Monthly Labor Review • November 2011 3

Asian Workers

Mary Dorinda Allard I

n 2010, the Nation’s 11.2 million Asians 

accounted for 4.7 percent of the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population ages 

16 and older, according to data from the 

Current Population Survey (CPS). The largest 

Asian group in 2010 were the Chinese, making up 22 percent of all Asians. Next came 

Asian Indians, who made up 18 percent, followed by Filipinos (17 percent), Vietnamese 

(11 percent), Koreans (10 percent), and Japanese (6 percent). The remainder—16 percent—were classified as Other Asians. (See 

chart 1.) CPS data show wide variations in 

labor market activities from group to group. 

This article marks the first time BLS has 

published CPS data for specific Asian groups. 

First, it discusses the questions used to collect the CPS data about these seven Asian 

groups. Then, tabulations that were created 

specifically for this article are used to examine the similarities and differences among 

these groups by a variety of demographic 

characteristics, including gender, age, nativity, and educational attainment. The analysis also focuses on labor force participation, 

employment, and unemployment. Finally, 

information about how the groups have 

fared in the labor market is presented for the 

period from 2003 through 2010.

About the data

Unless otherwise noted, data in this analyAsians in the U.S. labor force: profile 

of a diverse population

The labor force characteristics of the Nation’s 11.2 million Asians vary 

considerably when the data are disaggregated by Asian group; this 

report examines similarities and differences in labor force participation, 

employment, unemployment, and more for the Asian groups, particularly 

during the 2008–2010 period 

sis are from the CPS, a monthly household 

survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau 

for BLS,

1

 and reflect the civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older. Since 

2003, when questions on race and ethnicity 

were revised to comply with Office of Management and Budget guidelines, the CPS 

has collected information about five race 

categories: (1) White, (2) Black or African 

American, (3) Asian, (4) American Indian 

and Alaska Native, and (5) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. In addition, 

individuals may list all the race groups that 

they or other household members consider 

themselves to be, thus allowing for the identification of those who are multi-racial.2

 

Also in 2003, an additional question specifically about Asians was added to the CPS. 

Survey respondents who identify themselves 

or another household member as Asian 

are asked, “Which of the following Asian 

groups are you: Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, or Vietnamese?”3

Respondents may choose one of these six 

categories or may volunteer the name of another Asian group, such as Thai, Pakistani, 

Cambodian, Hmong, or Laotian.4

 Groups 

other than the six included in the question 

are recorded by CPS interviewers as “Other 

Asians.” Individuals may identify themselves 

or other household members as belonging to 

more than one Asian group; for example, respondents may say that they are both ChiMary Dorinda Allard is 

chief of the Division of 

Labor Force Statistics 

at the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. Email: allard.

dorinda@bls.gov. 
Asian Workers

4 Monthly Labor Review • November 2011

Asian population by Asian group, U.S. civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older, 

2010 annual averages

Chart 1.

Other Asian

16%

Chinese

22%

Asian Indian

18%

Filipino

17%

Vietnamese

11%

Korean

10%

Japanese

6%

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

nese and Vietnamese. For the purposes of this analysis, 

the small number of people identified as belonging to 

multiple groups are classified as “Other Asians.”5

Unless otherwise indicated, the estimates presented in 

this paper are 36-month averages for the period beginning in January 2008 and ending in December 2010. The 

pooling of multiple years of monthly data allows for a 

more in-depth examination of groups that would otherwise have prohibitively small sample sizes.6

Demographic characteristics

Previously published BLS data show that there are several demographic characteristics that distinguish Asians 

as a whole from non-Asians. Asians are more likely to 

(1) be in the prime-working-age group of 25 to 54, (2) be 

foreign born,7

 (3) be married, and (4) have greater educational attainment. Table 1 shows demographic detail for 

the various Asian population groups, which allows for an 

examination of these characteristics for each group. 

Age. Except for the Japanese, the Asian groups were 

more likely than non-Asians to be in the 25-to-54 age 

range. Asian Indians were most likely to be 25 to 54 years 

old, with 70 percent of their population in this age range. 

Vietnamese, Koreans, and Chinese each had about 60 

percent of their population in this age range. Only 49 percent of Japanese were ages 25 to 54, slightly less than the 

proportion for non-Asians (53 percent). Compared with 

non-Asians and with the other Asian groups, a higher 

proportion of Japanese were ages 55 or older (43 percent). 

Nativity. The Asian population in the United States 

has grown rapidly since the passage of the Immigration 

and Nationality Act of 1965, which replaced the nationalorigins quota system that had been used since the 1920s 

with a preference system based on skills and on family 

relationships with U.S. citizens and legal residents.8

 In 

the 2008–2010 period, all of the Asian groups were more 

likely to be foreign born than was the combined group 

of non-Asians. The foreign born include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary workers and 

their families, students, and undocumented immigrants; 

however, these categories cannot be separately identified 

in the CPS data. Asian Indians were the most likely of the 

groups to be foreign born (84 percent). Roughly three-
Monthly Labor Review • November 2011 5

 Civilian noninstitutional population of Asian groups and non-Asians by selected characteristics, averages for the 

combined years 2008–2010

(Percent distribution)

Demographic characteristic

Asian

NonAsian Total Asian 

Indian Chinese Filipino Japanese Korean Vietnamese Other 

Asian

Total population, ages 16 and 

older (in thousands) 10,931 1,882 2,536 1,894 700 1,107 1,126 1,686 224,876

Gender

Total, 16 and older 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Men 47.6 52.9 48.6 42.9 41.5 44.4 48.4 49.3 48.4

Women 52.4 47.1 51.4 57.1 58.5 55.6 51.6 50.7 51.6

Age

Total, ages 16 and older 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

16 to 24 14.0 13.3 12.3 13.8 7.8 14.8 14.0 19.4 16.1

25 to 54 60.8 70.1 59.4 56.5 49.0 60.0 61.3 62.1 52.9

25 to 34 20.7 30.6 17.9 16.6 12.3 18.5 19.2 24.6 17.0

35 to 44 22.1 24.8 22.0 20.4 16.7 21.9 25.0 21.8 17.1

45 to 54 17.9 14.7 19.6 19.4 20.0 19.7 17.1 15.7 18.8

55 and older 25.3 16.6 28.2 29.7 43.1 25.1 24.7 18.5 31.1

55 to 64 12.9 9.1 14.2 16.2 14.8 12.1 13.6 10.8 14.8

65 to 74 7.2 5.0 7.4 8.4 10.8 8.7 7.3 5.1 8.8

75 and older 5.2 2.5 6.6 5.2 17.5 4.4 3.8 2.6 7.5

Nativity

Total, ages 16 and older 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Native born 26.6 16.5 27.4 27.0 61.9 23.4 22.6 26.5 87.8

Foreign born 73.4 83.5 72.6 73.0 38.1 76.6 77.4 73.5 12.2

Marital status

Total, ages 25 to 54 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Married, spouse present 68.6 79.0 66.4 66.8 64.4 67.0 65.4 65.3 59.3

Other marital status1 31.4 21.0 33.6 33.2 35.6 33.0 34.6 34.7 40.7

Educational attainment

Total, ages 25 and older 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Less than high school 11.4 6.0 13.6 7.1 4.0 6.2 21.9 19.3 13.2

High school graduate, no 

college 20.0 10.8 20.9 16.2 23.7 22.5 30.6 23.6 31.6

Some college or associate’s 

degree 16.5 8.2 12.2 24.9 25.0 14.9 19.6 18.2 26.6

Bachelor’s degree or higher 52.0 75.0 53.4 51.9 47.3 56.3 27.9 38.9 28.6

Bachelor’s degree 31.7 34.7 27.0 44.4 32.7 38.6 21.2 23.1 18.7

Master’s degree 13.7 29.7 17.0 4.4 10.0 11.6 3.6 10.5 7.3

Professional or doctoral degree 6.6 10.6 9.4 3.1 4.6 6.1 3.1 5.3 2.7

1

 Other marital status includes those who were separated, widowed, 

divorced, married but living apart, or never married.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Table 1.

quarters of Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese, and 

Other Asians were foreign born. By contrast, the majority 

of Japanese were native born.9

 Although only 38 percent 

of Japanese were foreign born, this proportion far exceeds 

the 12 percent for non-Asians.10

A wide variety of factors influence international migration. As can be seen on chart 2, the foreign born of each 

group arrived in the United States at different times.11

Foreign-born Asian Indians were the most likely to have 

entered the country in recent years. Forty-three percent of 

foreign-born Asian Indians arrived in 2000 or later, compared with 20 percent of the Vietnamese foreign born. 

