Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than US-born

nber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 267 posts

Re: Children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than US-born

#181

Post by munk-a »

akamoonknight wrote: post #149
namirez wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's also significant selection bias on the entry side. U.S. immigration policies are heavily biased towards people with unique skills, high levels of education, and a fair amount of money in their home country Categorically false! Most of immigration to the US is family based; actually about two-third of them. source: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/17/key-facts-a...

That brings up a slightly different aspect in my mind, that children of immigrants might be more than likely to be surrounded by large amounts of family members which probably tends to have a positive effect?

This is probably a quite important point.

I think that the classic "western" approach to family residences is becoming more obviously damaging to everyone involved as time goes by. Growing up in a multi-generational household is a significantly different experience compared to having either two parents - or having one primary parent and a bread earner. Being exposed to more diverse opinions on a regular basis is probably healthy - seeing authority as imbued and transferable instead of being the exclusive domain of a parent is probably healthy - living in a household with more access to people (less technology filling the gap) is probably healthy - and living in a household with lower overall stress (since there are more people to bear the burden) is probably healthy.

I think single children end up doing poorer for much the same reasons that older siblings serve to lessen the reliance on parents while also being imbued with trust and responsibility... but, I think having more adults present as "caretakers" is just a good thing. So, even if we keep nuclear families internally - it might be beneficial to children to open up more community trust for communal custody of children's development.

I grew up an only child[1] and I have a lot of pleasant memories but I especially treasure some times I went off with a random Aunt, or a random neighbor and got to watch them for a day do their art stuff, or go for hikes in a different way - it helped shake up my mental monoculture. I had friends that grew up in multi-generational households but didn't myself, and it was quite a different experience being over there... learning that just because parents were away it wasn't anarchy - getting to interact with different adults different days and doing different activities that interested them.

I really think the nuclear family approach could use some real improvement.

1. Essentially... both me and my brother were only children at 13 years apart.

Re: Children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than US-born

#182

Post by kazinator »

heavyarms wrote: post #148
kazinator wrote: post #19

This is because people who immigrate are "artificially" pushed down in social status and income due to issues like differences in language, and not having some of your work or education experience recognized in the foreign country. These people are just "bouncing back". In some cases people who were professionals in their country of origin do relatively lower ranked or even menial work. Their children will be constan…

That was my first take as well. This is explicitly called out in the Conclusions section in paper. "Furthermore, immigrant parents were “under-placed” in the income distribution, thus allowing their children who were native English speakers and educated in the US more scope for upward mobility." I don't see numbers on how much of the total "upward mobility" can be attributed to any of the individual factors.

The thing is, it's not just about income. If you come from generations of poverty, it's written all over you, and that closes doors in your face.

The children of upward mobile immigrants who don't come from lower classes in their home country reflect that, even if the parents struggle in the new country.

They are socialized differently from true poor people.

For instance, language: the children will tend to pick up the "socio-economically preferred dialect"¹ of English, rather than a socially stigmatized dialect. The children will do this naturally, because they will tune in to how the way people speak English in America determines the perception of social class, and then they will learn that way of speaking which fits their self-image about where they fit in society.

---

1. A phrase I picked up years ago from a linguistics prof.

Re: Children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than US-born

#183

Post by shados »

godelski wrote: post #100
nostrademons wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You take an initial immigrant who gets in because of the merit categories and then have them bring over all their family members, whose gene pool ends up in the U.S? Whose family values? This article is about upward mobility in the children of immigrants. What traits do children get from their parents? Most people would say it's nature (their genes) and nurture (their upbringing). All of these are widely shared with…

As far as I'm aware, there's no strong link between motivation and generics.

A lot of what "motivation" is comes from being able and healthy, and a lot of that certainly comes from genetics, I'd say. If my family's health history didn't prevent me from sleeping more than a few hours a night, I'd certainly be much, much more motivated. No idea how it translates in statistics.

Re: Children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than US-born

#184

Post by Talanes »

screye wrote: post #106
nostrademons wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You take an initial immigrant who gets in because of the merit categories and then have them bring over all their family members, whose gene pool ends up in the U.S? Whose family values? This article is about upward mobility in the children of immigrants. What traits do children get from their parents? Most people would say it's nature (their genes) and nurture (their upbringing). All of these are widely shared with…

It's hard to argue for nature when the immigrants come from among the most diverse ethnic groups. There is literally no homogeneity among them apart from the fact that their parents weren't American citizens.

While I definitely buy the nurture side of that argument more than the nature side, it's still possible to be selecting for a set of genetic traits across a diverse group as long as those traits are distributed pretty evenly.

