Sociation Today

Sociation Today


ISSN 1542-6300


The Official Journal of the
North Carolina Sociological Association


A Peer-Reviewed
Refereed Web-Based 
Publication


Spring/Summer 2013
Volume 11, Issue 1



Pursuing the American Dream: The Effect of Immigrant Settlement among Asian Americans and Occupational Disparities in Management*

by

Hideki Morooka

Fayetteville State University


Introduction

    Historically, U.S. immigration policies have consistently given a strong preference to immigrants coming from European countries. With the introduction of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, a migration opportunity was uniformly extended to residents of all countries. This opportunity created a new wave of migration patterns to the United States allowing immigrants an entry into the country as long as they possessed the occupational skills required to meet employment needs in a particular field, demonstrated appropriate family connections in the United States, or were able to establish a refugee status. Furthermore, the United States Immigration Act of 1990 welcomed and gave priority to immigrants with exceptional abilities which resulted in a significant increase, about 60 percent, in the number of professional migrants allowed into the country (Lobo and Salvo 1998). According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the Asian population represents approximately 5 percent of the total population, while it had shared only 0.5 percent in 1960. As the influx of immigrants from Asia to the United States has been documented, especially since the Immigration and Nationality Act was promulgated in 1965, there is a plausible indication that the Asian population in the United States will continue to increase in the future. The Census Bureau estimates that the Asian American population will double by the year 2030 and then tripled by 2050. Despite this dramatic increase in recent decades and the possible substantial increment of the proportion of Asian American population over next few decades, few studies have been conducted on occupational disparity issues involving this population.

    Asian Americans are well represented in professional occupations. More than 50 percent of them occupy professional occupations, particularly in engineering, natural sciences, and allied health fields. Kanajanapan (1995) investigated the migration flow of selected high-skilled professionals from Asian countries. The five Asian countries with the highest number of migrants in professional occupations overall are the Philippines, India, China, Taiwan, and Iran, and they are likely to remain the major contributing countries. The greatest number of engineers and computer scientists are to be found among immigrants who arrived in the United States from India and Taiwan. The Philippines produces an exceptionally high number of migrants in medical fields when compared to other Asian countries (Kanajanapan 1995), inferring that first-generation Asian Americans from the Philippines are likely to be overrepresented in medical occupations. The largest portion of Vietnamese immigrants entered the United States as refugees from 1978, and Vietnamese Americans still show a significantly lower percentage among those in professional occupations (Lobo and Salvo 1998). However, a small fraction of Asian Americans are engaged in managerial occupations (Barringer, Takeuchi, and Xeno 1990). As one examines the percentage of Americans engaging in managerial and financial occupations including corporate executives, financial officers, and upper management personnel, Asian Americans do not enjoy the parity achieved by other ethnic minority groups, despite that a high proportion of Asian Americans is to be found in such professional occupations as physicians and engineers (DiTomaso and Smith 1996).

Asian Americans in Managerial Occupations

    Attaining high levels of education and employment are two of the essential factors that propel upward mobility in a society. Various studies document that the educational attainment level of Asian Americans in general (both foreign born and native born) surpasses that of whites (Farley 1996; Hirschman and Wong 1986; Hsia 1998). The 2000 U.S. Census reveals that higher percentages of Asian American men and women complete college education than their non-Hispanic white counterparts (48% versus 29% for male and 40% versus 25% for female). An exceptionally high proportion of Asian Indians hold bachelor's degrees. On the other hand, recent Southeast Asian immigrants, which include Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians, normally attain an overall low socioeconomic status. Besides non-Hispanic whites, the percentage of Asian American immigrants of various ethnic groups engaging in professional and managerial occupations is higher than that of blacks and Hispanics.

    It might be expected that Asian Americans would be a presence and achieve success in managerial occupations in the same way that they have achieve success in professional occupations. However, in reality, even among scientists and engineers who are categorized as engaging in professional occupations, it is not necessarily true that Asian American managers gain promotion to managerial positions that allow them supervisory authority (Tang 1997a; 1997b). Therefore, an effect similar to the glass ceiling phenomenon in corporation ladder may exist in this country's occupational stratification. Let us consider Asian Americans engaging in middle and upper level management positions in corporations and financial institutions, particularly those supervisory positions that require the execution of strong leadership of subordinates when compared to non-Hispanic whites. DiTomaso and Smith (1996) point out that American minority groups, including Asians, are more likely to belong to corporate/organization departments or offices created to handle issues which concern their specific racial and ethnic groups. For instance, this may include Japanese accountants in an American accounting firm working in a division that exclusively deals with Japanese corporate clients and marketing agencies whose specific focus is on Asian communities and service to those communities. Looking at a similar situation in another English-speaking country which has experienced a significant increase of immigration from Asia in recent years, McAllister (1995) documents that one in six immigrants to Australia with graduate-level education work as managers or corporate executives, while more than 50 percent of all immigrants with graduate degrees wind up getting jobs in professional fields. This phenomenon suggests that highly educated immigrants are more likely to be steered into professional occupations rather managerial positions to divert the potential occupational disparities.

Model Minority Image Toward Asian Americans

    The American society somewhat assumes the model minority perception of Asian Americans as being hardworking, quiet, modest, unable to communicate well, and so forth. Also, Asian Americans possess different physical features from the mainstream such as skin color. Because some individuals do not always give a positive impression of the groups, Asian Americans often have to struggle to eradicate the stereotypes and prejudice in order to achieve upward social mobility, particularly in managerial occupations. Despite their model minority image and ostensible socioeconomic well-being, Asian Americans still face discrimination at work. They share a similar degree of organizational discrimination as blacks and Hispanics, and therefore need a more effective enforcement of affirmative action program as much as blacks and Hispanics do (Bell, Harrison, and McLaughlin 1997). As the attitude of Asian Americans on issues related to affirmative action programs is significantly different from that of non-Hispanic whites, Asian Americans have not been able to establish solid organizational standing, and the model minority image does not hold.

    The procedure for corporate promotions to higher management and executive positions is normally opaque and not openly determined (Powell and Graves 2003). Researchers believe that Asian Americans suffer from the model minority stereotype (Kim and Lewis 1994; Waters and Eschback 1995). Being a "Model Minority" does not necessarily provide people with only positive images. Asian Americans are characterized and perceived as quiet, unable to communicate well, having weak English language skills, being less assertive, tending to be group oriented and avoiding confrontation, and so on. These characteristics and perceptions may be partially due to the traditional moral principles that many Asians normally possess from values and norms based in Confucianism for East Asians, and in Hinduism, Islamism and so forth for Asians from other countries. This cultural grounding deters Asians from being aggressive toward other people and makes them rather passive. Asian American managers tend to be less assertive and aggressive than non-Hispanic white managers. In Asian society, due in part to Confucian teaching as well as the conventional values and norms of other religions, a subordinate is strongly expected to be hardworking, loyal to a superior, and perfectly in compliance with superior's decisions and demands (Xin 2004). As a degree of self-assertion is somewhat desired and expected, and even considered as a virtue in the American organizational setting, this reticent behavior of Asian American managers could possibly affect them unfavorably and become a drawback to their ability to climb the organizational ladder toward higher positions in this country. American subordinates possess a masculine image in good managers; however, this image and profile are less likely to apply to Asian Americans.

    Competition and discrimination appear to be more severe among well-educated populations. Miller (1992) interviewed some of the prominent first-generation Asian American scientists now appointed in high level supervisory and/or administrative positions both in academia and industry. Even though Asian Americans are considered somewhat overrepresented in the fields of science and engineering, the majority of the interviewees have experienced some degree of the phenomenon referred to as the "glass ceiling" in their professional career, particularly at elite institutions with significant history of white dominance. Up to a certain position level, Asian Americans have no trouble advancing in their careers in the organization on the quality of their performance, but situations significantly change once they try seeking to advance to higher administrative/management positions, such as the Dean and Chancellor at a college, or as an executive in an industry.

Cultural Differences in Professional Ethics and Expectations

    Miller (1992) suggests several possible key explanatory factors that impede Asian Americans from advancing in organizations: (1) a language barrier, meaning the lack of strong verbal communication/presentation skills which are emphasized and expected in American society; (2) the difference in social norms, possibly based on Confucianism for East Asians, and Hinduism, Islamism, and so forth for Asian Americans from other countries, that are deeply ingrained in Asian Americans as they grow up; (3) a self-imposed personal preference to stay with the current job, documented in Tang (1997b), suggesting that Asian Americans are less likely to change jobs, leading to a lack of aspiration to be a leader and/or getting into supervisory management positions along with an unwillingness to take risks due to the evaluations required for more advanced positions. However, as Asian Americans spend more time in the American culture, they seem able to adapt to American societal norms and are, over generations, able to gradually surmount these challenged and are more able to enter managerial occupations with only few constraints just like the non-Hispanic white counterparts. Theoretically, they should surpass non-Hispanic whites given the overall high educational attainment level for Asian Americans.