The proportion of foreign-born Vietnamese who entered 

the United States from 2000 to 2010 was the smallest of 

any Asian group. About a third of Vietnamese had arrived 

during the 1990s.

As the following tabulation illustrates, the share of the 

foreign born who were naturalized citizens varied substantially among the Asian groups. Of the Asian groups, 

foreign-born Vietnamese were most likely to be naturalized citizens. Foreign-born Japanese and Asian Indians 

were least likely to be naturalized citizens. 
Asian Workers

6 Monthly Labor Review • November 2011

Percent of the foreign born that were naturalized citizens, 

averages for the combined years 2008–2010

 Total Asian.................. 56

Asian Indian..................... 44

Chinese............................. 59

Filipino ............................ 66

Japanese............................ 39

Korean.............................. 52

Vietnamese....................... 72

Other Asian...................... 54

Non-Asian........................ 41

Chart 3 provides a breakdown of the civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older by nativity and gender. There were more foreign-born Asian Indian men than 

foreign-born Asian Indian women in the 2008–2010 period. According to statistics from the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security, almost half of all temporary specialty 

occupation workers (also referred to as H-1B workers)12

in fiscal year 2009 were born in India.13 A substantial 

number of foreign-born Asian Indians were intracompany transfers or students. Short-term resident nonimmigrants—a group that includes temporary workers, intracompany transfers, and students—were more likely to be 

male.14 Also, the largest share of Indian-born people who 

became legal permanent residents in the past several years 

did so through employment-based preferences,15 and 

these individuals were slightly more likely to be male.16 

In contrast to Asian Indians, several of the other Asian 

groups had considerably more foreign-born women than 

foreign-born men. This was especially true for Filipinos. 

Foreign-born Filipino workers have, for many years, included a large number of nurses, most of whom are women.17 Also, according to statistics from the Department of 

Homeland Security, about half of the people born in the 

Philippines who became legal permanent U.S. residents 

in recent years did so as immediate family members of 

U.S. citizens—that is, as spouses or children, or as parents 

of U.S. citizens ages 21 and older—and these individuals 

were much more likely to be women. A similar pattern 

occurred with those born in Japan or Korea who became 

legal permanent U.S. residents.18

Marital status. In general, Asians were more likely to be 

married than were non-Asians. (See table 1.) Among 25- 

to 54-year-olds in the Asian groups, Asian Indians were 

the most likely to be married. Seventy-nine percent of 

Asian Indians in this age range were married. Between 64 

and 67 percent of 25- to 54-year-olds in the other groups 

Chart 2.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Non-Asian

Other Asian

Vietnamese

Korean

Japanese

Filipino

Chinese

Asian Indian

Before 1980 1980–1989 1990–1999 2000 or later

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Foreign-born people ages 16 and older by year of entry to the United States for Asian groups and 

non-Asians, averages for the combined years 2008–2010

Percent
Monthly Labor Review • November 2011 7

Population ages 16 and older of Asian groups by nativity and gender, averages for the combined years 

2008–2010

Chart 3.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Other Asian women

Other Asian men

Vietnamese women

Vietnamese men

Korean women

Korean men

Japanese women

Japanese men

Filipino women

Filipino men

Chinese women

Chinese men

Asian Indian women

Asian Indian men

Native born Foreign born

Population (in thousands)

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

were married, compared with 59 percent for non-Asians. 

The following tabulation shows the percent of married 

foreign-born people ages 25 to 54 with a native-born 

spouse. More than a third of married Filipino and Japanese women in this age range had a native-born spouse, a 

much higher share than their male counterparts. By contrast, married foreign-born Asian Indian men and women 

were about equally likely to have a native-born spouse.

Percent of married foreign-born people ages 25 to 54 

with a native-born spouse, by gender,

 averages for the combined years 2008–2010

 Men Women

 Total Asian.................... 8 17

Asian Indian...................... 6 4

Chinese............................. 6 15

Filipino.............................. 13 36

Japanese............................. 9 42

Korean............................... 6 18

Vietnamese........................ 6 12

Other Asian....................... 11 17

Non-Asian......................... 21 21 

Educational attainment. Another notable characteristic of Asians is their high rate of educational attainment. 

(See table 1.) Fifty-two percent of those ages 25 and older 

had a bachelor’s degree or higher in the 2008–2010 period, considerably more than the average of 29 percent for 

non-Asians. Of the Asian groups, Asian Indians had the 

highest levels of educational attainment: 35 percent had 

a bachelor’s degree, 30 percent had a master’s degree, and 

11 percent had a professional or doctoral degree. While 

no other Asian group had such a high level of educational 

attainment, all except Vietnamese were more likely to be 

college graduates than were non-Asians. Vietnamese were 

about as likely as were non-Asians to have a bachelor’s 

degree or higher. 

For some Asian groups, educational attainment tended to be higher among the foreign born, as chart 4 illustrates. Foreign-born Asian Indians and Filipinos were 

more likely to have a bachelor’s degree or higher than 

their native-born counterparts, while the opposite was the 

case for Chinese and Vietnamese. Also, as the tabulation 

that follows demonstrates, educational attainment for all 

of the Asian groups except Filipinos was higher for men 

than for women. A higher percentage of Filipino women 

ages 25 and older had a bachelor’s degree than did their 

male counterparts. Non-Asians had a different pattern, 

with men and women about equally likely to have a bachelor’s degree or higher. 
Asian Workers

8 Monthly Labor Review • November 2011

Percent of people ages 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree or higher by nativity for Asian groups and 

non-Asians, averages for the combined years 2008–2010

Chart 4.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Percent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Non-Asian

Other Asian

Vietnamese

Korean

Japanese

Filipino 

Chinese

Asian Indian

Foreign born

Native born

Percent of people ages 25 and older 

with at least a bachelor’s degree, by gender, 

averages for the combined years 2008–2010

Men Women

 Total Asian......................... 55 49

Asian Indian........................... 79 70

Chinese.................................. 57 50

Filipino................................... 48 54

Japanese.................................. 52 44

Korean.................................... 65 49

Vietnamese............................. 31 25

Other Asian............................ 43 35

Non-Asian.............................. 29 28

Labor force participation 

Overall, Asians were about as likely to participate in the 

labor force (that is, to work or look for work) as were those 

who were not Asian—65.9 percent, compared with 65.3 

percent in the 2008–2010 period. (See table 2.) Among 

Asians, Filipinos and Asian Indians had the highest rates, 

70.3 and 69.6 percent, respectively. Japanese were least 

likely to participate in the labor force (56.5 percent). The 

relatively low rate for Japanese partially reflects their older 

age profile, as people ages 55 and older tend to have lower 

labor force participation rates.19

Among all Asian groups ages 25 and older, those with a 

bachelor’s degree or higher were more likely to be in the 

labor force than were those with a high school diploma or 

less. This pattern also held for non-Asians.

Age and gender. For Asians as a whole, individuals ages 

16 to 24 were much less likely to be in the labor force 

than were non-Asians in this age range—42.5 versus 57.5 

percent. This disparity is partially due to the higher school 

enrollment rates of Asian youth, as labor force participation rates are much lower for youth enrolled in school. 

However, even among those who are enrolled in school, 

Asian youth were less likely to participate in the labor 

force than were non-Asian youth.20 In the 2008–2010 

period, labor force participation rates were lowest for 

Chinese (35.3 percent) and Koreans (36.5 percent), each 

more than 20 percentage points lower than the rate for 

non-Asians. 

For both Asians and non-Asians, labor force participation rates were much higher among 25- to 54-year-olds 

than among 16- to 24-year-olds. Overall, Asians ages 25 

to 54 had a participation rate of 81.0 percent, and the rate 

for non-Asians in the same age group was 82.7 percent. 
Monthly Labor Review • November 2011 9

However, rates for 25- to 54-year-olds varied by Asian 

group, ranging from a high of 86.5 percent for Filipinos 

to a low of 74.0 percent for Koreans.

