6 ms·

The Immigrant Paradox

28 points by maw 16y ago

ajuc 16y ago
I wonder if they considered as possible explanation better primary schools outside of USA.
- miloshh 16y ago
  These kids are first generation Americans - they went to school in the US.
BlazingFrog 16y ago
Immigrants often bring with them the stigma of poverty, lack of opportunities and, sometimes, even persecution. However badly skewed the ladder to the top is in America, it is still the most advanced implementation of a merit-based system. It's no surprise that immigrant parents impress that on their children very early and may sacrifice more of their own well-being to ensure their kids take full advantage of it. An explanation for the waning of that powerful drive could be that parents of 2nd and 3rd generations become complacent. Probably pushing the envelope but as a huge "Sopranos" fan, I'm often reminded of Tony's talk about the strong, silent type "now, that was an American!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZQ9r7rogNg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZQ9r7rogNg
- martythemaniak 16y ago
  Sorry to disappoint, but the data says otherwise - amongst advanced countries America has some of the lowest social mobility recorded. Your ladder is much less skewed in other places. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/28/38335410.pdf http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/28/38335410.pdf I know this is one of the sacred cows of American Mythology, but should it be surprising given the differences between inner city and white suburban schools, legacy admissions and any other number of differences between rich and poor kids?
  - BlazingFrog 16y ago
    I have obviously not had the time to read that report (thanks for the link) but you seem to have left an important word out of your broad assessment about America's alleged "low social mobility record": intergenerational. This is the first sentence of the summary (p. 4): "This report surveys the research in OECD countries on intergenerational mobility – i.e. the extent to which key characteristics and life experiences of individuals differ from those of their parents." You may have wrongly assumed that my observation about the ladder was comparing one's social achievement to one's parents but that was not the point I was trying to make. It was a more general point about how who/what you are has less of an impact than anywhere else on your chances to succeed.
    - martythemaniak 16y ago
      But that's what intergenerational studies like this deal with. In essence, the question it tries to answer is "You're born in a poor household, where do you end up"? In a meritocratic society with equal opportunities children from poor households should be able to end up in all income brackets - some in the top, some in the middle, some in the poor etc. The more uniform the distribution the better. What this study shows is that if you're born poor in America, the odds are very much stacked against you and while no country has an even distribution, other countries do better. Why study children? Well, social mobility implies a passage of time - to get a clear picture you need to track people over time to see the actual movement and nothing gives a better picture than an entire lifetime.
      - pfedor 16y ago
        In a meritocratic society with equal opportunities children from poor households should be able to end up in all income brackets - some in the top, some in the middle, some in the poor etc. The more uniform the distribution the better. Have you even read yummyfajitas' reply? Regardless of whether you believe in nature or nurture, I imagine you wouldn't deny that intelligent and hard working people's children are more likely to be intelligent and hard working. Therefore, in a society where these traits on average lead to an increase in the social status, you should expect some stickiness. A uniform distribution would prove that a person's merits have no impact on their success in life.
InfinityX0 16y ago
You can apply this elsewhere - like people who are born into wealth. Those who are given the riches from the start are less likely to develop a strong work ethic/will feel a sense of self-entitlement. This goes beyond immigration - it might better be imagined as a genealogical luxury work-ethic bell curve - one starts at nothing, and works incredibly hard to get to the top for their family, and most of the time, the gene pool begins returning back to 0 as it comes to work ethic - or at least until the pull of said wealth dissipating begins pulling it back up.
jellicle 16y ago
Doesn't seem like much of a paradox. By definition, people who immigrate are: --smarter --wealthier --better educated --more ambitious. take-charge people than the general population. These are people who have taken the initiate to uproot themselves from their current NATION, leave everything behind, and negotiate a difficult and expensive immigration process. These are people that are deemed worthy in the receiving nation: people who have advanced degrees or other skills, for instance (legally immigrating to another country is basically impossible if you are a ditch-digger). Why wouldn't these kids do well, as a rule? Their parents are people who valued education and who would enforce that in their kids. And then in the second and succeeding generations, the effect disappears.
- lmkg 16y ago
  In other words, this paradox is a special case of Regression Toward the Mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
