990, 2000, and 2010 equals disposable personal income as reported

in the National Income and Product Accounts tables by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis,

Regional Economic Information System in September 2011. Based on the data provided by the Commerce Department, the

Selig Center prepared projections of total buying power for 2012-2017.

Defined as the share of total personal income that is available for spending on personal consumption, personal interest

payments, and savings, disposable personal income measures the total buying power held by residents of an area. In 2010,

90.3 percent of disposable personal income was used to purchase goods and services (personal consumption expenditures);

the remaining 9.7 percent represents personal savings, non-mortgage interest paid by persons, or personal transfer paymentsto either government or to persons living abroad.

The Selig Centers estimates are consistent with the concepts and definitions used in the National Income and Product

Accounts (NIPA). Readers should note that buying power is not the equivalent of aggregate money income as defined by the

Census Bureau. Because the Selig Centers estimates are based on disposable personal income data obtained from the BEA,

rather than money income values issued by the Census Bureau, the result is significantly higher estimates of buying power.

There are several reasons for this lack of correspondence. First, the income definition used by the BEA is not the same as

the definition used by the Census Bureau. Second, Census income data are gathered through a nationwide survey sample

of households, and respondents tend to underreport their income, which accounts for much of the discrepancy. Finally,

the population universe for the Census money income estimates differs from the universe used by the BEA. It should also

be emphasized that the Selig Centers estimates are not equivalent to aggregate consumer expenditures as reported in the

Consumer Expenditure Surveythat is conducted each year by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The Selig Centers estimates of total buying power were allocated to each racial group and Hispanics based on populationestimates and variances in per capita personal income by race or ethnicity. For 2000 and 2010, the Selig Center relied upon

the population distributions provided by the U.S. Census Bureaus intercensal estimates of the resident population by race,

sex, and Hispanic origin for the states and the United States. For 1990, the Selig Center used the U. S. Census Bureaus time

series of intercensal population estimates that were revised in August 2004. The Census Bureau indicates that these estimates

were developed to take into account differences between the postcensal time series population estimates for the 1990s and

Census 2000 results. Because there are differences between the data series, there is a series break, which limits the compara-

bility of the race-based estimates for 1990 to those for 2000 and 2010. The main difference is that the multiracial category

first appears in 2000. There is no corresponding series break for Hispanics, however. Based on trends in the historical data,

the Selig Center prepared independent population projections for 2012-2017.

A relative income adjustment factor was estimated for each group for each geographic area to compensate for the varia-

tion in per capita personal income (and by extension, in per capita disposable personal income) that is accounted for by race

or ethnicity. These factors were calculated on an annual basis using Summary File 3 (SF 3) data regarding income by race



1

and Hispanic origin from Census 2000 and per capita money income data by race for local areas that were gathered during

the 1990 Census of Population and Housing. For more recent years, the Selig Center relied on data obtained from the Census

Bureaus 2007-2009American Community Survey 3-year estimates.

The 2010 expenditures data by item for African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and the comparison groups were obtained

directly from the Consumer Expenditure Surveythat was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on September 27, 2011. The

amounts are direct out-of-pocket expenditures, and do not include reimbursements, such as for medical care or car repairs

covered by insurance.



14

Table 1

U.S. Buying Power Statistics by Race,

1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018

Buying Power (billions of dollars) 1990 2000 2010 2013 2018

Total 4,239.9 7,323.7 11,114.9 12,417.8 15,193.6

White 3,788.7 6,352.9 9,348.8 10,376.7 12,538.6

Black 316.3 600.6 951.5 1,070.9 1,333.4American Indian 19.6 40.2 83.2 96.1 123.3

Asian 115.4 274.6 599.3 712.8 961.5Multiracial NA 59.4 132.1 161.3 236.8

Percentage Change in Buying Power

1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2013 2013-2018

Total 72.7 51.8 11.7 22.4White 67.6 47.3 11.0 20.8

Black 89.9 58.4 12.6 24.5American Indian 105.6 106.9 15.5 28.3Asian 138.0 118.3 18.9 34.9

Multiracial NA 122.5 22.1 46.8

Market Share(percent)

1990 2000 2010 2013 2018

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0White 89.4 86.7 84.1 83.6 82.5

Black 7.5 8.2 8.6 8.6 8.8

American Indian 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8Asian 2.7 3.7 5.4 5.7 6.3

Multiracial NA 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.6

Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.



1

Table 2

U.S. Population Statistics by Race,

1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018

Population 1990 2000 2010 2013 2018

TotalWhite

BlackAmerican Indian

Asian

Multiracial

Percentage Change in Population

1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2013 2013-2018

Total

WhiteBlack

American IndianAsian

Multiracial

Share of Population(percent)

1990 2000 2010 2013 2018

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

WhiteBlack

American IndianAsian

Multiracial


249,622,814 282,162,411 309,330,219 316,903,303 331,204,447

209,366,661 228,530,479 242,256,518 246,154,763 253,138,14430,648,345 35,814,706 40,353,468 41,665,907 44,111,217

2,058,726 2,684,491 3,754,693 3,930,784 4,240,5537,549,082 11,173,178 15,922,304 17,190,730 19,760,118

NA 3,959,557 7,043,236 7,961,120 9,954,414

13.0 9.6 2.4 4.59.2 6.0 1.6 2.8

16.9 12.7 3.3 5.9309.4 39.9 4.7 7.948.0 42.5 8.0 14.9

NA 77.93 13.0 25.0

83.9 81.0 78.3 77.7 76.4

12.3 12.7 13.0 13.1 13.3

0.8 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 3.0 4.0 5.1 5.4 6.0

NA 1.4 2.3 2.5 3.0



16

Table 3

U.S. Hispanic Market Statistics,1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018

Buying Power (billions of dollars)

