That seems to be the going fad by using the phrase 'people of color' to refer to all racial and ethnic minorities in the U.S.
Regardless, are you claiming that the 6% of Asians in the U.S. are oppressing the 13% of blacks, and that's why educational and income disparities exist? Do you realize that, in aggregate, these two groups mostly don't live in the same parts of the country?
How would you measure it?
First point: I'm suggesting to you that an employer may be willing to hire an Asian, a Jew, or a Hispanic, but a Black may be his person of last resort, or may not hire him/her at all. That doesn't mean the employer isn't racist; it just means he's not a white supremicist because he's willing to hire non-whites. He still is a racist against/towards blacks. I bring this example up because, when you account for education, blacks are often the group of people who are hired last and see the least benefits of economic recoveries (my source here is, admittedly,
The Indicator, not necessarily that episode, they have done a few on the topic of the unemployment gaps that exist). They are also the first to be fired/laid off from a job. Obviously, I'm not saying correlation = causation, but it's something to consider: are employers racist specifically against blacks? Would it be that hard to fathom that could be the case, enough to swing the needle of black unemployment to a number higher than whites or other minorities, even when you control for education level?
Second point: household sizes aren't standardized and rarely are so in terms of this measurement when reported. If a child who's living with his parents making $12k a year out of the $80k his two working parents combine to make finishes college and moves out after college making $60k, we see that his parents household income drops to $68k and his starts a new one at $60k. Was there a net detriment? Not necessarily, but it's a bad measurement of progress (in this case progress has been made - he's doing better than either one of his parents individually when they average out) or wealth (his parents' household reports a net loss in household income year over year). Furthermore, if you have a family with 10 people across multiple generations reporting a $100k household, then that demographic may look far more wealthy than they really are. What about reporting equity on a home? Some people may rent, and others may have just bought a home, but neither has equity, but often, the latter is reported with the full net worth of their home (incorrectly). The definition from the US Census Bureau would show that 2-4 flight school students would report a higher household income than a O-3 or O-4 working alone: "A family consists of two or more people (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing unit.
A household consists of all people who occupy a housing unit regardless of relationship. A household may consist of a person living alone or multiple unrelated individuals or families living together." There are many more problems with these uses,
partially discussed here.
To answer your question: I'd measure it by income per adult. If you want to get more specific, measure it by that and then divide or otherwise control for dependent children to consider how many people they are responsible for feeding. There are better ways; Malcom Gladwell has discussed it I believe, but I can't remember which one of his books deep dives into this.
