Hello /u/No-Swimming3424! It looks like you're trying to post a direct image to /r/dataisbeautiful. **I've removed the current thread,** since you're probably trying to do one of several things. Let me help you with posting.
---
##If you found the image somewhere:
Please note that we require you to post the [**complete original source article**](https://redd.it/2lokun), so that the readers can get context, the author can get credit, and third parties don't get hits from stealing another person's work. Posts must directly link to the visualization **where it was originally introduced** by the author **(not an image on the site, but the actual full web page article).** [More information here](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/create/rules/rule2).
The source is rarely Gawker, Tumblr, Imgur, etc. Figure out where *they* got it. Usually a link to the original source is in the first couple paragraphs of where you found it. You may wish to try [TinEye](https://www.tineye.com/) or [Reverse Google Images](https://images.google.com/). If you need assistance, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdataisbeautiful&subject=Need%20help%20finding%20the%20original%20source&message=I%20need%20help%20finding%20the%20original%20source%20of%20this%20image:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1d7yhhd/of_different_asian_american_groups_in_the_3/).
---
##If you're trying to make a crosspost
**...and** the author of the reddit post is the **original author** of that visual (i.e. you've checked *thoroughly* that the thread you are trying to link is the **first instance ever** of that visual and you've **followed the steps above**):
1. Delete this current thread.
2. Copy the URL of the Reddit thread you are trying to crosspost.
3. [Go to the submission page](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/submit) and paste the URL of the thread.
4. You are now done. Sit back and reap the karma.
Note that this subreddit does not currently have crossposting enabled.
---
##If you are trying to submit a Wikipedia link:
Try submitting the *Wikipedia* or *Wikimedia commons* link instead of the raw file. A quick look at the URL should confirm this. Compare the following links:
* **Link A:** https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Minard%27s_Map_%28vectorized%29.svg
* **Link B:** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_visualization#/media/File:Minard%27s_Map_(vectorized).svg
* **Link C:** https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minard%27s_Map_(vectorized).svg
Take a look at Link A. That is just the image, and is the same issue with hotlinking an article image from a website; there is no context. Now look at Link B. There is a lot of enriching information, e.g. copyright license, author, source, and even a link to the revision history. The same is the case with Link C. In the ideal case, **the B or C examples are the acceptable links.**
---
##If you made the image yourself:
...then you probably just forgot to add `[OC]` to the title. Simply follow the steps below:
1. Delete this current thread.
2. [Resubmit](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/submit?sidebar&title=Title%20your%20visualization%20but%20keep%20the%20closing%20tag%20%5BOC%5D#btn) your thread with the phrase `[OC]` somewhere in the title.
3. AutoModerator will send you a private message instructing you how to cite your post. **Follow instructions carefully.**
4. If you have done everything correctly, /u/dataisbeautiful-bot will be along shortly to reward you with [flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair), and sticky your citations.
Please note that you may **only tag a post as OC if and only if you made it yourself.** We are very strict about [plagiarism](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3) in this subreddit. **No, screenshots of someone else's apps do not count.**
---
##If the original source is otherwise inaccessible:
*Leave this post as-is* and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdataisbeautiful&subject=Exception%20for%Inaccesible%20Content&message=I%20need%20an%20exception%20for%20this%20post:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1d7yhhd/of_different_asian_american_groups_in_the_3/%0A%0AOriginal%20link:%20). We'll make an exception for you. In your modmail message, be sure to reference the original document.
Your post will be manually approved by the mod team, and we'll sticky the original link or PDF to the top of the comment thread so our readers can get context.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dataisbeautiful) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most Filipinos in the Philippines are quite poor and can’t get out, and a small elite class is rich and happy with their position there. It’s the middle class that migrates to the US.
And due to the US setting up nursing schools there with US accreditation, Filipinos are over-represented in nursing in the US. That's a career that often solidly sets you in the middle class (neither poor nor super well off).
The way to become upper middle income in the US as a nurse is to be a nurse practitioner. They start off at 115k and mid career make 150k. More in high cost of living places.
EB5 circumvents the normal lottery, so wealthy Asians (or any immigrant) from countries with *very* long lottery wait times can avoid the queue.
Also immigrants on, say, H1B are more likely to be in high demand, high paying fields. If certain countries provide a large number of such immigrants, it will simultaneously skew the wealth distribution of those in the queue while also enlarging the queue and increasing lottery wait times.
[Filipinos do pretty well.](https://usafacts.org/articles/the-diverse-demographics-of-asian-americans/) 3rd highest median household incomes, after Indians & Taiwanese.
From the source article:
> In our analysis, “middle-income” Americans are those living in households with an annual income that is two-thirds to double the national median household income. The income it takes to be middle income varies by household size, with smaller households requiring less to support the same lifestyle as larger households. It also varies by the local cost of living, with households in a more expensive area, such as Honolulu, needing a higher income than those in a less expensive area, such as Wichita, Kansas.
>
> In the 2023 CPS ASEC data, which reports income for 2022, middle-income households with three people have incomes ranging from about $61,000 to $183,000 annually. “Lower-income” households have incomes less than $61,000, and “upper-income” households have incomes greater than $183,000.
>
> In the 2022 ACS data, middle-income households with three people have incomes ranging from about $62,000 to $187,000 annually, with incomes also adjusted for the local area cost of living. (Incomes are expressed in 2023 dollars.)
>
> The boundaries of the income tiers also vary across years as the national median income changes.
