4 ms·

> While the average American born in the bottom 20% has a 7.8% chance of reaching the top 20%, that number is actually 25% for Asians. Exactly. Amy Chau wrote

> While the average American born in the bottom 20% has a 7.8% chance of reaching the top 20%, that number is actually 25% for Asians. Exactly. Amy Chau wrote a great book called The Triple Package that points this out and the fact that its not just Asians (which broadly lumps Indians and all other Asian cultures together): Nigerian immigrants, Cuban exiles, Lebonese, Mormons, Iranians, Jews, all see roughly the same phenomena of surpassing average American household income. Its considered taboo to point out that income inequality is largely cultural.

rayiner 6y ago
> Its considered taboo to point out that income inequality is largely cultural. I wouldn't say "cultural" because that's pretty loaded. My point is more that if there were something structural about the economy that kept people in their class (big banks, bad public education, etc.) you wouldn't see high mobility in certain sub-groups. There has to be other factors in play--who knows what they are. But I wouldn't assume they're necessarily "cultural."
- skeletor_999 6y ago
  > I wouldn't say "cultural" because that's pretty loaded. It may be loaded, but our cultural differences need to be considered. On average Asian and Indian cultures place a stronger emphasis on grades. This plays a large role in why they have been very successful by some metrics. If certain questions are taboo, then we might overlook factors that are setting them back. That doesn't mean that external factors aren't relevant, but we need to consider everything. We need to ask uncomfortable questions. That's not bigoted in itself. Look at the gay community. A lot of gay men engage in very risky behaviour that can lead to the spread of STIs. As an LGBT person myself, I can tell you that it is still quite common. We need to be able to ask if they are doing self harm. In fact, we have asked these questions, which has led to measurable progress (STI prevention strategies have helped significantly).
- noetic_techy 6y ago
  If you can't point to exact laws and exact policy in 2020 that is the cause for the "structural" then I feel like we are just ghost hunting rather than admitting to the uncomfortable conclusion that others have already reached multiple times. We may need to shift the discussion to damage to a culture done in the past rather than blame some specter that doesn't actually exist in the now in any of the statistical data. Structural implies universal application, which it clearly is not.

rayiner 6y ago

> Its considered taboo to point out that income inequality is largely cultural. I wouldn't say "cultural" because that's pretty loaded. My point is more that if there were something structural about the economy that kept people in their class (big banks, bad public education, etc.) you wouldn't see high mobility in certain sub-groups. There has to be other factors in play--who knows what they are. But I wouldn't assume they're necessarily "cultural."

skeletor_999 6y ago
> I wouldn't say "cultural" because that's pretty loaded. It may be loaded, but our cultural differences need to be considered. On average Asian and Indian cultures place a stronger emphasis on grades. This plays a large role in why they have been very successful by some metrics. If certain questions are taboo, then we might overlook factors that are setting them back. That doesn't mean that external factors aren't relevant, but we need to consider everything. We need to ask uncomfortable questions. That's not bigoted in itself. Look at the gay community. A lot of gay men engage in very risky behaviour that can lead to the spread of STIs. As an LGBT person myself, I can tell you that it is still quite common. We need to be able to ask if they are doing self harm. In fact, we have asked these questions, which has led to measurable progress (STI prevention strategies have helped significantly).
noetic_techy 6y ago
If you can't point to exact laws and exact policy in 2020 that is the cause for the "structural" then I feel like we are just ghost hunting rather than admitting to the uncomfortable conclusion that others have already reached multiple times. We may need to shift the discussion to damage to a culture done in the past rather than blame some specter that doesn't actually exist in the now in any of the statistical data. Structural implies universal application, which it clearly is not.