As previously noted, individuals in the 55-and-older 

age group have lower participation rates than those ages 

25 to 54, but rates differed across the Asian groups. Only 

about a third of Japanese ages 55 and older were in the labor force, compared with about half of their Filipino and 

Asian Indian counterparts. A higher proportion of Japanese were ages 75 and older, and labor force participation 

rates are very low for those in this age range. 

Sharp differences appear when labor force participation 

rates are broken down by gender. Among all Asian groups, 

men were more likely to be in the labor force than were 

women. The gap was widest for Asian Indians, whose rate 

for men (82.5 percent) was 27.5 percentage points higher 

than that for women (55.0 percent). The gap was narrowest for Filipinos; at 73.7 percent, the rate for Filipino men 

was just 6.0 percentage points higher than the rate for Filipino women (67.7 percent). In contrast, there was a nearly 

13-percentage-point difference between the participation 

rates for non-Asian men and non-Asian women.

Among men, Asian Indians had the highest labor force 

participation rate, 82.5 percent. This may reflect the fact 

that Asian Indians were the most likely of the groups to 

be 25 to 54 years old, an age range in which labor force 

Labor force participation rates for Asian groups and non-Asians by selected characteristics, averages for the 

combined years 2008–2010

Demographic characteristic

Asian

NonAsian Total Asian 

Indian Chinese Filipino Japanese Korean Vietnamese Other 

Asian

Civilian labor force, ages 16 and older 

(in thousands) 7,202 1,309 1,640 1,331 396 666 747 1,114 146,904

Participation rate, ages 16 and older 65.9 69.6 64.7 70.3 56.5 60.2 66.3 66.1 65.3

 Age

16 to 24 42.5 41.5 35.3 46.0 46.5 36.5 41.9 50.0 57.5

25 to 54 81.0 79.7 83.1 86.5 79.9 74.0 82.6 77.9 82.7

55 and older 42.4 49.0 38.6 50.8 31.8 41.1 39.9 43.4 39.8

 Nativity

Native born 62.2 60.7 62.4 65.8 58.4 61.1 61.3 63.3 64.9

Foreign born 67.2 71.3 65.5 71.9 53.6 59.9 67.8 67.1 68.2

Citizen 69.9 75.7 66.6 72.9 45.3 64.6 71.0 71.7 65.0

Non-citizen 63.8 67.9 64.0 70.0 58.9 54.9 59.7 61.6 70.4

Men 74.4 82.5 71.1 73.7 68.1 70.4 72.7 75.8 71.9

Native born 66.3 65.9 67.0 68.7 62.5 68.0 62.8 67.4 70.5

Foreign born 77.5 85.7 72.8 76.0 83.0 71.1 75.8 79.0 81.5

Citizen 77.5 84.1 73.0 75.7 77.1 74.0 77.9 81.4 75.0

Non-citizen 77.5 87.0 72.5 76.6 85.5 68.2 69.5 76.2 85.6

Women 58.2 55.0 58.5 67.7 48.3 52.0 60.3 56.6 59.1

Native born 58.0 55.0 57.7 63.0 54.4 55.1 59.8 59.0 59.8

Foreign born 58.3 55.1 58.9 69.1 41.1 51.1 60.5 55.8 54.3

Citizen 63.4 66.6 60.9 71.0 36.1 57.6 64.1 62.5 56.1

Non-citizen 51.4 45.6 55.8 65.6 44.9 43.9 52.0 48.1 52.9

Marital status, ages 25 to 54

Men, married, spouse present 93.6 96.4 94.4 92.5 96.1 89.9 92.2 91.3 93.6

Men, other marital status1 85.2 84.8 86.2 88.1 90.0 75.8 84.1 86.3 84.3

Women, married, spouse present 68.4 60.7 72.4 82.0 62.6 60.2 73.0 62.0 73.6

Women, other marital status1 80.7 79.9 82.0 85.9 81.8 75.2 82.6 75.5 79.0

 Educational attainment

Total, ages 25 and older 69.7 73.9 68.8 74.2 57.4 64.3 70.3 69.9 66.8

Less than a high school diploma 44.8 38.3 43.4 39.5 19.5 33.8 51.9 50.3 46.5

High school graduate, no college 62.7 65.2 63.8 64.1 37.4 57.4 69.6 67.8 62.1

Some college or associate’s degree 71.7 73.4 68.6 79.0 53.8 63.2 76.2 75.1 71.2

Bachelor’s degree or higher 77.2 78.0 77.2 79.7 72.5 70.7 81.5 78.5 77.3

Table 2.

1

 Other marital status includes those who were separated, widowed, 

divorced, married but living apart, or never married.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.
Asian Workers

10 Monthly Labor Review • November 2011

participation rates tend to be high. Rates for men in other 

Asian groups ranged from 68.1 percent for Japanese men 

to 75.8 percent for Other Asian men. Among women, labor force participation rates for most of the Asian groups 

were lower than those for non-Asians. However, Filipino 

women had a rate of 67.7 percent, which exceeded the rate 

of 59.1 percent for non-Asian women by 8.6 percentage 

points. Japanese women were least likely to participate in 

the labor force; their participation rate was 48.3 percent. 

Vietnamese and Chinese women were about as likely as 

non-Asian women to be in the labor force. 

Marital status. Labor force participation rates also varied 

by marital status. (See chart 5). The vast majority of all 

25- to 54-year-old married men participated in the labor 

force. Married non-Asian men in this age range had a rate 

of 93.6 percent, and married men in the Asian groups had 

rates between 89.9 and 96.4 percent. 

For all groups, rates for married women ages 25 to 54 

were much lower than for their male counterparts. The 

rate for non-Asian married women was 20.0 percentage 

points lower than for their male counterparts, and the 

difference between the rates of married men and women 

varied across the Asian groups. The gap was greatest for 

Asian Indians: married women had a participation rate 

that was almost 36 percentage points below that of married men. Differences between the rates for Japanese and 

Korean married men and women were also quite sharp. 

Filipinos were the only group for which the gap between 

the rates of married men and women was narrower than 

for non-Asians; the participation rate for Filipino married 

women was only about 11 percentage points lower than 

that for Filipino married men. 

Labor force participation rates showed a different pattern 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Non-Asian

Other Asian

Vietnamese 

Korean

Japanese

Filipino

Chinese

Asian Indian

Non-Asian

Other Asian

Vietnamese 

Korean

Japanese

Filipino

Chinese

Asian Indian

Men Women

Married, 

spouse 

present

Other 

marital 

status

Labor force participation rates of people ages 25 to 54 by gender and marital status, Asian groups and 

non-Asians, averages for the combined years 2008–2010

Chart 5.

Percent

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

NOTE: Other marital status includes those who were separated, widowed, divorced, married but living apart, or never married.
Monthly Labor Review • November 2011 11

for 25- to 54-year-olds with other marital statuses—that 

is, those who were separated, widowed, divorced, married 

but living apart, or never married. For all Asian groups 

and for non-Asians, men with other marital statuses had 

lower participation rates than their married counterparts. 

The opposite was true for women; those in other marital 

statuses had higher rates than married women. The rates 

for men and women in other marital statuses were closer 

than for married men and women, though rates for women were lower for most Asian groups. 

Nativity. Differences across the groups are also apparent after disaggregation by nativity. (See table 2.) For 

most Asian groups, foreign-born men were more likely to 

participate in the labor force than were native-born men, 

sometimes considerably so. Foreign-born Asian Indian 

men had a participation rate of 85.7 percent, almost 20 

percentage points higher than their native-born counterparts. The gap was similarly large for Japanese men. Gaps 

between the rates of foreign-born and native-born men in 

other Asian groups were narrower. 

Differences in participation rates between foreignborn and native-born women generally were not as great, 

though native-born Japanese women had a higher participation rate than foreign-born Japanese women. The reverse was the case for Filipino women, where the foreign 

born were a little more likely to be in the labor force. For 

the other Asian groups, the rates for foreign-born women 

were little different from those for native-born women. 

Among the foreign born, participation rates by citizenship status were quite different for some groups. For both 

Koreans and Vietnamese, non-citizen men and women 

had lower rates than did their citizen counterparts. For 

Asian Indian women, there was a large disparity between 

the rates of foreign-born naturalized citizens and noncitizens: 66.6 percent of Asian Indian women who were 

naturalized citizens were in the labor force, compared 

with just 45.6 percent of their non-citizen counterparts. 