    Xin (2004) documents that Asian Americans and non-Hispanic white managers use different approaches to impress their superiors in organizational settings. Compared to non-Hispanic white managers, Asian American managers put stronger emphasis on incorporating "job-focused" strategies such as arriving early and staying late at work and exerting effort on job tasks to impress their supervisors. They deal less significantly with the other two strategies, "self-focused," which includes behaviors intended by the employee to keep the supervisor informed about the employee's accomplishments, and "supervisor-focused," which includes employee behaviors such as praising the supervisor, taking an interest in his or her personal needs, and doing favors for him or her. According to Xin, the "supervisor-focused" strategy is the most effective tactic for subordinates as a way of ingratiating themselves with their superior. Asian Americans highly esteem the notion of working hard and taking their job very seriously. They are heavily work oriented and show their competence as well as their devotion to organization that they belong to by working overtime. On the other hand, they are not good at promoting themselves for career advancement by being vocal about their accomplishments because being boastful is considered an inappropriate and shameful act in Asian standards. Also, Asian Americans tend to maintain a professional distance and not communicate with a superior unless being spoken to. The Confucianism teaching on the need to respect the elderly, including superiors, may account for a differential attitude by Asian Americans toward people in supervisory positions. Moreover, Asian Americans may believe that self-focused behaviors toward a supervisor could be viewed as self-serving and result in their developing an unfavorable reputation among peers. Unfortunately, exemplary behaviors such as being hardworking and reliable normally practiced by Asian Americans do not seem to be effective in helping them achieve upward mobility in their careers in the American corporate setting. Thus, the behaviors that Asian Americans believe impress their supervisors do not necessarily coincide with those that supervisors expect from their subordinates.

    Kim and Lewis (1994) show evidence of occupational disparity in the public sector. In federal civil service, Asian Americans experience lower earning levels and a more limited likelihood of upward mobility toward managerial positions that exercise supervisory authority. For the 1990-1991 fiscal year, Asian Americans made up less than one percent of high ranking government official positions such as mayors, chairmen, chief appointed administrative officers (CAO's) and managers, assistant CAO's or managers in state, county, city, and town governments (Kim and Lewis 1994). Between Asian American men and non-Hispanic white men in 1992, Asian Americans tend to hold lower position grades. Specifically, the percentages of representation in supervisory positions were significantly lower with 15 percent for Asian American males and 27 percent for non-Hispanic white males. Based on the same 1992 data, Asian American women showed slightly lower than average position grades, and a still lower percentage were working as supervisors. Both could have been caused by the lack of work seniority for Asian Americans. Findings by Kim and Lewis confirm that the educational attainment level of a bachelor's degree or higher is a major determinant of a position grade and earnings in the public sector. However, even with high educational levels, Asian American men still struggle with occupational mobility toward higher rank government supervisory or managerial leadership positions. Lack of English language ability and communication skills are more likely to account for this occupational disparity among immigrants from Asia (Kim and Lewis 1994).

Research Hypotheses and Questions

    The traditional assimilation paradigm asserts that, over time, there is usually a steady intergenerational upward trajectory into the middle-class through intermarriage, residential integration, and occupational mobility, although first-generation immigrants may suffer from poor occupational conditions and low earnings (Gordon 1964; Lieberson 1980; Hirschman 1994; Alba and Nee 2003). This is often referred to as the straight-line assimilation thesis. The works of Alba (1990) and Waters (1990) describe how white ethnic groups were segregated from each other in the past, but how they are now in the process of converging on several important measures of socioeconomic achievement and demographic characteristics, including education, occupational status, income, fertility, and marriage. Whites also merged through the widespread practice of intermarriage. The well-being and advancement of second generation white immigrants was made less difficult by the fact that they were white, and positively influenced by the social support, their ethnic community provided, as well as by the social status and financial position of their immigrant parents.

    The proportion of native-born Asian Americans to foreign-born Asian Americans in the total population is unique and needs to be noted. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, unlike the total American population in which 90 percent are native born, only about 30 percent of Asian Americans were born in the United States, and only half of the foreign-born population has become naturalized U.S. citizens. The Asian American population consists largely of those born abroad and, as immigrants, may initially suffer and struggle because of cultural differences and a lack of English language skills. As immigrants spend more time in the United States, their lifestyle and cultural norms should gradually become more similar to those possessed by mainstream Americans as part of the adaptation process. Once immigrants adapt to the American lifestyle, "Americanization" appears. The longer an individual remains in the United States, the more likely that his or her lifestyle will approach one that reflects the mainstream American culture.

    It can normally be stipulated that immigrants hold blue-collar occupations as a result of the consequences of having remained in their original migrant social networks due to their deficiency in English language skills. Poor labor conditions for immigrants seem to be universal in other English-speaking countries as well. For example, the situation of the foreign-born population is more severe in Australia, where immigrants start off lower in their first few years of residency no matter what kind of background or credentials they possess from their country of origin (McAllister 1995). As the 1.5-generation and native-born Asian Americans receive education in the United States and become fluent in English, they would presumably achieve a greater opportunity to acquire white-collar jobs in the mainstream society. Through acculturation and assimilation by their residence in the United States over generations, Asian Americans may be able to successfully lessen social and cultural distances from the mainstream and then alleviate the existing racial boundary.

    I hypothesize that the traditional straight-line assimilation theory applies to upward organizational mobility among Asian Americans, and that Asian Americans would eventually attain to the level of the native-born non-Hispanic white group that form the mainstream of a modern American society, unless there is some strong intervention. I expect that my findings show that the trends and the social determinants of 1.5-generation and native-born Asian Americans of various ethnicities are somewhat similar to those of mainstream Americans. Despite my argument that the trends of immigrants should approach those of the native born as their years of residence in the United States increase, I infer that first-generation Asian Americans show the existence of phenomena distinct from other ethnic groups because they are more likely to retain the lifestyle from their home country after arriving in the United States and to have a lower degree of acculturation and assimilation to American culture, especially at the early stage of adaptation after immigration.

Data and Methods

    This research takes advantage of data in the 2000 U.S. Census from the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS). The dataset holds a sufficient sample size of native-born Asian Americans and provides a researcher a unique opportunity to capture intergenerational trends. The Asian ethnicity subgroups are initially aggregated as "All Asians." In light of evidence that there is a substantial heterogeneity among Asian Americans, I distinguish Asian ethnicities to the extent possible. A further reclassification of Asian groups lists the following: Chinese; Japanese; Filipinos; Asian Indians: Koreans; Southeast Asians; and Other Asians. Southeast Asians include Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians. As the category "non-Hispanic Native American, Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders, Mixed Races, and Other Race" does not reflect the samples of my interest, these particular racial and ethnic groups have been excluded. I retain the Asian ethnicity groups and non-Hispanic white group for statistical models. Individuals between 25 and 84 years of age are included. Age is treated as a continuous variable, and both ends (the youngest and the oldest) of the age distribution are considered as groups less likely to be engaged in managerial positions. Age is assumed to be curvilinear with managerial occupations, and a quadratic term for age is imposed in statistical models. However, in descriptive tables, age is shown in categories in the following groups: ages 18 to 44; ages 45 to 64; and ages 65 and over.

    As educational attainment and income levels should be associated with managerial occupations, they are also considered. Educational attainment level is measured in categories: (1) less than high school; (2) high school diploma; (3) some college education; (4) bachelor's degree; (5) master's degree, (6) professional degree, and (7) doctoral degree. The Master of Business Administration, which is considered necessary to obtain middle- and upper-management positions, is included in the master's degree category, instead of the professional degree category. As for income level, rather than incorporating household income, individual income is used to determine the actual median and mean income amounts. If income is measured at the household level, it can lead to a confusion of the income levels between single and married people where both husband and wife work, for example. In statistical models, the income variable is transformed into natural logarithm to modify the skew that is likely to be associated with an income distribution. Regions of residence are categorized into four regions, including the Northeast, the South, the Midwest, and the West. The metropolitan residence stratification in the census enables me to determine if an individual lives in either an urban or rural area.