1990 2000 2010 2013 2018

Total

HispanicNon-Hispanic

Percentage Change in Buying Power

1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2013 2013-2018

TotalHispanic

Non-Hispanic

Market Share(percent)

1990 2000 2010 2013 2018

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



4,240.0 7,324.0 11,115.0 12,418.0 15,193.5 210.0 491.0 1,004.0 1,189.0 1,607.9

4,030.0 6,833.0 10,111.0 11,229.0 13,585.7

72.7 51.8 11.7 22.4

133.7 104.5 18.4 35.269.6 48.0 11.1 21.0

5.0 6.7 9.0 9.6 10.6

95.0 93.3 91.0 90.4 89.4



1

Table 4

U.S. Hispanic Population Statistics,

1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018

Population 1990 2000 2010 2013 2018

Total


Percentage Change in Population

1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2013 2013-2018

TotalHispanic

Non-Hispanic

Share of Population(percent)

1990 2000 2010 2013 2018

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0



249,622,814 282,162,411 309,330,219 316,903,303 331,204,447

22,572,838 35,661,885 50,790,485 55,010,588 63,342,454227,049,976 246,500,526 258,539,734 261,892,715 267,861,993

13.0 9.6 2.4 4.5

58.0 42.4 8.3 15.18.6 4.9 1.3 2.3

9.0 12.6 16.4 17.4 19.1

91.0 87.4 83.6 82.6 80.9



18

Table 5

Total Buying Power by Place of Residence

for U.S. and the States, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018(millions of dollars)


Area 1990 2000 2010 2013 2018

United States

AlabamaAlaska

ArizonaArkansas

California

ColoradoConnecticut

DelawareDistrict of Columbia

Florida

GeorgiaHawaii

Idaho

IllinoisIndiana

IowaKansas

KentuckyLouisiana

MaineMaryland

Massachusetts

MichiganMinnesota

MississippiMissouri

Montana

NebraskaNevada

New HampshireNew Jersey

New Mexico

New YorkNorth Carolina

North DakotaOhio

OklahomaOregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode IslandSouth Carolina

South Dakota

TennesseeTexas

UtahVermont

VirginiaWashington

West Virginia

WisconsinWyoming

4,239,944 7,323,689 11,114,876 12,417,821 15,193,580

56,468 95,077 148,762 163,041 199,732

11,031 17,006 28,685 32,444 41,109

55,013 118,518 200,008 225,437 286,22430,467 53,656 87,190 97,748 122,639

557,669 940,429 1,389,654 1,555,140 1,866,30556,239 124,896 191,596 216,326 264,113

75,107 115,443 170,739 184,131 218,448

12,227 20,782 31,833 35,205 42,41513,559 19,130 38,431 44,045 59,108

226,750 407,471 666,740 742,210 925,809100,453 202,509 305,561 342,104 415,743

21,046 30,889 51,243 58,539 75,52614,040 28,037 45,794 51,579 64,468

208,224 346,727 486,347 520,893 606,70685,206 146,099 201,169 224,475 264,98142,634 70,675 105,659 122,803 152,415

39,506 66,892 99,967 112,828 138,24450,034 87,964 128,935 144,238 175,083

57,781 94,174 156,093 173,574 217,860

18,749 29,666 44,456 49,354 58,96093,211 155,236 249,346 278,291 344,168

117,737 195,890 293,361 323,329 386,367152,408 251,724 309,478 339,965 378,220

75,168 137,065 202,077 227,291 275,130

30,788 55,516 85,148 94,634 115,80379,456 136,426 199,467 219,867 262,880

10,957 18,771 31,203 35,550 45,03625,300 42,953 65,961 75,309 93,316

21,438 54,253 88,813 97,598 121,37520,041 36,312 52,993 58,063 68,751

164,288 272,596 393,384 429,671 508,979

20,256 36,781 63,115 70,657 89,510367,093 543,786 825,050 904,092 1,108,101

100,924 195,950 301,232 339,536 422,1349,170 14,825 26,225 34,923 49,997

177,528 281,335 375,818 418,279 486,569

44,618 75,031 123,031 142,175 182,29544,932 84,180 123,979 139,490 168,014

203,445 319,410 462,743 512,850 615,68617,558 26,625 40,156 43,839 51,855

49,172 89,183 137,802 154,548 191,451

10,265 18,047 30,180 35,557 46,56373,436 136,938 209,152 234,725 288,032

263,742 527,136 891,469 1,038,131 1,363,61322,733 48,150 81,700 94,114 121,318

8,769 14,957 22,817 25,384 30,919110,256 190,258 316,001 354,455 445,301

85,552 165,225 261,161 297,864 374,273

23,138 35,805 54,190 60,246 72,730

77,078 134,775 195,585 214,565 253,8647,284 12,512 23,377 26,709 35,439



1

Table 6

White Buying Power by Place of Residencefor U.S. and the States, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018

(millions of dollars)

Area 1990 2000 2010 2013 2018


United States 3,788,694 6,348,911 9,348,810 10,376,652 12,538,607

Alabama 47,872 77,507 119,109 129,932 157,927

Alaska 9,501 13,974 23,150 26,048 32,652Arizona 51,950 109,848 179,114 200,375 250,833

Arkansas 27,514 47,275 75,782 84,629 105,483California 482,829 781,808 1,082,526 1,197,739 1,413,146

Colorado 53,523 116,832 176,655 198,744 241,032

Connecticut 70,272 105,348 151,578 162,293 189,655Delaware 10,738 17,268 25,338 27,736 32,613

District of Columbia 7,673 11,492 25,066 29,374 40,861Florida 207,843 361,186 574,065 634,516 782,259

Georgia 83,071 157,200 224,764 248,596 295,186

Hawaii 8,408 10,721 17,573 20,441 26,512Idaho 13,774 27,166 43,991 49,399 61,439

Illinois 184,866 299,059 412,158 439,563 507,412Indiana 79,904 134,366 182,771 203,148 237,469

