But this still isn't the whole story. The Chinese-American population is bigger and more diverse than the Indian-American or Pakistani-American one. There are lots of families in all these groups where the generation that immigrated to the US was well-educated and professional. Even if that generation had to work extremely hard to get a foothold in the new country, the children benefited both from the high education level of the parents, and from the hard-working/aspirational mentality of the recent immigrant, and (she argues) from the traditionalist approaches to discipline and education which the parents brought with them.

These are the people whom Amy Chua is talking to and about.

The average Chinese-American income reflects relatively fewer of these highly successful immigrants, because there are many more Chinese-Americans who arrived in the US poor and with few options. That doesn't disprove what she said.

>Chinese-Americans earn less than many European-Americans.

On the page you link, Chinese-Americans have a lower per-capita income than Americans of Macedonian, Russian, Latvian, British (not otherwise specified), Lithuanian, Slovene, Australian, and Austrian ancestry.

They have a higher per-capita income than Americans of Scottish, Czechoslovakian, Croatian, Romanian, Hungarian, Slovak, Belgian, Swiss, Welsh, Danish, Israeli, Ukrainian, Canadian, Scotch-Irish, English, European (not otherwise specified), Bulgarian, Polish, Norwegian, Italian, German, Finnish, Irish, Dutch, French (excluding Basques), Yugoslav, Portuguese, American (not otherwise specified) and Pennsylvania German ancestry.

I am curious to hear how you define "many".

The Americans of Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin and Serbian origin must really be doing crappy if Yugoslav is in the lower bucket while Slovene and Macedonian are in the higher. Or maybe it is filtering out immigrants who weren't born while that country existed (soooo... before 1918? And after 1992?)

They tend to cluster in certain metropolitan areas in the Rust Belt (St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Cleveland, the latter two of which used to have regular JAT flights in 1980s) that have been hit hard by deindustrialization.

Source: I'm from Cleveland, aunt married one of the (many) Slovenian-Americans there

Those cities sound familiar from high school geography. We were told that Pittsburgh was the city with the world second largest Croatian population. Not sure when that would have been true but cool nonetheless.

Certainly when Cathedral of Learning was built at University of Pittsburgh because it features a Yugoslav room

>I am curious to hear how you define "many".

I define 'many' as a number, such that it is sufficient to disprove the thesis that "Chinese parenting" (if that is even a thing, China is very diverse) results in higher incomes.

One idea is that tiger parenting results in kids that make more money as adults. The more general observation is that strict parenting results in different behaviors and expectations and patterns of engagement. While wealth is a dominant social metric other measures such as criminal convictions also come up and do indicate some differences in outcomes.

Saying this is about flawed logic is a mistake as the idea is not based in logic but rather on the wild variation exhibited during the process of raising children.

I think the idea behind it is the parenting approach. A hypothesis about it is that it results in children earning more money, but that's not inherent to the concept.