By contrast, the rates for Asian Indian men were little different by citizenship status.

Employment

Part-time workers. Most employed people usually work 

full time—that is, 35 hours or more per week. However, 

a substantial share of the employed usually work a parttime schedule, and this share tends to be higher among 

employed women than among employed men. Among 

non-Asians and most Asian groups, employed women 

were about twice as likely to be working part time as were 

men, as the following tabulation illustrates: 

Percent of employed people who usually worked part time, 

by gender, averages for the combined years 2008–2010

Men Women

Total Asian................... 10 21

Asian Indian .................... 8 20

Chinese............................. 11 20

Filipino............................. 13 18

Japanese............................ 11 21

Korean.............................. 11 24

Vietnamese....................... 11 24

Other Asian...................... 12 25

Non-Asian........................ 13 26

Occupation, industry, and self-employment. Employed 

individuals are classified by both their occupation (what 

type of work they perform) and their industry (what kind 

of work their employer or business does). Additionally, 

they are identified by whether they are self-employed.21

The Asian groups show marked differences in all three 

of these characteristics. Data on occupation and industry 

are presented in tables 3 and 4, and information on selfemployment is displayed in chart 6. 

Of the groups, Asian Indians were by far the most likely 

to work in computer and mathematical occupations in the 

2008–2010 period. About 22 percent of employed Asian 

Indians worked in these occupations, compared with just 

2 percent of employed non-Asians. (See table 3.) The high 

share of Asian Indians working in this occupation group 

is in line with the fact that a large number are in the United States through either temporary employment visas (H1B visa holders) or employment-based legal permanent 

resident status. A large share of these individuals were in 

computer occupations.22

Chinese workers, too, were more likely than non-Asians 

to be employed in computer and mathematical occupations; 10 percent of Chinese workers had jobs in this field. 

This occupational group is particularly concentrated in 

the professional and technical services industry, which 

includes computer systems design services and management, scientific, and technical consulting services; thus, 

Asian Indian and Chinese workers were more likely to 

have jobs in this industry (22 and 12 percent, respectively) 

than were non-Asian workers (6 percent). (See table 4.)

Employment characteristics of Filipinos were quite different. Workers in this Asian group were more than three 

times as likely as non-Asians to work in the healthcare 

practitioners and technical occupations category—18 percent versus 5 percent. More than half of Filipino workers 

in this occupational category were registered nurses, reflecting the many years of migration to the United States 
Asian Workers

12 Monthly Labor Review • November 2011

Employed people by occupation, for Asian groups and non-Asians, averages for the combined years 2008–2010

(Percent distribution)

Occupation

Asian

NonAsian Total Asian 

Indian Chinese Filipino Japanese Korean Vietnamese Other 

Asian

Total employed, ages 16 and older 

(in thousands) 6,752 1,232 1,555 1,242 380 624 699 1,019 134,682

Occupational employment as a 

percent of total employed

Total employed 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Management, professional, and 

related occupations 48.0 67.9 53.0 43.2 55.3 47.4 27.4 34.0 36.4

Management, business, and 

financial operations occupations 15.8 19.1 17.6 12.1 23.7 20.7 9.2 12.0 15.2

Management occupations 10.2 12.9 11.5 6.7 16.7 15.1 5.2 7.5 10.9

Business and financial 

operations occupations 5.5 6.2 6.0 5.4 7.0 5.6 4.0 4.5 4.2

Professional and related 

occupations 32.2 48.8 35.4 31.1 31.6 26.7 18.1 22.0 21.2

Computer and mathematical 

occupations 8.5 22.2 9.5 3.1 4.4 3.6 4.3 4.5 2.2

Architecture and engineering 

occupations 3.9 5.2 5.3 2.6 4.1 2.3 3.7 2.8 1.9

Life, physical, and social 

science occupations 2.4 3.1 4.4 1.2 2.0 1.5 .6 1.6 .9

Community and social services 

occupations 1.0 .4 .8 1.1 1.3 2.5 .6 1.0 1.7

Legal occupations .8 .8 .9 .7 1.0 1.1 .7 .7 1.2

Education, training, and library 

occupations 4.9 5.3 6.9 3.0 8.0 5.6 1.9 4.4 6.2

Arts, design, entertainment, 

sports, and media occupations 1.6 1.0 1.7 1.2 3.6 3.4 .8 1.6 2.0

Healthcare practitioners and 

technical occupations 9.1 10.8 6.0 18.1 7.1 6.6 5.5 5.5 5.2

Service occupations 17.1 6.2 18.0 20.1 13.2 13.7 32.2 18.3 17.4

Healthcare support 

occupations 2.0 1.3 1.6 4.8 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.7 2.3

Protective service occupations .9 .8 .8 1.4 1.3 .8 .4 1.1 2.3

Food preparation and serving 

related occupations 6.3 1.9 10.0 4.9 5.1 6.6 5.7 8.1 5.4

Building and grounds cleaning 

and maintenance occupations 2.3 .9 1.8 4.4 1.4 1.1 3.3 2.7 3.9

Personal care and service 

occupations 5.6 1.3 3.9 4.5 4.2 4.2 21.8 4.8 3.4

Sales and office occupations 21.3 18.1 19.7 23.9 22.8 25.5 16.2 24.7 24.4

Sales and related occupations 11.3 11.5 10.0 9.3 10.2 17.9 7.3 14.6 11.1

Office and administrative 

support occupations 10.0 6.7 9.7 14.6 12.5 7.6 8.9 10.1 13.2

Natural resources, construction, 

and maintenance occupations 4.0 1.7 3.0 5.0 4.1 4.1 6.9 5.0 10.0

Farming, fishing, and forestry 

occupations .2 .1 .1 .4 .3 .3 .3 .3 .7

Construction and extraction 

occupations 1.6 .7 1.5 1.8 1.6 1.8 2.5 1.9 5.7

Table 3.
Monthly Labor Review • November 2011 13

of Filipinos working in nursing and other medical professions.23 Employed Asian Indians, too, were more likely 

to work in the healthcare practitioners and technical occupations category (11 percent); these jobs are most often 

in the health care and social assistance industry. Almost 

one-third (32 percent) of employed Filipinos worked in 

this industry, compared with 13 percent of non-Asian 

workers. The health care and social assistance industry 

tends to have a low self-employment rate, and Filipinos 

were less likely than other Asian groups to be self-employed. As chart 6 shows, only about 5 percent of Filipinos were self-employed, on average, in the 2008–2010 

period. 

About one-fifth of Vietnamese workers were employed 

in personal care and service occupations, likely due to 

the relatively high employment of Vietnamese in nail 

salons.24 In fact, more than half of the Vietnamese employed in this category were classified as miscellaneous 

personal appearance workers, an occupational category 

that includes manicurists and pedicurists. Workers in 

other Asian groups were far less likely to be employed in 

personal care and service occupations. Vietnamese workers were much more likely than workers in other Asian 

groups to be employed in the other services industry; this 

industry includes personal and laundry services, such 

as hair salons and nail salons. Thirteen percent of Vietnamese workers were self-employed. Statistics from the 

Census Bureau’s 2007 Survey of Business Owners show 

that 59 percent of Vietnamese-owned businesses were in 

the other services industry; within other services, more 

than half of Vietnamese-owned businesses were in the 

nail salon industry.25 Vietnamese were more than twice 

as likely as non-Asians to be employed in production occupations, 14 percent compared with 6 percent. Many of 

these production workers were employed in the durable 

goods manufacturing industry. 

Of the Asian groups, Koreans had by far the highest 

self-employment rate, at least twice the rate of any of the 

other groups. On average during the 2008–2010 period, 

26 percent of Korean workers were self-employed, compared with 11 percent of non-Asian workers. According 

to the 2007 Survey of Business Owners, about half of 

Korean-owned businesses were in three industries: other 

services (21 percent); retail trade (19 percent); and professional, scientific, and technical services (9 percent).26 In 

the 2008–2010 period, 18 percent of employed Koreans 

were in sales and related occupations. This compares with 

11 percent of employed non-Asians. 

