Income inequality, a measure of the economic gap between the rich and poor, has risen steadily in the United States since the 1970s. More recently, the issue burst into public consciousness with the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011 and subsequent calls for a $15 minimum wage. An important part of the story of rising income inequality is that experiences within America’s racial and ethnic communities vary strikingly from one group to the other.

Today, income inequality in the U.S. is greatest among Asians. From 1970 to 2016, the gap in the standard of living between Asians near the top and the bottom of the income ladder nearly doubled, and the distribution of income among Asians transformed from being one of the most equal to being the most unequal among America’s major racial and ethnic groups.

In this process, Asians displaced blacks as the most economically divided racial or ethnic group in the U.S., according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of government data. While Asians overall rank as the highest earning racial and ethnic group in the U.S., it is not a status shared by all Asians: From 1970 to 2016, the gains in income for lower-income Asians trailed well behind the gains for their counterparts in other groups.

An increase in income inequality matters because of the potential for social and economic consequences. People at the lower rungs of the income ladder may experience diminished economic opportunity and mobility and have less political influence. Researchers have also linked growing inequality to greater geographic segregation by income. In addition, there is evidence that rising inequality may harm overall economic growth by reducing consumption levels, causing excessive borrowing by lower- to middle-income families, or limiting investment in education.

The income gap between Americans at the top and the bottom of the income distribution widened 27% from 1970 to 2016. Among all Americans, those near the top of the income ladder had 8.7 times as much income as those near the bottom in 2016, $109,578 compared with $12,523. In 1970, Americans near the top had 6.9 times as much income as those near the bottom, $63,512 compared with $9,212. (All income estimates are adjusted for household size and expressed in 2016 dollars.)

This measure of inequality, known as the 90/10 ratio, takes the ratio of the income needed to place among the top 10% of earners in the U.S. (the 90th percentile) to the income at the threshold of the bottom 10% of earners (the 10th percentile).¹ It is a simple measure of the gap in income between the top and the bottom of the income ladder and is commonly used by researchers and government agencies. (See text box for more on measuring inequality.)

The 90/10 ratio varies widely by race and ethnicity. In 2016, Asians at the 90th percentile of their income distribution had 10.7 times the income of Asians at the 10th percentile. The 90/10 ratio among Asians was notably greater than the ratio among blacks (9.8), whites (7.8) and Hispanics (7.8).

This pattern of inequality across groups represents a significant shift from the past. In 1970, the 90/10 ratio among Asians was 6.1, about as low as among whites (6.3). But the top-to-bottom gap in income among Asians increased 77% from 1970 to 2016, a far greater increase than among whites (24%), Hispanics (15%) or blacks (7%).² This marked difference in the growth in inequality reflects the fact that Asians near the top experienced more growth in income from 1970 to 2016 than any other group while Asians near the bottom experienced the least growth.

The Asian experience with inequality is partly driven by immigration.³ Immigrants accounted for 81% of the growth in the Asian adult population from 1970 to 2016, and the foreign-born share among Asians increased from 45% to 78% in this period.⁴ The surge in Asian immigration followed the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965, which favored family reunification, and the end to the war in Vietnam in 1975, which brought in a wave of refugees. One result was that the share of new Asian immigrants working in high-skill occupations decreased from 1970 to 1990, and the share working in low-skill occupations increased.⁵

More recently, the Immigration Act of 1990 sought to increase the inflow of skilled immigrants. Coinciding with a boom in the technology sector, a new wave of Asian immigrants, many from India, followed under the auspices of the H-1B visa program. Thus, since 1990, there has been an increase in the share of Asian immigrants employed in high-skill occupations.

Education levels and incomes vary widely among Asians living in the U.S. In 2015, the share with at least a bachelor’s degree, among adults ages 25 and older, ranged from 72% among Indians to 9% among Bhutanese, median household income varied from $100,000 among Indians to $36,000 among Burmese, and poverty rates ranged as high as 35% among the Burmese and 33% among the Bhutanese.⁶ This diversity in their origins and experiences is reflected in the relatively high level of income inequality among Asians.

These are among the key findings from a new Pew Research Center analysis of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau in conjunction with decennial census data. The period of analysis is 1970 to 2016, from the decade marking the rise in inequality in modern times to the latest available data. The sample for the analysis is the U.S. adult, civilian household population, with some omissions.⁷

The focus of this report is on income inequality within the major racial and ethnic communities in the U.S., and on the gaps in income across people in these groups at the bottom, middle and upper points of the income distribution. Income inequality is measured using the 90/10 income ratio and the Gini coefficient (see text box). The term “income” in this report refers to what is afforded a person by the combined resources of his or her household, whether the person had personal earnings or not. Thus, people’s incomes are represented by their household’s income adjusted for household size.⁸ All members of a household have the same income, or standard of living.⁹

The standard of living of lower-income Asians stagnated from 1970 to 2016

As evidenced by the rise in inequality from 1970 to 2016, higher-income adults in the U.S. experienced more of an increase in income than lower-income adults within all racial and ethnic groups, and this disparity was most pronounced among Asians.

The income of higher-income Asians – those at the 90th percentile – nearly doubled from 1970 to 2016, rising 96%. Asians at the median-income level (50th percentile) experienced a 54% increase in income. But the income of Asians at the 10th percentile increased only 11% over this period.

Thus, inequality among Asians increased overall as those at the top of the income ladder pulled away from those at the middle and bottom, and Asians at the middle also pulled away from those near the bottom. Moreover, the gains for lower-income Asians lagged behind the gains for lower-income blacks (67%), whites (45%) and Hispanics (37%).

