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
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.
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?
Low intergenerational mobility does not necessarily contradict meritocracy, unless you assume merit based factors are completely non-hereditary [1]. All the evidence I've seen suggests parental merit [2] is strongly correlated with child merit.
Further, if I understand their methodology, they are measuring movements across quintiles. This is flawed, since the quintiles are much more spread out in the US (and UK) than in many other countries. In the US, the top is about 12x the bottom, in Sweden, about 6x. See this article which compares the US to Sweden: http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/03/income-distributio...
[1] Before you say the word "genetic", let me point out that heritable != genetic.
[2] I'm using "merit" to mean intelligence and conscientiousness.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> You're talking about legal immigrants, right? Because I would think it's the opposite with illegals.
It depends. It may be true for immigrants coming from the nearby country (Mexico to US), but it isn't true for instance for illegals from Africa going to Europe: they must have a lot of money to pay for the travel through the continent (10000 to 20000 euros or even more).
This has a very bad effect on their countries of origin : both the best people and their money flow out to richer countries.
By definition, people who immigrate are: --smarter --wealthier --better educated --more ambitious. take-charge people
Immigrant here, and I don't agree at all. there are such people, and every host country hopes to attract more of them for the potential economic boost, but it's hardly a foregone conclusion. Some immigrants just went on a date with another person and romance blossomed. Some countries have a far simpler immigration process than the US...probably most of them, in fact, nor does they necessarily exclude ditch diggers, even if they don't encourage them. Some people are refugees and immigrate elsewhere through no desire of their own.
I would say about the only common traits that all immigrants have in common are slightly greater risk tolerance and adaptivity, the requirements for trying out a completely different environment, or even considering it as a possible alternative in the first place. Other things you mention might give them strong views on education, but that might just as easily be a reflection of educational norms where they grew up.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
