You won’t even need to look to see who is behind the desk, behind the counter, or on the ladder outside mending the gutter if you walk into practically any American workplace. Eventually, numbers catch up to what the eye perceives. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in 2023, white workers accounted for approximately 75% of the labor force in the United States, followed by Black workers at about 13%, Hispanic or Latino workers at 19%, and Asian workers at about 7%. The texture beneath the shares has changed over time, but the shares themselves haven’t.
The gap first manifests itself in unemployment. The unemployment rates for white and Asian workers were 3.3 and 3.0 percent, respectively, well below the national average of 3.6 percent. American Indian and Alaska Native workers were at a higher rate of 6.6 percent, while Black workers remained at 5.5 percent. Although it’s easy to interpret that as a single statistic, it’s actually a collection of smaller ones, such as industries that hire and fire at different times, longer commutes to job centers, and fewer professional networks in some neighborhoods. There isn’t just one cause. It all adds up.
A portion of the story is explained by education, but not all of it. Compared to 44 percent of white workers, 36 percent of Black workers, and 25 percent of Hispanic workers, 68 percent of Asian workers in the labor force had a bachelor’s degree. Asian workers make up 59% of those in management and professional positions, while Hispanic workers make up 26%. This disparity is nearly identical. People still seem to be sorted early by the labor market, sometimes even before they have much say in the matter.
The disparity ceases to be abstract when it comes to pay. In 2023, the median weekly salary was $1,474 for Asian workers, $1,138 for white workers, $920 for Black workers, and just $874 for Hispanic workers. The disparity persists even within the same job category. Black and Hispanic men with similar job titles made hundreds of dollars less per week than Asian and white men in management positions, who made significantly more than the white-collar average. When the occupation is removed, the gap gets smaller but never completely closes; this pattern has continued long enough to cease appearing to be coincidental.
The nation’s former labor divisions are still evident when you look at the occupational breakdown, almost geographically. Construction and landscaping employ a large number of Hispanic workers. Black employees are overrepresented in positions such as bus drivers, security guards, and nursing assistants. Asian workers are concentrated in the pharmacy and software development industries. Construction management, aviation, and farming are all dominated by white workers. It’s not that any group is excluded from any field; rather, decades of regional industries, inherited opportunities, and migration patterns continue to influence who ends up where.
There’s also the more subdued tale of those who are completely unemployed. Black workers accounted for 13% of the labor force, but they made up 23% of those who were only tangentially connected to it—those who desired employment but had given up looking for it. That’s a big difference. It suggests that discouragement is not limited to a poor month or a slow quarter, but rather develops over time.
All of this does not imply that progress has not been made. For example, Hispanic workers now have the highest participation rates. However, over decades of economic cycles, the wage gaps, the unemployment rate, and the occupational sorting have all moved slowly, if at all. Despite all of its turbulence, it is difficult to ignore the fact that the labor market consistently reproduces the same outlines. Whether that changes significantly over the next ten years will likely depend more on whether the underlying disparities in access, geography, and education are ever directly addressed than on hiring trends.