Whites, blacks and Hispanics at the 90th percentile also experienced relatively large gains in income (80%, 79% and 58% respectively). These improvements in the standard of living were greater than the gains at the median: 52% for whites, 66% for blacks and 36% for Hispanics. Lower-income whites, blacks and Hispanics, while losing ground to those at the top, mostly kept pace with those at the middle of their income distributions.

The trends in income growth also show that blacks made some progress in closing the gap with whites. Blacks at the median and at the 10th percentile experienced more of an increase in income than similarly situated whites, and blacks at the 90th percentile kept pace with whites.¹⁰ Hispanics experienced smaller increases in income than whites at all percentiles, however. Thus, lower-, middle- and upper-income Hispanics all lost ground to their white counterparts from 1970 to 2016.

As it has with Asians, immigration has been an important part of the Hispanic experience in recent decades. In 2016, 47% of adult Hispanics were foreign born, up from 34% in 1970. The inflow of immigrants accounted for 50% of the total increase in the Hispanic adult population from 1970 to 2016 and was tilted to the lower ends of the income distribution.¹¹ In 2015, 47% of foreign-born Hispanics 25 and older had not graduated from high school, compared with 13% of Americans overall of this age. The influx of lower-skill, lower-income immigrants likely exerted a drag on the measured growth in income for Hispanics.

The majority of Asians have a higher standard of living than other groups, but some lag behind

Differences in income within racial and ethnic groups are not the only sources of inequality in the U.S., of course. The gaps in the standard of living across whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asians are also sizable and longstanding. These gaps are usually measured through differences in the mean or median incomes of groups.¹² However, the sizes of the gaps are different at different tiers of the income ladder.

In 2016, Asians at the middle of their income distribution earned more than white, black or Hispanic adults at the middle of their income distributions. The median annual income for Asian adults was $51,288, compared with $47,958 for whites, $31,082 for blacks and $30,400 for Hispanics (incomes are adjusted for household size and expressed in 2016 dollars).

Asians also held the edge in standard of living over other groups at the top of the income distribution. The income of Asians at the 90th percentile was 13% higher than the income of whites at the 90th percentile in 2016, $133,529 versus $117,986. Upper-income blacks ($80,502) and Hispanics ($76,847) had a similar standard of living in 2016, and both were outdistanced by Asians and whites by a wide margin.

In contrast, lower-income Asians lagged behind lower-income whites. Asians at the 10th percentile of their income distribution lived on $12,478 in 2016, 17% less than the income of whites at the 10th percentile ($15,094). Lower-income blacks and Hispanics trailed by even more, with incomes of $8,201 and $9,900, respectively.

Income inequality and income gaps: Two windows into the well-being of racial and ethnic groups

The state of income inequality within racial and ethnic groups and the gaps in incomes across them provide complementary, yet distinct, insights into the well-being of these groups of Americans.¹³ The fact that inequality increased within each racial and ethnic group shows that no community was immune to the factors said to have raised U.S. inequality since 1970. These factors include technological change, globalization, the decline of unions and the eroding value of the minimum wage.

At the same time, the drivers of income inequality appear to have had a disproportionate impact on some racial and ethnic groups, as evidenced by the differences in the level of inequality and the degree to which it increased for each group. That could be because of differences in the characteristics of workers, such as educational attainment (greater among Asians and whites) and the share foreign born (greater among Asians and Hispanics). Also, larger societal forces may have affected some groups more than others, such as the disparately high rate of incarceration among black men (see text box).

The aforementioned differences in worker characteristics also contribute to the gaps in incomes across racial and ethnic groups. In addition, the historical legacy and current impact of discrimination are considered to be important factors in these gaps. Some scholars hold the view that discrimination not only distorts the hiring practices of employers but also contributes to gaps in skills across groups, disadvantaging racial minorities prior to their entry into the labor market.

It is worth noting that overall income inequality in the U.S. would persist even if the gaps in income across racial and ethnic groups were eliminated. For example, suppose that blacks, Hispanics and Asians had the same income distribution as whites. In that case, everyone at any given rung of the income ladder – lower, middle or upper – would have the same income regardless of race or ethnicity. However, the 90/10 ratio for the U.S. would fall only from 8.7, its actual level, to 7.8, the level that currently prevails among whites.¹⁴

Conversely, easing income inequality within racial and ethnic groups may have little impact on the gaps across groups. Suppose that incomes at the lower rungs of the ladder are raised 10% and incomes at the top are reduced 10%. This would reduce inequality overall and within each group, but the gaps in income across groups would be unchanged.

Inequality in the U.S. is higher than in other advanced economies

The level of inequality in the U.S., and the fact that it is comparable with the levels that existed in the 1920s by at least one measure, is of concern to many. Then-Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen remarked in 2014, “The extent of and continuing increase in inequality in the United States greatly concern me.” But others are more sanguine, arguing that the trends in U.S. inequality do not constrain opportunities for those at the bottom of the income distribution.

In the midst of this debate, it is worth noting that income inequality in the U.S. is higher than among other advanced economies and has also increased more rapidly in recent decades. Cross-national comparisons of income inequality are often based on the Gini coefficient, a widely used measure of inequality (see text box). The Gini coefficient in the U.S. stood at 0.435 in 2016 (based on gross income and on a scale of 0 to 1), according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).¹⁵ This was the highest of any of the G-7 countries, which ranged from 0.330 in France to 0.388 in the UK.

