Executive Summary

Michigan’s economy has been tumultuous over the past decade. Michigan’s Latino1 population has disproportionately experienced economic challenges and hardships associated with a shrinking economy. Latinos have less access to valued resources and rank low on many socioeconomic indicators, when compared to the non-Latino populations. They are disproportionately less educated, poor, unemployed, and concentrated in low-paying occupations. Yet, these social and economic challenges the Latino population face — often overshadowed by the increasing Latino population and overlooked by policymakers — are critical to their well-being.

This report is based on an analysis of the 2000 U.S. Decennial Census and the intercensal Current Population Surveys (CPS) and examines key socioeconomic indicators of the Latino population in Michigan. We highlight the differences in socioeconomic indicators and explain those differences, including educational attainment, poverty, median family income and per capita income, employment status, and occupation. We also provide a perspective of how Michigan’s growing Latino population has been impacted. Findings are summarized below:

• Education for Latinos is polarized with 38% of Latinos aged 25 years and older in Michigan having not completed high school, while 36% had some college;

• About 19% of Latinos living in Michigan were poor, compared to 7.4% of non-Latino Whites;

• The poverty rate for Latino families (15.7%) was more than three times the poverty rate for non-Latino Whites (4.8%);

• The poverty rate for Latino female-headed families with children under 18 years of age (33.7%) was almost three times the poverty rate for Latino married-couple families with children (11.9%);

• The median income for Michigan Latino families is $41,252, lower than the median income of non-Latino white families ($53,457);

• The unemployment rate for Latino men in Michigan was 7%, higher than the unemployment rate of Latina women (5.3%), the unemployment rates for all men (4.3%) and women (3.2%) in Michigan, and higher than the unemployment rate of U.S. Latinos (5.8% for men and 5.6% for women);

• One in six Latino men in Michigan were employed in managerial, professional, and related occupations, compared to one-third non-Latino White men;

• More than one-third of Latino men were employed in production, transportation, and material moving occupations, compared to one-fifth of White men;

• Eighteen percent of Michigan Latinos were employed in service occupations, compared to 13.8% of non-Latino Whites;

• Nearly 4% of the Latino population in Michigan were employed in farming, fishing, and forestry occupation (4.5% for men vs. 2.4% for women respectively), compared with 0.4% of non-Latino Whites;

• Fifty-five percent of Latinos owned their homes compared to 74% of other Michigan households.

Educational Attainment

In 2000, 48% of Latinos aged 25 years and older in the United States had not completed high school, 22% had a high school diploma, 20% had some college, and 10% had completed a college degree. In comparison to Michigan’s Latino population, 38% had less than a high school education, 26% had a high school diploma, 23% had some college, and 13% had earned a bachelor’s degree or higher (Fig. 1).

Table 1 displays educational attainment levels by Latinos by country of origin. Overall, Latinos are below the educational levels attained by non-Latinos. The level of education attained by persons of Mexican and Puerto Ricans origin are below Cubans. The majority of Mexicans have not completed four years of high school (54.2% in U.S. v. 41.1% in Michigan). Mexicans who have completed four years of college were fewer than Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and other Latinos.

Spaniards, South Americans, and Cubans had relatively greater levels of education than Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Central Americans (Table 1). Individual poverty rates declined from 1993 to 2000 by 33.6% while family poverty rates declined by 41.7%. In contrast, the period between 2000 and 2006 experienced an increase in individual poverty of 10.3% and an increase in family poverty of 11.1%.

Poverty2

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 37 million U.S. citizens lived in poverty, or 12.6% of the total population (U.S. Census Bureau 2005). About 26 million families were living in poverty in 2005, or 10.8% of all families. Figure 2 shows the trend in individual and family poverty in the last 15 years.