- sinamdar 16y ago
  I wonder why this effect wanes off over future generations. If Immigrant parents are able to instill the value of education, hard work etc. in their children; why are these children unable to instill the same in the future generations? I believe that parents are the first teachers of parenting for their children. So what causes the message to get lost?
  - kiba 16y ago
    I heard most family fortune are lost within three generations. Perhaps there is something that connect to your question too.
- billybob 16y ago
  "--smarter --wealthier --better educated " You're talking about legal immigrants, right? Because I would think it's the opposite with illegals. If you don't have much education or status in Mexico, for example, you might be tempted to cross the border to the US; if you're rich and established, probably not. I spent a semester studying in Guadalajara and was shocked at the snooty attitudes of students at the private Mexican college I attended, and the Porche and Lexus dealerships nearby. Of course, a short bus ride away, I met kids who went hungry and lived in concrete houses with dirt floors. We definitely get a biased sample of the Mexican population in our immigrants, but I think it's biased away from education and money. On the other hand, if those first-generation kids are in school, it's because they WANT to be there. It's hard, and they could be making money working. Whereas the next generation may take things for granted, like the rest of us Americans. I dunno - you can explain anything after the fact, so it's hard to say what the reason is for this finding.
VladRussian 16y ago
"The study found that first generation immigrant children often outperform second and third generation children in school" You must be kidding. Second, third, ..., eleventh, ...etc ... generations aren't "immigrants". They are just citizens.
- Prisen 16y ago
  Please come up with a better name that doesn't lose all the meaning required to describe the study.
- shasta 16y ago
  Two corrections to your non sequitur: 1. The quote you've selected doesn't mention second, third, or eleventh generation "immigrants", it mentions "second and third generation children". 2. Many of the "first generation immigrant children" are also citizens.
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    you wanna "sequitur". Be my guest. Lets follow you logic. By definition: children of the first generation = second generation and children of the second generation= 3rd generation So according to your logic "The study found that second immigrant generation often outperform 3rd and 4th generation in school" That is one heck of sequitur. The actual meaning of the "first generation immigrant children" here isn't children parented by the first generation. It is children who are immigrants, ie. they are first generation themselves, whereis their children and grandchildren are second and third generation mentioned in the study.
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      You're both correct, but his interpretation is a bit more common. By definition: children of the first generation = second generation and children of the second generation= 3rd generation But that's not the definition that many people use; when people say first generation, they mean the first generation that was 'generated' (ie born) in America. Immigrants aren't part of an American generation, they're part of some other country's generational history that arrived in America. Usually when someone I meet says 'I'm second-generation (somewhere)-American' they turn out to mean their grandparents came from that place to the US and their parents were born here. I tend to meet more Asian- and Irish-Americans. Perhaps customs vary between different groups due to different traditions of counting? For example, a newborn baby is traditionally considered to be age 1, although most western countries would consider the baby's age to be zero (but some positive # of months).
known 16y ago
America prospered due to the contribution of H1Bs (Albert Einstein, Linus Torvalds) Time now for Americans to migrate and contribute to rest of the world.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  1. Albert Einstein wasn't an H1B. He would be of either an asylum or "national interest" category. There is big difference - H1B contribute significantly as professionals in technical area, yet not in science or business development. 2. "Time now for Americans to migrate and contribute to rest of the world." If you haven't noticed, Americans have been doing it for many, at least, decades if not centuries. International business development, trade, military participation and help, at least during WWII, technology dissemination, human rights, ... i'm not naive and i'm critical enough about American "empire", yet credit due where credit due.
  - known 16y ago
    Rest of the world doesn't need American soldiers. They need American intellectuals to come, live & work in their countries.
joshu 16y ago
Immigrants are a biased sample + reversion to the mean? I wonder how various generations do normalized to the baseline.
exit 16y ago
perhaps first generation immigrants are mistaken about the value of what they struggle for

28 points by maw 16y ago

ajuc 16y ago

I wonder if they considered as possible explanation better primary schools outside of USA.

miloshh 16y ago
These kids are first generation Americans - they went to school in the US.