Re: Children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than US-born

#185

Post by shados »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #57

I often tell people to watch out for selection bias. Immigrants are a distinctly unique people. They're not just members of their foreign racial/national group, they're members of their foreign racial/national group with the ambitions/motivations to leave. To make the abstract concrete. Canadians living in the US are often thought to be "just like" Canadians living in Canada. But they're often not. Often they're the…

As a Canadian living in the US: I don't like beer, hockey, nor was I planning on having kids. I often joke that they kicked me out.

Re: Children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than US-born

#186

Post by killjoywashere »

Talanes wrote: post #184
screye wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to argue for nature when the immigrants come from among the most diverse ethnic groups. There is literally no homogeneity among them apart from the fact that their parents weren't American citizens.

While I definitely buy the nurture side of that argument more than the nature side, it's still possible to be selecting for a set of genetic traits across a diverse group as long as those traits are distributed pretty evenly.

Much like a randomized controlled trial, the high-pass filters tend to render the nature-nurture argument a moot point. In fact, raising it mostly makes me worry about the more racist aspects of anthropology leaking into the discussion.

Re: Children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than US-born

#187

Post by DiffEq »

burnte wrote: post #177
DiffEq wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no one type of "immigrant" though either and thus the need for a selection criteria.

Sure there is, all immigrants are people who moved here from other nations. They may have different reasons, times, methods, causes, and there may be different subgroups, etc, but there certainly is a single group of immigrants just like there's a single group of Americans, sheep, and pizzas.

Surely you understood what I was saying but so we don't talk past one another: Yes there is a category of people called an immigrant that one can define. However when you look at groups or even individuals in that category there are certain differences, many times vast and very meaningful differences, between the things in each of those categories. So to treat the whole group the same would be foolhardy; thus the need for a selection process. If you had to purchase 10 sheep from a group of 100 would you not buy the best sheep you could afford or the best pizza you could afford?

Re: Children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than US-born

#188

Post by GavinMcG »

bsanr2 wrote: post #95
codingslave wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the reason for immigrant children doing so well is the fact that immigrants are often more driven, ambitious, and at the top of their peer group. So the USA gets a biased sample of immigrants from countries like Nigeria. None of this is happening in a vacuum, and interpreting it as such is misguided propaganda.

I hear this a lot, but I don't know if it's particularly true. For black immigrants, I find more compelling the notion that their comfort with, and belief in, pursuing higher education isn't rocked so profoundly by white supremacy, as is so for native blacks. They're simply not as exposed to anti-black messaging, from the history of discrimination in America to the demographically disproportionate reporting of crime…

African immigrants can have racist beliefs about black Americans just as much as anyone. (Including black Americans.) Kendi's "How to be an Antiracist" gets into this in a way I found to be eye-opening.

Re: Children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than US-born

#189

Post by usrusr »

btilly wrote: post #160
fwip wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refugees account for about 10% of immigration to the US.

True. But the fact that upward mobility is strongly evident among refugee groups says that a theory for upward mobility among children of immigrants should explain why it still happens despite all of the disadvantages of being refugees.

If you start at the bottom there is a lot of up to rise into and no down to further sink. Same at the opposite end: all the nepotism and Ivy Leagues in the world won't be able to keep some billionaire spawn from sinking and there are no higher ranks to rise into. Their average mobility can only be negative. I guess I'd still prefer being a failing trust fund baby over the upward mobility of rags to better rags, despite a considerable delta in sense of achievement (rags to better rags might actually be happier with themselves).

Re: Children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than US-born

#190

Post by smegma2 »

bsanr2 wrote: post #165
JabavuAdams wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Systemic racism ... aaaand ... loser gangster culture. Would love to see the numbers on whether it's easier to become a chartered accountant or a rap artist. I'm seeing the other side of this, recently (disadvantaged white people). It's astonishing the loser mentalities and habits that many disadvantaged children learn from their early caregivers and peer group. As middle to upper middle class people, we often…

>aaaand ... loser gangster culture. No. You have parents that are not able to attend to pre-school education, whether it's a time or money issue, or even an education issue themselves. And then you have children, let down by parents who were let down by society, who are ashamed of how far behind they are. The idea that you can further shame people into "shaping up" is farcical. Please stop being part of the problem.

Isn't this exactly what acephal alluded to above?

> But this also was a major source of resentment and ostracization that I'm still dealing with to this day.

Isn't it possible that resentment and ostracization could lead someone to not want to try as hard to learn?

Post reply on HN