The trend of both individual and family poverty shows a significant decline in poverty rates between 1993 and 2000 and an increase in poverty rates between 2000 and 2005 (Fig. 2). Figure 3 shows the trend in poverty rates by race and Latino origin from 1990 to 2005. The poverty rate for Latinos increased by 9% between 1990 and 1993, decreased by nearly 30% between 1993 and 2000, and increased by 1% between 2000 and 2005. Comparatively, the poverty rate for non-Latino Whites increased by almost 12.5% between 1990 and 1993, decreased by 25.3% between 1993 and 2000, and increased by 12.2% between 2000 and 2005. The poverty rate for African Americans also increased by 4% between 1990 and 1993, decreased by nearly 32% between 1993 and 2000, and increased by almost 11% between 2000 and 2005. For Asians, the poverty rate increased between 1990 and 1993, decreased by 35.3%, and then increased by 12.1% between 2000 and 2005 (Fig. 3).

Approximately 1 million people in Michigan were poor in 2000, or 10.5% of the state’s total population. As Table 2 shows, minorities in Michigan experience much higher poverty rates than non-Latino Whites. About 19% of Michigan Latinos were poor in 2000. Michigan Blacks experienced more poverty than other racial or ethnic groups. About one-fourth of Michigan Blacks were poor in 2000. The lowest poverty rate was that of non-Latino Whites (7.4%) as shown inTable 2).

Table 3 displays the number and percentage of families in poverty by race and Latino origin in Michigan in 2000. The family poverty rate for non-Latino Whites was lower than for other racial and ethnic groups. Almost 5% of all non-Latino White families in Michigan were living in poverty.

For Michigan Latino families, the poverty rate (15.7%) was more than three times the poverty rate for non-Latino Whites. Among Latinos, the poverty rate for Puerto Rican families was higher than that of Mexican American and Cuban American families. The family poverty rate for Blacks was the highest (21.1%), about 4 times the rate for non-Latino Whites. Nearly 8% of Asian families were in poverty in 2000 and 13.6% for Native Americans and Alaska Natives (Table 3).

Table 4 shows that Latina female-headed families, especially those with children under 18 years of age, have higher poverty rates than married-couple families and male-headed families with no spouse present. The poverty rate for families with related children under 18 years was 38.7% for Latina female-headed families with no husband present, 20.2% for male-headed families with no spouse present, and 11.9% for married-couple Latino families respectively. The poverty rates for Latino families with children are higher for families with children less than 5 years of age and children between 5 and 17 years in the household (Table 4).

Median Family and Per Capita Income

Table 5 displays the distribution of median family and per capita income for Michigan by race and Latino origin. Latino families had a median income of $41,252. In comparison, the median family income in Michigan was $53,457. Compared to other racial/ethnic groups, Asians had the highest median income ($69,175), followed by Whites ($56,466). The lowest median family income in Michigan was that of African Americans ($35,549). The per capita income for Latinos in Michigan was estimated at $13,889 and was the lowest of all the other racial/ethnic groups (Table 5). The median Latino family income for Mexicans was 73% of the median income for non-Latino white families, 61% for Puerto Ricans, and 84% for Cubans, respectively (Table 5).

Employment Status

Table 6 displays the employment status of civilian population aged 16 and over by gender, race, and ethnicity. White men, followed by Asian men, have the highest employment rate when compared to other racial/ethnic groups. African Americans have the lowest employment rate and half of them do not have jobs. The unemployment rate for African American men is higher than that of other racial/ethnic groups. Native American men have the second highest unemployment rate. The proportion of Latinos who are employed (56%) is lower than that of whites (61%) as in Table 6. The share of the Latinas in the labor force is lower, than that of White, Asian, Native Americans, and that of African American women. The Latino unemployment rate was 5.7%, higher than the unemployment rate of whites (3.0%). The unemployment rate for both Latino men and women was about 6%.

Among Latinos, Puerto Ricans had higher unemployment rates than Mexicans and Cubans. Cubans had the lowest unemployment rate which is comparable to general rates of unemployment of the total civilian labor force (4.0%).