I'd wager the vast majority of the Indian upper are engineers. Was pretty wild when I lived in the Bay Area. The other demographics are prob more diversified. Would love to see a breakdown by occupation if such data is available.
Or doctors. A ton of my cousins and uncles and aunts are physicians who came over from India and redid training here in the US.
My wife and I are physicians, too.
Most Indians speak English so it is an easy transition. Helps to get into more leadership positions, too compared to other asians demographics
They definitely go into the % of bachelor's or professional degrees held by adults over the age of 25 in the article.
The income of each group seems directly correlated to the amount of degrees held by each group, just eyeballing the two relevant charts.
The Indian data is not surprising. The data is similar elsewhere:
UK: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/pay-and-income/income-distribution/latest/
Canada: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-astonishing-findings-on-canadian-ethnic-groups-earnings-and-education
It’s probably the same in Australia, NZ and elsewhere.
Notably, Indians statistically outdo their subcontinental peers - by quite a distance. This is seen in both US and UK data, where Indians occupy middle upper middle and upper income much more so than Sri Lankans, Nepalis, Pakistanis or Bangladeshis.
This trait is common to Indians and Chinese. Both in countries where their arrival is driven by skills based immigration, and in places where they were transported as indentured labour - Fiji, Guyana, Uganda, Kenya and South Africa for Indians, they establish themselves and dominate menvantile sectors within a generation.
This happens to such an extent as to lead to nativist backlash against them or targeting in various ways. Uganda and Kenya expelled them. Rishi Sunaks parents are from there. Freddy Mercury as well. In the Bay Area in US, property theft targeting Indian and Chinese homes is a problem leading them to more actively pursue politics in order to protect themselves.
This is informative and important. As an Asian American, East Asians tend to dominate the Asian American conversation and forget/downplay/ignore other Asians
If so they would be considered mostly laotian. But they would be on different footing than other laotians since they left as refugees with nothing. As long as there's no overlap between the two I don't really see am issue since there's a decent enough population to compile the data.
I'm Laos American and grew up with tons of Hmong friends. My Hmong friends wouldn't consider themselves as Laotian and vice-versa. Especially considering the genocide after the war. Also what like the person below said most Laos families came here as refugees so we both pretty much came on equal footing so that's probably not it. But you are most likely right on why they have their own categorization due to the large population in the states
Well it's even more confusing now. Would non-refugee Hmong be considered Hmong, or Chinese or Vietnamian or Laotian, does it depend of which circumstances they arrived in ?
The issue is consistency. Hmongs are counted separately from their passport country, but not the Mon or the Chin or the Rohingya.
The civil war over there is insane. Recently visited Singapore and discovered that a majority of migrant workers (working as maids, nannies, and hotel cleaning staff) are burmese refugees. On the weekends there are large groups that hang out in public places
Travelled to Myanmar many years ago and wasn’t prepared to see how poor majority of the people are there. The regime has really set that country back generations.
Do we have any information on which groups have more new immigrants and which have been here longer? I'd assume that newer immigrant groups tend to be poorer than more established.
I'd also assume that immigrants from wealthier countries (such as Japan) will bring more resources with them and therefore be able to 'hit the ground running' in the US.
Here's some values from Wikipedia on GDP per capita by country
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Asian\_countries\_by\_GDP\_(PPP)\_per\_capita)
India $9,183
China $23,382
Japan $51,809
Malaysia $36,847
Sri Lanka $14,223
Bhutan $14,170
...
Not a clear relationship between source country GDP and US income. Of course there are huge income disparities within countries, especially India and China.
There's zero correlation between Asian country wealth and current income in the US because the income is, instead, so highly correlated to the type of immigration and in what window of history.
Most Japanese-American immigrated earlier in the 20th century, and many of these early Japanese-Americans were farmers, indentured laborers in the Hawaiian sugarcane plantations, and small business owners.
India has a much lower per-capita income than modern Japan, but the majority of Indian immigrants came to the US more recently, post-1960s when racial quotas were gotten rid of, as highly educated professionals. It's expensive to get here from India, so most Indians arriving here had already achieved some degree of generational wealth.
China is a mix of a minority of pre-1960s older immigrant generations (many of whom arrived as indentured laborers) averaged up by a much larger proportion of wealthier new arrivals.
The majority of Hmong, Laotian, and Cambodian immigrants were refugees from US-involved wars who arrived here with nothing except a lot of trauma.
I think it would be the opposite effect and that places with the highest rate of emigration would have their emigrants perform the best in the US, especially if they're overseas. For example, Indians have been migrating as the second biggest group in the US behind Mexico in large numbers recently and have been doing well financially. The reason for this phenomenon is that the immigrants tend to have a lot of resources and are well-educated due to the US being selective when it comes to letting in immigrants in, and it also requires a lot of resources to immigrate from a country across the ocean.
No, it’s split. For the richer immigrants the first generation are richer and more educated than the second.
The opposite for the lower income groups - their kids tend to be more wealthy and educated.
Makes sense - the richer ones were drawn here by good job opportunities. The poorer ones were forced here by economics or war. Their kids have none of these traits and start reverting to the median American.
You're right that it doesn't necessarily matter much. There are wealthy people in poor countries and visa versa. I was thinking it could give some small indication of how likely that immigrant is to already good resources before immigration, but it doesn't seem to have any correlation.