Indeed, OECD estimates show that the Gini coefficient for the U.S. is closer to the Gini for India (0.495) than to most of the G-7 countries. The level of inequality in the U.S. is also higher than the level of inequality in other OCED countries, with the exceptions of Chile, Mexico and Turkey.¹⁶ Globally, inequality is highest in countries in southern Africa (Gini coefficients of about 0.6) and lowest in eastern Europe and parts of northern Europe (Gini coefficients of about 0.25), according to World Bank estimates.

From 1970 to 2016, income growth skews to the top, more so among Asians

Among Americans overall, those at the 90th percentile of the income distribution earned $109,578 in 2016. That compared with $43,049 at the median (the 50th percentile) and $12,523 at the 10th percentile. The income at the 90th percentile in 2016 was 73% higher than in 1970, compared with an increase of 44% in the median income and an increase of 36% in the income at the 10th percentile. (Incomes are adjusted for household size and expressed in 2016 dollars.)

The pattern observed nationally is also present among whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asians, but to varying degrees. Whites at the 90th percentile of their income distribution earned $117,986 in 2016. Meanwhile, the median income for whites was $47,958 and their income at the 10th percentile was $15,094. From 1970 to 2016, the 90th percentile income for whites increased 80%, notably greater than the increase of 52% at the median and an increase of 45% at the 10th percentile.

Changes in income at the various points of the income distribution were somewhat more balanced among blacks. For blacks, the income at the 90th percentile was $80,502 in 2016, compared with $31,082 at the median and $8,201 at the 10th percentile. Compared with 1970, these income levels represented an increase of 79% at the 90th percentile, 66% at the median, and 67% at the 10th percentile.

Income growth for Hispanics lagged behind the growth for other racial and ethnic groups at most points of the income distribution. In 2016, Hispanics at the 90th percentile earned $76,847, some 58% more than in 1970. The income of Hispanics at the median stood at $30,400 in 2016, up 36% from 1970. Meanwhile, Hispanics at the 10th percentile earned $9,900 in 2016, 37% higher than in 1970. These gains in income were less than the gains for other groups at the three points of the income distribution, except for Asians at the 10th percentile.

The Asian experience is distinguished by sharp differences in the growth in incomes across the distribution. In 2016, incomes for Asians ranged from $12,478 at the 10th percentile to $133,529 at the 90th percentile, with a median of $51,288. The income at the 90th percentile of the Asian income distribution in 2016 was roughly double the income at that percentile in 1970, rising 96% over the period. That stood in sharp contrast with the growth at the median (54%) and at the 10th percentile (only 11%).

Income growth slowed for all from 2000 to 2016, but income inequality continued to rise

A hallmark of income growth in the U.S. this century is the marked slowdown that ensued with the economic recession in 2001 and the Great Recession of 2007-09. This slowdown affected people in all racial and ethnic groups and at all rungs of the income ladder.

Nationally, the income at the 90th percentile increased 65% from 1970 to 2000, but it increased only 4% from 2000 to 2016. Likewise, the median income in the U.S. increased 47% from 1970 to 2000, compared with a decrease of 2% from 2000 to 2016. At the 10th percentile, an increase of 53% from 1970 to 2000 was followed by a decrease of 11% this century.

The two periods are of different durations, of course. But the decrease in total growth at any percentile is well in excess of what the difference in years might explain. For example, the average annual rate of growth at the 90th percentile was 1.7% from 1970 to 2000 and fell to 0.3% from 2000 to 2016.¹⁷

The trend observed nationally repeated within each racial and ethnic group. Among Asians, for instance, the income at the 90th percentile increased 16% from 2000 to 2016, compared with 69% from 1970 to 2000; the median income increased 7% this century, compared with 44% from 1970 to 2000; and the income at the 10th percentile decreased 3% from 2000 to 2016, compared with an increase of 14% in the earlier period.

The slowdown in income growth this century did not alter the general trajectory toward a rise in income inequality, however. Those at the top of the economic ladder fared better than those at the bottom through the economic slowdowns this century. The one exception was among blacks, with those at the 10th percentile experiencing slightly higher growth in income from 2000 to 2016 than those at the 90th percentile, 4% compared with 1%.

Following a rapid increase from 1970 to 2016, income inequality is highest among Asians

Asians are the highest-earning racial and ethnic group in the U.S., on average.¹⁸ However, their overall prosperity conceals a wide and rapidly growing economic divide between higher- and lower-income Asians. As noted, Asians at the 90th percentile had an income of $133,529 in 2016, compared with $12,478 for those at the 10th percentile. Thus, in 2016, the ratio of these two incomes – the 90/10 ratio – stood at 10.7 for Asians.

The level of income inequality among Asians was greater than among other racial and ethnic communities in 2016. Income inequality among blacks was the second highest – with a 90/10 ratio of 9.8 – followed by whites and Hispanics, each with a 90/10 ratio of 7.8. Nationally, the 90/10 ratio in 2016 is estimated to be 8.7.¹⁹

The pattern of inequality revealed by the 90/10 ratio is mirrored in the Gini coefficient. The Gini coefficient takes a value from 0 to 1, by construction. A value of 0 indicates a state of perfect equality, with everyone holding an equal share of aggregate income. A value of 1 implies that all income created in the economy is in the hands of one person, a state of absolute inequality. In essence, the estimated value of the Gini coefficient measures the deviation from perfect equality. (See the text box on measuring inequality.)