BlazingFrog 16y ago

Immigrants often bring with them the stigma of poverty, lack of opportunities and, sometimes, even persecution. However badly skewed the ladder to the top is in America, it is still the most advanced implementation of a merit-based system. It's no surprise that immigrant parents impress that on their children very early and may sacrifice more of their own well-being to ensure their kids take full advantage of it. An explanation for the waning of that powerful drive could be that parents of 2nd and 3rd generations become complacent. Probably pushing the envelope but as a huge "Sopranos" fan, I'm often reminded of Tony's talk about the strong, silent type "now, that was an American!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZQ9r7rogNg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZQ9r7rogNg

martythemaniak 16y ago
Sorry to disappoint, but the data says otherwise - amongst advanced countries America has some of the lowest social mobility recorded. Your ladder is much less skewed in other places. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/28/38335410.pdf http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/28/38335410.pdf I know this is one of the sacred cows of American Mythology, but should it be surprising given the differences between inner city and white suburban schools, legacy admissions and any other number of differences between rich and poor kids?
- BlazingFrog 16y ago
  I have obviously not had the time to read that report (thanks for the link) but you seem to have left an important word out of your broad assessment about America's alleged "low social mobility record": intergenerational. This is the first sentence of the summary (p. 4): "This report surveys the research in OECD countries on intergenerational mobility – i.e. the extent to which key characteristics and life experiences of individuals differ from those of their parents." You may have wrongly assumed that my observation about the ladder was comparing one's social achievement to one's parents but that was not the point I was trying to make. It was a more general point about how who/what you are has less of an impact than anywhere else on your chances to succeed.
  - martythemaniak 16y ago
    But that's what intergenerational studies like this deal with. In essence, the question it tries to answer is "You're born in a poor household, where do you end up"? In a meritocratic society with equal opportunities children from poor households should be able to end up in all income brackets - some in the top, some in the middle, some in the poor etc. The more uniform the distribution the better. What this study shows is that if you're born poor in America, the odds are very much stacked against you and while no country has an even distribution, other countries do better. Why study children? Well, social mobility implies a passage of time - to get a clear picture you need to track people over time to see the actual movement and nothing gives a better picture than an entire lifetime.
    - pfedor 16y ago
      In a meritocratic society with equal opportunities children from poor households should be able to end up in all income brackets - some in the top, some in the middle, some in the poor etc. The more uniform the distribution the better. Have you even read yummyfajitas' reply? Regardless of whether you believe in nature or nurture, I imagine you wouldn't deny that intelligent and hard working people's children are more likely to be intelligent and hard working. Therefore, in a society where these traits on average lead to an increase in the social status, you should expect some stickiness. A uniform distribution would prove that a person's merits have no impact on their success in life.

InfinityX0 16y ago

You can apply this elsewhere - like people who are born into wealth. Those who are given the riches from the start are less likely to develop a strong work ethic/will feel a sense of self-entitlement. This goes beyond immigration - it might better be imagined as a genealogical luxury work-ethic bell curve - one starts at nothing, and works incredibly hard to get to the top for their family, and most of the time, the gene pool begins returning back to 0 as it comes to work ethic - or at least until the pull of said wealth dissipating begins pulling it back up.

jellicle 16y ago

Doesn't seem like much of a paradox. By definition, people who immigrate are: --smarter --wealthier --better educated --more ambitious. take-charge people than the general population. These are people who have taken the initiate to uproot themselves from their current NATION, leave everything behind, and negotiate a difficult and expensive immigration process. These are people that are deemed worthy in the receiving nation: people who have advanced degrees or other skills, for instance (legally immigrating to another country is basically impossible if you are a ditch-digger). Why wouldn't these kids do well, as a rule? Their parents are people who valued education and who would enforce that in their kids. And then in the second and succeeding generations, the effect disappears.