    Years of residence in the United States, U.S. citizenship, English language ability, and whether or not English was spoken at home are some of the measures used to reflect the level of acculturation, adaptation, and assimilation of foreign-born individuals. I use three different categories to distinguish Asian American individuals based on their nativity and immigrant generation status. Rather than dividing them into the traditional dichotomy of foreign-born and native-born populations, I categorize them into the following: (1) the first generation; (2) the 1.5 generation; and (3) the native born. Those categorized as the first-generation Asian Americans were born abroad and arrived in the United State at the age of fifteen or later. Those belonging to the 1.5-generation category were born abroad but came to the United States in their early childhood, specifically from ages 0 to 14. The US-born or the native-born Asian Americans are clearly those who were born in the United States. The cutoff point for the ages of the 1.5 generations is overall somewhat subjective and hinges on the discretion of researchers. My classification is based on the exposure of individuals to American primary education. The younger the individuals arrive in the United States, the more quickly they are disengaged from the lifestyle and cultural influence of their country of origin and the more readily they begin absorbing American lifestyle and culture. On the other hand, those who arrived in the United States at the age of fifteen or later and received primary school education abroad are more likely to possess established patterns and may not blend in as easily with a new living environment as those who arrived at a younger age.

    The first part of the statistical analysis focuses on examining what kind of characteristics influence engagement in managerial occupations among Asian Americans. I hypothesize that as the occupational attainment level of Asian Americans approaches that of non-Hispanic whites once immigrants get adapted to the American culture, the level of adaptation contributes to differences in patterns and trends of occupational attainment across immigrant generations. I suspect that differences in patterns exist between first-generation and 1.5-generation Asian Americans, although they are conventionally classified under one variable "the foreign-born population." Business owners are included in the models. If those entrepreneurs, including motel/lodging operators and store owners, considered and reported themselves as being in managerial occupations in the 2000 Census occupational classification system, they are counted as engaged in managerial occupations. As I am interested in finding out whether Asian Americans are in positions that have supervisory authority, I assert that it is appropriate to include them as managers because they are more likely to have employees working for them.

    As the dependent variable has dichotomy, the multiple logistic regression analysis technique is appropriate to estimate the log-odds of potential effects and to capture any distinctive differences in each of the socioeconomic and demographic factors included in the models for Asian Americans in selecting managerial occupations. The samples are age-adjusted to reflect national population estimates. I, then, examine occupational prestige scores to substantiate the research questions: (1) the occupational attainment level of Asian Americans is higher or lower than non-Hispanic white group; (2) what kind of social determinants greatly influence for Asian Americans to engage in high status occupations. The Ordinal Least Square (OLS) multiple regression models are constructed with the Duncan Socioeconomic Index (SEI) (Duncan 1961) serving as the dependent variable. Each pair presents the regression models to estimate the occupational prestige scores of Asian Americans in comparison with native-born non-Hispanic whites. Model 1 estimates the effect of the social determinants controlled for race and ethnicity and immigrant generation status, which splits the foreign-born population into the two categories: (1) the first generation and (2) the 1.5 generation. Then, Model 2 is a more specifically focused version of the first model and reclassifies years of residence in the United States into the four groups: (1) 0 to 4 years; (2) 5 to 10 years, (3) 11 to 19 years; and (4) 20 years or more. In all models, native-born non-Hispanic whites serve as the reference category in the analysis.

Findings: Occupational Attainment of Asian Americans in Management

    There are a total of 238,445 Asian Americans in the sample, which consists of 183,732 first-generation Asian Americans, 22,351 1.5-generation Asian Americans, and 32,362 native-born Asian Americans. For Asian ethnic subgroups, the percentage of each group in the total Asian population samples is also listed in parentheses: All Asians (n=238,445); Chinese (n=59,272; 24.9% of the entire Asian samples); Japanese (n=20,973; 8.8%); Filipinos (n=48,968; 20.5%); Asian Indians (n=37,633; 15.8%); Koreans (n=23,976; 10.1%); Southeast Asians (n=32,718; 13.7%); Other Asians (n=14,905; 6.3%); and native-born non-Hispanic whites (n=4,934,680).

    Table 1 summarizes the percent distributions of Asian Americans in managerial occupations by Asian ethnic groups and immigrant generations. This table includes the percent distributions of native-born non-Hispanic whites as the reference group. The table also provides the percent distributions when I do not consider immigrant generations at all in the columns named "Combined" so that I can stress the importance of looking into the detailed immigrant generations, particularly the 1.5 generations. For example, when I combine all Asian groups, the percentage of Asian Americans engaging in managerial occupations is 14.2 percent, which is below the percentage of native-born non-Hispanic whites in managerial occupations of 15.6 percent. However, when I break down Asian Americans by immigrant generations, the 1.5-generation and native-born Asian Americans surpass the level of native-born non-Hispanic whites with 18.0 percent and 18.7 percent, respectively.

Table 1: Distribution of Asian Americans and Immigrant Generations in Management
 
1st
1.5
U.S Born
Combined
All Asians
12.9
18.0
18.7
14.2
Chinese
15.9
22.0
21.9
17.2
Japanese
21.4
19.6
19.2
20.0
Filipino
10.1
15.6
15.0
11.2
Asian Indian
15.6
21.4
18.1
16.1
Korean
13.7
19.8
17.8
14.7
SE Asian
5.6
13.7
9.9
6.9
Other Asian
12.7
15.8
17.2
13.6
NH White
-
-
15.6
-

    Figure 1 shows the percentage of Asian Americans as well as native-born non-Hispanic whites in managerial occupations by Asian subcategories and immigrant generation status. It visually complements to observe the trends over immigrant generations shown in Tables 1. It is notable that most of the subsequent immigrant generations show a higher percentage of occupational attainment in management. It is also clear that the percentage of Filipino and Southeast Asians in managerial occupations never exceed the level of native-born non-Hispanic whites for any immigrant generations, although the 1.5- and native-born groups are better off than the first generations.

 

    In general, the median and mean individual income levels of Asian Americans in managerial occupations ($40,700 for the median and $57,496 for the mean) are not as high as non-Hispanic whites in managerial occupations ($45,000 for the median and $63,805 for the mean). The critical difference is observed as I separate them by immigrant generations. As presented in Table 3, the first-generation Japanese and Asian Indian Americans achieve significantly higher income levels than their native-born non-Hispanic white counterparts, with the median individual income of $60,000 and the mean income of $89,699 for Japanese, and the median income of $48,500 and the mean income of $70,374 for Asian Indians. However, for the 1.5 generations, none of the Asian ethnic groups show the mean income amount higher than native-born non-Hispanic whites, while Japanese and Asian Indians still achieve higher median income than non-Hispanic whites. This indicates that the income level of native-born non-Hispanic whites shows a positive skew, which implies that there are quite a few native-born non-Hispanic whites earning extremely high salaries, and that they drive the mean income level higher.

    As I turn to native-born Asian Americans, a similar story is observed. All Asians show a higher median individual income, but native-born non-Hispanic whites show a higher mean income. Considering Asian ethnic groups, Chinese and Koreans have higher median and mean income levels than non-Hispanic whites. The 1.5 generation Asian Americans are generally younger than native-born non-Hispanic whites, while the first generations share the similar mean ages as native-born non-Hispanic whites. The mean SEI scores have been consistently higher for all Asian ethnic groups and all immigrant generations than native-born non-Hispanic whites. As for changes in the mean SEI scores over immigrant generations, they seem rather constant.
 
    More than half of the first generations of Asian ethnic groups in management, except for some particular groups who come from countries where official language is English, respond that their English language ability is less than "very well." Again, nearly half of native-born Southeast Asians believe that they lack fluency in English. The highest percentage of immigrants' length of residence in the United States among the first-generation Japanese Americans in management is those who have been in the United States for less than 5 years with 38.5%. It is consistent with the argument that the majority of first-generation Japanese Americans stay in the United States on a temporary basis. Other than that, the highest proportion of immigrant length of residence is at least 11 years for all other groups. Except for Southeast Asians, the overall educational attainment level of Asian Americans engaging in management seems higher than native-born non-Hispanic whites. It should also be noted that the educational attainment level of Filipino Americans of any immigrant generations is concentrated around the bachelor's degree. In other words, not so many Filipino Americans are left with low education; at the same time, not so many pursue graduate level education.