Looking within racial and ethnic groups in 2016, the Gini coefficient for the distribution of income among Asians was 0.451, followed by blacks (0.446), whites (0.428) and Hispanics (0.425).²⁰ Thus, as also revealed by the 90/10 ratios, Asians and blacks are more economically divided than whites and Hispanics and, in this respect, there is a meaningful degree of separation between these two pairs of racial and ethnic groups.²¹

Asians have not always experienced the highest level of income inequality, however. In 1970, the 90/10 ratio among Asians was 6.1, similar to the ratio of 6.3 for whites and lower than among Hispanics and blacks. But inequality among Asians increased every decade since 1970, propelling the 90/10 ratio for them to 10.7 in 2016, an increase of 77%.

Blacks experienced the highest level of income inequality in 1970, and through most of the period examined. In 1970, the 90/10 ratio for blacks stood at 9.1, well above the ratios for the other groups. But after peaking around 10 in 1990, the 90/10 ratio for blacks edged down to 9.8 in 2016. Over the period from 1970 to 2016, income inequality among blacks increased only 7% by this measure. That was the smallest increase in inequality among the major racial and ethnic groups.

The increase in inequality among whites and Hispanics was greater than among blacks. For whites, the 90/10 ratio increased from 6.3 in 1970 to 7.8 in 2016, a 24% increase. The 90/10 ratio for Hispanics increased from 6.7 in 1970 to 7.8 in 2016 (15%). Despite the increase, whites and Hispanics had the lowest levels of income inequality in 2016.

Changes in the Gini coefficient show the same pattern of change in income inequality.²² Among Asians, the Gini coefficient increased from 0.353 in 1970, the lowest at the time, to 0.451 in 2016, the highest of all groups. A key difference is that the increase in the Gini coefficient for Asians is less than the increase in the 90/10 ratio, 28% compared with 77%.

Nonetheless, the increase in the Gini coefficient for Asians was notably greater than the increase for other racial and ethnic groups. The Gini coefficient for whites increased 19%, from 0.361 in 1970 to 0.428 in 2016, followed by an increase of 14% for Hispanics, from 0.373 to 0.425, and an increase of 10% for blacks, from 0.406 to 0.446. These percentage changes are similar to the changes in the 90/10 ratios for these groups.

Immigration looms large in defining the Asian experience

Asians are America’s fastest growing major racial and ethnic population. The Asian adult civilian household population in the U.S. increased fourteenfold from 1970 to 2016, compared with an eightfold increase in the Hispanic population, the second-fastest growing group. The overall adult civilian household population roughly doubled from 1970 to 2016.²³

The increase in the Asian population is fueled by immigration. From 1970 to 2016, immigrants accounted for 81% of the increase in the Asian adult population, and the immigrant share in the Asian population increased to 78% in 2016, from 45% in 1970.²⁴ The change in the economic profile of the Asian population in recent decades reflects the immigrant experience to a large degree.

Overall, Asian immigrants have higher levels of education than native-born Americans. In 2015, 29% of immigrants from South and East Asia,²⁵ ages 25 and older, held a bachelor’s degree, compared with 19% of native-born Americans this age. Another 23% of these immigrants had an advanced college degree, about double the rate among native-born Americans (11%).

As a result, many Asian immigrants are settling in at the top of the income distribution and likely stretching its boundaries into higher reaches. As of 2016, the foreign-born population among the top 10% of earners in the Asian income distribution had increased to 26 times what it was in 1970, compared with a nineteenfold increase in the overall Asian foreign-born population in the U.S.²⁶

At the same time, the Asian immigrant population includes many with lower levels of education and income. From 1970 to 2016, the foreign-born population among the bottom 10% of earners in the Asian income distribution increased seventeenfold. This change is not as sharp as the change at the top of the income distribution but is of notable magnitude nonetheless.

In 2015, some 15% of immigrants from South and East Asia lacked a high school diploma, compared with 9% of native-born Americans. Meanwhile, poverty rates were as high as 35% among Burmese, 33% among Bhutanese, and 28% among Hmong and Malaysians, compared with 15.1% in the U.S. overall.²⁷ The wide diversity in the education and income profiles of Asian origin groups is reflected in the relatively wide gap in their income distribution.

The growth in income inequality among Asians also reflects shifting trends in immigration to a degree. In recent decades, Asian immigration was first driven by the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965 and the end to the war in Vietnam in 1975. These events brought in a wave of refugees and other immigrants under the family reunification program. As a result, the share of new Asian immigrants working in low-skill occupations increased from 1970 to 1990. A second wave of Asian immigration followed the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990. This act, in concert with a boom in the technology sector, led to a new wave of higher-skilled Asian immigrants under the H-1B visa program.

Income gaps across racial and ethnic groups persist and, in some cases, are wider than in 1970

America’s major racial and ethnic groups are divided into two distinct income brackets. Whites and Asians are in the bracket at the top and blacks and Hispanics, with incomes largely comparable with each other, are in the bracket below. The gaps between the two brackets are sizable and the shifts since 1970, with few exceptions, have been modest.

Whites and Asians out-earn blacks and Hispanics at all rungs of the income ladder

In 2016, Asians earned more than other groups at the middle and near the top of the income distribution. Asians at the 90th percentile of their distribution had an income of $133,529, considerably higher than the incomes of 90th percentile whites ($117,986), blacks ($80,502) and Hispanics ($76,847). (Incomes are adjusted for household size and expressed in 2016 dollars.)