lmkg 16y ago
In other words, this paradox is a special case of Regression Toward the Mean. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean
sinamdar 16y ago
I wonder why this effect wanes off over future generations. If Immigrant parents are able to instill the value of education, hard work etc. in their children; why are these children unable to instill the same in the future generations? I believe that parents are the first teachers of parenting for their children. So what causes the message to get lost?
- kiba 16y ago
  I heard most family fortune are lost within three generations. Perhaps there is something that connect to your question too.
billybob 16y ago
"--smarter --wealthier --better educated " You're talking about legal immigrants, right? Because I would think it's the opposite with illegals. If you don't have much education or status in Mexico, for example, you might be tempted to cross the border to the US; if you're rich and established, probably not. I spent a semester studying in Guadalajara and was shocked at the snooty attitudes of students at the private Mexican college I attended, and the Porche and Lexus dealerships nearby. Of course, a short bus ride away, I met kids who went hungry and lived in concrete houses with dirt floors. We definitely get a biased sample of the Mexican population in our immigrants, but I think it's biased away from education and money. On the other hand, if those first-generation kids are in school, it's because they WANT to be there. It's hard, and they could be making money working. Whereas the next generation may take things for granted, like the rest of us Americans. I dunno - you can explain anything after the fact, so it's hard to say what the reason is for this finding.

VladRussian 16y ago

"The study found that first generation immigrant children often outperform second and third generation children in school" You must be kidding. Second, third, ..., eleventh, ...etc ... generations aren't "immigrants". They are just citizens.

Prisen 16y ago
Please come up with a better name that doesn't lose all the meaning required to describe the study.
shasta 16y ago
Two corrections to your non sequitur: 1. The quote you've selected doesn't mention second, third, or eleventh generation "immigrants", it mentions "second and third generation children". 2. Many of the "first generation immigrant children" are also citizens.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  you wanna "sequitur". Be my guest. Lets follow you logic. By definition: children of the first generation = second generation and children of the second generation= 3rd generation So according to your logic "The study found that second immigrant generation often outperform 3rd and 4th generation in school" That is one heck of sequitur. The actual meaning of the "first generation immigrant children" here isn't children parented by the first generation. It is children who are immigrants, ie. they are first generation themselves, whereis their children and grandchildren are second and third generation mentioned in the study.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    You're both correct, but his interpretation is a bit more common. By definition: children of the first generation = second generation and children of the second generation= 3rd generation But that's not the definition that many people use; when people say first generation, they mean the first generation that was 'generated' (ie born) in America. Immigrants aren't part of an American generation, they're part of some other country's generational history that arrived in America. Usually when someone I meet says 'I'm second-generation (somewhere)-American' they turn out to mean their grandparents came from that place to the US and their parents were born here. I tend to meet more Asian- and Irish-Americans. Perhaps customs vary between different groups due to different traditions of counting? For example, a newborn baby is traditionally considered to be age 1, although most western countries would consider the baby's age to be zero (but some positive # of months).

known 16y ago

America prospered due to the contribution of H1Bs (Albert Einstein, Linus Torvalds) Time now for Americans to migrate and contribute to rest of the world.

VladRussian 16y ago
1. Albert Einstein wasn't an H1B. He would be of either an asylum or "national interest" category. There is big difference - H1B contribute significantly as professionals in technical area, yet not in science or business development. 2. "Time now for Americans to migrate and contribute to rest of the world." If you haven't noticed, Americans have been doing it for many, at least, decades if not centuries. International business development, trade, military participation and help, at least during WWII, technology dissemination, human rights, ... i'm not naive and i'm critical enough about American "empire", yet credit due where credit due.
- known 16y ago
  Rest of the world doesn't need American soldiers. They need American intellectuals to come, live & work in their countries.

joshu 16y ago

Immigrants are a biased sample + reversion to the mean? I wonder how various generations do normalized to the baseline.

exit 16y ago

perhaps first generation immigrants are mistaken about the value of what they struggle for