Iowa 41,841 68,461 101,407 117,490 144,776

Kansas 37,409 62,204 91,559 102,919 125,127Kentucky 47,278 81,716 118,686 132,314 159,480

Louisiana 47,515 73,592 120,359 133,320 166,607Maine 18,553 29,111 43,380 48,060 57,094

Maryland 74,202 115,148 173,852 191,424 230,230Massachusetts 111,490 180,508 262,032 286,442 336,791

Michigan 136,044 218,373 266,676 292,038 322,638

Minnesota 72,993 129,701 187,119 209,223 250,006Mississippi 24,611 41,920 63,521 70,238 85,239

Missouri 72,929 122,503 177,424 194,994 231,421Montana 10,579 17,874 29,554 33,599 42,433

Nebraska 24,492 40,931 62,199 70,798 87,096

Nevada 19,770 47,821 73,302 79,398 95,780New Hampshire 19,762 35,413 50,911 55,534 65,163

New Jersey 144,582 229,813 315,526 340,475 394,490New Mexico 18,970 33,646 56,377 62,791 79,099

New York 315,131 450,178 662,552 720,524 870,902

North Carolina 85,681 162,390 244,108 273,663 336,812North Dakota 8,937 14,234 25,013 33,227 47,234

Ohio 163,096 252,840 334,320 370,797 427,532Oklahoma 39,888 64,155 103,043 118,554 150,643

Oregon 43,159 78,883 113,895 127,516 152,266Pennsylvania 188,719 290,396 412,542 454,706 538,834

Rhode Island 16,857 25,052 36,974 40,153 46,942

South Carolina 40,293 71,044 109,418 122,671 151,916South Dakota 9,920 17,192 28,419 33,372 43,381

Tennessee 65,659 118,870 179,225 200,382 244,094Texas 239,364 464,113 758,007 876,338 1,137,445

Utah 22,118 46,168 77,567 89,090 114,241

Vermont 8,700 14,686 22,264 24,712 29,945Virginia 94,891 156,558 250,586 278,576 344,085

Washington 79,820 148,549 226,350 255,907 316,593West Virginia 22,409 34,364 51,750 57,386 68,991

Wisconsin 74,152 127,346 182,795 199,913 234,979

Wyoming 7,148 12,111 22,459 25,576 33,825



20

Table 7

Black Buying Power by Place of Residencefor U.S. and the States, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018


Area 1990 2000 2010 2013 2018

Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013s.

United States 316,327 600,607 951,492 1,070,926 1,333,396

Alabama 8,139 15,857 25,607 28,300 34,879

Alaska 330 504 867 1,023 1,273Arizona 1,191 2,861 6,484 7,845 11,319

Arkansas 2,673 5,249 8,645 9,696 12,113

California 28,111 44,904 68,786 76,749 90,368Colorado 1,636 3,544 5,465 6,272 7,892

Connecticut 3,669 6,379 10,734 11,926 14,903Delaware 1,280 2,787 4,712 5,319 6,741

District of Columbia 5,636 6,893 10,865 11,563 13,698

Florida 16,069 35,585 65,876 75,264 97,241Georgia 16,102 39,344 66,103 75527 94,794

Hawaii 358 518 841 1,154 1,408Idaho 35 97 212 279 422

Illinois 17,943 32,544 43,729 46,427 53,365

Indiana 4,465 9,016 12,636 14,301 17,601Iowa 466 949 1,748 2,168 3,119

Kansas 1,460 2,653 4,065 4,656 5,818Kentucky 2,414 4,727 7,073 8,071 10,090

Louisiana 9,621 18,458 30,843 34,420 43,040Maine 60 121 242 304 511

Maryland 16,266 32,413 56,717 64,199 81,738

Massachusetts 3,974 7,519 12,907 14,753 19,189Michigan 13,899 25,235 29,063 31,740 35,329

Minnesota 998 2,912 5,430 6,511 9,316Mississippi 5,988 12,761 19,927 22,343 27,683

Missouri 5,664 10,786 15,430 17,027 20,647

Montana 21 49 68 98 144Nebraska 583 1,141 1,827 2,126 2,812

Nevada 878 2,759 5,693 6,528 8,870New Hampshire 103 207 434 536 768

New Jersey 13,859 24,442 36,828 40,521 48,260New Mexico 305 609 1,260 1,520 2,040

New York 38,918 60,639 91,987 100,985 123,595

North Carolina 13,770 28,084 44,368 50,312 62,809North Dakota 34 65 165 259 494

Ohio 12,326 22,302 29,600 33,171 39,757Oklahoma 2,080 3961 6,077 7,047 9,066

Oregon 458 992 1,656 1,936 2,475

Pennsylvania 12,274 21,475 32,180 36,202 45,414Rhode Island 451 862 1,631 1,866 2,444

South Carolina 8,471 16,510 24,633 27,319 32,994South Dakota 34 82 213 298 529

Tennessee 7,184 15,394 23,831 26,937 33,380Texas 18,938 41,941 77,662 91,720 122,533Utah 122 355 561 681 1,025