Table 2A: Profile of All Asian Americans in Managerial Occupations
Variables
All Asians
Chinese
Japanese
Filipino
Median individual income
40700
41400
51640
38700
Mean income
57496
57839
72605
44763
Mean age
41.5
41.2
45.0
42.7
Mean year immigration to the U.S.
1982.9
1983.0
1985.7
1980.3
Mean age when arrived in the  U.S.
24.4
24.4
28.9
24.2
Mean years stay in the U.S.
17.1
17.0
14.3
19.7
Mean Duncan SEI
69.5
69.7
68.5
70.7
% Female
45.1
48.9
39.9
57.0
Northeast
20.3
23.7
11+.8
13.1
Midwest
10.1
7.6
7.9
8.0
South
18.1
14.5
9.4
12.6
West
51.5
54.2
70.9
66.3
Metropolitan residence
96.0
97.1
92.7
96.3
% Self employed
16.7
18.1
13.4
8.3
% U.S. Citizen
68.4
71.9
65.5
79.5
% Married
75.4
74.3
73.4
73.0
% English ability (native/very well)
70.8
61.0
76.6
87.1
% Speak English at home
23.1
17.4
56.4
26.0
% Immigrants <5 years
12.3
11.0
34.5
6.1
% Immigrants 5-10 years
16.3
17.8
18.0
12.7
% Immigrants 11-19 years
30.3
32.5
15.4
31.0
% Immigrants 20+ years
41.1
38.8
32.1
50.2
% Less than High School
4.4
6.1
1.1
1.8
% High School
7.4
7.6
8.4
5.3
% Some College
18.2
15.0
22.2
23.4
% Bachelor
44.3
41.0
50.6
58.1
% Master
20.4
23.8
14.6
8.8
% Professional
2.2
1.8
1.5
2.1
Doctorate
3.1
4.9
1.6
0.6
Total Number of observations
33,866
10,296
4,166
5,447



Table 2B.  Profile of All Asian Americans in Managerial Occupations

Variables
Asian
Indian
Korean
SE
Asian
Other
Asian
NB-NH
White
Median individual income
48000
36200
33000
36800
45000
Mean income
69034
52512
42594
48702
63805
Mean age
40.4
41.0
38.1
40.3
45.4
Mean year immigration to the U.S.
1984.5
1982.4
1981.5
1983.8
-
Mean age when arrived in the  U.S.
25.4
23.8
19.5
24.6
-
Mean years stay in the U.S.
15.5
17.6
18.5
16.2
-
Mean Duncan SEI
69.4
68.9
69.2
69.7
66.3
% Female
32.6
43.3
51.1
40.4
40.7
Northeast
30.3
22.3
9.2
16.7
19.8
Midwest
16.3
9.3
11.5
12.5
25.8
South
27.5
18.5
29.1
26.3
33.4
West
25.8
50.0
50.2
44.6
20.9
Metropolitan residence
95.7
97.3
96.9
93.1
77.9
% Self employed
16.5
28.4
19.0
16.2
18.1
% U.S. Citizen
56.0
62.2
80.4
63.0
100.0
% Married
84.3
75.1
67.9
72.9
74.5
% English ability (native/very well)
86.7
47.5
54.3
75.8
99.4
% Speak English at home
16.5
15.5
9.6
26.1
96.6
% Immigrants <5 years
15.2
10.9
3.5
15.3
-
% Immigrants 5-10 years
19.3
12.6
13.4
17.6
-
% Immigrants 11-19 years
31.3
31.7
29.1
28.5
-
% Immigrants 20+ years
34.3
44.7
54.1
38.6
-
% Less than High School
3.3
3.7
12.8
5.1
3.6
% High School
4.6
11.6
11.3
7.3
16.5
% Some College
10.1
21.1
28.5
21.1
29.9
% Bachelor
37.2
46.2
37.9
38.4
34.0
% Master
35.2
14.9
7.8
23.1
13.2
% Professional
4.3
1.0
1.2
3.0
1.5
Doctorate
5.5
1.7
0.5
2.1
1.3
Total Number of observations
6,107
3,577
2,275
1,998
750,694


Table 3A: Profile of the 1st-Generation Asian American in Managerial Occupations
Variables
All Asians
Chinese
Japanese
Filipino
Median individual income
40000
39000
60000
38020
Mean income
57489
55085
89699
44430
Mean age
43.0
42.6
43.7
45.7
Mean year immigration to the U.S.
1984.4
1984.4
1988.1
1981.9
Mean age when arrived in the  U.S.
27.5
27.0
31.7
27.6
Mean years stay in the U.S.
15.6
15.6
11.9
18.1
Mean Duncan SEI
69.5
69.5
69.3
70.9
% Female
43.1
47.9
33.0
58.0
Northeast
22.0
23.7
22.3
14.2
Midwest
10.9
8.4
13.5
7.9
South
20.2
16.5
15.1
12.0
West
46.8
51.4
49.1
65.9
Metropolitan residence
96.3
96.8
94.9
96.9
Self employed
19.4
21.2
12.1
9.2
% U.S. Citizen
57.0
61.8
14.7
72.7
% Married
82.0
80.9
81.2
78.3
% English ability (native/very well)
61.4
49.2
45.6
83.4
% Speak English at home
7.8
5.4
8.7
7.8
% Immigrants <5 years
14.4
12.7
38.5
7.3
% Immigrants 5-10 years
19.1
20.5
20.1
15.1
% Immigrants 11-19 years
32.9
34.8
16.6
34.8
% Immigrants 20+ years
33.6
32.1
24.9
42.8
% Less than High School
5.5
7.8
1.1
1.7
% High School
8.0
9.2
8.2
4.1
% Some College
16.5
15.0
16.3
19.7
% Bachelor
41.5
35.0
56.6
62.4
% Master
22.3
25.4
14.7
8.7
% Professional
2.3
1.5
1.1
2.7
Doctorate
3.9
6.2
2.0
0.8
Total Number of observations
23,860
7,362
1,594
3,864

Table 3B: Profile of the 1st-Generation Asian American in Managerial Occupations
Variables
Asian
Indian
Korean
SE
Asian
Other
Asian
NB-NH
White
Median individual income
48500
35000
32000
35000
45000
Mean income
70374
51144
42540
47187
63805
Mean age
41.8
43.9
41.7
41.8
45.4
Mean year immigration to the U.S.
1985.3
1984.3
1983.2
1985.3
-
Mean age when arrived in the  U.S.
27.1
28.2
25.0
27.1
-
Mean years stay in the U.S.
14.7
15.7
16.8
14.7
-
Mean Duncan SEI
69.3
68.6
68.4
69.7
66.3
% Female
30.8
40.7
47.6
37.2
40.7
Northeast
30.3
21.3
8.4
18.6
19.8
Midwest
16.1
8.4
11.3
13.3
25.8
South
27.8
18.6
30.4
29.1
33.6
West
25.8
51.7
49.9
39.0
20.9
Metropolitan residence
95.5
97.2
96.6
94.3
77.9
% Self employed
17.5
34.8
24.1
18.7
18.1
% U.S. Citizen
50.8
52.4
76.0
50.9
100.0
% Married
88.6
83.6
74.8
78.4
74.5
% English ability (native/very well)
85.6
32.9
40.5
68.9
99.4
% Speak English at home
12.8
4.3
4.7
9.7
96.6
% Immigrants <5 years
16.6
13.7
4.9
17.4
-
% Immigrants 5-10 years
21.1
15.7
19.1
20.0
-
% Immigrants 11-19 years
32.7
36.4
33.9
30.0
-
% Immigrants 20+ years
29.6
34.2
42.0
32.7
-
% Less than High School
3.5
4.5
17.1
5.5
3.6
% High School
4.9
13.8
13.0
7.2
16.5
% Some College
9.5
21.5
29.5
18.9
29.9
% Bachelor
35.2
42.9
31.7
36.1
34.0
% Master
36.7
14.6
7.1
26.4
13.2
% Professional
4.3
0.8
1.1
3.7
1.5
% Doctorate
6.1
1.9
0.6
2.3
1.3
Total Number of observations
5,312
2,702
1,583
1,443
750,694