The same ranking by income exists at the median (50th percentile). The median income of Asians in 2016 – $51,288 – was higher than the median income of whites ($47,958) and considerably greater than that of blacks ($31,082) and Hispanics ($30,400).

Asians did not hold the same edge over all other groups at the lower rungs, however. Asians at the 10th percentile of their income distribution had an income of $12,478 in 2016, trailing whites, who had an income of $15,094 at the 10th percentile. Hispanics ($9,900) earned more than blacks ($8,201) at the lower end of the income distribution.

Hispanics and blacks switched positions near the top of the income ladder from 1970 to 2016. In 1970, the 90th percentile income of Hispanics ($48,719) was greater than the 90th percentile income of blacks ($44,960). In 2016, blacks at the 90th percentile ($80,502) earned more than Hispanics at the 90th percentile ($76,847).

At the median, Hispanics earned more than blacks in 1970, $22,396 compared with $18,719. But this gap eroded over time, and by 2016 the median incomes of Hispanics ($30,400) and blacks ($31,082) were similar. The influx of Hispanic immigrants in recent decades, many with less education, likely played a role in shaping these trends (see below).²⁸

Another notable change from 1970 is in the relative standing of lower-income Asians. In 1970, the 10th percentile income for Asians ($11,270) was similar to the 10th percentile incomes for whites ($10,440). But the income of Asians at this percentile increased just 11% from 1970 to 2016. As a result, whites had the highest income at the 10th percentile in 2016, and lower-income blacks and Hispanics narrowed the gap with lower-income Asians in recent decades.

Blacks inch closer to whites in earnings, Hispanics fall behind more, and Asians see mixed results

From 1970 to 2016, higher-income Asians moved further out in front of higher-income whites, but lower-income Asians did not keep pace. At the 90th percentile, Asians earned 4% more than whites in 1970, and this gap stretched to 13% in 2016. At the 10th percentile, Asians earned 8% more than whites in 1970, but in 2016, they earned 17% less, a considerable turnaround.

The gaps in income between whites and blacks are large, but they narrowed slightly from 1970 to 2016. In 1970, blacks at the 90th percentile of their distribution earned 68% as much as whites at the 90th percentile of their distribution. Nearly five decades later, this gap was unchanged in 2016. However, at the median, blacks earned 65% as much as whites in 2016, up from 59% in 1970. Similarly, lower-income blacks narrowed the gap from 47% in 1970 to 54% in 2016.

While the gap between blacks and whites closed a bit from 1970 to 2016, Hispanics fell even further behind, whether at the 10th percentile, the median or the 90th percentile. Near the top, Hispanics earned 65% as much as whites in 2016 compared with 74% in 1970. Near the bottom, the income of Hispanics slipped from 69% of the income of whites in 1970 to 66% in 2016.

Gaps in income across the entirety of the income distribution

A closer look at the gap between whites and other groups across the income distribution reveals the diversity of experiences from 1970 to 2016. The majority of Asians, especially those at the lower rungs of the income ladder, ceded ground to whites from 1970 to 2000, but all experienced a rebound to some extent this century. Hispanics, regardless of where they were in the income distribution, fell behind from 1970 to 2000, but lower-income Hispanics recovered some ground from 2000 to 2016. Among blacks, some of the gains from 1970 to 2000 were erased since 2000.

In 1970, Asians, as long as they were situated above the 5th percentile of their income distribution, had incomes equal to or greater than the incomes of whites. Asians at the 5th percentile earned 96% as much as whites at the 5th percentile in 1970, but Asians at other points of their income distribution earned about as much as or more than whites (income ratios equal to or greater than the parity level of 100).

However, from 1970 to 2000, incomes in the bottom half of the Asian income distribution did not grow at the same rate as incomes in the bottom half of the white income distribution. In 2000, Asians at the 5th percentile earned only 63% as much as whites at the 5th percentile, compared with 96% as much in 1970. At the 25th percentile, the income of Asians as a proportion of the income of whites fell to 92% in 2000, from 104% in 1970. Indeed, the incomes of about half the Asian adult population – those with incomes less than the median (the 50th percentile) – were less than the incomes of whites in 2000. Asians with incomes above the median still out-earned whites in 2000, but often by smaller margins than in 1970.

Since 2000, Asians gained on whites all across the distribution, reversing the trend from 1970 to 2000. In 2016, Asians at the 5th percentile earned 73% as much as whites, up from 63% in 2000. Also, Asians at the 95th percentile earned 109% as much as whites, compared with 98% in 2000. About one-in-four Asians, those at the 25th percentile of income and below, earned less than whites at similar points in the income distribution in 2016, however.

As noted, the ebb and flow in the economic status of Asians, compared with whites, is perhaps related to the ebb and flow in the skill characteristics of Asian immigrants. Asians who came to the U.S. as part of the wave spurred by the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965 and the end of the war in Vietnam in 1975 were relatively low-skilled, but a second wave driven by the technology boom in the 1990s and the H1-B visa program brought relatively high-skilled workers.

Most blacks, with the exception of those at the 95th percentile, saw gains relative to whites from 1970 to 2016. But there were two distinct episodes in this period, with gains from 1970 to 2000 followed by setbacks from 2000 to 2016. For example, the median income of blacks increased from 59% as much as the median income of whites in 1970 to 69% as much in 2000. But the median for blacks decreased to 65% of the median for whites in 2016. A similar regression describes the experience of most blacks with incomes above the 25th percentile of the income distribution from 1970 to 2016.