In Michigan, 66% of the Latino men in the civilian labor force were employed. About 55% of the Latinas in the civilian labor force were employed. The unemployment rate5 for Latinos in Michigan was 7% higher than the unemployment rate of Latinas (5.3%) as shown inTable 6. In Michigan, Mexicans had higher unemployment rates (6.5%) than Puerto Ricans (4.7%) and Cubans (5.5%).

Occupation

Figure 4 displays the distribution of the population “16 years or older” by occupation in Michigan. Approximately 32% of the target population were employed in managerial, professional, and related occupations, 26% in sales and office occupations, 15% in service occupations, 9% in construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations, 19% in production, transportation, and material moving occupations, and less than 1% in farming, fishing and forestry occupations, respectively (Fig. 4).

Table 7 displays occupational data by gender, race, and ethnicity. Close to one-third of White men are employed in managerial, professional, and related occupations, compared with nearly one-fifth of African American men, one-sixth of Latino men, and one-seventh of Asian men. Conversely, more than one-third of Latino and African American men — and nearly 40% of Asian men — are employed in production, transportation, and material moving occupations, compared with close to 20% of white men. A disproportionately higher percentage of Asian, Native American, African American women, and Latinas — when compared with white women — are employed in service occupations. Also, a disproportionately higher percentage of Native American and Asian women —as compared to White, African American, and Latino women, were employed in sales or office occupations. About 5% of Latinos and 2% of Latinas were employed in farming, fishing, or forestry occupations. More Latino men and white men, compared to African American, Native American, and Asian men were employed in construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations (Table 7).

Among Latinos, Cubans were more likely than Mexicans and Puerto Ricans to be employed in managerial, professional, and related occupations. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans were more likely than Cubans to be employed in service occupations. Puerto Ricans and Cubans were more likely than Mexicans to be employed in sales or office occupations. On the other hand, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and Cuban women were more likely than their male counterparts to be employed in service and sales or office occupations. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans were also more likely than Cubans to be employed in construction, extraction, or maintenance occupations and in production, transportation, or material moving occupations.

Conclusion

The Latino population has less access to valued resources including education, income, labor force participation, and occupation than non-Latino White Americans. The degrees of access to resources vary among Latinos. Cubans clearly have more access than either Puerto Ricans or Mexicans. Mexicans residing in Michigan lag behind Puerto Ricans and Cubans in educational attainment, income, and occupational achievement. Mexicans are at the bottom of the social hierarchy of Michigan’s Latino population while Cubans are at the top of the social hierarchy Puerto Ricans are in the middle.

The educational status of Latinos is below that of non-Latinos. Mexicans, the largest group of Latinos, have less education than Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and other Latinos. Mexicans are less likely than other Latinos to earn a high school diploma and complete four years of college.

Overall, Latinos have higher rates of poverty than non-Latino Whites. Among Latinos, the poverty rate for Puerto Ricans in 2000 was higher than that of Mexicans and Cubans. Although individual and family poverty rates have declined over the last 15 years, particularly among minorities, poverty rates for minorities remain significantly higher than that of non-Latino Whites. The poverty rate for the Latino population declined significantly between 1993 and 2000 and it has hardly increased after 2000 compared to the other racial/ethnic groups.

Among minorities in Michigan, African American families had the highest poverty rate than any other racial/ethnic groups, followed by Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Native Americans. Considering poor Latino families, female-headed households with children under 18 experienced higher poverty rates than married-couple or male-headed families.

In 1999, the median family income for Latinos was lower than the median income for non-Latino population. Among the Latino population, Puerto Ricans, followed by Mexicans had a lower median family income than Cubans, non-Latino Whites, and Asians.

The unemployment rate for the Latino population in 2000 was higher than that of non-Latinos. Among Latinos, Puerto Ricans had higher unemployment than Mexicans and Cubans. The Latino population also had concentrations in certain occupations. Cubans, given their relative higher levels of education, were more likely than Puerto Ricans and Mexicans to work in managerial, professional, and related occupations. Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans were more likely than Cubans to work in service occupations, construction, extraction, or maintenance occupations, and in production, transportation, or material moving occupations. Puerto Ricans and Cubans were more likely than Mexicans to be employed in sales and service occupations.