Ten percent of Chinese workers were in food preparation and serving related occupations, double the share of 

employed non-Asians in this category. Accordingly, Chinese workers were more likely than non-Asian workers 

to be employed in the accommodations and food services 

industry, 15 versus 7 percent. Asian Indians, Japanese, 

Filipinos, and Vietnamese were all about as likely as nonAsians to work in this industry, and Koreans were somewhat more likely. 

There were other, somewhat less striking, differences in 

the occupational profiles of the Asian groups. Japanese 

and Koreans were more likely than Filipinos and Vietnamese to be employed in management occupations: 17 

percent of employed Japanese and 15 percent of employed 

Koreans were in these occupations, compared with 7 

percent of Filipino workers and 5 percent of Vietnamese 

workers. Workers in all Asian groups were less likely than 

non-Asian workers to be employed in the construction 

industry.

Usual weekly earnings. Among full-time wage and salary workers, about three-quarters of Asian Indians earned 

Continued— Employed people by occupation, for Asian groups and non-Asians, averages for the combined years 

2008–2010

(Percent distribution)

Occupation

Asian

NonAsian Total Asian 

Indian Chinese Filipino Japanese Korean Vietnamese Other 

Asian

Installation, maintenance, 

and repair occupations 2.2 .9 1.4 2.8 2.2 2.1 4.0 2.8 3.6

Production, transportation, and 

material moving occupations 9.6 6.0 6.3 7.8 4.7 9.3 17.3 18.0 11.9

Production occupations 6.3 2.7 3.6 4.5 2.7 7.1 13.8 12.8 5.8

Transportation and material 

moving occupations 3.3 3.3 2.7 3.3 2.0 2.2 3.5 5.2 6.1

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Table 3.
Asian Workers

14 Monthly Labor Review • November 2011

Employed people by industry, for Asian groups and non-Asians, averages for the combined years 2008–2010

(Percent distribution)

Industry

Asian

NonAsian Total Asian 

Indian Chinese Filipino Japanese Korean Vietnamese Other 

Asian

Total employed, ages 16 and older

(in thousands) 6,752 1,232 1,555 1,242 380 624 699 1,019 134,682

Industry employment as a 

percent of total employed

Total employed 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Agricultural, forestry, fishing, and hunting .4 .1 .1 .6 1.2 .3 .5 .4 1.6

Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas 

extraction .1 .1 .1 .0 .1 .0 .4 .2 .6

Construction 2.4 1.5 2.2 2.4 3.2 3.5 2.9 2.4 7.2

Manufacturing 12.5 11.5 12.0 7.8 12.2 8.7 19.0 17.8 10.3

Manufacturing, durable goods 8.4 7.9 7.9 5.0 9.5 5.2 14.2 11.3 6.5

Manufacturing, nondurable goods 4.1 3.6 4.1 2.8 2.8 3.5 4.8 6.5 3.8

Wholesale and retail trade 13.5 14.2 11.1 11.8 13.1 18.9 11.0 17.0 14.2

Wholesale trade 2.5 2.0 3.2 1.7 3.4 3.5 2.1 2.5 2.8

Retail trade 11.0 12.2 7.9 10.2 9.7 15.4 8.9 14.5 11.4

Transportation and utilities 4.1 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 3.1 3.0 3.8 5.3

Transportation and warehousing 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.3 4.0 2.8 2.7 3.4 4.4

Utilities .4 .3 .5 .3 .9 .2 .3 .4 .9

Information 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.3

Financial activities 7.2 9.1 7.7 7.3 6.1 6.4 5.6 6.3 6.9

Finance and insurance 5.8 7.7 6.4 5.6 4.9 4.7 4.1 4.7 4.8

Real estate and rental and leasing 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.7 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.6 2.0

Professional and business services 13.2 24.1 13.8 8.7 13.7 10.5 7.8 9.9 10.7

Professional and technical services 10.9 22.1 12.1 5.7 10.7 8.6 5.9 7.0 6.3

Management, administrative, and waste 

services 2.3 2.0 1.7 3.0 3.0 1.9 2.0 2.9 4.4

Education and health services 22.5 21.7 21.9 36.5 22.7 18.4 11.9 17.1 22.5

Educational services 7.4 7.2 10.5 4.8 12.6 7.7 3.5 6.7 9.4

Health care and social assistance 15.1 14.5 11.4 31.7 10.1 10.8 8.4 10.5 13.0

Leisure and hospitality 11.8 6.4 17.2 9.4 9.4 12.7 10.3 14.5 8.8

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 2.1 0.9 2.1 2.5 2.3 1.5 2.9 3.0 2.1

Accommodation and food services 9.7 5.4 15.1 7.0 7.1 11.2 7.4 11.4 6.7

Other services 6.1 1.5 3.3 3.6 5.0 12.0 22.1 4.7 4.8

Private households .4 .1 .3 .8 .3 .2 .2 .4 .5

Other services, except private 

households 5.7 1.4 3.0 2.7 4.8 11.8 21.9 4.3 4.3

Public administration 3.6 2.7 3.4 4.8 6.1 2.9 3.3 3.4 4.9

Table 4.

$750 or more per week, compared with about half of nonAsians. More than 30 percent of Asian Indians earned 

$1,500 or more per week. Vietnamese and Other Asians 

were the least likely of the groups to earn $750 or more 

per week. Differences in earnings reflect many factors, 

such as variations in educational attainment, occupation, 

industry, and geographic region. (See chart 7.)

Unemployment

With the exception of Other Asians, unemployment rates 

for all of the Asian groups were lower than for non-Asians 

in the 2008–2010 period. Other Asians had the highest 

rate (8.5 percent), and Japanese had the lowest rate (4.0 

percent). The jobless rate for Chinese was 5.1 percent, and 

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.
Monthly Labor Review • November 2011 15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Non-Asian

Other Asian

Vietnamese

Korean

Japanese

Filipino 

Chinese

Asian Indian

Percent of employed people who were self-employed, Asian groups and non-Asians ages 16 and older, 

averages for the combined years 2008–2010

Chart 6.

 NOTE: Data include all self-employed workers, both those with incorporated businesses and those with unincorporated businesses.

Percent

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Non-Asian

Other Asian

Vietnamese

Filipino

Korean

Chinese

Japanese

Asian Indian

Less than $350.00 $350.00–$749.99 $750.00–$1,499.99 $1,500.00 or more

Percent distribution of usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers, Asian groups and 

non-Asians ages 16 and older, averages for the combined years 2008–2010

Chart 7.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.
Asian Workers

16 Monthly Labor Review • November 2011

rates for Asian Indians, Filipinos, Koreans, and Vietnamese ranged from 5.9 to 6.6 percent. By contrast, the rate 

for non-Asians during this period was 8.3 percent. (See 

table 5.)

Among youth ages 16 to 24, unemployment rates for the 

Asian groups were either lower than or similar to the rate 

for non-Asians. In the 25-to-54 age range, rates for most 

of the Asian groups were lower than they were for nonAsians and joblessness was lowest for Japanese. For people 

ages 55 and older, rates varied; Japanese and Koreans had 

lower rates than non-Asians, while Asian Indians had a 

higher rate. 

The unemployment rate for Asian Indian women was 

higher than the rate for Asian Indian men. However, the 

rates for Vietnamese, Filipino, and Chinese women were 

somewhat lower than for their male counterparts, which 

was the same pattern as for non-Asians. The jobless rates 

for Japanese men and Japanese women were little different; the same was true of the rates for Korean men and 

women. 

Jobless rates for non-Asians varied substantially by educational attainment. For instance, non-Asians ages 25 

and older with less than a high school diploma had a rate 

of 13.0 percent, 9.1 percentage points higher than the 3.9 

percent rate for non-Asians with a bachelor’s degree or 

higher. The gap for Asian groups was less pronounced. 

The jobless rate for Chinese ages 25 and older with less 

than a high school diploma was 5.5 percent, 1.3 percentage points higher than the rate for their counterparts with 

at least a bachelor’s degree (4.2 percent). For most of the 

Asian groups, the rates for those with less than a high 

school diploma were lower than for non-Asians, and the 

rates for those with at least a bachelor’s degree tended to 

be slightly higher.