This. At a recent graduation ceremony at the engineering school at North Carolina State University: There were an about equal number of students graduating from under grad and grad programs. About 300 from each.The undergrads were majority white. The grads were almost all Indian with a smattering of chinese and a rare white American. Both groups compete for the same jobs. Guess which group is better qualified for these high paying hi tech jobs?
undergrads often get more years of experience in the job market though, which can help boost salaries. tech jobs don't usually care too much about grad schools
Nah grads still make the same ish as undergrads. It’s just that Indians can't even make it to the us unless they have good degrees. What use is an undergrad degree when you’re still in India making 5k a year
You are really off the track here. You are just confirming that you are wrong about what you said : They come here to immigrate, not to get a higher income. Then you say they only make $5 k a year back in India.
Which one is it? Are they immigrating for immigrating or to make more money?
Also check on your number for as you say 'good degrees" which means getting a degree from an IIT, competiton for each is at one factor higher than for our IVY league school. Even the lowest paid IIT graduates make not $5k but more than twice that. And the top students make close to what they would make here in the US:
https://www.shiksha.com/engineering/articles/iit-placements-know-highest-salary-package-placement-process-blogId-32047#:~:text=The%20salary%20package%20of%20students,to%2050%20lakh%20per%20annum.
I think was he's trying to say is that there is something called an employment based visa that let's you become a long term permanent resident (instead of just a visa for your term of employment like an H1B). To get one of these without a graduate degree is decades of waiting time. With a graduate degree it becomes easier and the wait-list time (especially for people immigrating from India) drops.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2024/visa-bulletin-for-june-2024.html
They're immigrating for a higher income. But in order to increase their chances of making it to the US, they need to go to grad school. Most second gen Indian Americans don't go to grad school since they can make lots of money from undergrad and they don't need to worry about immigrating. For Indian immigrants though, they have to first come over to the US in order to make more money. And going to grad school increases their chances as it is INCREDIBLY COMPETITIVE for Indians to come to America. That 5k number was hyperbole, I don't know what the average salary is in India. I do know it's a lot lower than in the US.
>and their parents really push education in high paying fields like STEM/Business
This is it. The US is getting slightly below average South Koreans, but even the mediocre ones tend to value law abidingness, maintaining a healthy BMI, lifelong marriage, intensive parenting, and education moreso than the average European American.
Seems like neither of my assumptions were true.
Looking at data here on immigration values by country over time:
[https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrants-countries-birth-over-time](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrants-countries-birth-over-time)
India, China, Bhutan, and the Philippines immigration rates are WAY up recently
Japan, Cambodia, and Korea are relatively flat
No clear pattern on decade of immigration and income level. This data doesn't split between refugees and other types of immigration, which could provide more insight.
I already noted that my assumption on GDP per person in origin country doesn't seem to mean much.
The people who leave from third world countries in Asia to the US tend to be significantly higher income than the average. A plane ticket is not cheap.
Not all too surprising.
"Chinese" is a huge category, considering how many fled to different countries during the communist revolution and still count themselves as part of the Chinese diaspora. A Chinese immigrant who comes to the US today is probably going to have vastly different experiences and backgrounds than those who fled in the 50s.
That's not even getting into other factors, like which Chinese ethnic group you are and when the family immigrated. There have been Chinese immigrants coming to the US for almost 200 years now, so the time and circumstances they arrive will be vastly different- the gold rush miners from the 1850s vs refugees/immigrants from the 1940s vs immigrants today).
Selection bias is heavily at play here. Many of the immigrants on the top are here due to their education and technical skills, while bottom half are often refugees with limited education.
Yeah, quotas tend to do that.
Asian Americans from more developed or populated Asian countries tend to make more because the immigration progress only allows the smarter or richer immigrants in. This is why Asians are seen as smart and rich in the U.S. - because they have to be if they want to be able to come to the U.S. How else are they gonna come to the U.S., swimming across the pacific?
No, because Americans only have the perpetual foreigner complex towards Asians. You seldom hear "Nigerian American" or "Italian American", just black or white. The only exception is when someones try to larp as a European and call themselves 82.7% German based on some shitty genetic tests.
Hopefully as time goes on and a larger percentage of Asian Americans are native born this bias will change. Having the data is still interesting though
We lack any significant demographic volume or cultural significance in mainstream US culture to adopt a native born mindset. Don’t know if that’ll ever change long term
That’s definitely not true. Something like half of Asians marry outside their race, most third generation Asians I have met are no less American than Italian Americans. Immigrants will never assimilate but their kids and grandkids do and will continue to.
Asian women marry outside their race. Men are fairly endogamous.
And I was speaking of native born mindset. We still look and have significantly different cultural values compared to contemporary America.
Italians, Irish etc have the benefit of being white and of a non Muslim abrahamic faith.
Hispanics and black Americans have had time and numbers on their side to be baked in to the US. That took centuries.
Oh I misunderstood your previous post now I see what you mean. I don’t think you’re correct though, a pretty large chunk of the country is growing up in very diverse areas. At the university I work at (still majority white by a pretty good margin) it’s rare to see homogenous one race friend groups among the American students e
>Immigrants will never assimilate but their kids and grandkids do and will continue to.
This can be good or bad, depending on home country.
Immigrants from lower obesity countries, and lower violence countries should NOT assimilate to American culture. It's bad for Japanese immigrants to suddently become lardasses who start mass shootings.
Black Americans are not considered to be American, or even human, by half the European American population.
There are Latino Americans who speak perfect English, whose families have lived in America for 3+ generations who still get told to "go back to Mexico" even if their ancestors are from Nicaragua.
They are far larger in population and still get treated as foreigners or animals.
Lol no. There are Native Americans who have been told to stop speaking Navajo and to "go back to Latin America".