The reversal for blacks this century may reflect the impact of the Great Recession of 2007-09. Although no group was immune to the effects of the recession, the unemployment rate for blacks spiked to a high of 16.8% in March 2010, meaning one-in-six blacks in the workforce did not have a job. Also, the employment of blacks dipped below its potential (what it might have been absent a recession) more so than among whites during the Great Recession.

It is worth noting that the economic downturns this century came on the heels of a record-long expansion in the 1990s that yielded noticeable benefits for blacks. The unemployment rate for blacks dropped to a then-historic low of 7% in April 2000, narrowing the gap in unemployment with respect to whites. Meanwhile, the median household income for blacks, as reported by the Census Bureau, increased by 24% from 1990 to 2000, compared with a gain of 12% for whites.

For Hispanics, incomes sagged in comparison with whites at all points of the distribution from 1970 to 2000. The slippage was almost uniformly high across the distribution, near 10 percentage points whether at the 5th percentile, the median or the 95th percentile. There was little change from 2000 to 2016, with the notable exception of gains for lower-income Hispanics. While they continue to earn much less than their white counterparts, Hispanics at the lowest percentiles of the income distribution experienced an improvement in their relative position from 2000 to 2016.

Immigration helped shape the Hispanic experience from 1970 to 2016

The regression in the economic status of Hispanics relative to whites may be driven by the characteristics of immigrants in recent decades. Immigration accounted for 50% of the total increase in the Hispanic adult population from 1970 to 2016, and the share of the Hispanic population that is foreign born increased from 34% to 47% during the period.²⁹

The Hispanic immigrant population tilts to the lower end of the income and skill distribution, however. In 2015, 47% of foreign-born Hispanics 25 and older had not graduated from high school, compared with 13% of Americans overall. Also, only 11% of Hispanic immigrants had attained at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with 31% of Americans overall.

The result is that Hispanic immigrants streamed into the lower rungs of the income ladder at a faster rate than into the higher rungs. From 1970 to 2016, the foreign-born population among the bottom 10% of earners in the Hispanic income distribution increased tenfold, compared with a fivefold increase in the foreign-born population among the top 10% of earners.³⁰

Another characteristic of the Hispanic foreign-born population is the sharp rise in the number of unauthorized immigrants in recent decades. From 1990 to 2015, the Hispanic foreign-born population (all ages) increased from 7.8 million to 19.4 million, by 11.6 million. Meanwhile, from 1990 to 2014, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. who arrived from Latin America increased from an estimated 3.0 million to 8.6 million, by 5.6 million.³¹ Thus, unauthorized migration accounts for almost half of the increase in the Hispanic foreign-born population since 1990.

The increase in the unauthorized immigrant population from Latin America leveled off in 2007, however. In 2007, there were 9.8 million unauthorized immigrants from Latin America in the U.S., compared with 8.6 million in 2014, the latest available estimate. The decrease in new arrivals meant that unauthorized immigrants increasingly are likely to have been in the U.S. for 10 years or more – 66% in 2014, compared with 41% in 2005.³²

The rapid rise and more recent leveling off of the unauthorized immigrant population may explain some of the change in the economic status of Hispanics relative to whites. Because the earnings of unauthorized immigrants are much lower than average, their initial influx likely dampened the earnings potential of Hispanics, which explains at least some of the widening of the income gap with whites since 1970. More recently, unauthorized immigrants are a declining share of the Hispanic population, and those who remain are longer tenured in the U.S., likely with higher potential earnings. That could help explain some of the improvement in the economic status of lower-income Hispanics relative to whites since 2000.

This report is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals. Find related reports online at www.pewresearch.org/pewresearch-org/social-trends

Rakesh Kochhar, Senior Researcher Anthony Cilluffo, Research Assistant Kim Parker, Director, Social Trends Research Juliana Horowitz, Associate Director, Research Nikki Graf, Research Associate Anna Brown, Research Analyst Richard Fry, Senior Economist Claudia Deane, Vice President, Research Andrew Mercer, Senior Research Methodologist Molly Rohal, Communications Manager Jessica Pumphrey, Communications Associate David Kent, Copy Editor Michael Keegan, Information Graphics Designer Travis Mitchell, Digital Producer

 

Data sources

The data in this report are derived from the decennial census and the American Community Survey (ACS), both conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The decennial census (long form) is the source for the data for 1970 (1% Metro forms 1 and 2 sample), 1980 (5% state sample), 1990 (5% state sample) and 2000 (5% sample). The ACS (1-year sample) is the source for the 2010 and 2016 data.

The combined forms 1 and 2 samples of the 1970 decennial census have about 4 million observations. The 1980, 1990 and 2000 decennial census samples each have more than 11 million observations. The 2010 and 2016 1-year ACS files each have about 3 million observations.

The specific versions of the data used in this report are the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) provided by the University of Minnesota.³³ The IPUMS assigns uniform codes, to the extent possible, to data collected over the years. More information about the IPUMS, including variable definitions and sampling error, is available at https://usa.ipums.org/.

Changes in data collection methods, revisions to survey questions and other factors may affect the comparability of demographic and income data over time. For example, changes to income codes or to the components of income that are measured (see below) may have an impact on estimates of changes in the Gini coefficient over time. The key issue for this analysis is whether there is a differential impact by race and ethnicity.

Timing of data collection

Decennial censuses are conducted in April of the census year and ask about income received in the preceding calendar year. For example, the 2000 decennial census asks about income received during 1999.