Vermont 19 49 126 164 267Virginia 12,556 24,604 40,992 45,988 57,552

Washington 1,874 4,152 6,681 7,865 10,400West Virginia 513 857 1,354 1,561 1,952

Wisconsin 2,066 4,378 6,526 7,277 9,076

Wyoming 40 81 132 175 247



2

Table 8

American Indian Buying Power by Place of Residence

for U.S. and the States, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018


Area 1990 2000 2010 2013 2018


United States 19,557 40,217 83,193 96,112 123,287

Alabama 166 386 805 904 1,156

Alaska 904 1,492 2,402 2,664 3,267Arizona 1,128 2,520 5,051 5,673 6,871

Arkansas 132 311 621 734 956

California 3,533 6,717 15,753 18,396 23,283Colorado 317 893 1,704 1,954 2,461

Connecticut 105 224 472 532 680Delaware 33 57 138 159 209

District of Columbia 26 54 182 217 301

Florida 484 1,144 2,418 2,799 3,554Georgia 169 483 1,167 1,361 1,789

Hawaii 80 86 192 260 342Idaho 119 249 475 540 667

Illinois 311 712 1,931 2,207 2,937

Indiana 141 324 584 669 834Iowa 58 146 246 295 390

Kansas 234 429 745 859 1,081Kentucky 49 153 280 326 409

Louisiana 168 421 896 1,025 1,344Maine 55 108 177 199 244

Maryland 202 428 1,007 1,158 1,571

Massachusetts 161 327 793 917 1,213Michigan 616 1,081 1,557 1,745 2,002

Minnesota 409 861 1,255 1,410 1,726Mississippi 58 172 354 410 532

Missouri 232 460 838 952 1,147

Montana 317 604 1,021 1,156 1,445Nebraska 86 185 375 440 579

Nevada 237 514 997 1,104 1,318New Hampshire 28 64 116 134 159

New Jersey 251 517 1,197 1,374 1,862New Mexico 798 1,678 3,424 3,851 4,784

New York 804 1,572 4,516 5,251 7,237

North Carolina 769 1,621 2,734 3,054 3,809North Dakota 159 342 663 886 1,290

Ohio 246 457 733 842 1,006Oklahoma 2,225 3,933 7,503 8,706 11,283

Oregon 418 728 1,259 1,439 1,776

Pennsylvania 190 379 905 1,053 1,445Rhode Island 43 72 154 174 226

South Carolina 99 262 590 673 875South Dakota 282 579 1,057 1,241 1,629

Tennessee 122 361 671 764 993Texas 878 2,648 6,738 8,181 11,233Utah 156 373 716 830 1,033

Vermont 15 42 69 79 94Virginia 232 505 1,128 1,294 1,747

Washington 897 1,574 2,893 3,313 4,145West Virginia 16 63 96 109 133

Wisconsin 333 764 1,240 1,381 1,674

Wyoming 68 144 353 415 547



22

Table 9

Asian Buying Power by Place of Residence

for U.S. and the States, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018(millions of dollars)

Area 1990 2000 2010 2013 2018


United States 115,366 274,564 599,263 712,805 961,532

Alabama 291 806 2,095 2,529 3,736Alaska 296 567 1,284 1,543 2,218

Arizona 743 2,449 7,036 8,652 12,744Arkansas 148 432 1,292 1,641 2,539

California 43,196 94,865 196,121 230,179 294,593Colorado 763 2,536 5,325 6,342 8,372

Connecticut 1,061 2,821 6,558 7,736 10,827

Delaware 176 546 1,324 1,601 2,252District of Columbia 225 501 1,601 1,974 2,779

Florida 2,355 6,926 17,826 21,592 30,661Georgia 1,112 4,312 10,762 13,154 18,624

Hawaii 12,199 15,633 24,649 27,422 34,707

Idaho 112 316 595 708 982Illinois 5,103 12,550 24,612 28,066 36,356

Indiana 696 1,658 3,714 4,568 6,450Iowa 269 870 1,726 2,166 3,057

Kansas 404 1,094 2,403 2,911 4,008

Kentucky 292 926 2,120 2,597 3,700Louisiana 478 1,188 2,864 3,422 4,706

Maine 81 173 387 470 635Maryland 2,542 6,032 14,668 17,6846 24,676

Massachusetts 2,113 6,350 15,078 18,112 24,646Michigan 1,849 5,184 9,294 11,028 13,752

Minnesota 769 2,778 6,591 8,085 11,048

Mississippi 130 430 891 1,079 1,485Missouri 631 1,718 3,926 4,696 6,528

Montana 40 91 165 200 273Nebraska 138 498 1,076 1,328 1,869

Nevada 553 2,451 7,114 8,529 12,431New Hampshire 148 446 1,141 1,388 1,975New Jersey 5,596 16,181 36,272 42,993 58,180

New Mexico 183 529 1,214 1,450 2,017New York 12,241 27,266 56,569 65,967 89,634

North Carolina 704 2,903 7,577 9,427 13,688

North Dakota 40 112 230 329 587Ohio 1,860 4,078 8,137 9,807 13,049

Oklahoma 425 977 2,440 3,037 4,326Oregon 898 2,538 4,996 5,951 7,796

Pennsylvania 2,262 5,784 13,946 16,966 23,894Rhode Island 207 453 903 1,045 1,351

South Carolina 309 958 2,264 2,773 3,899

South Dakota 29 93 257 343 539

Tennessee 471 1,541 3,809 4,668 6,565Texas 4,562 15,379 40,481 50,688 74,751Utah 338 935 2,104 2,560 3,537

Vermont 35 90 181 219 307

Virginia 2,577 7,002 19,080 23,367 33,761Washington 2,960 8,520 19,843 24,155 33,457

West Virginia 200 339 639 770 1,020Wisconsin 527 1,667 3,841 4,583 6,091

Wyoming 29 78 237 303 454



2

Table 10

Multiracial Buying Power by Place of Residence

for U.S. and the States, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018(millions of dollars)