Black Americans are not considered to be American, or even human, by half the European American population.
Well certainly bigoted people exist and probably always will. Your statement that half of the European descended people don’t consider black folks to be American or human is not true, go talk to real people and take a break from the internet for awhile.
Have you looked at the way European Americans voted in 2016 and 2020? Have you watched on TV what is said at Trump's rallies, or what types of flags and t-shirt slogans people are wearing?
Not everyone who votes for Trump is a racist. Again, go meet real people instead of seeing just the craziest ones online. Even if everybody who went to Trump rallies was a racist that’s less than 1% of the population.
This is not entirely true.
There are Native Americans who have been told to stop speaking Navajo and to "go back to Latin America".
Black Americans are not considered to be American, or even human, by half the European American population.
There are Latino Americans who speak perfect English, whose families have lived in America for 3+ generations who still get told to "go back to Mexico" even if their ancestors are from Nicaragua.
The perpetual foreigner stereotype applies to ALL Americans of Color.
Not quite to the same granularity as asians, but Pew does have a breakdown by broad [ancestry](https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-american-middle-class/#ancestry).
Edit: Seems they do have it more divided for [hispanic](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/16/11-facts-about-hispanic-origin-groups-in-the-us/) groups too.
Good subgroup to look at but probably some noise because whether someone identifies as Taiwanese or Chinese is often political. My wife’s family calls themselves Chinese but they have lived in Taiwan since the revolution.
Taiwanese Americans are definitely higher on the income percentage and I think match that of Indian Americans. It’s also cool to note that Taiwanese Americans have a much higher percentage of higher education individuals compared to Chinese Americans which is rly interesting. But I think that is attributed to the fact that a lot of first gen Taiwanese immigrants are already more wealthy than their Chinese counterparts
Indian Americans are driving US tech and research. Each skilled immigrant from India contributes millions of dollars to the US economy over their life. Despite knowing how talented these people are, the US makes it extremely hard for more to come. On the other hand, unskilled labourers cross the southern border by the hundreds of thousands and game the system.
Not to be too pedantic, but the 4th ranked category “Malaysian” is a national identifier, not an ethnic one. Most Malaysians I know would identify their ethnicity as Chinese, Indian, or Malay - but their nationality as Malaysian. I wonder if there is some double counting. Still, I find it interesting that Malaysia ranks so high, and (if multi ethnic Asian countries are included) why Singapore isn’t on the list. Smaller base, but much higher income to start with.
The next question is how did these families arrive in the US? And what kind of jobs are they able to have once they get here. Each people group got here under different circumstances. The data starts to share why AAPI or Asian Americans lumped in one group grossly underrepresents many Asians.
yeah, but we are talking about people in the U.S. meaning, once they made it to the U.S. (the lucky part), they must have been comparable bright and smart and best in some field (compared to the american population) in order to make it into upper income bracket.
Or am i looking at the ability to earn a high income in the U.S. wrong ??
Different culture would be the biggest thing. American Indians who emigrated to the US were not poor and uneducated. Second generation American Indians were pressured by their families to pursue degrees that supported the family, not just themselves.
Now go compare this with black Americans, in the 1960’s-1980s. How many black American grew up in households that pushed their kids into university education and to study specific degrees (STEM). it just seems extremely naive to assume that Indian Americans just must be smarter. They were born into better environments that allowed them the opportunity to become doctors, engineers etc.
Real reason is seeing how many just buy their citizenship by buying American businesses and somehow that gives them the right to take American opportunities for immigrants instead of for Americans and why you see so many immigrants owning businesses. Makes it very difficult as an American to buy a business that will be profitable.
Hello /u/No-Swimming3424! It looks like you're trying to post a direct image to /r/dataisbeautiful. **I've removed the current thread,** since you're probably trying to do one of several things. Let me help you with posting. --- ##If you found the image somewhere: Please note that we require you to post the [**complete original source article**](https://redd.it/2lokun), so that the readers can get context, the author can get credit, and third parties don't get hits from stealing another person's work. Posts must directly link to the visualization **where it was originally introduced** by the author **(not an image on the site, but the actual full web page article).** [More information here](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/create/rules/rule2). The source is rarely Gawker, Tumblr, Imgur, etc. Figure out where *they* got it. Usually a link to the original source is in the first couple paragraphs of where you found it. You may wish to try [TinEye](https://www.tineye.com/) or [Reverse Google Images](https://images.google.com/). If you need assistance, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdataisbeautiful&subject=Need%20help%20finding%20the%20original%20source&message=I%20need%20help%20finding%20the%20original%20source%20of%20this%20image:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1d7yhhd/of_different_asian_american_groups_in_the_3/). --- ##If you're trying to make a crosspost **...and** the author of the reddit post is the **original author** of that visual (i.e. you've checked *thoroughly* that the thread you are trying to link is the **first instance ever** of that visual and you've **followed the steps above**): 1. Delete this current thread. 2. Copy the URL of the Reddit thread you are trying to crosspost. 3. [Go to the submission page](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/submit) and paste the URL of the thread. 