Among Asian Indians, Chinese, Filipinos, and Koreans, 

the unemployment rates for the native born were somewhat higher than the rates for the foreign born. For nonAsians, the reverse was true; the rate for the native born 

Unemployment rates for Asian groups and non-Asians by selected characteristics, averages for the combined years 

2008–2010

Demographic characteristic

Asian

NonAsian Total Asian 

Indian Chinese Filipino Japanese Korean Vietnamese Other 

Asian

Unemployed, ages 16 and older 

(in thousands) 450 77 84 88 16 42 47 95 12,221

Unemployment rate, ages 16 and 

older 6.2 5.9 5.1 6.6 4.0 6.3 6.4 8.5 8.3

Gender

Men 6.6 5.1 5.6 7.8 4.4 6.4 7.5 9.2 9.1

Women 5.8 7.3 4.5 5.6 3.7 6.2 5.0 7.6 7.4

Age

16 to 24 12.6 9.3 9.7 15.3 13.8 12.3 10.8 15.3 16.4

25 to 54 5.5 5.0 4.5 5.7 3.6 6.2 6.2 7.2 7.3

55 and older 6.1 9.6 6.3 6.0 2.7 3.4 4.4 8.1 5.8

Nativity

Native born 7.1 7.2 5.9 7.5 4.4 7.9 7.4 10.3 8.2

Foreign born 6.0 5.7 4.9 6.3 3.4 5.8 6.1 7.9 9.2

Marital status, ages 25 to 54

Men, married, spouse present 5.1 3.6 4.1 6.2 3.2 6.0 6.0 7.2 5.6

Men, other marital status1 7.3 4.6 6.6 7.9 4.4 8.1 10.6 8.8 11.7

Women, married, spouse present 4.9 7.0 3.6 3.8 3.6 4.9 4.6 6.4 4.9

Women, other marital status1 5.9 7.1 4.4 6.9 6.9 7.4 4.7 6.9 8.9

Educational attainment

Total, ages 25 and older 5.6 5.6 4.8 5.8 3.4 5.7 5.9 7.4 7.0

Less than a high school diploma 8.6 9.4 5.5 12.2 — 7.5 7.8 11.4 13.0

High school graduate, no college 6.5 7.9 5.7 6.6 4.2 5.2 5.8 8.5 8.6

Some college or associate’s degree 6.8 6.3 6.1 6.6 4.6 9.3 5.5 8.8 7.0

Bachelor’s degree or higher 4.6 5.1 4.2 4.8 2.7 4.9 5.3 4.8 3.9

1

 Other marital status includes those who were separated, widowed, 

divorced, married but living apart, or never married.

NOTE: Dash represents data that do not meet BLS publication criteria.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Table 5.
Monthly Labor Review • November 2011 17

was somewhat lower than the rate for the foreign born. 

During the 2008–2010 period, the distribution of the 

jobless by reason for unemployment was similar for most 

of the Asian groups and for non-Asians. (See table 6.) 

Except for the Japanese, the share of the unemployed that 

were job losers—that is, those who had lost jobs or who 

had completed temporary jobs—ranged from 57 to 63 

percent, similar to the 61-percent share for non-Asians. 

Except among Koreans and Japanese, the share of the 

unemployed that were job leavers was also in line with 

the share of 7 percent for unemployed non-Asians. The 

unemployed Japanese had a different pattern from each of 

the other groups; the share that were job losers (45 percent) was considerably lower than for non-Asians, and the 

share that were job leavers (17 percent) was higher. This 

may reflect the group’s age profile and the fact that older 

workers are more likely to leave the labor force than are 

those ages 25 to 54. 

In recent years, the number of unemployed experiencing 

long durations of joblessness has been quite large by historical standards. Unemployed people in the Asian groups 

also experienced joblessness of long duration. Among the 

unemployed, a substantial portion of all Asian groups had 

been jobless for 27 weeks or longer. (See table 6.) About 4 

of 10 unemployed Chinese and Filipinos had been jobless 

for at least 27 weeks. This compares with about 3 of 10 

unemployed Koreans and non-Asians. 

Asians in the labor market, 2003–2010

In addition to investigating detailed labor force characteristics of Asian groups, it is possible to explore how the 

different groups have fared in the labor market over time. 

This section examines how various economic measures 

have changed for the different groups between 2003 and 

2010.

Labor force participation. The labor force participation 

rates of non-Asians held steady at around 66 percent from 

2003 through 2008 but fell during the recent recession27

and continued to decline through 2010; the participation 

rates for the various Asian groups, however, varied considerably. (See table 7.) The Asian groups had generally 

steady rates from 2003 through 2008. Between 2008 and 

2010, the rates declined for Chinese, Filipinos, and Japanese but remained fairly stable for Asian Indians, Koreans, and Vietnamese. 

Unemployment. Except for 2003, when the unemployment rates for Asians and non-Asians were both 6.0 

percent, Asians generally had lower jobless rates than 

non-Asians. (See chart 8.) From 2003 through 2010, jobless rates for Asians as a whole showed roughly the same 

pattern as for non-Asians. For both groups, the rates declined from a high point in 2003 and were relatively low 

in 2006 and 2007. The rates then rose sharply for both 

groups from 2007 to 2009, with most of the increase taking place from 2008 to 2009. The rate in 2010 was up 

slightly from the 2009 rate. 

Unemployment rates for each of the Asian groups generally followed this same overall pattern. (See table 7.) 

In 2003, Vietnamese and Other Asians had the highest 

unemployment rates, at 8.4 and 8.1 percent, respectively; 

Japanese and Koreans had the lowest rates, at 3.5 and 3.6 

Unemployed people by reason for and duration of unemployment, for Asian groups and non-Asians, averages for the 

combined years 2008–2010

(Percent distribution)

Reason and duration

Asian

Non-Asian

Total Asian 

Indian Chinese Filipino Japanese Korean Vietnamese Other 

Asian

Reason for unemployment

Total unemployed 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Job losers and persons who

completed temporary jobs 58.7 59.8 62.5 59.1 45.4 57.1 62.0 55.2 61.1

Job leavers 8.0 5.6 7.6 7.6 16.6 13.6 5.0 8.2 7.0

Reentrants 23.1 24.2 21.0 24.1 27.9 19.9 22.5 24.0 24.0

New entrants 10.3 10.5 8.9 9.2 10.1 9.3 10.6 12.6 7.9

Duration of unemployment

Total unemployed 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Less than 27 weeks 62.4 64.2 56.1 58.3 64.2 69.8 64.3 65.6 66.8

27 weeks and over 37.6 35.8 43.9 41.7 35.8 30.2 35.7 34.4 33.2

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Table 6.
Asian Workers

18 Monthly Labor Review • November 2011

Labor force participation rates and unemployment rates of Asian groups and non-Asians, 2003–2010 annual averages

Year

Asian

Non-Asian

Total Asian 

Indian Chinese Filipino Japanese Korean Vietnamese Other 

Asian

Labor force

 participation rate

2010 64.7 69.2 63.7 67.2 55.3 59.2 65.5 64.9 64.7

2009 66.0 69.9 64.3 69.7 55.7 60.1 67.7 66.9 65.3

2008 67.0 69.5 65.8 74.1 58.4 61.3 66.0 66.5 65.9

2007 66.5 69.5 65.7 72.8 60.4 60.6 65.3 65.7 66.0

2006 66.2 70.5 64.7 71.8 62.0 60.9 65.3 66.0 66.2

2005 66.1 70.4 63.6 70.8 63.9 60.7 65.6 66.6 66.0

2004 65.9 72.0 62.5 70.3 62.7 60.5 66.1 67.5 66.0

2003 66.4 72.0 64.8 73.3 58.0 61.2 64.2 68.0 66.2

Unemployment

 rate

2010 7.5 6.6 6.5 8.5 4.6 6.4 7.6 10.3 9.7

2009 7.3 6.7 6.2 7.4 4.8 8.5 7.5 9.4 9.3

2008 4.0 4.3 3.0 4.0 2.9 3.9 3.9 5.5 5.9

2007 3.2 3.3 2.8 3.9 1.7 3.3 3.5 3.8 4.7

2006 3.0 3.3 3.2 2.9 1.9 2.0 3.1 4.2 4.7

2005 4.0 3.7 4.2 3.6 2.2 3.5 4.8 5.7 5.1

2004 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.3 2.7 3.1 5.8 5.9 5.6

2003 6.0 6.0 5.5 6.0 3.5 3.6 8.4 8.1 6.0

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Table 7.

