From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Model Minority [long]
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:13:29 GMT

In article <154bqjINN30o@network.ucsd.edu> hirota@sluggo.sdsc.edu (Bryan Hirota) writes:
>Statistics and figures have been floating around this group, that
>when taken out of their proper context can be misleading.

You might have pointed out that this report is based on 10-20 year old data.
That is in and of itself, misleading.

>The asian model minority myth is nothing more than a myth.  The following
>comes from the book titled "Asian Americans - an Interpretive History"
>by Sucheng Chan - and I highly recommed the book to anyone who wants
>to begin any kind of study on the asian american experience.  It even
>covers Asian Indians [although not in an extremely indepth manner]
>
>Anyways... Here goes...
>
>Ten years later the U.S. census Bureau released data that further under-
>dergirded the model minority image.  According to these figures, Chinese
>and Japanese Americans had outpaced whites even in terms of median
>family income by 1970.  Japanese American median Family income was almost
>$3,000 higher, and Chinese American $1,000 higher than the U.S. median
>family income.  But the federal government's study failed to place these
>figures alongside other relevant information, such as the fact that 60
>percent of the Japanese American and Chinese American families
>(compared to only 51 percent among the U.S. population as a whole), more
>than one person worked, which helps to account for their higher family
>income.  If per capita income, rather than family income, had been
>used as the measure, then the public would have learned that Chinese
>Americans (thought not Japanese Americans) were making considerably
>less than the national average.  Moreover, if Hispanic groups, which
>earned much lower than other whites, had been removed from the 
>aggregate white figures, then Asian Americans would not have outranked 
>whites.

Bearing in mind that, in the first place, the report is 20 years old, this
criticism ignores the fact that the census does not differentiate between
"established" Asians (2nd or 3rd+ generation), and immigrants, which will
have a) a much lower income on the average, and b) a higher proportion of
multiple wage earners. Also, Hispanic groups ARE considered seperately in 
the more recent census/surveys. A report was released just a few days ago.

>Second, in areas with the highest density of Asian Americans, the percentage
>of Asian Americans in low-status, low-income occupations - that is, service
>workers, laborers, farm laborers, and private household workers - is
>considerably higher than among whites.  In 1970, for example, fully 25
>percent of all gainfully employed Chinese men in the United States were
>cooks, waiters, busboys, dishwashers, and janitors.  Such a figure gives an
>impression of Asian American economic well-being that is quite different from
>based on consideration of median income alone.

Areas with the highest density of Asians have the highest density of immigrants;
this will result in a larger percentage of that group in menial type jobs.

>in both 1970 and 1908 - supposedly a sign of their ready acceptance by
>employers - is in reality  a reflection of the fact that more Asian
>American women are compelled to work because the male members of their
>families earn such low wages.  It is true that working Asian American
>women earn a higher median income than do white working women, but they
>also have superior educational qualifications and live in localities with
>higher wages.  Furthermore, compared to white women, a larger percentage
>of them work full time, which helps toodrive their median income upward.

Again, this was data from a time when it was NOT the norm for households to
have 2 incomes. This has changed dramatically since then.

I suggest reading the new report (I'll post a summary later). It indicates 
that in the last 10 years, Asian household income, while remaining higher
than white household income, has dropped slightly by comparison (again, hardly
surprising as the largest immigrant groups are Asian and Latino.) Black income
ahs risen slighty, and has risen even higher in areas (California and the 
Northeast) where education rates are higher. Black incomes have suffered in 
areas where the economy was blue-collar based. Hispanic income has dropped by
comparison to white income as well (see comment on immigration).

Finally, the percentage of households with incomes greater than $100,000/annum

Asian ~7.8

White ~4.8

Black, hispanic, and American Indian were all ~1% or lower.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d 
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."