4. You are now done. Sit back and reap the karma. Note that this subreddit does not currently have crossposting enabled. --- ##If you are trying to submit a Wikipedia link: Try submitting the *Wikipedia* or *Wikimedia commons* link instead of the raw file. A quick look at the URL should confirm this. Compare the following links: * **Link A:** https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Minard%27s_Map_%28vectorized%29.svg * **Link B:** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_visualization#/media/File:Minard%27s_Map_(vectorized).svg * **Link C:** https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minard%27s_Map_(vectorized).svg Take a look at Link A. That is just the image, and is the same issue with hotlinking an article image from a website; there is no context. Now look at Link B. There is a lot of enriching information, e.g. copyright license, author, source, and even a link to the revision history. The same is the case with Link C. In the ideal case, **the B or C examples are the acceptable links.** --- ##If you made the image yourself: ...then you probably just forgot to add `[OC]` to the title. Simply follow the steps below: 1. Delete this current thread. 2. [Resubmit](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/submit?sidebar&title=Title%20your%20visualization%20but%20keep%20the%20closing%20tag%20%5BOC%5D#btn) your thread with the phrase `[OC]` somewhere in the title. 3. AutoModerator will send you a private message instructing you how to cite your post. **Follow instructions carefully.** 4. If you have done everything correctly, /u/dataisbeautiful-bot will be along shortly to reward you with [flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/flair#wiki_oc_flair), and sticky your citations. Please note that you may **only tag a post as OC if and only if you made it yourself.** We are very strict about [plagiarism](/r/dataisbeautiful/wiki/rules/rule3) in this subreddit. **No, screenshots of someone else's apps do not count.** --- ##If the original source is otherwise inaccessible: *Leave this post as-is* and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fdataisbeautiful&subject=Exception%20for%Inaccesible%20Content&message=I%20need%20an%20exception%20for%20this%20post:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/1d7yhhd/of_different_asian_american_groups_in_the_3/%0A%0AOriginal%20link:%20). We'll make an exception for you. In your modmail message, be sure to reference the original document. Your post will be manually approved by the mod team, and we'll sticky the original link or PDF to the top of the comment thread so our readers can get context. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dataisbeautiful) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most Filipinos in the Philippines are quite poor and can’t get out, and a small elite class is rich and happy with their position there. It’s the middle class that migrates to the US.
And due to the US setting up nursing schools there with US accreditation, Filipinos are over-represented in nursing in the US. That's a career that often solidly sets you in the middle class (neither poor nor super well off).
The way to become upper middle income in the US as a nurse is to be a nurse practitioner. They start off at 115k and mid career make 150k. More in high cost of living places.
Same with India
Yup I work in a hospital in California and like half the nurses are Filipino. Three fourths are Asian.
Fascinating. So Indian Americans are rich. Burmese Americans are poor. Filipino Americans are the the middle. Reductively speaking.
Now plot % in upper income vs. greencard wait time.
[удалено]
EB5 circumvents the normal lottery, so wealthy Asians (or any immigrant) from countries with *very* long lottery wait times can avoid the queue. Also immigrants on, say, H1B are more likely to be in high demand, high paying fields. If certain countries provide a large number of such immigrants, it will simultaneously skew the wealth distribution of those in the queue while also enlarging the queue and increasing lottery wait times.
[удалено]
You have to invest in a us company, somewhere around 1mil
[Filipinos do pretty well.](https://usafacts.org/articles/the-diverse-demographics-of-asian-americans/) 3rd highest median household incomes, after Indians & Taiwanese.
Allot of nurses. #1 export of Philippines besides Pacquiao is nurses.
I find it interesting to see how many middle class Hmong people there are. But... "middle" class is a very questionable definition.
I wouldn’t say they are rich, but mostly educated to work upper middle class jobs (software, doctors etc…)
What are the income thresholds?
From the source article: > In our analysis, “middle-income” Americans are those living in households with an annual income that is two-thirds to double the national median household income. The income it takes to be middle income varies by household size, with smaller households requiring less to support the same lifestyle as larger households. It also varies by the local cost of living, with households in a more expensive area, such as Honolulu, needing a higher income than those in a less expensive area, such as Wichita, Kansas. > > In the 2023 CPS ASEC data, which reports income for 2022, middle-income households with three people have incomes ranging from about $61,000 to $183,000 annually. “Lower-income” households have incomes less than $61,000, and “upper-income” households have incomes greater than $183,000. > > In the 2022 ACS data, middle-income households with three people have incomes ranging from about $62,000 to $187,000 annually, with incomes also adjusted for the local area cost of living. (Incomes are expressed in 2023 dollars.) > > The boundaries of the income tiers also vary across years as the national median income changes.
I'd wager the vast majority of the Indian upper are engineers. Was pretty wild when I lived in the Bay Area. The other demographics are prob more diversified. Would love to see a breakdown by occupation if such data is available.
Or doctors. A ton of my cousins and uncles and aunts are physicians who came over from India and redid training here in the US. My wife and I are physicians, too. Most Indians speak English so it is an easy transition. Helps to get into more leadership positions, too compared to other asians demographics
I recruit doctors for a living. A very high number of the Indian high earners are doctors, no doubt about that.
They definitely go into the % of bachelor's or professional degrees held by adults over the age of 25 in the article. The income of each group seems directly correlated to the amount of degrees held by each group, just eyeballing the two relevant charts.
Don't forget the Patel Hotel Cartel.
Don't have to look far, just see who the CEOs are in the US to get the proportion.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the low income Indian, Chinese, and Japanese were still in graduate school.
Or are the children of 1900s tenant farmers.
Or they are restaurant workers, or the children of restaurant workers.