Unemployment rate and alternative labor underutilization measure U-6 for Asians and non-Asians 

ages 16 and older, 2003–2010 annual averages

Chart 8.

Percent

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Non-Asians, U-6

Non-Asians,

unemployment rate

Asians,

unemployment rate

Asians, U-6

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.

Percent

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

percent, respectively. In 2010, the rate for Other Asians, 

at 10.3 percent, was the highest among the groups, followed by Filipinos (8.5 percent) and Vietnamese (7.6 percent). The rate for Koreans—whose unemployment rate 

was the most volatile of the groups—fell sharply from 8.5 

percent in 2009 to 6.4 percent in 2010. The rate for Japanese, at 4.6 percent, was the lowest for all the groups in 

2010. Throughout the 2003–2010 period, rates for Japa-
Monthly Labor Review • November 2011 19

nese tended to be lower than for the other groups, and 

rates for Other Asians tended to be relatively high.

To allow users to better assess the degree to which labor resources are underutilized, BLS produces a number 

Alternative measures of labor underutilization of Asian groups and non-Asians, 2003–2010 annual averages

Year

Asian

Non-Asian

Total Asian Indian Chinese Filipino Japanese Korean Vietnamese Other Asian

U-1: People unemployed 15 weeks or longer, as a percent of the civilian labor force

2010 4.8 4.1 4.4 5.5 3.1 3.8 4.7 6.6 5.8

2009 3.9 3.4 3.9 4.0 1.9 4.0 3.7 5.1 4.8

2008 1.5 1.9 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.4 2.1

2007 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.5 .6 .4 1.3 1.4 1.5

2006 1.2 1.7 1.5 1.1 .6 .4 1.4 1.4 1.5

2005 1.7 1.5 1.9 1.6 .7 1.2 2.5 2.3 1.8

2004 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.2 .5 2.9 2.2 2.1

2003 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.9 1.3 1.4 4.1 3.2 2.3

U-2: Job losers and people who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force

2010 4.6 4.1 4.4 5.2 1.7 3.6 4.3 6.2 6.1

2009 4.5 4.4 3.7 4.6 2.9 5.4 4.8 5.3 6.0

2008 1.9 2.0 1.6 1.9 1.0 1.7 2.7 2.3 3.2

2007 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.6 .7 1.0 1.7 1.5 2.3

2006 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 .8 .8 1.4 1.5 2.2

2005 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.5 .7 1.2 2.1 2.4 2.5

2004 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.5 1.1 .8 3.4 2.9 2.9

2003 3.2 2.7 3.5 3.2 2.2 1.6 5.2 3.3 3.3

U-4: Total unemployed plus discouraged workers, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus discouraged workers

2010 8.1 7.1 7.1 9.1 4.9 7.0 8.5 10.9 10.4

2009 7.8 7.0 6.8 7.9 5.1 9.0 8.1 9.9 9.8

2008 4.2 4.5 3.4 4.2 3.0 4.2 4.2 5.9 6.2

2007 3.4 3.5 3.1 4.1 1.7 3.5 3.9 3.9 4.9

2006 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.1 2.2 2.2 3.3 4.6 4.9

2005 4.2 3.8 4.5 3.7 2.3 3.8 5.0 6.1 5.4

2004 4.8 4.8 5.1 4.5 2.7 3.2 6.7 6.4 5.9

2003 6.4 6.5 6.0 6.3 3.5 4.1 9.2 8.7 6.3

U-5: Total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus all other people marginally attached to the labor force, 

as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all people marginally attached to the labor force

2010 8.9 7.6 7.7 10.0 5.5 7.8 9.5 11.8 11.2

2009 8.5 7.7 7.5 8.8 5.7 9.9 9.2 10.5 10.6

2008 4.8 5.0 4.1 4.7 3.5 4.7 4.8 6.6 6.9

2007 4.0 4.0 3.6 4.6 2.2 4.2 4.5 4.6 5.6

2006 4.0 4.1 4.6 3.8 2.5 2.9 3.9 5.4 5.6

2005 4.9 4.6 5.2 4.6 2.6 4.6 5.5 7.1 6.1

2004 5.5 5.2 5.9 5.3 3.2 3.5 7.2 7.3 6.6

2003 7.2 7.0 6.8 7.1 4.2 4.9 9.9 9.6 7.0

U-6: Total unemployed, plus all people marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, 

as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all people marginally attached to the labor force

2010 13.6 10.2 11.9 16.7 8.5 11.7 15.7 17.6 16.9

2009 13.3 10.7 11.3 14.7 8.4 14.4 16.1 16.8 16.4

2008 7.3 6.6 6.3 7.6 5.5 7.7 7.5 10.0 10.7

2007 6.0 5.2 5.7 6.9 3.7 5.8 7.3 6.9 8.4

2006 6.0 5.5 6.7 6.1 3.9 4.9 6.3 7.4 8.4

2005 7.3 5.8 7.7 7.3 4.8 7.3 8.6 9.6 9.0

2004 8.0 6.8 8.3 8.1 5.2 5.3 10.8 10.6 9.7

2003 9.9 8.9 9.9 10.4 5.9 6.7 13.2 12.5 10.1

NOTE: U-3 is the official unemployment rate and can be found in table 7.

Table 8.

SOURCE: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey.
Asian Workers

20 Monthly Labor Review • November 2011

of alternative measures of labor underutilization; these 

measures are referred to as U-1 through U-6. (U-3 is 

the official unemployment rate).28 For each of the Asian 

groups, the measures—displayed in table 8—have generally moved along with the official unemployment rate and 

have shown similar trends. The U-1 through U-6 rates 

were generally relatively high in 2003 and then trended 

down. After reaching lows in 2006 or 2007, the rates began to rise and then leveled off somewhat in 2010. 

The broadest measure of labor underutilization—known 

as U-6—includes the unemployed, people marginally attached to the labor force, and people who are employed 

part time but would prefer to work a full-time schedule 

(also referred to as people employed part time for economic reasons).29 Chart 8 shows U-6 for Asians as a whole 

and for non-Asians during the 2003–2010 period, along 

with the unemployment rate for both groups. While the 

U-6 rate was always higher than the unemployment rate, 

it followed the same general pattern. U-6 rates for each 

of the Asian groups also followed this general pattern. 

As with the official unemployment rate, U-6 rates for the 

Japanese tended to be low during the 2003–2010 period, 

and rates for Other Asians tended to be relatively high. 

(See table 8.)

This paper has presented previously unpublished CPS

estimates for Asian groups. These estimates illustrate the 

groups’ varied demographic and labor force characteristics. Some highlights of the averages for the combined 

years 2008–2010 are as follows:

•	 Of the groups, Asian Indians were most likely 

to be foreign born, married, and have a bachelor’s degree or higher. Asian Indian women were 

much less likely to be in the labor force than were 

Asian Indian men. About one-fifth of employed 

Asian Indians were in computer and mathematical occupations. 

•	 Chinese were the largest of the groups. Chinese 

workers were overrepresented in food preparation 

and serving related occupations and in computer 

and mathematical occupations. 

•	 Filipino women outnumbered Filipino men, 

with the disparity occurring among the foreign 

born. Filipino women had a higher labor force 

participation rate than women in any other Asian 

group. About a third of Filipino workers were in 

the health care and social assistance industry. 

•	 Unlike other Asian groups, the majority of Japanese were native born. Japanese also were more 

likely to be ages 55 and older. The labor force participation rate of Japanese was the lowest among 

the Asian groups, at least in part reflecting the 

older age profile of Japanese. Their unemployment 

rate was lower than that of any other Asian group. 

•	 About one quarter of Korean workers were selfemployed, a much higher percentage than for any 

other group. 

•	 Vietnamese were the least likely of the groups 

to have a bachelor’s degree or higher, although 

the native born were more likely than the foreign 

born to have attained a bachelor’s degree. About 

one-fifth of Vietnamese workers were in personal 

care and service occupations.

•	 Other Asians are made up of a variety of smaller 

Asian groups, and data from other sources indicate that these groups have varied labor force 

characteristics. Other Asians had the highest unemployment rate of all the Asian groups. 