The causes of poverty, low income, and high unemployment rates are rooted in the structural conditions of labor markets, particularly the restructuring of the economy. Michigan — with its dependency on manufacturing industries — has lost many good jobs, especially low-skilled blue-collar jobs. The newly created jobs in health service and information-based sectors of the economy are twofold: those requiring high education and technical skills and those requiring lower levels. Latinos and other minorities are often concentrated in the latter.

The resulting effects of structural economic changes, including changes in the distribution of jobs, technical changes, and relocation of jobs overseas has increased poverty, joblessness, and reduced real wages for low-skilled minority workers. The effects of these changes have disproportionately affected minority populations.

Policy and programs aimed at reducing poverty among Latinos and other minorities should target areas that were most hit by economic restructuring -- or outsourcing -- and provide special assistance to those in precarious financial needs. In addition, policy should target and support new job creation at the local community level, jobs that respond to the community needs, particularly those that integrate the needs of Latinos and other minorities. Finally, improving the education of Latinos is a critical path to increased economic well-being. In today’s economy, a college degree (at least a bachelor’s degree) is essential for greater economic stability.

Endnotes

1 The U.S. Census 2000 asked every individual living in the United States if they were Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino. The term “Latino” will be used in this report. Latino population includes Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and people from the Dominican Republic, Central America (Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Salvador, and other Central American countries), South America (Argentine, Bolivia, Columbia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, and other South American countries), Spain, and other Latinos.

2 Poverty is defined as living below a set of income threshold. For example, for a family of four (with two related children), the poverty threshold in 2000 was $17,463. Developed in the early 1960s, the official definition sets the poverty threshold at three times the cost of a minimally acceptable diet. The threshold is adjusted for family size, number of children, and for small households, age of family head, and it is adjusted for inflation.

3 Unemployment rate is computed as the number of people unemployed divided by the total number of the people in the civilian labor force. According to the U.S. Census, all civilians 16 years old and over are classified as unemployed if they (1) were neither “at work” nor “with a job but not at work” during the reference week, and (2) were looking for work during the last four weeks, and (3) were available to start a job. Also included as unemployed are civilians who did not work at all during the reference week, were waiting to be called back to a job from which they were laid off, and were available for work except for temporary illness.

4 Other Latinos include Dominicans, Central Americans, South Americans, and Spaniards.

5 Unemployment rate is computed as the number of people unemployed divided by the total number of the people in the civilian labor force. According to the U.S. Census, all civilians 16 years old and over are classified as unemployed if they (1) were neither “at work” nor “with a job but not at work” during the reference week, and (2) were looking for work during the last four weeks, and (3) were available to start a job. Also included as unemployed are civilians who did not work at all during the reference week, were waiting to be called back to a job from which they were laid off, and were available for work except for temporary illness.

About the Authors

Jean Kayitsinga

Dr. Jean Kayitsinga is a sociologist demographer for JSRI and Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Counseling Educational Psychology and Special Education, Measurement and Quantitative Methods (MQM) program at MSU, where he received his Ph.D. in sociology in 1999. His areas of specialization include rural sociology, sociology of families, demography, research methods and statistical methodologies.

Lori Post

Dr. Lori Post is Assistant Dean for Research in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences. She is a trained as a demographer and her research focus is violence prevention.

Francisco Villarruel

Dr. Francisco A. Villarruel, a University Outreach Fellow and a Professor of Family and Child Ecology at MSU, is the Acting Director of MSU’s Latino research center— the Julian Samora Research Institute. His research focus is generalized into three areas: Latino youth and families, positive youth development, and developmental contextualism. He is also the chair of the National Hispanic Education Alliance (NAHE).