Table 4A.  Profile of the 1.5-Generation Asian Americans in Managerial Occupations
Variables
All Asians
Chinese
Japanese
Filipino
Median individual income
40800
44000
48000
40300
Mean income
52435
57269
569953
46286
Mean age
32.6
33.8
39.4
34.1
Mean year immigration to the U.S.
1973.9
1973.4
1965.0
1972.1
Mean age when arrived in the  U.S.
6.5
7.3
4.5
6.1
Mean years stay in the U.S.
26.1
26.6
35.0
27.9
Mean Duncan SEI
70.2
70.1
68.6
70.3
% Female
53.5
56.3
48.1
54.3
Northeast
20.3
27.4
15.9
12.6
Midwest
10.0
4.9
6.9
8.4
South
18.3
10.0
16.3
15.1
West
51.4
57.7
60.9
64.0
Metropolitan residence
97.2
98.2
94.1
96.0
% Self employed
8.9
10.6
7.7
5.4
% U.S. Citizen
89.3
94.1
82.6
90.1
% Married
56.6
55.3
70.6
60.9
% English ability (native/very well)
88.9
85.5
90.8
94.9
% Speak English at home
33.6
21.8
68.0
52.1
% Immigrants <5 years
-
-
-
-
% Immigrants 5-10 years
-
-
-
-
% Immigrants 11-19 years
14.9
17.8
4.8
11.0
% Immigrants 20+ years
85.1
82.2
95.2
89.0
% Less than High School
1.9
2.1
1.1
1.4
% High School
5.6
3.7
4.2
8.0
% Some College
21.6
15.5
23.5
31.8
% Bachelor
53.5
59.7
46.2
48.0
% Master
14.9
16.2
21.9
10.1
% Professional
1.7
1.6
0.0
0.7
% Doctorate
0.9
1.1
3.1
0.1
Total Number of observations
3,998
1,149
179
710


Table 4B.  Profile of the 1.5-Generation Asian Americans in Managerial Occupations
Variables
Asian
Indian
Korean
SE
Asian
Other
Asian
NB-NH
White
Median individual income
49000
40000
35000
38000
45000
Mean income
60598
53837
42792
49532
63805
Mean age
30.9
31.6
29.5
32.8
45.4
Mean year immigration to the U.S.
1975.3
1974.6
1977.4
1973.1
-
Mean age when arrived in the  U.S.
6.3
6.1
6.9
5.8
-
Mean years stay in the U.S.
24.7
25.4
22.6
26.9
-
Mean Duncan SEI
70.4
69.4
71.1
70.3
66.3
% Female
43.2
50.9
60.7
51.2
40.7
Northeast
29.0
23.7
10.3
12.5
19.8
Midwest
17.4
12.5
12.4
13.1
25.8
South
27.0
19.3
26.3
25.4
33.6
West
26.5
44.5
51.0
49.0
20.9
Metropolitan residence
98.4
97.6
98.0
91.8
77.9
% Self employed
11.1
9.8
7.2
9.7
18.1
% U.S. Citizen
82.6
88.5
89.1
84.7
100.0
% Married
62.3
50.9
52.5
54.6
74.5
% English ability (native/very well)
92.7
90.2
84.6
86.6
99.4
% Speak English at home
29.2
42.1
18.0
37.7
96.6
% Immigrants <5 years
-
-
-
-
-
% Immigrants 5-10 years
-
-
-
-
-
% Immigrants 11-19 years
15.7
12.4
18.0
18.0
-
% Immigrants 20+ years
84.3
87.6
82.0
82.0
-
% Less than High School
1.3
1.3
2.6
4.3
3.5
% High School
3.0
4.2
7.4
13.6
16.5
% Some College
15.1
19.9
25.3
28.0
29.9
% Bachelor
49.7
58.0
53.3
39.5
34.0
% Master
25.1
14.4
9.6
12.2
13.2
% Professional
4.4
1.3
1.8
2.0
1.5
% Doctorate
1.5
1.0
0.3
0.6
1.3
Total Number of observations
482
639
638
201
750,694


Table 5A.  Profile of then 2nd-Generation Asian Americans in Managerial Occupations
Variables
All Asians
Chinese
Japanese
Filipino
Median individual income
48000
53000
50000
38200
Mean income
61018
69762
61980
44939
Mean age
41.2
40.0
46.3
37.0
Mean year immigration to the U.S.
-
-
-
-
Mean age when arrived in the  U.S.
-
-
-
-
Mean years stay in the U.S.
-
-
-
-
Mean Duncan SEI
69.2
70.2
68.0
69.9
% Female
47.4
48.2
44.2
55.2
Northeast
13.1
21.5
4.0
8.8
Midwest
6.7
6.2
4.1
8.3
South
9.6
8.8
4.8
13.0
West
70.6
63.5
87.1
69.9
Metropolitan residence
93.9
97.7
91.1
94.0
% Self employed
11.4
10.1
14.8
7.2
% U.S. Citizen
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
% Married
61.7
59.0
68.1
60.4
% English ability (native/very well)
96.1
94.8
97.4
96.5
% Speak English at home
77.8
65.1
89.2
82.1
% Immigrants <5 years
-
-
-
-
% Immigrants 5-10 years
-
-
-
-
% Immigrants 11-19 years
-
-
-
-
% Immigrants 20+ years
-
-
-
-
% Less than High School
1.7
1.1
1.1
2.5
% High School
6.5
3.3
8.9
8.0
% Some College
22.7
14.4
26.2
32.3
% Bachelor
49.5
54.4
46.7
48.3
% Master
16.4
21.9
13.9
7.9
% Professional
2.0
3.1
1.9
0.8
% Doctorate
1.3
1.8
1.2
0.2
Total Number of observations
6,008
1,785
2,393
873


Table 5b.  Profile of then 2nd-Generation Asian Americans in Managerial Occupations
Variables
Asian
Indian
Korean
SE
Asian
Other
Asian
NB-NH
White
Median individual income
44500
46000
32000
43250
45000
Mean income
60038
64151
41685
54387
63805
Mean age
31.8
34.7
37.9
38.1
45.4
Mean year immigration to the U.S.
-
-
-
-
-
Mean age when arrived in the  U.S.
-
-
-
-
-
Mean years stay in the U.S.
-
-
-
-
-
Mean Duncan SEI
69.3
70.7
68.2
69.2
66.3
% Female
45.2
51.0
33.9
47.1
40.7
Northeast
32.8
29.4
17.3
11.1
19.8
Midwest
17.8
10.6
7.5
8.7
25.8
South
23.8
14.4
27.2
15.6
33.6
West
25.6
45.6
48.1
64.6
20.9
Metropolitan residence
95.3
97.1
91.9
89.1
77.9
% Self employed
8.6
7.8
17.5
9.8
18.1
% U.S. Citizen
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
% Married
48.9
46.6
60.9
60.5
74.5
% English ability (native/very well)
95.1
93.2
79.4
97.9
99.4
% Speak English at home
58.4
68.4
50.4
85.8
96.6
% Immigrants <5 years
-
-
-
-
-
% Immigrants 5-10 years
-
-
-
-
-
% Immigrants 11-19 years
-
-
-
-
-
% Immigrants 20+ years
-
-
-
-
-
% Less than High School
2.7
0.6
14.4
4.0
3.6
% High School
3.0
7.4
12.7
4.5
16.5
% Some College
12.5
21.0
37.6
26.1
29.9
% Bachelor
51.0
49.6
27.5
47.1
34.0
% Master
25.8
19.4
6.2
15.7
13.2
% Professional
3.3
1.2
0.0
0.9
1.5
% Doctorate
1.7
0.8
1.6
1.9
1.3
Total Number of observations
313
236
54
354
750,694


    Table 6 presents both the likelihood and magnitude of the socioeconomic characteristics and the U.S. acculturation indicators contributing to who engages in managerial occupations. Model 1 through Model 4 estimate the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics for Asian Americans, and Model 5 through Model 8 estimate the same for Asian American ethnic groups. All models use native-born non-Hispanic whites as the reference category and measure the cost of being an Asian American. In comparison with other occupations, females are more likely to work in managerial positions than males. The educational attainment level of a bachelor's degree or higher increases the likelihood of attainment managerial occupations, particularly with a graduate-level education. Residents in the South, compared to those living in the West, are more likely to be in managerial occupations. Possessing a high English language ability, as well as the usage of English at home, tend to increase the chances of an individual being in management. Being Asian American, by itself, leads to that person being less likely to be in a managerial occupation. However, when nativity is considered, it becomes a positive indicator. Specifically, the 1.5-generation Asian Americans demonstrate a higher likelihood of engaging in managerial occupations, while first-generation Asian Americans are less likely than the native-born population.    All categories pertaining to the length of residence in the United States for Asian Americans born abroad indicate a lower likelihood of being in management than those born in the United States. Immigrants who have been in the United States between 5 and 10 years are least likely to be in a management position. After 10 years of residence in the United States, the likelihood of being in management slightly increases though it is still lower than that of those who are native born. Among the foreign-born groups, individuals who have been in the United States for less than 5 years surprisingly show the highest chance of being in management, though again the likelihood is still lower than those in the native-born group.U.S. citizenship status shows a negative effect. Breaking Asian Americans into more detailed ethnic groups in Model 5 through Model 8 in Table 6, Chinese and Japanese Americans are more likely to be in managerial occupations than native-born non-Hispanic whites. Other Asian ethnic groups show the opposite in terms of engagement in management. Again the 1.5 generations have a higher chance than the first generations to be in management. As for the length of residence in the United States, the categories in the opposite spectrum, 0 to 4 years and 20 plus years, show a higher probability of engaging in management than does the native-born group.