For each of the groups, changes in key economic indicators were examined for 2003 through 2010. During the 

recent recessionary period, unemployment rates rose for 

all the Asian groups, but these rates were generally below the rate for non-Asians. Alternative measures of labor 

underutilization for Asian groups during 2003 through 

2010 show patterns broadly similar to that of the official 

unemployment rate. 

Notes

1 The Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly sample survey 

of about 60,000 households, is the data source for the official national 

unemployment rate and many other U.S. labor force statistics. The demographic data available from the CPS allow for comparisons across 

a variety of subpopulations, enabling researchers and policymakers to 

assess how different groups are faring in the labor market.

2 See the Office of Management and Budget Federal Register 

notice, “Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of Federal 

Data on Race and Ethnicity,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

fedreg_1997standards/ (visited November 18, 2011). Before 2003, 

Asian and Pacific Islander was a single race category in the CPS.

3 For more information about the questions on race in the CPS, see 

Current Population Survey Interviewing Manual (U.S. Census Bureau, January 2007), pp. C3-25 through C3-29, http://www.census.
Monthly Labor Review • November 2011 21

gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/CPS_Interviewing_Manual_July2008rv.pdf

(visited November 18, 2011). 

4 The CPS contains additional questions about the country of birth of 

respondents and their parents; these data are not used for the tabulations 

appearing in this paper. The country-of-birth data differ from the data 

about Asian groups in two principal ways. First, the country-of-birth 

questions capture information on foreign-country births only for 

first- and second-generation U.S. residents, while people identified as 

belonging to an Asian group include individuals whose families have 

lived in the United States for generations. Second, individual members 

of Asian groups who were born abroad may or may not have been born 

in Asia. For example, 2009 data from the American Community Survey 

show that almost 1 in 10 foreign-born Asian Indians was born outside 

of Asia. Statistics on world region of birth for Asian groups is available 

from the American Community Survey. These estimates are available 

at http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_

program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts (visited 

November 18, 2011). 

5 Although the CPS does not collect information on each of 

the individual groups included in the Other Asian category (such 

as Hmong, Laotian, or Pakistani), data from other sources have 

shown that there are sharp differences among these groups. For this 

reason, the Other Asian group is rarely discussed in this paper. For 

statistics about groups included in the Other Asian category, see 

results from the American Community Survey, http://factfinder.

census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_

submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts (visited November 18, 

2011). Also see Terrance J. Reeves and Claudette E. Bennett, We the 

People: Asians in the United States, Census 2000 Special Reports, issued 

December 2004, http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-17.

pdf (visited November 18, 2011).

6 For more information on CPS estimation procedures, see Design 

and Methodology: Current Population Survey, Technical Paper 66 (U.S. 

Census Bureau, October 2006), p. 10–15, http://www.census.gov/

prod/2006pubs/tp-66.pdf (visited November 18, 2011). 

7 The foreign born are persons who reside in the United States but 

who were born outside the country or one its outlying areas to parents who were not U.S. citizens. The foreign born include legallyadmitted immigrants, refugees, temporary residents such as students 

and temporary workers, and undocumented immigrants. The survey 

data, however, do not separately identify the numbers of people in 

these categories. 

8 For more information on the Immigration and Nationality Act 

of 1965, see David M. Reimers, Still the Golden Door: The Third World 

Comes to America, 2nd ed. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992).

9 The native born are persons born in the United States or one of its 

outlying areas, such as Puerto Rico or Guam, or who were born abroad 

of at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen. 

10 For more information about the foreign born, see U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, “Foreign-born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics—2010,” USDL-11–0763, news release, May 27, 2011, http://

www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/forbrn_05272011.pdf (visited 

November 18, 2011). 

11 A number of publications have examined migration of Asian 

groups in depth. For example, see Ronald Takaki, Strangers from Another Shore: A History of Asian Americans, 2nd ed. (Boston: Back Bay 

Books, 1998). For more recent developments, see Min Zhou and J.V. 

Gatewood, “Transforming Asian America: Globalization and Contemporary Immigration to the United States,” in Min Zhou and 

J.V. Gatewood, eds., Contemporary Asian America: A Multidisciplinary 

Reader, 2nd ed. (New York: New York University Press, 2007).

12 For more information on H-1B visas, see Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, “H-1B, H-1B1 and 

E-3 Specialty (Professional) Workers,” http://www.foreignlaborcert.

doleta.gov/h-1b.cfm (visited November 22, 2011).

13 See Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers: Fiscal Year 

2009 Annual Report, (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, April 

15, 2010), http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Resources/Reports%20

and%20Studies/H-1B/h1b-fy-09-characteristics.pdf (visited November 18, 2011). 

14 See Randall Monger and Macreadie Barr, Nonimmigrant Admissions to the United States: 2009 (Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, April 2010), http://www.dhs.

gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ni_fr_2009.pdf (visited 

November 18, 2011).

15 For more information on employment-based preferences, see U.S. 

Department of State, “Employment-Based Immigrant Visas,” http://

travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1323.html#overview

(visited November 22, 2011).

16 “Profiles on Legal Permanent Residents,” fiscal years 2003–2010, 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, http://www.dhs.gov/files/

statistics/data/dslpr.shtm (visited November 18, 2011). 

17 See Yen Le Espiritu, “Gender, Migration, and Work: Filipina 

Heath Care Professionals to the United States,” in Min Zhou and 

J.V. Gatewood, eds., Contemporary Asian America: A Multidisciplinary 

Reader, 2nd ed. (New York: New York University Press, 2007). 

18 See “Profiles on Legal Permanent Residents,” U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security.

19 For a discussion of labor force participation of older workers, see 

Emy Sok, “Record Unemployment Among Older Workers Does Not 

Keep Them Out of the Job Market,” Issues in Labor Statistics, Summary 10–04 (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2010), http://

www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils81.pdf (visited November 18, 

2011). 

20 For statistics about the labor force participation rates of youth 

ages 16 to 24 by school enrollment status and race, see U.S. Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, “College Enrollment and Work Activity of 2010 

High School Graduates,” USDL-11–0462, news release, April 8, 2011, 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/hsgec_04082011.pdf

(visited November 18, 2011). 

21 Self-employed workers include both those whose businesses are 

incorporated and those whose businesses are unincorporated. For 

more information about self-employment, see Steven F. Hipple, “Selfemployment in the United States,” Monthly Labor Review, September 

2010, pp. 17–32, http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2010/09/art2full.

pdf (visited November 18, 2011). 

22 See Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers: Fiscal Year 

2009 Annual Report and Kelly Jefferys, Characteristics of EmploymentBased Legal Permanent Residents: 2004 (Office of Immigration 

Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, October 2005 fact 

sheet), http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/

FSEmployBasedLPR2004.pdf (visited November 18, 2011).

23 See Le Espiritu, “Gender, Migration, and Work.”

24 According to the industry trade publication Nails Magazine 2010 

Industry Statistics, 40 percent of nail technicians were Vietnamese, 

which is larger than any other demographic group. These statistics are 

available at http://files.nailsmag.com/Market-Research/bb2010-

11stats-reprints.pdf (accessed November 18, 2011). A more complete 

discussion of the Vietnamese presence in nail salons is in Janya Rust, 

“A Vietnamese American Dynasty,” Nails Magazine, March 1, 2006, 
Asian Workers

22 Monthly Labor Review • November 2011

http://www.nailsmag.com/article/40129/a-vietnamese-americandynasty (visited November 18, 2011).

25 See U.S. Census Bureau, “Survey of Business Owners—AsianOwned Firms: 2007” at http://www.census.gov/econ/sbo/get07sof.

html?16 (visited November 18, 2011). 

26 See “Survey of Business Owners—Asian-Owned Firms: 2007.”

27 According to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), 

which is generally recognized as the official arbiter of recessions in the 

United States, the most recent recession began in December 2007 and 

ended in June 2009.

28 For a detailed description of the different labor underutilization 

measures, see Steven E. Haugen, “Measures of Labor Underutilization 

from the Current Population Survey,” BLS Working Paper 424, March 

2009, http://www.bls.gov/osmr/pdf/ec090020.pdf (visited November 18, 2011). 

29 See Haugen, “Measures of Labor Underutilization.”