Area 2000 2010 2013 2018


United States 59,389 132,119 161,325 236,757

Alabama 520 1,146 1,377 2,034Alaska 469 981 1,167 1,699

Arizona 841 2,323 2,893 4,458Arkansas 390 850 1,048 1,548

California 12,135 26,467 32,077 44,916Colorado 1,092 2,447 3,015 4,357

Connecticut 671 1,397 1,643 2,383

Delaware 124 320 390 600District of Columbia 190 717 916 1,470

Florida 2,630 6,554 8,038 12,094Georgia 1,171 2,765 3,466 5,349

Hawaii 3,932 7,989 9,262 12,557

Idaho 210 521 652 959Illinois 1,862 3,917 4,631 6,636

Indiana 735 1,464 1,789 2,627Iowa 251 531 683 1,074

Kansas 513 1,195 1,484 2,210

Kentucky 442 776 929 1,405Louisiana 515 1,130 1,386 2,164

Maine 153 270 322 476Maryland 1,214 3,102 3,826 5,953

Massachusetts 1,186 2,551 3,104 4,527Michigan 1,850 2,888 3,413 4,499

Minnesota 812 1,681 2,062 3,034

Mississippi 233 455 563 863Missouri 959 1,849 2,198 3,137

Montana 154 396 496 741Nebraska 198 483 616 961

Nevada 708 1,706 2,039 2,976New Hampshire 182 392 472 686New Jersey 1,643 3,561 4,309 6,188

New Mexico 319 840 1,045 1,569New York 4,131 9,426 11,366 16,733

North Carolina 952 2,446 3,080 5,016

North Dakota 72 153 222 392Ohio 1,658 3,029 3,662 5,225

Oklahoma 2,006 3,969 4,831 6,978Oregon 1,039 2,174 2,648 3,700

Pennsylvania 1,376 3,170 3,922 6,100Rhode Island 186 494 601 892

South Carolina 409 897 1,113 1,768

South Dakota 101 234 303 484

Tennessee 773 1,616 1,974 3,000Texas 3,054 8,581 11,204 17,651Utah 319 752 954 1,483

Vermont 90 177 210 306

Virginia 1,589 4,215 5,230 8,156Washington 2,430 5,393 6,624 9,678

West Virginia 183 351 420 635Wisconsin 620 1,182 1,411 2,044

Wyoming 98 196 239 367



24

Table 11

Hispanic Buying Power by Place of Residencefor U.S. and the States, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018


Area 1990 2000 2010 2013 2018


United States 210,101 491,081 1,004,120 1,188,845 1,607,904

Alabama 276 1,094 3,195 4,019 6,678Alaska 230 459 1,068 1,330 1,882

Arizona 5,387 14,713 32,052 37,572 49,992Arkansas 164 977 2,967 3,789 6,096

California 68,525 139,319 261,345 304,302 385,098

Colorado 3,936 11,078 19,546 22,734 29,565Connecticut 2,312 4,861 10,828 12,695 17,191

Delaware 182 539 1,361 1,663 2,437District of Columbia 472 896 2,420 2,934 3,936

Florida 19,746 47,635 104,003 122,100 168,419

Georgia 1,325 6,270 13,791 16,845 24,570Hawaii 950 1,334 2,971 3,631 5,062

Idaho 394 1,111 2,708 3,281 4,631Illinois 8,830 22,525 39,956 45,144 57,572

Indiana 1,045 3,224 6,530 7,970 11,451

Iowa 310 1,090 2,622 3,394 5,213Kansas 876 2,513 5,351 6,520 9,282

Kentucky 228 855 2,175 2,749 4,362Louisiana 1,195 2,023 5,325 6,601 10,243

Maine 77 161 303 374 550Maryland 1,784 4,174 11,452 14,307 22,439

Massachusetts 2,533 5,999 12,815 15,275 20,832

Michigan 2,153 5,092 7,802 9,086 11,344Minnesota 506 2,084 4,505 5,519 8,003

Mississippi 156 608 1,623 2,058 3,253Missouri 726 1,886 4,303 5,246 7,586

Montana 85 226 515 649 940

Nebraska 337 1,275 2,903 3,636 5,445

Nevada 1,333 5,779 13,043 15,177 20,728New Hampshire 145 363 818 1,001 1,436New Jersey 8,935 19,285 37,501 43,678 57,396

New Mexico 4,933 9,945 19,920 22,851 29,828

New York 23,757 43,324 79,624 90,908 118,189North Carolina 836 4,963 12,074 14,954 22,866

North Dakota 32 121 285 445 771Ohio 1,550 3,460 6,897 8,418 11,708

Oklahoma 717 2,155 5,725 7,356 11,533Oregon 917 3,212 7,093 8,631 11,924

Pennsylvania 2,110 5,395 13,462 16,755 24,892

Rhode Island 399 990 2,268 2,706 3,681South Carolina 371 1,353 3,873 4,911 8,018

South Dakota 43 151 421 576 957

Tennessee 394 1,845 5,218 6,655 10,725Texas 32,779 86,938 185,619 224,328 309,337

Utah 739 2,583 5,904 7,221 10,534Vermont 46 103 250 314 460


West Virginia 93 203 474 604 904

Wisconsin 778 2,607 5,844 7,044 10,032Wyoming 263 514 1,281 1,553 2,313



2

Table 12

Non-Hispanic Buying Power by Place of Residencefor U.S. and the States, 1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018


Area 1990 2000 2010 2013 2018


United States 4,029,843 6,832,608 10,110,756 11,228,976 13,585,676

Alabama 56,192 93,983 145,567 159,023 193,054Alaska 10,801 16,546 27,617 31,114 39,227

Arizona 49,626 103,805 167,956 187,865 236,232Arkansas 30,303 52,679 84,223 93,959 116,543

California 489,144 801,110 1,128,309 1,250,838 1,481,206

Colorado 52,304 113,819 172,050 193,592 234,548Connecticut 72,794 110,582 159,911 171,436 201,257

Delaware 12,046 20,243 30,471 33,541 39,978District of Columbia 13,087 18,234 36,012 41,111 55,172

Florida 207,003 359,836 562,737 620,109 757,390

Georgia 99,128 196,239 291,770 325,259 391,172Hawaii 20,095 29,556 48,271 54,908 70,464

Idaho 13,645 26,926 43,086 48,298 59,837Illinois 199,394 324,202 446,391 475,749 549,134

