Why are Asian-Americans Wealthier? (benefits, recession, definition, inflation)

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by DazsGirl

Please define NEW, because they've been in the US since the 1800s.

Asian-American History — Infoplease.com

You're right. New relative to native Americans, blacks, Mexicans, and whites.

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

There are 2 things that gave the US a leg up over the competition:

1. slavery - $20 trillion (inflation adjusted) in uncompensated labor generated the seed capital that was later used to build American industries from the ground up

2. science - the Founding Fathers were products of the Enlightenment and were strong supporters of the scientific method

Combine the 2 elements together: massive amounts of capital fused with science and sure, you'll get a technologically advanced society. However, these 2 advantages are found in our past. Slavery has already been outlawed (no more free ride there), while science is being threatened by religious fundamentalism.

I also don't believe that we invented everything in the world. That's just bull crap. Scientific knowledge is evolutionary. Nothing comes de novo. If the Chinese, Arabs, and Indians hadn't invented math, the Americans would not have been able to send anyone to the moon.

If the Chinese were to put a patent on everything they have ever invented over the last 5000 years (eg paper, gunpowder, the compass, printing, math etc), we Americans would be paying through the nose for the royalties.

That's not to say the Chinese and Indians are superior to us. It's just an acknowledgement that these much older civilizations have bequeathed us Americans a legacy of knowledge that we have built upon and we ought to be thankful for, instead of us gloating (like you do) that we are the master race.

Nice little turn around, but if you go back and re-read what was written, you will see that I am countering someone's opinion that Chinese are genetically "smarter" and "more talented" than other races. First of all, "American" is not a race. it is a compilation of races. Considering that all humans are >99% genetically similar, I dont think that ANY one race has an advantage over another as you would have people believe I do. Again, go back and re-read the last couple of pages.

The whole "shoulders of giants" argument is not lost on me either, but the fact remains, if this guy was right, and Asians are genetically superior, why didn't they invent the light bulb (one example to encompass many) instead of us? Surely their increased intellect should have gotten them there first.

And one other concept I would like to expand upon that I mentioned in an earlier post; Who said that how much money someone makes has anything to do with their intelligence? One is not synonymous with the other. In fact, I would argue the the TRULY intelligent people place more value on their contribution to society than they do on monetary reward. A CEO can make 20X as much as a transplant surgeon. Does that mean that the transplant surgeon is dumber than the CEO? To take it even further, a lab scientist searching for cures for cancer can make 50X less than the CEO. Again, is the CEO 50X smarter than the scientist? Some people are drawn towards money while others are drawn towards a higher purpose.

[drshang]

I studied Asian History in college, as a disclaimer. I am not an expert but fairly knowledgeable.

One major theory as to why Asia (more specifically China but this could be applied to other countries in Asia) had a decline in the 19th century, which is only now starting to become reversed, is because it had too many people. In 1800 China had as many people as the USA has today. Think about the level of technology and sophistication required to govern a country with 300 million people in 2009, and then apply early 19th century technology to it. More people is not necessarily an asset to a society, it can very often be a liability. Otherwise why would China institute a one child policy that would essentially apply a half life of 50 years to the country's population? The idea that Asia is a failure despite it's population advantage is complete nonsense. A more accurate statement (but certainly not that accurate) would be that Asia suffered a serious decline because of it's population "advantage."

[Alexus]

They work 10 times as hard, to the extreme.
They focus on those professions that society places a high value on.
They have as their top priority, high educational achievement.
They have an appreciation for classical music.
They accept their limitations and compensate for them in other areas.
They set high standards for their kids.
They don't face nearly the level of discrimination that black people do.
They support their own first.
They prefer to live among their own.
They hire each other.
They prefer to associate only with their own.
They seem to specialize in massages, herbs, and alternative medicine.
Thousands of asian massage parlors.
They benefit from the perception that their food is healthier.
Many live frugally, save money.
They never pay retail price.
They focus on buying real estate in good school districts.
Their cars are the most reliable cars that are built.

[drshang]

BTW, one other reason Asian-Americans have higher income, and this is pretty obvious and I can't believe I haven't thought about this before:

Asian-Americans are largely concentrated in the most expensive areas of the country with the highest wages, disproportionately compared to White Americans.. LA, SF, NYC, Seattle, Boston are all major Asian enclaves and wages (and cost of living) is much higher there than in areas such as Elkhart, Indiana or Charleston, WVA.

[car54]

I travel frequently to a remote part of SW Virginia to visit a buddy. Anyway this is the last place on earth that you would expect to find a Chinese restaurant.