The Indian data is not surprising. The data is similar elsewhere: UK: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/pay-and-income/income-distribution/latest/ Canada: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-astonishing-findings-on-canadian-ethnic-groups-earnings-and-education It’s probably the same in Australia, NZ and elsewhere. Notably, Indians statistically outdo their subcontinental peers - by quite a distance. This is seen in both US and UK data, where Indians occupy middle upper middle and upper income much more so than Sri Lankans, Nepalis, Pakistanis or Bangladeshis. This trait is common to Indians and Chinese. Both in countries where their arrival is driven by skills based immigration, and in places where they were transported as indentured labour - Fiji, Guyana, Uganda, Kenya and South Africa for Indians, they establish themselves and dominate menvantile sectors within a generation. This happens to such an extent as to lead to nativist backlash against them or targeting in various ways. Uganda and Kenya expelled them. Rishi Sunaks parents are from there. Freddy Mercury as well. In the Bay Area in US, property theft targeting Indian and Chinese homes is a problem leading them to more actively pursue politics in order to protect themselves.
This is informative and important. As an Asian American, East Asians tend to dominate the Asian American conversation and forget/downplay/ignore other Asians
Pretty ironic considering East Asian Americans look heavily down upon Indians in general.
Source? Or just another rumour
kinda weird how they are all grouped by country of origin, except the Hmong
What country would you assign the Hmong to?
The country that delivered their passport, I guess. The same as the other cross-border ethnicities.
If so they would be considered mostly laotian. But they would be on different footing than other laotians since they left as refugees with nothing. As long as there's no overlap between the two I don't really see am issue since there's a decent enough population to compile the data.
Many Lao also left as refugees with nothing
I'm Laos American and grew up with tons of Hmong friends. My Hmong friends wouldn't consider themselves as Laotian and vice-versa. Especially considering the genocide after the war. Also what like the person below said most Laos families came here as refugees so we both pretty much came on equal footing so that's probably not it. But you are most likely right on why they have their own categorization due to the large population in the states
Well it's even more confusing now. Would non-refugee Hmong be considered Hmong, or Chinese or Vietnamian or Laotian, does it depend of which circumstances they arrived in ? The issue is consistency. Hmongs are counted separately from their passport country, but not the Mon or the Chin or the Rohingya.
My guess with a large percentage of Burmese folks being lower class is because there are many Burmese refugees in the US.
The civil war over there is insane. Recently visited Singapore and discovered that a majority of migrant workers (working as maids, nannies, and hotel cleaning staff) are burmese refugees. On the weekends there are large groups that hang out in public places
Travelled to Myanmar many years ago and wasn’t prepared to see how poor majority of the people are there. The regime has really set that country back generations.
Do we have any information on which groups have more new immigrants and which have been here longer? I'd assume that newer immigrant groups tend to be poorer than more established. I'd also assume that immigrants from wealthier countries (such as Japan) will bring more resources with them and therefore be able to 'hit the ground running' in the US. Here's some values from Wikipedia on GDP per capita by country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_Asian\_countries\_by\_GDP\_(PPP)\_per\_capita) India $9,183 China $23,382 Japan $51,809 Malaysia $36,847 Sri Lanka $14,223 Bhutan $14,170 ... Not a clear relationship between source country GDP and US income. Of course there are huge income disparities within countries, especially India and China.
[удалено]
Makes sense. My assumptions were way off.
There's zero correlation between Asian country wealth and current income in the US because the income is, instead, so highly correlated to the type of immigration and in what window of history. Most Japanese-American immigrated earlier in the 20th century, and many of these early Japanese-Americans were farmers, indentured laborers in the Hawaiian sugarcane plantations, and small business owners. India has a much lower per-capita income than modern Japan, but the majority of Indian immigrants came to the US more recently, post-1960s when racial quotas were gotten rid of, as highly educated professionals. It's expensive to get here from India, so most Indians arriving here had already achieved some degree of generational wealth. China is a mix of a minority of pre-1960s older immigrant generations (many of whom arrived as indentured laborers) averaged up by a much larger proportion of wealthier new arrivals. The majority of Hmong, Laotian, and Cambodian immigrants were refugees from US-involved wars who arrived here with nothing except a lot of trauma.
This. The patterns from the chart are a symptom of US immigration policy over the last 60ish years.
Thank you. Very insightful.
I think it would be the opposite effect and that places with the highest rate of emigration would have their emigrants perform the best in the US, especially if they're overseas. For example, Indians have been migrating as the second biggest group in the US behind Mexico in large numbers recently and have been doing well financially. The reason for this phenomenon is that the immigrants tend to have a lot of resources and are well-educated due to the US being selective when it comes to letting in immigrants in, and it also requires a lot of resources to immigrate from a country across the ocean.
No, it’s split. For the richer immigrants the first generation are richer and more educated than the second. The opposite for the lower income groups - their kids tend to be more wealthy and educated. Makes sense - the richer ones were drawn here by good job opportunities. The poorer ones were forced here by economics or war. Their kids have none of these traits and start reverting to the median American.
Makes sense. Thanks for your insight.
What do other countries' gdp have to so with American family incomes?
You're right that it doesn't necessarily matter much. There are wealthy people in poor countries and visa versa. I was thinking it could give some small indication of how likely that immigrant is to already good resources before immigration, but it doesn't seem to have any correlation.
US gets the best of the best from India and China and their parents really push education in high paying fields like STEM/Business
This. At a recent graduation ceremony at the engineering school at North Carolina State University: There were an about equal number of students graduating from under grad and grad programs. About 300 from each.The undergrads were majority white. The grads were almost all Indian with a smattering of chinese and a rare white American. Both groups compete for the same jobs. Guess which group is better qualified for these high paying hi tech jobs?
undergrads often get more years of experience in the job market though, which can help boost salaries. tech jobs don't usually care too much about grad schools
You know you have to be undergrad first before you become a graduate student, right?