Indiana 84,161 142,875 194,639 216,505 253,530

Iowa 42,323 69,585 103,038 119,409 147,202Kansas 38,629 64,378 94,615 106,308 128,962

Kentucky 49,806 87,110 126,760 141,489 170,721Louisiana 56,587 92,150 150,768 166,973 207,617

Maine 18,672 29,505 44,153 48,981 58,410Maryland 91,427 151,062 237,894 263,984 321,730

Massachusetts 115,204 189,890 280,546 308,053 365,534

Michigan 150,255 246,631 301,676 330,878 366,876Minnesota 74,662 134,981 197,572 221,771 267,128

Mississippi 30,632 54,909 83,524 92,576 112,550Missouri 78,731 134,540 195,164 214,621 255,294

Montana 10,872 18,545 30,688 34,901 44,096

Nebraska 24,963 41,677 63,058 71,673 87,871

Nevada 20,104 48,473 75,770 82,420 100,647New Hampshire 19,896 35,948 52,175 57,061 67,315New Jersey 155,353 253,311 355,883 385,993 451,583

New Mexico 15,324 26,836 43,195 47,806 59,681

New York 343,336 500,462 745,426 813,185 989,912North Carolina 100,087 190,987 289,159 324,582 399,268

North Dakota 9,138 14,705 25,940 34,478 49,226Ohio 175,978 277,875 368,921 409,861 474,860

Oklahoma 43,901 72,876 117,306 134,818 170,762Oregon 44,015 80,969 116,886 130,858 156,090

Pennsylvania 201,335 314,015 449,281 496,095 590,795

Rhode Island 17,159 25,635 37,887 41,133 48,174South Carolina 48,800 87,829 133,929 149,637 183,434

South Dakota 10,221 17,896 29,759 34,981 45,606

Tennessee 73,042 135,093 203,934 228,071 277,307Texas 230,963 440,199 705,850 813,803 1,054,276

Utah 21,994 45,567 75,795 86,894 110,784Vermont 8,724 14,854 22,566 25,070 30,459


West Virginia 23,046 35,603 53,716 59,642 71,826

Wisconsin 76,301 132,168 189,742 207,522 243,832Wyoming 7,022 11,998 22,096 25,155 33,126



26

Table 13

Percentage Change in Buying Power by Race, 1990-2000

AmericanArea Total White Black Indian Asian


United States 72.7 67.6 89.9 105.6 138.0

Alabama 68.4 61.9 94.8 132.5 176.8Alaska 54.2 47.1 52.4 65.1 91.6

Arizona 115.4 111.4 140.2 123.3 229.5

Arkansas 76.1 71.8 96.3 136.3 191.1California 68.6 61.9 59.7 90.1 119.6

Colorado 122.1 118.3 116.7 181.5 232.3Connecticut 53.7 49.9 73.9 113.7 165.9

Delaware 70.0 60.8 117.7 71.5 209.3

District of Columbia 41.1 49.8 22.3 111.5 123.0Florida 79.7 73.8 121.5 136.5 194.1

Georgia 101.6 89.2 144.3 186.7 287.8Hawaii 46.8 27.5 44.6 6.4 28.1

Idaho 99.7 97.2 178.2 108.1 182.7

Illinois 66.5 61.8 81.4 128.7 145.9Indiana 71.5 68.2 101.9 129.1 138.2

Iowa 65.8 63.6 103.6 150.6 223.6Kansas 69.3 66.3 81.7 83.4 171.0

Kentucky 75.8 72.8 95.8 211.2 216.7Louisiana 63.0 54.9 91.9 150.6 148.6

Maine 58.2 56.9 100.1 96.2 113.8

Maryland 66.5 55.2 99.3 111.9 137.3Massachusetts 66.4 61.9 89.2 103.4 200.6

Michigan 65.2 60.5 81.6 75.5 180.3Minnesota 82.3 77.7 191.9 110.6 261.2

Mississippi 80.3 70.3 113.1 194.9 230.9

Missouri 71.7 68.0 90.4 98.5 172.0Montana 71.3 69.0 132.6 90.4 128.2

Nebraska 69.8 67.1 95.6 114.2 259.6Nevada 153.1 141.9 214.4 116.5 343.1

New Hampshire 81.2 79.2 100.2 131.6 201.2New Jersey 65.9 59.0 76.4 106.1 189.1

New Mexico 81.6 77.4 99.6 110.2 188.6

New York 48.1 42.9 55.8 95.7 122.7North Carolina 94.2 89.5 103.9 111.0 312.4

North Dakota 61.7 59.3 90.3 114.9 183.3Ohio 58.5 55.0 80.9 85.3 119.2

Oklahoma 68.2 60.8 90.4 76.8 129.9

Oregon 87.3 82.8 116.5 74.4 182.6Pennsylvania 57.0 53.9 75.0 99.4 155.7

Rhode Island 51.6 48.6 91.1 68.2 119.4South Carolina 81.4 76.3 94.9 165.3 209.8

South Dakota 75.8 73.3 140.0 105.1 225.5

Tennessee 86.5 81.0 114.3 196.9 227.3Texas 99.9 93.9 121.5 201.6 237.1

Utah 111.8 108.7 191.8 139.2 176.7Vermont 70.6 68.8 153.2 182.0 157.1

Virginia 72.6 65.0 96.0 117.5 171.6Washington 93.1 86.1 121.5 75.4 187.8

West Virginia 54.7 53.3 66.9 293.0 69.6

Wisconsin 74.9 71.7 111.9 129.5 216.0Wyoming 71.8 69.4 102.2 112.7 168.3



2

Table 14


American

Area Total White Black Indian Asian


United States 51.8 47.3 58.4 106.9 118.3

Alabama 56.5 53.7 61.5 108.4 159.8Alaska 68.7 65.7 72.2 61.0 126.5

Arizona 68.8 63.1 126.7 100.5 187.3



Delaware 53.2 46.7 69.1 143.5 142.6

District of Columbia 100.9 118.1 57.6 237.1 219.7Florida 63.6 58.9 85.1 111.4 157.4