But this Chinese guy and his family opened a restaurant and it is packed EVERY night....those hillbillies just LOVE his nightly all-you-can-eat buffet...and they drive for miles and miles from every hill and hollow to pig out on egg rolls and and all the other (quasi) Chinese food we know so well.

I can't imagine that this Chinese guy (probably the only one in a hundred miles) settled in this little town intentionally....his car must have broken down on I-77 and maybe he didn't have the money to get it fixed, or something.

Well, he's rolling in the loot now! LOL

[Thomas R.]

I live in an area of mostly small towns, we have Chinese restaurants with people from China working in them.

I mean we can't assume either way, but to me it's plausible he settled there intentionally. (Although I'd agree that probably he first lived somewhere else) China has a good deal of rural areas and I know of Chinese immigrants who find the cities alienating. A good deal of China is hilly or mountainous. As he had a family he may have found a smaller area safer/relaxing as many families regardless of race do. Or he may have just wanted somewhere he'd "corner the market" in Chinese food.

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by drshang

I studied Asian History in college, as a disclaimer. I am not an expert but fairly knowledgeable.

One major theory as to why Asia (more specifically China but this could be applied to other countries in Asia) had a decline in the 19th century, which is only now starting to become reversed, is because it had too many people. In 1800 China had as many people as the USA has today. Think about the level of technology and sophistication required to govern a country with 300 million people in 2009, and then apply early 19th century technology to it. More people is not necessarily an asset to a society, it can very often be a liability. Otherwise why would China institute a one child policy that would essentially apply a half life of 50 years to the country's population? The idea that Asia is a failure despite it's population advantage is complete nonsense. A more accurate statement (but certainly not that accurate) would be that Asia suffered a serious decline because of it's population "advantage."

I disagree. A larger population would have been a huge advantage, had the government had the foresight to use it to their advantage. They were more concerned with controlling the people than they were about allowing free market capitalism to do it's thing. In a time before a global economy, when nationalism and protectionism reigned supreme, the only way a larger population would NOT be advantageous is if the government got in it's way. Freedom and democracy lead to entrepreneurialism. Communism and corruption have the opposite effect. The Chinese only learned this lesson in the last 40 years or so, leaving them with much catching up to do. And they are catching up quickly in no small part due to their huge population of workers who are quickly becoming consumers too.

As someone who studied Asian history, wasn't the one child policy implemented out of fear of resource depletion? It had nothing to do with business and industry, no?


P.S. "Failure" is a little strong, I admit, but my intent was to be provocative.

[ndfmnlf]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

The whole "shoulders of giants" argument is not lost on me either, but the fact remains, if this guy was right, and Asians are genetically superior, why didn't they invent the light bulb (one example to encompass many) instead of us? Surely their increased intellect should have gotten them there first.

Since when did the invention of the light bulb become the measure of genetic or cultural superiority? That's an arbitrary way of measuring the degree of advancement of a society. I could pick another invention from an earlier era - eg gun powder - and say "If the Euro-Americans are so smart, how come they didn't invent gun powder before the Chinese did?" I could even make the case that gun powder has had a greater impact on world history than the light bulb, therefore the Chinese must be superior.

The point here is not that some group of people is superior to another group of people, but that our body of knowledge comes from many sources, and it is absurd to claim that "we Americans invented everything" which is clearly not the case. We may have improved on the ideas of others, but we didn't create everything out of thin air.

[AnesthesiaMD]

Originally Posted by ndfmnlf

Since when did the invention of the light bulb become the measure of genetic or cultural superiority? That's an arbitrary way of measuring the degree of advancement of a society. I could pick another invention from an earlier era - eg gun powder - and say "If the Euro-Americans are so smart, how come they didn't invent gun powder before the Chinese did?" I could even make the case that gun powder has had a greater impact on world history than the light bulb, therefore the Chinese must be superior.

The point here is not that some group of people is superior to another group of people, but that our body of knowledge comes from many sources, and it is absurd to claim that "we Americans invented everything" which is clearly not the case. We may have improved on the ideas of others, but we didn't create everything out of thin air.

I said "modern" inventions. Someone invented the wheel too.

But I really dont think you are getting what I am saying, so let me rephrase it so we can do away with the minutia...

With all the modern inventions and achievements of Americans, how can we possibly believe that ANYONE on earth (including the Chinese) are "genetically superior" to us?

THAT is what I was trying to say in the quote you highlighted.

To clarify again, as I am here touting our achievements, it may come off as saying WE are superior. This is not what I am saying. I am merely saying that THEY are NOT superior. Do you see the difference?