Table 6, Part 1.  Regression Models Predicting the Likelihood of Being in Managerial Occupations vs. Others
 
Model 1
 b
Model 1
SE
Model 2
 b
Model 2
SE
Female (Ref=Male)
0.296***
0.001
0.296***
0.001
Married (Ref=Unmarried
0.162***
0.001
0.163***
0.001
Education (Ref=Less than HS)
 
 
 
 
 High School
0.341***
0.003
0.340***
0.003
 Some College
0.982***
0.003
0.981***
0.003
 Bachelor's
2.006***
0.003
2.005***
0.003
 Master's
2.691***
0.004
2.690***
0.004
 Professional
2.313***
0.006
2.312***
0.006
 Doctorate
3.033***
0.0007
3.033***
0.007
Region (Ref=West)
 
 
 
 
 Northeast
-0.073***
0.001
-0.071***
0.001
 Midwest
-0.110***
0.002
-0.109
0.002
 South
0.127***
0.002
0.129***
0.002
Income (logged)
0.675***
0.001
0.675***
0.001
Self-employed
 (Ref=Not self-employed)
0.195***
0.002
0.190***
0.002
US citizenship
 (Ref=Non US citizen)
0.025***
0.004
-0.010*
0.004
English language ability
 (Ref=Well or below)
0.273***
0.004
0.257***
0.004
English spoken at home
 (Ref=Otherwise)
0.035***
0.003
0.009***
0.003
Asian
 (Ref=NC NH-whites)
-0.071***
0.003
0.044***
0.004
Foreign born
 (Ref=NB)
 
 
-0.180***
0.005
Immigrant Generation
 (Ref=NB)
 
 
 
 
 1st generation
 
 
 
 
 1.5 generation
 
 
 
 
Length of residence in the
US (Ref=NB)
 
 
 
 
 0-4 years
 
 
 
 
 5-10 years
 
 
 
 
 11-19 years
 
 
 
 
 20 years +
 
 
 
 
Intercept
-9.883***
0.011
-9.762***
0.011
Pseudo R-square
0.224
 
0.224

# of observations
1,012,051
 
1,012,051
 
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Table 6, Part 2.  Regression Models Predicting the Likelihood of Being in Managerial Occupations vs. Others
 
Model 3
 b
Model 3
SE
Model 4
 b
Model 4
 SE
Female (Ref=Male)
0.296***
.0001
0.296***
0.001
Married (Ref=Unmarried
0.165***
0.001
0.164***
0.001
Education (Ref=Less than HS)
 
 
 
 
 High School
0.338***
0.003
0.339***
0.003
 Some College
0.978***
0.003
0.979***
0.003
 Bachelor's
2.004***
0.003
2.004***
0.003
 Master's
2.689***
0.004
2.689***
.0004
 Professional
2.312***
0.006
2.312***
0.006
 Doctorate
3.035***
0.007
3.032***
0.007
Region (Ref=West)
 
 
 
 
 Northeast
-0.070***
0.001
-0.071***
0.001
 Midwest
-0.108***
0.002
-0.109***
0.002
 South
0.130***
0.002
0.129***
0.002
Income (logged)
0.674***
0.001
0.674***
0.001
Self-employed
 (Ref=Not self-employed)
0.196***
0.002
0.195***
0.002
US citizenship
 (Ref=Non US citizen)
-0.057***
0.004
-0.057***
0.005
English language ability
 (Ref=Well or below)
0.224***
0.004
0.249***
0.004
English spoken at home
 (Ref=Otherwise)
-0.002
0.003
0.007*
0.003
Asian
 (Ref=NC NH-whites)
0.042***
0.004
0.043***
0.004
Foreign born
 (Ref=NB)
 
 
 
 
Immigrant Generation
 (Ref=NB)
 
 
 
 
 1st generation
-0.269***
0.006
 
 
 1.5 generation
0.101
0.007
 
 
Length of residence in the
US (Ref=NB)
 
 


 0-4 years
 
 
-0.083*** 0.009
 5-10 years
 
 
-0.396***
0.008
 11-19 years
 
 
-0.221***
0.006
 20 years +
 
 
-0.126***
0.006
Intercept
-9.703***
0.011
-9.691***
0.012
Pseudo R-square
0.224

0.224

# of observations
1,012,051

1,012,051

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Table 6, Part 3.  Regression Models Predicting the Likelihood of Being in Managerial Occupations vs. Others
 
Model 5
 b
Model 5
 SE
Model 6
 b
Model 6
 SE
Female (Ref=Male)
0.296***
0.001
0.296***
0.00
Married (Ref=Unmarried
0.163***
0.001
0.163***
0.001
Education (Ref=Less than HS)
 
 
 
 
 High School
0.343***
0.003
0.343***
0.003
 Some College
0.986***
0.003
0.986***
0.003
 Bachelor's
2.011***
0.003
2.010***
0.003
 Master's
2.682***
0.004
2.681***
0.004
 Professional
2.318***
0.006
2.318***
0.006
 Doctorate
3.011***
0.007
3.011***
0.007
Region (Ref=West)
 
 
 
 
 Northeast
-0.08***
0.001
-0.078***
0.001
 Midwest
-0.111***
0.002
-0.111***
0.002
 South
0.127***
0.002
0.127***
0.002
Income (logged)
0.673***
0.001
0.673***
0.001
Self-employed
 (Ref=Not self-employed)
0.189***
0.002
0.189***
0.002
US citizenship
 (Ref=Non US citizen)
0.015***
0.004
0.011*
0.004
English language ability
 (Ref=Well or below)
0.337***
0.004
0.335***
0.004
English spoken at home
 (Ref=Otherwise)
0.000
0.003
-0.002***
0.003
Asian Ethnicity
 (Ref=Otherwise)
 
 
 
 
  Chinese
0.265***
0.004
0.279***
0.006
  Japanese
0.105***
0.006
0.110***
0.006
  Filipino
-0.475***
0.005
-0.460***
0.006
  Asian Indian
-0.048***
0.005
-0.031***
0.007
  Korean
-0.064***
0.006
-0.048***
0.007
  Southeast Asian
-0.383***
0.007
-0.366***
0.009
  Other Asian
-0.170***
0.008
-0.156***
.0009
  Foreign born
 
 
-0.021***
.0006
Immigrant Generation
 (Ref=NB)




 1st generation
 
 
 
 
 1.5 generation
 
 
 
 
 Length of residence in the
US (Ref=NB)
 
 
 
 
 0-4 years
 
 
 
 
 5-10 years
 
 
 
 
 11-19 years
 
 
 
 
 20 years +

 
 
 
 Intercept
-9.843***
0.011
-9.836***
0.011
Pseudo R-square
0.225

0.225

# of observations
1,012,051

1,012,051

*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Table 6, Part 4.  Regression Models Predicting the Likelihood of Being in Managerial Occupations vs. Others
 
Model 7
 b
Model 7
 SE
Model 8
 b
Model 8
 SE
Female (Ref=Male)
0.296***
0.001
0.296***
0.001
Married (Ref=Unmarried
0.165***
0.001
0.164***
0.001
Education (Ref=Less than HS)
 
 
 
 
 High School
0.341***
0.003
0.343***
0.003
 Some College
0.983***
0.003
0.985***
0.003
 Bachelor's
2.008***
0.003
2.010***
0.003
 Master's
2.680***
0.004
2.681***
0.004
 Professional
2.316***
0.006
2.318***
0.006
 Doctorate
3.012***
0.007
3.011***
0.007
Region (Ref=West)
 
 
 
 
 Northeast
-0.080***
0.001
-0.080***
0.001
 Midwest
-0.111***
0.002
-0.111***
0.002
 South
0.127***
0.002
0.229***
0.002
Income (logged)
0.672***
0.001
0.673***
0.001
Self-employed
 (Ref=Not self-employed)
0.190***
0.002
0.189***
0.002
US citizenship
 (Ref=Non US citizen)
-0.032***
0.004
-0.040***
0.005
English language ability
 (Ref=Well or below)
0.293***
0.004
0.324***
0.004
English spoken at home
 (Ref=Otherwise)
-0.011***
0.003
-0.003
0.003
Asian Ethnicity
 
