Chip Lupo on State Diversity in the United States
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/11
Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, and editing, combined with proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Chip Lupo to briefly cover diversity among U.S. states based on data gathering and formal analysis. To begin, as is appropriate for any research, are there any formal financial conflicts of interest in this study?
Chip Lupo: That’s a great question. There are none.
Jacobsen: When we look at the general diversity index among U.S. states, which states have you found to be the most diverse?
Lupo: According to our research, Scott, the top three states—unsurprisingly—are California, Texas, and New Jersey. These states are home to large immigrant populations and major metropolitan areas, contributing to their high diversity rankings. California, for instance, has a long history of immigration and is known for its significant Latino, Asian, and African American populations.
Jacobsen: Which states are the least diverse, and are there any hypotheses as to why?
Lupo: The least diverse states—the bottom five—are Vermont, Maine, West Virginia, Montana, and Wyoming. These states tend to have smaller populations and are predominantly rural and homogenous regarding ethnicity and race. The geographical isolation of some of these states and limited economic opportunities may also contribute to their lack of diversity.
Jacobsen: Based on the index, why is California such a highly diverse state?
Lupo: California’s diversity is influenced by several factors. Its proximity to Mexico and its role as a gateway for immigration from Asia contribute significantly. Additionally, California ranks highly in both socioeconomic and cultural diversity. Socioeconomic diversity refers to the wide range of household incomes, from low-income households to those earning over $150,000 annually. Cultural diversity includes linguistic diversity—whether English, Spanish, or another language is spoken at home—and racial and ethnic diversity, with large Hispanic, Asian, and African American populations.
Jacobsen: There is an old quote from Frederick Douglass in which he predicted, long ago, that it was not necessarily what he wanted to happen or not want to happen, but what he saw as the inevitable result of societal movements, cultures, and immigration patterns. This was briefly mentioned in the report. When does the Census Bureau predict that the United States will no longer have a single ethnic majority?
Lupo: I’m glad you brought that up. Douglass was referring to the “melting pot,” and his concern was assimilation. According to the Census Bureau, by 2045, the United States will no longer have a single ethnic majority. Currently, non-Hispanic whites make up the largest group. Still, demographic changes, especially immigration and birth rates among minority populations, are shifting that balance. States like California, Texas, Florida, and New York already reflect this trend, with no single group making up a majority.
Between the 2010 and 2020 censuses, the probability that two randomly selected Americans would be from different racial or ethnic groups increased from 54.9% to 61.1%.
Jacobsen: How was the index developed regarding the weighting of the various contributing factors, and why was that particular weighting chosen?
Lupo: That’s a critical question. We compared all 50 states across six key dimensions. In addition to socioeconomic and cultural diversity, we included economic diversity (which measures the variety of industries and job types), household diversity (including household composition and size), religious diversity (representing the range of religious affiliations), and political diversity (capturing the spread of political views within the state). Each factor was weighted based on its impact on social cohesion and representation.
Lupo: We placed the most weight within the cultural diversity dimension, particularly racial and ethnic diversity, where we applied triple weight. We put significant emphasis on this aspect, focusing on racial and ethnic categories such as Hispanic, Latino, white, Black, and African, as discussed previously. We also heavily weighed linguistic diversity, particularly in households where English is not the primary language.
We assigned a double weight to household income diversity, a key factor. Industry diversity was another important element. This falls under the economic diversity dimension, and we also weighed it considerably. Industry diversity refers to the wide range of businesses and industries that drive economic activity in these states.
These industries include agriculture, construction, manufacturing, finance, insurance, public administration, and educational services. What else did we emphasize heavily? Those were the major ones. Additionally, we applied full weight to metrics such as worker class diversity, covering categories like wage versus salary, government workers, self-employed workers, and marital status, including never married, divorced, separated, and widowed.
Household diversity was also an important factor. This is an interesting dimension because the most diverse states tend to have various household compositions, from two-person family households to seven-person or larger non-family households. This diversity is common in states with higher overall diversity rankings.
Jacobsen: What are the positives and negatives of living in a more diverse state, especially regarding the general values many Americans hold? For instance, if you were to generalize American values and preferences broadly, were these aspects considered in your analysis?
Lupo: The positive aspect is that diversity allows people from different backgrounds to share local services and institutions within their states. It encourages the promotion and embracing of diverse cultures and ideas. This is important because the U.S. was founded on the notion of being a melting pot, where people from various countries came together and assimilated.
However, a possible negative is that some U.S. residents may feel that recent immigrants are not assimilating into American culture as quickly as previous generations did. This could lead to fears about cultural fragmentation.
Jacobsen: What are Americans most comfortable and uncomfortable with regarding diversity? For example, gender and racial diversity are at the forefront of public consciousness. Still, when it comes to economic diversity, more Americans prefer less disparity, such as a smaller economic gap between people.
Lupo: That’s a good point. Regarding concerns about diversity, there’s discomfort surrounding the overburdening of infrastructure—whether it’s schools, hospitals, or law enforcement. These issues often arise when discussing immigration, particularly illegal immigration. Many Americans are generally supportive of legal immigration, but there’s more concern when it comes to illegal immigration. The hope is that immigrants will enter through legal channels, assimilate, and become part of American culture.
Additionally, there’s the economic concern that immigrants may take jobs that Americans might otherwise perform. These are ongoing issues that are part of the national conversation.
Jacobsen: Which states are projected to become significantly more diverse by the 2030s compared to now?
Lupo: One state to watch is Colorado. Its diversity numbers have risen significantly, especially as California becomes more crowded and people relocate. Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona are all states to watch. Additionally, New York ranked fourth in our index, building a strong and diverse base.
Look for that diversity to expand beyond the New York City metro area. In other parts of New York state, I imagine New York will be as diverse as California or Texas in another generation.
Jacobsen: Are there any other significant points in the report and analysis that haven’t been mentioned yet?
We discussed where California, Texas, and Florida performed well, particularly in socioeconomic and cultural diversity. However, where they did not perform as well, and this surprised me, was in religious diversity. They aren’t as religiously diverse. That’s an interesting point I hadn’t considered. Yes, as you might expect. And then there’s political diversity.
Jacobsen: It’s funny because I’ve done interviews with both religious leaders and non-religious leaders for so long. Still, I forgot to ask about religious diversity in this context. You develop certain patterns as a journalist and sometimes miss these nuances.
It’s like when an economics journalist focuses on real estate but forgets to ask about the economic impacts. It’s funny how those gaps happen. Anyway, please continue.
Lupo: California’s and Texas’s rich diversity did not extend to political diversity. If you look at an electoral college map, this becomes apparent. Both states lean toward one ideology, so California or Texas has little “purple” or political diversity.
On the other hand, Florida is more of a political melting pot and performs better regarding religious diversity. As these states become more diverse, the range of political ideologies may become more integrated into the diverse landscape in California and Texas.
Jacobsen: Well, Mr. Lupo, thank you for your time today.
Lupo: You’re welcome.
License & Copyright
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.
In-Sight Publishing 