Georgia 50.9 43.0 68.0 141.5 149.6Hawaii 65.9 63.9 62.3 124.4 57.7

Idaho 63.3 61.9 118.5 91.1 88.4

Illinois 40.3 37.8 34.4 171.3 96.1Indiana 37.7 36.0 40.1 80.2 124.0

Iowa 49.5 48.1 84.3 68.8 98.5Kansas 49.4 47.2 53.2 73.8 119.7


Maine 49.9 49.0 100.7 63.3 124.5



Mississippi 53.4 51.5 56.2 106.2 107.1

Missouri 46.2 44.8 43.0 82.2 128.6Montana 66.2 65.3 38.0 68.9 81.5

Nebraska 53.6 52.0 60.1 103.2 116.3Nevada 63.7 53.3 106.4 94.1 190.3

New Hampshire 45.9 43.8 109.9 80.6 155.9New Jersey 44.3 37.3 50.7 131.3 124.2

New Mexico 71.6 67.6 106.9 104.1 129.6



Oklahoma 64.0 60.6 53.4 90.8 149.7

Oregon 47.3 44.4 66.9 72.9 96.9Pennsylvania 44.9 42.1 49.8 139.2 141.1

Rhode Island 50.8 47.6 89.1 114.5 99.2South Carolina 54.5 54.0 49.2 125.5 136.4

South Dakota 67.2 65.3 158.3 82.7 176.1

Tennessee 52.7 50.8 54.8 85.9 147.2Texas 69.1 63.3 85.2 154.4 163.2

Utah 69.7 68.0 57.9 91.7 125.0Vermont 52.6 51.6 156.8 64.1 101.6

Virginia 66.1 60.1 66.6 123.2 172.5Washington 58.1 52.4 60.9 83.8 132.9

West Virginia 51.3 50.6 58.0 52.4 88.7

Wisconsin 45.1 43.5 49.1 62.4 130.5Wyoming 86.8 85.4 63.1 146.1 204.1



28

Table 15


AmericanArea Total White Black Indian Asian Multiracial


United States 11.7 11.0 12.6 15.5 18.9 22.1

Alabama 9.6 9.1 10.5 12.3 20.7 20.2Alaska 13.1 12.5 17.9 10.9 20.2 18.9

Arizona 12.7 11.9 21.0 12.3 23.0 24.6

Arkansas 12.1 11.7 12.2 18.2 27.1 23.2California 11.9 10.6 11.6 16.8 17.4 21.2

Colorado 12.9 12.5 14.8 14.7 19.1 23.2Connecticut 7.8 7.1 11.1 12.7 18.0 17.7

Delaware 10.6 9.5 12.9 14.9 20.9 21.9

District of Columbia 14.6 17.2 6.4 19.1 23.3 27.8Florida 11.3 10.5 14.3 15.7 21.1 22.6

Georgia 12.0 10.6 14.3 16.7 22.2 25.3Hawaii 14.2 16.3 37.2 35.6 11.3 15.9

Idaho 12.6 12.3 31.5 13.7 19.1 25.2Illinois 7.1 6.6 6.2 14.3 14.0 18.2

Indiana 11.6 11.1 13.2 14.7 23.0 22.2

Iowa 16.2 15.9 24.0 20.0 25.5 28.6Kansas 12.9 12.4 14.5 15.3 21.1 24.1

Kentucky 11.9 11.5 14.1 16.7 22.5 19.7Louisiana 11.2 10.8 11.6 14.4 19.5 22.7

Maine 11.0 10.8 25.4 12.6 21.3 19.5

Maryland 11.6 10.1 13.2 15.0 20.6 23.3Massachusetts 10.2 9.3 14.3 15.5 20.1 21.7

Michigan 9.9 9.5 9.2 12.1 18.7 18.2Minnesota 12.5 11.8 19.9 12.3 22.7 22.7

Mississippi 11.1 10.6 12.1 15.8 21.1 23.9

Missouri 10.2 9.9 10.3 13.6 19.6 18.9Montana 13.9 13.7 45.3 13.3 21.4 25.1

Nebraska 14.2 13.8 16.4 17.3 23.4 27.6

Nevada 9.9 8.3 14.7 10.7 19.9 19.5New Hampshire 9.6 9.1 23.5 15.3 21.7 20.4New Jersey 9.2 7.9 10.0 14.8 18.5 21.0

New Mexico 11.9 11.4 20.6 12.5 19.4 24.4

New York 9.6 8.7 9.8 16.3 16.6 20.6North Carolina 12.7 12.1 13.4 11.7 24.4 25.9

North Dakota 33.2 32.8 56.7 33.6 42.8 44.9Ohio 11.3 10.9 12.1 14.8 20.5 20.9

Oklahoma 15.6 15.1 16.0 16.0 24.5 21.7

Oregon 12.5 12.0 16.9 14.3 19.1 21.8Pennsylvania 10.8 10.2 12.5 16.4 21.7 23.7

Rhode Island 9.2 8.6 14.4 13.0 15.8 21.7South Carolina 12.2 12.1 10.9 14.1 22.5 24.0