 
 
 
   Chinese
0.272***
0.006
0.285***
0.006
   Japanese
0.104***
0.006
0.099***
0.006
   Filipino
-0.455***
0.006
-0.449***
0.006
   Asian Indian
-0.008
0.007
-0.019
0.007
   Korean
-0.067***
0.008
-0.056***
0.008
   Southeast Asian
-0.390***
0.009
-0.353***
0.009
   Other Asian
-0.149***
0.009
-.151***
0.009
   Foreign born
 
 
 
 
Immigrant Generation
 (Ref=NB)
 
 
 
 
 1st generation
 -0.109***
0.006
 
 
 1.5 generation
0.242***
0.008
 
 
Length of residence in the
US (Ref=NB)
 
 
 
 
 0-4 years


0.042***
0.010
 5-10 years
 
 
-0.231***
0.008
 11-19 years
 
 
-0.070***
0.007
 20 years +
 
 
0.023***
0.006
Intercept
-9.771***
0.011
-9.762***
0.012
Pseudo R-square
0.225
 
0.225
 
# of observations
1,012,051
 
1,012,051
 
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001


     I present and document how much each socioeconomic and acculturation factor influences the SEI scores. I attempt to show the effect of being Asian Americans as well as being foreign-born Asian American by immigrant generations in terms of attaining occupations considered to be of high socioeconomic status. English language ability contributes to higher SEI scores, while English language spoken at home shows an adverse impact. In other words, Asian Americans who speak a non-English language at home engage in occupations with higher SEI scores. Asian Americans generally show the positive effect on SEI scores in Table 7. However, looking into Asian American ethnic groups in Model 4 through Model 6, the ethnic disparities are visible. Filipinos and Southeast Asians consistently show a negative effect. The SEI scores are more likely to be lower for the first-generation and higher for the 1.5-generation Asian Americans than for the native-born population. All the categories for the length of residence in the United States show a negative effect on the SEI scores.


Table 7, Part 1.  Regression Models Predicting Occupational Prestige Score
 
Model 1
 b
Model 1
 SE
Model 2
 b
Model 2
 SE
Model 3
b
Model 3
SE
Female (Ref=Male)
6.748***
0.018
6.752***
0.018
6.757***
0.018
Married (Ref=Unmarried
2.396***
0.019
2.430***
0.019
2.414***
0.019
Education (Ref=Less than HS)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 High School
7.019***
0.032
6.998***
0.032
6.999***
0.032
 Some College
15.667***
0.032
15.639***
0.032
15.642***
0.032
 Bachelor's
28.556***
0.035
28.528***
0.035
28.520***
0.035
 Master's
33.273***
0.042
33.256***
0.042
33.237***
0.042
 Professional
45.555***
0.061
45.510***
0.061
45.511***
0.061
 Doctorate
42.839***
0.082
42.869***
0.082
42.833***
0.082
Region (Ref=West)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Northeast
-0.299***
0.027
-0.264***
0.027
-0.272***
0.027
 Midwest
-1.805***
0.025
-1.772***
0.025
-1.781***
0.025
 South
0.315***
0.024
0.350***
0.024
0.314***
0.024
Income (logged)
4.020***
0.009
4.017***
0.009
4.022***
0.009
Self-employed
 (Ref=Not self-employed)
-0.790***
0.027
-0.785***
0.027
-0.786***
0.027
US citizenship
 (Ref=Non US citizen)
0.212*
0.079
-1.098***
0.084
-0.540***
0.101
English language ability
 (Ref=Well or below)
3.228***
0.069
2.577***
0.070
2.848***
0.070
English spoken at home
 (Ref=Otherwise)
-0.266***
0.048
-0.643***
0.049
-0.579***
0.049
Asian
 (Ref=NC NH-whites)
-1.108***
0.059
1.561***
0.104
1.570***
0.104
Immigrant Generation
 (Ref=NB)
 
 


 
 
 1st generation
 
 
 -4.846***  0.123  
 
 1.5 generation
 
 
 0.316*
 0.161
 
 
Length of residence in the
US (Ref=NB)

 
 
 
 
 
 0-4 years




-1.383***
0.185
 5-10 years




-5.691***
0.157
 11-19 years




-4.399***
0.136
 20 years +




-3.154***
0.227
Intercept
-18.198***
0.161
-16.232***
0.166
-16.880***
0.179
Pseudo R-square
0.344
 
0.343
 
0.345
 
# of observations
4,962,131
 
4,962,131
 
4,962,131
 
*p<0.05; ***p<0.001

Table 7, Part 2. Regression Models Predicting Occupational Prestige Score
 
Model 4
 b
Model 4
 SE
Model 5
 b
Model 5
 SE
Model 6
b
Model 6
SE
Female (Ref=Male)
6.767***
0.018
6.771***
0.018
6.774***
0.018
Married (Ref=Unmarried
2.394***
0.019
2.471***
0.019
2.407***
0.019
Education (Ref=Less than HS)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 High School
7.011***
0.032
6.995***
0.032
7.004***
0.032
 Some College
15.671***
0.032
15.649
0.032
15.661***
0.032
 Bachelor's
28.557***
0.035
28.535***
0.035
28.541***
0.035
 Master's
33.115***
0.042
33.100***
0.042
33.099***
0.042
 Professional
45.476***
0.061
45.431***
0.061
45.449***
0.061
 Doctorate
42.508***
0.082
42.538***
0.082
42.519
0.082
Region (Ref=West)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Northeast
-0.411***
0.027
-0.395***
0.027
-0.397***
0.027
 Midwest
-1.872***
0.025
-1.857***
0.025
-1.863***
0.025
 South
0.251***
0.024
0.268***
0.024
0.262***
0.024
Income (logged)
4.018***
0.009
4.016***
0.009
4.020***
0.009
Self-employed
 (Ref=Not self-employed)
-0.843***
0.027
-0.836***
0.027
-0.838***
0.027
US citizenship
 (Ref=Non US citizen)
0.757***
0.080
-0.326***
0.085
0.038
0.101
English language ability
 (Ref=Well or below)
3.606***
0.072
2.961***
0.074
3.336***
0.073
English spoken at home
 (Ref=Otherwise)
-0.487***
0.048
-.722***
0.049
-0.672***
0.049
Asian Ethnicity
 (Ref=NB NH white
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Chinese  
2.100***
0.090
4.193***
0.131
4.305***
0.131
   Japanese
1.596***
0.132
2.433***
0.139
2.366***
0.139
   Filipino
-7.232***
0.094
-4.857***
0.138
-4.836***
0.138
   Asian Indian
1.479***
0.107
4.110***
0.151
54.000***
0.151
   Korean
0.936***
0.131
2.992***
0.168
3.190***
0.168
   Southeast Asian
-2.864***
0.116
-0.713***
0.160
-0.150
0.160
   Other Asian
-1.072***
0.157
1.050***
0.183
1.073***
0.183
Immigrant Generation
 (Ref=NB)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1st generation

 
-4.005***
0.135
 
 
 1.5 generation
 
 
1.131***
0.170
 

Length of residence in the
US (Ref=NB)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0-4 years
 
 
 
 
-1.282*** 0.193
 5-10 years
 
 
 
 
-4.765***
0.168
 11-19 years
 
 
 
 
-3.681***
0.148
 20 years +
 
 
 
 
-2.381***
0.138
Intercept
-18.902***
0.162
-17.284***
0.167
-17.827***
0.180
Pseudo R-square
0.345
 
0.346
 
0.346
 
# of observations
4,962,131
 
4,962,131
 
4,962,131
 
***p<0.001

  

Conclusion and Discussion

    Based on the findings from this research, Asian Americans have followed the straight-line assimilation in terms of occupational attainment in managerial occupations. The findings confirm that clear heterogeneity is documented across Asian ethnic groups in terms of occupational disparities. Particularly in managerial occupations, Asian American males are less likely to be in supervisory positions, and they make less money for all the focused immigrant generations than do native-born non-Hispanic white males. This under-representation of Asian American executives implies a high correlation with the lower income level among Asian American males in management. Another possible explanation of lower income is the high concentration of Asian Americans in the West. Income levels in the Sunbelt zone tend to be lower than the Rustbelt zone.