Unlike the decennial census, the ACS is conducted year-round. Respondents are asked to report their income received in the 12 months before the survey date. For example, a respondent completing the ACS questionnaire on Jan. 15, 2010, is expected to report income received from Jan. 15, 2009, to Jan. 15, 2010, while a respondent completing the questionnaire on Dec. 15, 2010, would report income received from Dec. 15, 2009, to Dec. 15, 2010. Thus, in principle, the 2010 ACS includes income data from a total of 24 months, from January 2009 to December 2010.

Income data for 1969 (1970 census), 1979 (1980 census), 1989 (1990 census) and 1999 (2000 census) refer to years close to the peak of business cycles (as dated by the National Bureau of Economic Research). Income data from the 2010 ACS represent a period (January 2009 to December 2010) that overlaps with the Great Recession (December 2007 to June 2009). Thus, data from the 2010 ACS reflect the effects of the recession on household incomes. The income data from the 2016 ACS (spanning January 2015 to December 2016) were collected several years into an economic expansion.

Race and ethnicity

Where mentioned, whites, blacks and Asians include non-Hispanics only; Asians include Pacific Islanders; and Hispanics are of any race. In 1970, 1980 and 1990, respondents had the option of reporting a single race only. In a revision in 2000, respondents were given the option of selecting one or more race categories to indicate their racial identifications. In this analysis, data for whites, blacks and Asians in 2000, 2010 and 2016 include single-race, non-Hispanics only.

In 2000, some 2.4% of the U.S. population chose to identify with two or more races. The share inched up to 2.9% in 2010. Another notable change in 2000 was the introduction of the “some other race” category. Those who identify multiple races in 2000, 2010 and 2016 and other racial and ethnic groups are included in all totals but are not shown separately.

Other revisions to the race and Hispanic origin questions may also affect the comparability of data over time. A key issue regarding Hispanic origin is that the identification in 1970 is not based on the question asked in the 1970 decennial census (Form 1). This is because of the cautions reported by the Census Bureau regarding the comparability of the 1970 Hispanic origin question with later years (see page B-13 of the linked report). In this analysis, Hispanic origin for 1970 is as imputed by IPUMS.

People are assigned to a racial or ethnic group based on their personal identification, not the identification of the head of the household. In 2016, about 98% of whites, 95% of blacks, 90% of Hispanics and 90% Asians lived with a household head of the same race or ethnicity.

Households in census data

The analysis in this report is based on a sample of the adult, civilian household population. The Census Bureau defines a household as the entire group of persons who live in a single dwelling unit. A household may consist of several persons living together or one person living alone. It includes the household head and all of his or her relatives living in the dwelling unit and also any lodgers, live-in housekeepers, nannies and other residents not related to the head of the household.

Income

Household income is defined as the sum of total personal income for all members of the household of a certain age. In 1970, all household members ages 14 and older are included. In all other samples, all household members ages 15 and older are included. Household income may be zero or negative. The share of adults living in households with zero or negative income is about 1% across the years analyzed.

Personal income, or “money income,” as per the Census Bureau, is the income received on a regular basis (exclusive of certain money receipts such as capital gains and lump-sum payments) before payments for personal income taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, union dues, etc. It includes income received from wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, and tips; self-employment income from own nonfarm or farm businesses, including proprietorships and partnerships; interest, dividends, net rental income, royalty income, or income from estates and trusts; Social Security or Railroad Retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); any cash public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office; retirement, survivor, or disability benefits; and any other sources of income received regularly such as Veterans’ (VA) payments, unemployment and/or worker’s compensation, child support, and alimony.

The Census Bureau’s current definition of income is broader than in the past. Data for all years include income received from wages or salary before taxes and deductions, net earnings from own businesses or farms, income from Social Security or Railroad Retirement, other forms of public assistance or welfare, and other sources of income regularly received. Investment income (including dividend payments and net rental income) was added starting with the 1980 sample. Retirement income other than Social Security was added starting in the 1990 sample. Supplemental Security Income (SSI) was added starting in the 2000 sample.

In this report, all dollar amounts are reported in 2016 dollars, unless otherwise noted. Nominal figures are adjusted using the CPI-U-RS adjustments in the table provided on page 22 of the Census Bureau report, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016.

Accounting for income allocation

Item nonresponse – the share of respondents who either do not provide or provide an invalid answer for an item – is relatively low for most items on the decennial census and American Community Survey. This is not true for the various components of income used in calculating household income, however.

To account for nonresponse on the income components, the Census Bureau uses statistical procedures to allocate missing values by looking at the values reported by similar respondents. These additional respondents may be the original respondent’s nearest neighbor or others with similar but relatively rare characteristics. Income allocation is not necessarily exact, and some studies have found that the inclusion of allocated values of income may lead to biased results in certain situations. For that reason, researchers often omit individuals from the sample if their earnings are allocated.

In this study, households are excluded from the sample if half or more of their household income is allocated. Allocation flags are provided for each household member’s individual components of income. For each member, the total amount of allocated income, identified via allocation flags, and total personal income are calculated. Then these two amounts are summed across all earners in the household. The share of allocated income for the household is then calculated as:

A table in Appendix B shows the shares of respondents in the civilian household sample living in households that had half or more of their income allocated by the Census Bureau. In 2016, these shares were as follows: whites – 17.4%, blacks – 31.2%, Hispanics – 26.5%, and Asians – 19.4%. The shares with allocated incomes are similarly high from 1980 to 2010. The allocation rates for 1970, only 0.1% or less, appear surprisingly low compared with other years.