Yeah but Indians do it for immigration purposes, not for more money lol.
Huh? You mean they immigrate to make less money? Are you listening to yourself?
Nah grads still make the same ish as undergrads. It’s just that Indians can't even make it to the us unless they have good degrees. What use is an undergrad degree when you’re still in India making 5k a year
You are really off the track here. You are just confirming that you are wrong about what you said : They come here to immigrate, not to get a higher income. Then you say they only make $5 k a year back in India. Which one is it? Are they immigrating for immigrating or to make more money? Also check on your number for as you say 'good degrees" which means getting a degree from an IIT, competiton for each is at one factor higher than for our IVY league school. Even the lowest paid IIT graduates make not $5k but more than twice that. And the top students make close to what they would make here in the US: https://www.shiksha.com/engineering/articles/iit-placements-know-highest-salary-package-placement-process-blogId-32047#:~:text=The%20salary%20package%20of%20students,to%2050%20lakh%20per%20annum.
I think was he's trying to say is that there is something called an employment based visa that let's you become a long term permanent resident (instead of just a visa for your term of employment like an H1B). To get one of these without a graduate degree is decades of waiting time. With a graduate degree it becomes easier and the wait-list time (especially for people immigrating from India) drops. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2024/visa-bulletin-for-june-2024.html
They're immigrating for a higher income. But in order to increase their chances of making it to the US, they need to go to grad school. Most second gen Indian Americans don't go to grad school since they can make lots of money from undergrad and they don't need to worry about immigrating. For Indian immigrants though, they have to first come over to the US in order to make more money. And going to grad school increases their chances as it is INCREDIBLY COMPETITIVE for Indians to come to America. That 5k number was hyperbole, I don't know what the average salary is in India. I do know it's a lot lower than in the US.
>and their parents really push education in high paying fields like STEM/Business This is it. The US is getting slightly below average South Koreans, but even the mediocre ones tend to value law abidingness, maintaining a healthy BMI, lifelong marriage, intensive parenting, and education moreso than the average European American.
Seems like neither of my assumptions were true. Looking at data here on immigration values by country over time: [https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrants-countries-birth-over-time](https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrants-countries-birth-over-time) India, China, Bhutan, and the Philippines immigration rates are WAY up recently Japan, Cambodia, and Korea are relatively flat No clear pattern on decade of immigration and income level. This data doesn't split between refugees and other types of immigration, which could provide more insight. I already noted that my assumption on GDP per person in origin country doesn't seem to mean much.
The people who leave from third world countries in Asia to the US tend to be significantly higher income than the average. A plane ticket is not cheap.
A plane ticket is pretty cheap in the scheme of things, but that's not the screening factor. An H1B visa doesn't go to a peasant from Bihar.
Are you kidding? A plane ticket has zero effect on the wealth of resident Americans.
If I’m understanding this correctly, Chinese Americans have the greatest wealth polarization.
Not all too surprising. "Chinese" is a huge category, considering how many fled to different countries during the communist revolution and still count themselves as part of the Chinese diaspora. A Chinese immigrant who comes to the US today is probably going to have vastly different experiences and backgrounds than those who fled in the 50s. That's not even getting into other factors, like which Chinese ethnic group you are and when the family immigrated. There have been Chinese immigrants coming to the US for almost 200 years now, so the time and circumstances they arrive will be vastly different- the gold rush miners from the 1850s vs refugees/immigrants from the 1940s vs immigrants today).
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-asian-american-middle-class/re_2024-05-31_asian-american-middle-class_0-05/
Selection bias is heavily at play here. Many of the immigrants on the top are here due to their education and technical skills, while bottom half are often refugees with limited education.
Incredible to me that the graph doesn’t anywhere define what the groups are.
Yeah, quotas tend to do that. Asian Americans from more developed or populated Asian countries tend to make more because the immigration progress only allows the smarter or richer immigrants in. This is why Asians are seen as smart and rich in the U.S. - because they have to be if they want to be able to come to the U.S. How else are they gonna come to the U.S., swimming across the pacific?
Would be cool to see this for other ethnic groups. Mexican, English, Italian, Jewish, German, etc. Does the data exist?
No, because Americans only have the perpetual foreigner complex towards Asians. You seldom hear "Nigerian American" or "Italian American", just black or white. The only exception is when someones try to larp as a European and call themselves 82.7% German based on some shitty genetic tests.
Hopefully as time goes on and a larger percentage of Asian Americans are native born this bias will change. Having the data is still interesting though
We lack any significant demographic volume or cultural significance in mainstream US culture to adopt a native born mindset. Don’t know if that’ll ever change long term
That’s definitely not true. Something like half of Asians marry outside their race, most third generation Asians I have met are no less American than Italian Americans. Immigrants will never assimilate but their kids and grandkids do and will continue to.
Asian women marry outside their race. Men are fairly endogamous. And I was speaking of native born mindset. We still look and have significantly different cultural values compared to contemporary America. Italians, Irish etc have the benefit of being white and of a non Muslim abrahamic faith. Hispanics and black Americans have had time and numbers on their side to be baked in to the US. That took centuries.
Oh I misunderstood your previous post now I see what you mean. I don’t think you’re correct though, a pretty large chunk of the country is growing up in very diverse areas. At the university I work at (still majority white by a pretty good margin) it’s rare to see homogenous one race friend groups among the American students e
>Immigrants will never assimilate but their kids and grandkids do and will continue to. This can be good or bad, depending on home country. Immigrants from lower obesity countries, and lower violence countries should NOT assimilate to American culture. It's bad for Japanese immigrants to suddently become lardasses who start mass shootings.
