Upload
margaritoreyes
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
1/172
THE
ECONOMYMULTICULTURAL2013
Jeffrey M. Humphreys
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
3/172
Part 1
ECONOMY
MULTICULTURAL
1990-201
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
4/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
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).
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
6/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
7/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
8/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
8
The Multicultural Dollar
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
9/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH
T
Hispanic Buying Power
The Multicultural Dollar
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
10/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
11/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH
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.
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
12/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
13/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH
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.
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
14/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
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.
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
15/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH
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
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
16/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
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
HispanicNon-Hispanic
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
17/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH
1
Table 4
U.S. Hispanic Population Statistics,
1990, 2000, 2010, 2013, and 2018
Population 1990 2000 2010 2013 2018
Total
HispanicNon-Hispanic
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
HispanicNon-Hispanic
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
18/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
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)
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
19/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH
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
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
20/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
20
Table 7
Black 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
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
21/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH
2
Table 8
American Indian 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
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
22/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
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
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
23/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH
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
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
24/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
24
Table 11
Hispanic 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
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
Virginia 2,167 5,801 15,936 19,807 30,094Washington 2,022 5,968 14,151 17,527 25,504
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
25/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH
2
Table 12
Non-Hispanic 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
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
Virginia 108,089 184,456 300,065 334,648 415,207Washington 83,529 159,257 247,009 280,337 348,770
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
26/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
26
Table 13
Percentage Change in Buying Power by Race, 1990-2000
AmericanArea Total White Black Indian Asian
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
27/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH
2
Table 14
Percentage Change in Buying Power by Race, 2000-2010
American
Area Total White Black Indian Asian
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
Arkansas 62.5 60.3 64.7 99.7 199.3California 47.8 38.5 53.2 134.5 106.7
Colorado 53.4 51.2 54.2 90.8 110.0Connecticut 47.9 43.9 68.3 110.5 132.5
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
Kentucky 46.6 45.2 49.7 82.6 128.9Louisiana 65.7 63.6 67.1 112.6 141.2
Maine 49.9 49.0 100.7 63.3 124.5
Maryland 60.6 51.0 75.0 135.0 143.2Massachusetts 49.8 45.2 71.7 142.8 137.4
Michigan 22.9 22.1 15.2 44.0 79.3Minnesota 47.4 44.3 86.4 45.8 137.3
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
New York 51.7 47.2 51.7 187.3 107.5North Carolina 53.7 50.3 58.0 68.6 161.0
North Dakota 76.9 75.7 152.7 94.1 105.0Ohio 33.6 32.2 32.7 60.6 99.5
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
28/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
28
Table 15
Percentage Change in Buying Power by Race, 2000-2013
AmericanArea Total White Black Indian Asian Multiracial
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
29/172 SELIGCENTERFORECONOMICGROWTH
2
Table 16
Percentage Change in Buying Power by Race, 2013-2018
AmericanArea Total White Black Indian Asian Multiracial
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
8/11/2019 Multicultural Economy 2013
30/172THEMULTICULTURALECONOM
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
Source: Selig Center for Economic Growth, Terry College of Business, The University of Georgia, June 2013.
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
Arkansas 90.3 88.1 86.9 86.6 86.0California 86.6 83.1 77.9 77.0 75.7
Colorado 95.2 93.5 92.2 91.9 91.3Connecticut 93.6 91.3 88.8 88.1 86.8
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
Kentucky 94.5 92.9 92.1 91.7 91.1Louisiana 82.2 78.1 77.1 76.8 76.5
Maine 99.0 98.1 97.6 97.4 96.8
Maryland 79.6 74.2 69.7 68.8 66.9Massachusetts 94.7 92.1 89.3 88.6 87.2
Michigan 89.3 86.8 86.2 85.9 85.3Minnesota 97.1 94.6 92.6 92.1 90.9
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
New York 85.8 82.8 80.3 79.7 78.6North Carolina 84.9 82.9 81.0 80.6 79.8
North Dakota 97.5 96.0 95.4 95.1 94.5Ohio 91.9 89.9 89.0 88.6 87.9
Oklahoma 89.4 85.5 83.8 83.4 82.6
Oregon 96.1 93.7 91.9 91.4 9