South Dakota 17.8 17.4 40.1 17.4 33.6 29.3

Tennessee 12.2 11.8 13.0 14.0 22.6 22.1Texas 16.5 15.6 18.1 21.4 25.2 30.6

Utah 15.2 14.9 21.4 16.0 21.7 26.9Vermont 11.3 11.0 30.0 14.3 21.0 19.0

Virginia 12.2 11.2 12.2 14.8 22.5 24.1Washington 14.1 13.1 17.7 14.5 21.7 22.8

West Virginia 11.2 10.9 15.3 13.7 20.4 19.6

Wisconsin 9.7 9.4 11.5 11.4 19.3 19.3Wyoming 14.3 13.9 32.2 17.4 27.8 22.4



2

Table 16


AmericanArea Total White Black Indian Asian Multiracial


United States 22.4 20.8 24.5 28.3 34.9 46.8

Alabama 22.5 21.5 23.2 27.9 47.8 47.7Alaska 26.7 25.3 24.5 22.6 43.8 45.6

Arizona 27.0 25.2 44.3 21.1 47.3 54.1

Arkansas 25.5 24.6 24.9 30.3 54.7 47.7California 20.0 18.0 17.7 26.6 28.0 40.0

Colorado 22.1 21.3 25.8 26.0 32.0 44.5Connecticut 18.6 16.9 25.0 27.8 39.9 45.0

Delaware 20.5 17.6 26.7 31.2 40.7 53.7

District of Columbia 34.2 39.1 18.5 38.6 40.7 60.4Florida 24.7 23.3 29.2 27.0 42.0 50.5

Georgia 21.5 18.7 25.5 31.4 41.6 54.4Hawaii 29.0 29.7 22.0 31.4 26.6 35.6

Idaho 25.0 24.4 51.0 23.4 38.6 47.1Illinois 16.5 15.4 14.9 33.1 29.5 43.3

Indiana 18.0 16.9 23.1 24.5 41.2 46.9

Iowa 24.1 23.2 43.8 31.9 41.2 57.2Kansas 22.5 21.6 25.0 25.8 37.7 49.0

Kentucky 21.4 20.5 25.0 25.4 42.5 51.2Louisiana 25.5 25.0 25.0 31.1 37.5 56.1

Maine 19.5 18.8 68.4 22.6 35.1 47.6

Maryland 23.7 20.3 27.3 35.7 39.5 55.6Massachusetts 19.5 17.6 30.1 32.3 36.1 45.8

Michigan 11.3 10.5 11.3 14.7 24.7 31.8Minnesota 21.0 19.5 43.1 22.4 36.6 47.2

Mississippi 22.4 21.4 23.9 29.7 37.6 53.3

Missouri 19.6 18.7 21.3 20.5 39.0 42.7Montana 26.7 26.3 46.4 25.0 36.6 49.4

Nebraska 23.9 23.0 32.2 31.5 40.7 55.8

Nevada 24.4 20.6 35.9 19.4 45.7 46.0New Hampshire 18.4 17.3 43.5 18.6 42.2 45.4New Jersey 18.5 15.9 19.1 35.5 35.3 43.6

New Mexico 26.7 26.0 34.2 24.2 39.1 50.1

New York 22.6 20.9 22.4 37.8 35.9 47.2North Carolina 24.3 23.1 24.8 24.7 45.2 62.9

North Dakota 43.2 42.2 90.9 45.6 78.2 76.8Ohio 16.3 15.3 19.9 19.5 33.1 42.7

Oklahoma 28.2 27.1 28.6 29.6 42.5 44.4

Oregon 20.4 19.4 27.8 23.5 31.0 39.8Pennsylvania 20.1 18.5 25.4 37.2 40.8 55.5

Rhode Island 18.3 16.9 31.0 30.2 29.3 48.4South Carolina 23.9 23.8 20.8 29.9 40.6 58.9

South Dakota 31.0 30.0 77.3 31.3 57.2 60.1

Tennessee 22.7 21.8 23.9 30.0 40.6 52.0Texas 31.4 29.8 33.6 37.3 47.5 57.5

Utah 28.9 28.2 50.6 24.5 38.2 55.4Vermont 21.8 21.2 63.3 18.8 40.1 45.5

Virginia 25.6 23.5 25.1 35.0 44.5 55.9Washington 25.7 23.7 32.2 25.1 38.5 46.1

West Virginia 20.7 20.2 25.0 21.5 32.4 51.3

Wisconsin 18.3 17.5 24.7 21.2 32.9 44.9Wyoming 32.7 32.3 41.2 31.8 49.7 53.1



30

Table 17

White Share of Buying Power, for U.S. and the States,

1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018(percent)

Area 1990 2000 2010 2013 2018


United States 89.4 86.7 84.1 83.6 82.5

Alabama 84.8 81.5 80.1 79.7 79.1Alaska 86.1 82.2 80.7 80.3 79.4

Arizona 94.4 92.7 89.6 88.9 87.6



Delaware 87.8 83.1 79.6 78.8 76.9District of Columbia 56.6 60.1 65.2 66.7 69.1

Florida 91.7 88.6 86.1 85.5 84.5

Georgia 82.7 77.6 73.6 72.7 71.0Hawaii 40.0 34.7 34.3 34.9 35.1

Idaho 98.1 96.9 96.1 95.8 95.3Illinois 88.8 86.3 84.7 84.4 83.6

Indiana 93.8 92.0 90.9 90.5 89.6

Iowa 98.1 96.9 96.0 95.7 95.0Kansas 94.7 93.0 91.6 91.2 90.5


Maine 99.0 98.1 97.6 97.4 96.8



Mississippi 79.9 75.5 74.6 74.2 73.6Missouri 91.8 89.8 88.9 88.7 88.0

Montana 96.5 95.2 94.7 94.5 94.2

Nebraska 96.8 95.3 94.3 94.0 93.3

Nevada 92.2 88.1 82.5 81.4 78.9New Hampshire 98.6 97.5 96.1 95.6 94.8New Jersey 88.0 84.3 80.2 79.2 77.5

New Mexico 93.6 91.5 89.3 88.9 88.4



Oklahoma 89.4 85.5 83.8 83.4 82.6

Oregon 96.1 93.7 91.9 91.4 9

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	margaritoreyes
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Multicultural Economy 2013

Documents