    The transition in occupational attainment is visible by immigrant generations. The findings indicate that the percentage of Asian Americans of all ethnic groups engaging in managerial occupations increases among more settled groups (the 1.5 generations and the native born) than the first generations. As Asian Americans spend more time in the United States and gradually surmount the challenges over generations, they enter managerial occupations with only few constraints just like their non-Hispanic white counterparts, as a consequence of cultural adaptation and assimilation of societal norms. The percentage in managerial occupations becomes higher for the 1.5-generation and native-born Asian Americans than it is for the first generations among most Asian ethnic groups except Japanese. The first-generation Japanese Americans have a significantly higher percentage of being in management. Other than that, all other Asian subgroups show either a similar level, such as Chinese and Asian Indians, or a lower level than native-born non-Hispanic whites. Again, except for Japanese Americans, all Asian ethnic groups have a similar or slightly higher percentage of engaging in managerial occupations for the 1.5-generation and the native-born populations. It is consistent with the assertion brought by Hosler (1998) that first-generation Japanese Americans who come to the United States temporarily for the duration of less than 10 years as an assignment tend to hold executive-level supervisory managerial positions in Japanese corporations established in the United States.

    As compared to first-generation Asian Americans, the 1.5-generation and native-born Asian Americans show a higher percentage of upward occupational mobility. The pattern and general profile of the 1.5-generation Asian Americans resemble those of native-born Asian Americans. The SEI scores are lower for first-generation Asian Americans but are higher for the 1.5-generation and the native-born populations. It has been documented that settlement in the United States results in a positive effect on embarking Asian Americans in high social status managerial occupations. Compared to native-born non-Hispanic whites, Asian Americans have a higher engagement rate except for Southeast Asian Americans and Filipino Americans. While Southeast Asian Americans still suffer, other groups have an engagement rate comparable to or surpassing the level of native-born non-Hispanic whites. In general, Southeast Asian Americans and Filipino Americans document the SEI scores that are lower than those of native-born non-Hispanic whites. The most critical reason is that Southeast Asian Americans attain low level of education. In fact, Vietnamese Americans, both native- and foreign-born, show a lower educational attainment level, in terms of the percentage of high school and college graduates, than any of the available Asian ethnic groups and whites.

    The level of education greatly influences the socioeconomic mobility of individuals. It is largely the reason why educational expectations among Asian American parents for their children are consistently high. As immigration is a selective process, the first-generation immigrants are likely to possess a somewhat higher level of education in their home country or in the United States. This assertion is also consistent with the findings from this research. Educational aspiration for children is higher among Asian American parents. Asian American parents greatly prefer to send their children to prestigious elite colleges, such as Ivy League schools, and often become very demanding when it comes to their children's academic performance. Asian American parents tend to expect that education and credential from elite schools will lead to their children obtaining high paying jobs with high socioeconomic status, as it is often the way it is in Asian countries.

    English fluency is another one of the key factors leading to success in management. To supervise subordinates, strong communication skills in English are a necessary tool and definitely effective. It may be easier for first-generation Asian Americans to pursue positions in professional occupations in order to secure legal status in the United States. First-generation Asian Americans are more likely to experience a greater lack of job marketability due to their deficiency in English language skills, the fact that the education they received abroad is undervalued in the United States, their unfamiliarity with American culture and norms, and their lack of both work experience and social networks in the United States. The shortcomings that first-generation Asian Americans and most immigrants possess tend to be some of the critical and indispensable components needed to be successful in managerial positions and achieve job promotions in the American corporate setting.

    The greatest chance of becoming small business owners exists among married foreign-born Asian Americans. This is particularly true among Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese immigrants (Fernandez and Kim 1998; Waters and Eschback 1995). According to Fernandez and Kim (1998), the likelihood of self-employment normally decreases as educational attainment levels increase. There is a high self-employment rate among the first generations but lower for later-generation Asian Americans. Instead, the percentages of Asian Americans engagement in managerial and professional occupations become higher as the generations progress. When Asian Americans gain the necessary skills and credentials, such as English language skills and American education and culturally adapt to the American mainstream, they are more likely to pursue occupational alternatives. Given a steady increase of native-born Asian Americans of various groups over the recent decades, the situation surrounding Asian Americans may change over time. In the near future, having overcome the deficiencies and obstacles faced by earlier generations, a more assimilated and ambitious generation of Asian Americans, better educated with stronger leadership skills and higher social status, may more readily pursue careers in managerial occupations and even find themselves in the level of upper management.

References

Alba, Richard D. 1990. Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Alba, Richard and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Barringer, Herbert R., David T. Takeuchi, and Peter Xenos. 1990. "Education, Occupational Prestige, and Income of Asian Americans." Sociology of Education 63:27-43.

Bell, Myrtle P., David A. Harrison, and Mary E. McLaughlin. 1997. "Asian American Attitude Toward Affirmative Action in Employment: Implications for the Model Minority Myth." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 33:356-377.

DiTomaso, Nancy and Steven A. Smith. 1996. "Race and Ethnic Minorities and White Women in Management." Pp.87-109 in Women and Minorities in American Professions, edited by Joyce Tang and Earl Smith. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Duncan, Otis Dudley. 1961. "A Socioeconomic Index for All Occupations." Pp. 109-138 in Occupations and Social Status, edited by A. Reiss, Jr. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Farley, Reynolds. 1996. The New American Reality: Who We Are, How We Got Here, Where We Are Going. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Fernandez, Marilyn and Kwang Chung Kim. 1998. "Self-Employment Rates of Asian Immigrant Groups: An Analysis of Intragroup and Intergroup Differences." International Migration Review 32(3):654-681.

Gordon, Milton. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hirschman, Charles and Morrison G. Wong. 1986. "The Extraordinary Educational Attainment of Asian-Americans: A Search for Historical Evidence and Explanations." Social Forces 65:1-27.

Hirschman, Charles. 1994. "Problems and Prospects of Studying Immigrant Adaptation from the 1990 Population Census: From Generational Comparisons to the Process of 'Becoming America'." International Migration Review 28(4):690-713.

Hsia, Jayjia. 1988. Asian Americans in Higher Education and at Work. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hosler, Akiko S. 1998. Japanese Immigrant Entrepreneurs in New York City: A New Wave of Ethnic Business. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Kanjananpan, Wilawan. 1995. "The Immigration of Asian Professionals to the United States: 1988-1990." International Migration Review 29(1):7-32.

Kim, Pan Suk and Gregory B. Lewis. 1994. "Asian Americans in the Public Service: Success, Diversity, and Discrimination." Public Administration Review 54:285-290.

Lieberson, Stanley. 1980. A Piece of the Pie. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Lobo, Arun Peter and Joseph J. Salvo. 1998. "Changing U.S. Immigration Law and the Occupational Selectivity of Asian Immigrants." International Migration Review 32(3):737-760.

McAllister, Ian. 1995. "Occupational Mobility among Immigrants: The Impact of Migration on Economic Success in Australia." International Migration Review 29(2):441-468.

Miller, Susan Katz. 1992. "Asian Americans Bump Against Glass Ceilings." Science 258(5085):1224-1228.

Powell, Gary N. and Laura M. Graves. 2003. Women and Men in Management, Third Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ruggles, Steven, Matthew Sobek, Trent Alexander, Catherine A. Fitch, Ronald Goeken, Patricia Kelly Hall, Miriam King, and Chad Ronnander. 2004. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center [producer and distributor].

Tang, Joyce. 1997a. "The Glass Ceiling in Science and Engineering." Journal of Socio-Economics 26(4):383-406.

Tang, Joyce. 1997b. "The Model Minority Thesis Revisited: (Counter)evidence From the Science and Engineering Fields." Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 33:291-315.

Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options: Later Generation Ethnicity in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Waters, Mary C. and Karl Eschbach. 1995. "Immigration and Ethnic and Racial Inequality in the United States." Annual Review of Sociology 21:419-446.

Xin, Katherine R. 2004. "Asian American Managers: An Impression Gap? An Investigation of Impression Management and Supervisor-Subordinate Relationships." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 40(2):160-181.


Footnote

*This research was supported by grant from University at Albany Dissertation Research Fellowship and FSU Research Center for Health Disparities. I gratefully acknowledge comments from Zai Liang, Richard Alba, and Akiko Hosler on an earlier version of this article. I would like to thank David Noone for editorial assistance




A Member of the EBSCO Publishing Group
Abstracted in Sociological Abstracts
Online Indexing and Article Search from the
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

Return to Home Page to Read More Articles