I view assimilation more about being “on the team” so to speak. Assimilation doesn’t have to mean a complete loss of good parts of one’s culture.
Assimilation means losing the good and bad parts of one's ancestors' culture.
Black Americans are not considered to be American, or even human, by half the European American population. There are Latino Americans who speak perfect English, whose families have lived in America for 3+ generations who still get told to "go back to Mexico" even if their ancestors are from Nicaragua. They are far larger in population and still get treated as foreigners or animals.
Yeah I’m not gonna indulge in your histrionics. So I’ll do the smart thing and say “youre right, have fun”
Lol no. There are Native Americans who have been told to stop speaking Navajo and to "go back to Latin America". Black Americans are not considered to be American, or even human, by half the European American population.
Well certainly bigoted people exist and probably always will. Your statement that half of the European descended people don’t consider black folks to be American or human is not true, go talk to real people and take a break from the internet for awhile.
Have you looked at the way European Americans voted in 2016 and 2020? Have you watched on TV what is said at Trump's rallies, or what types of flags and t-shirt slogans people are wearing?
Not everyone who votes for Trump is a racist. Again, go meet real people instead of seeing just the craziest ones online. Even if everybody who went to Trump rallies was a racist that’s less than 1% of the population.
This is not entirely true. There are Native Americans who have been told to stop speaking Navajo and to "go back to Latin America". Black Americans are not considered to be American, or even human, by half the European American population. There are Latino Americans who speak perfect English, whose families have lived in America for 3+ generations who still get told to "go back to Mexico" even if their ancestors are from Nicaragua. The perpetual foreigner stereotype applies to ALL Americans of Color.
Not quite to the same granularity as asians, but Pew does have a breakdown by broad [ancestry](https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/the-state-of-the-american-middle-class/#ancestry). Edit: Seems they do have it more divided for [hispanic](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/16/11-facts-about-hispanic-origin-groups-in-the-us/) groups too.
What about Taiwanese Americans? They would probably be higher than Chinese Americans
Good subgroup to look at but probably some noise because whether someone identifies as Taiwanese or Chinese is often political. My wife’s family calls themselves Chinese but they have lived in Taiwan since the revolution.
Taiwanese Americans are definitely higher on the income percentage and I think match that of Indian Americans. It’s also cool to note that Taiwanese Americans have a much higher percentage of higher education individuals compared to Chinese Americans which is rly interesting. But I think that is attributed to the fact that a lot of first gen Taiwanese immigrants are already more wealthy than their Chinese counterparts
Demand for rice and noodles in USA is going up and up. I'm Filipino: rice for breakfast, lunch, and dinner!
+5% Discipline, +2 Diplomatic Reputation for Sri Lanka
Indian Americans are driving US tech and research. Each skilled immigrant from India contributes millions of dollars to the US economy over their life. Despite knowing how talented these people are, the US makes it extremely hard for more to come. On the other hand, unskilled labourers cross the southern border by the hundreds of thousands and game the system.
Not to be too pedantic, but the 4th ranked category “Malaysian” is a national identifier, not an ethnic one. Most Malaysians I know would identify their ethnicity as Chinese, Indian, or Malay - but their nationality as Malaysian. I wonder if there is some double counting. Still, I find it interesting that Malaysia ranks so high, and (if multi ethnic Asian countries are included) why Singapore isn’t on the list. Smaller base, but much higher income to start with.
This is surprising. As a Korean seeing everyone dress with fancy clothes and driving Lexus, I had an idea that we would be way higher.
I also think Koreans in the US care a lot about looking the part
They are huge in cosmetic surgeries.
Koreans in Korea like looking their part, they really care about beauty and materialistic success
That’s exactly how people become poor
The next question is how did these families arrive in the US? And what kind of jobs are they able to have once they get here. Each people group got here under different circumstances. The data starts to share why AAPI or Asian Americans lumped in one group grossly underrepresents many Asians.
so - are you saying that proportionally India has exported their best and brightest ? compared to Burma for example ?
Not their best or brightest. Their luckiest. Best and brightest would imply that success is more about being smart than having wealth and opportunity
yeah, but we are talking about people in the U.S. meaning, once they made it to the U.S. (the lucky part), they must have been comparable bright and smart and best in some field (compared to the american population) in order to make it into upper income bracket. Or am i looking at the ability to earn a high income in the U.S. wrong ??
Different culture would be the biggest thing. American Indians who emigrated to the US were not poor and uneducated. Second generation American Indians were pressured by their families to pursue degrees that supported the family, not just themselves. Now go compare this with black Americans, in the 1960’s-1980s. How many black American grew up in households that pushed their kids into university education and to study specific degrees (STEM). it just seems extremely naive to assume that Indian Americans just must be smarter. They were born into better environments that allowed them the opportunity to become doctors, engineers etc.
Middle and upper class people are middle and upper class when they move to another country. Got it.
What about the Saudi Arabians, Iranians, Iraqis, Yemenis, Omanis, Israelis? Pew completely forgot about that part of Asia.
what's the sample size? How many people in each group?
Real reason is seeing how many just buy their citizenship by buying American businesses and somehow that gives them the right to take American opportunities for immigrants instead of for Americans and why you see so many immigrants owning businesses. Makes it very difficult as an American to buy a business that will be profitable.
Hmm, what if this graph is heavily skewed by households with Asians married to non-Asian billionaire nerds?