The impact of removing households if half or more of their income is allocated is generally modest. Compared with a sample of the overall adult, civilian household population, a sample without households with half or more of their income allocated has the following effects:

• There is no change of import to the estimates for 1970, unsurprising in view of the very small share of households with allocated income.
• From 1980 to 2016, removing households with half or more of their income allocated raises income levels from about 1 to 10% among all adults in the sample, depending on the year and income percentile. The impact is greater in 1980, 1990 and 2000; greater at lower-income percentiles; and more notable among blacks. For example, in 2000, the 10th percentile income for blacks is raised 9% and the 90th percentile income is raised 4%.
• Removing households with half or more of their income allocated tends to raise the estimated income growth from 1970 to 2016. The increase is in the range of 1% to 5%, varying across percentiles and racial and ethnic groups. One exception to this rule is that income growth for lower-income blacks and Hispanics is about 1% to 2% lower if households with allocated income are removed from the sample.
• The removal of households with half or more of their income allocated reduces or leaves unchanged the estimates of income inequality among whites in all years, by either the 90/10 ratio or the Gini coefficient. For blacks, Hispanics and Asians, the results are mixed, with income inequality estimated to be higher in some years and lower in other years. The differences are within 5% in most years. Blacks are estimated to experience a higher level of inequality than other groups from 1970 to 2010 and Asians the highest level in 2016 in either sample.
• Estimated changes in inequality are similar under both samples. In the sample without households with half or more of their income allocated, the 90/10 ratio increases as follows from 1970 to 2016: whites – 24%; blacks – 7%; Hispanics – 15%; and Asians – 77%. In the sample including all households, the 90/10 ratio increases as follows from 1970 to 2016: whites – 26%; blacks – 3%; Hispanics – 11%; and Asians – 72%. Inequality increases the most among Asians and the least among blacks in both samples.
• Regarding the gaps in income across racial and ethnic groups, the removal of households with half or more of their income allocated has modest but mixed results. The income gap is about as likely to go up as to go down, by no more than 3 percentage points. The income gaps trend similarly over time in the two samples.

Adjustments to income for household size

In this report, “income” refers to what is afforded a person by the combined resources of his or her household, whether the person had personal earnings or not. Thus, people’s incomes are represented by their household’s income adjusted for household size. All members of a household have the same income.

Incomes are adjusted for household size because a four-person household with an income of, say, $50,000 faces a tighter budget constraint than a two-person household with the same income. In addition to comparisons across households at a given point in time, this adjustment is useful for measuring changes in income over time. That is because average household size fell in the U.S. from 3.1 persons in 1970 to 2.5 persons in 2016. Ignoring this demographic change would mean ignoring a commensurate loosening of the household budget constraint.

At its simplest, adjusting for household size means converting household income into per capita income. Thus, a two-person household with an income of $50,000 would have a per capita income of $25,000, double the per capita income of a four-person household with the same total income.

A more sophisticated adjustment for household size recognizes that there are economies of scale in consumer expenditures. For example, a two-bedroom apartment may not cost twice as much to rent as a one-bedroom apartment. A household of two, compared with a household of one, would likely not need a second refrigerator or internet subscription, and so on. For that reason, most researchers make adjustments for household size using the method of “equivalence scales.”

A commonly used equivalence-scale adjustment is follows:

This is also the approach used in this report: Household income is divided by the square root of the number of people (of any age) in the household. In practical terms, this means that household income is divided by 1.41 for a two-person household, 1.73 for a three-person household, 2.00 for a four-person household and so on.³⁴ The size-adjusted household income is then assigned to each adult member of the household.

The charts in this appendix show the distributions of white, black, Hispanic and Asian adults in the U.S. by their incomes in 1970 and 2016. The first set of charts shows the income distribution for a given racial and ethnic group, say Hispanics, in the two years. The second and third sets of charts compare the income distributions of blacks, Hispanics and Asians with the income distribution of whites for 2016 and 1970, respectively.

Adults in each racial and ethnic group are further divided into 81 groups with incomes ranging from $0-2,499, $2,500-4,999, $5,000-7,499, and so on up to the highest income category of $200,000 or greater. Each chart shows the share of adults of a given race or ethnicity with incomes in the stated range.

“Income” refers to what is afforded a person by the combined resources of his or her household, whether the person had personal earnings or not. Thus, people’s incomes are represented by their household’s income adjusted for household size. All members of a household have the same income, which is expressed in 2016 dollars for both years.

The distributions are based on the adult, civilian household population, less adults living in households for which half or more of its income is imputed (allocated) by the U.S. Census Bureau. (See Methodology for details).

Overall, the income distributions show that the share of adults at lower income levels decreased among all racial and ethnic groups and the shares at middle and higher income levels increased. For example, the share of blacks with incomes in the range of $10,000 to $12,499 decreased from 8% in 1970 to 5% in 2016 and the share of blacks with incomes in the range of $50,000 to $52,499 increased from 1% in 1970 to 2% in 2016. The shares of adults within single income intervals of about $125,000 or more are quite low. For example, 0.4% of whites had incomes of $125,000 to $127,499 in 2016. There is a “spike” in the shares at the highest category ($200,000 or more) because the distribution is top coded at that income level.

The charts comparing blacks and Hispanics with whites clearly show that there is a greater concentration of blacks and Hispanics at lower income levels and a greater concentration of whites at middle and higher income levels in both years. In 2016, Asians are somewhat more likely than whites to be middle or upper income and somewhat less likely to be lower income (with the exception of incomes up to about $17,499 in 2016). There was little difference in the income distributions of Asians and whites in 1970.