Since 1994, between 32.3% and 54.1% of the eligible Indian American population voted in each election (not good folks).

What is the percentage for the population at large? I'd think IA's are probably overrepresented as voters, no?

I'm willing to bet that a lot of those Indians that live in poverty are Indo-Carribean.

Why does it say the unemployment rate in Indian-Americans is 1.75% and the general population 1.93%? Huh (ok, ok, re-read it tommorrow, that will probably make sense).

I expect some immigrants to be under the poverty level for some amount of time - how long to they stay there? Is there a permanent underclass and what is the mobility out of that class (again, probably in the report. I'll have to take abhi's advice and not be a slacker and reread it. Good post).

I'm expecting a significant difference in the 2004 census - with the rise and fall and rise (kinda) of tech jobs, Indians have been shuffling around like crazy...

shit...just learned the next census will be in 2010...oh well.

MD,
I am not sure if I am interpeting your comment right but IF you were refering to the last bullet:

While the general population has only 19.38% more people in poverty than the Indian American population, it receives 176% more public assistance (damn slackers).

then keep in mind that poverty does not correlate one to one with employment/unemployment. The number I quoted was just the poverty rate if I quoted it correctly.

Also Sandeep, as you yourself caught, the census (per instruction in the Constitution I beleive) is only taken once every 10 years, and mostly for the purposes of re-districting (unless you happen to be a congressman from Texas and can re-district whenever you feel like). Since the 2000 census I myself have lived in three different states so it should only be considered a snap-shot. I am sure the poverty levels across the board are way up since Clinton left office.

keep in mind that poverty does not correlate one to one with employment/unemployment

Also, Poverty Rates are calc'd based on IRS reported income. How many indian grocery stores do you *really* think report the rental income from the 38th copy of 'Kaho Na Pyar Hain?

"I am sure the poverty levels across the board are way up since Clinton left office."

But poverty in the US would be enviable in other countries. Poor people in the US are often materially better off than poor people in other nations. Remember, America is the only country in the world where poor people are fat.

Also, while poverty levels have some linkage to the ups and downs of the economy as a whole, do not discount the role of individual decisionmaking. If you choose to raise children out of wedlock, your chances of being poor go up. Drugs and alcohol, same thing.

The Heritage Foundation did a pretty comprehensive review of the nation's poverty census data. While the generally conservative leaning Heritage gang may not be everyone's cup of tea - it is still worth reading, even if you are just looking to identify faults in their methodology.

"Understanding Poverty in America"
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

another thing to note on the poverty figures: the states where Indian American poverty is significantly higher than the average are states that have very low numbers of Indian Americans (e.g. 531 in Montana, 3,593 in Rhode Island) - though this doesn't take away from the significance of poverty as a problem, it does refine our understanding of the discrepancy. It would be interesting to learn more about the lack of support networks in these states and how that affects Indian American earnings.

of course the poor in america are better off than those in developing nations, but it's not a good comparison. amont developed nations, the u.s. has one of the highest child poverty rates (i want to say 1 in 5) and worst insurance rates.

as always, there's a rebuttal.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=3746&content_id={1ABFA30F-103F-4EDC-90BF-F583AE9652C0}#4

also, it would be interesting to know that how many of those home-owners are senior citizens, who also have higher rates of poverty.

Spectator,

Thanks for the rebuttal, but I may not get a chance to read it until late today or tomorrow. But I just wanted to quickly say that the Heritage study compares the poor in America to both developed and underdeveloped nations. It notes that "poor" Americans have more square footage in their living space than "average" Europeans, while they are also more likely to own a car, a DVD player, and have air conditioning than a "poor" European.

I am sure the poverty levels across the board are way up since Clinton left office.

How fallible the conventional wisdom of the devout left - Some context on poverty stats

The poverty rate did rise from 9.2 percent to 9.6 percent in 2002, but that was still lower than the poverty rate in any year from 1980 to 1998.

Just to give you an idea of what recent historical poverty rates looked like -

The poverty rate probably rose a bit from 2002, yet nonetheless remained far below the 13.9 percent average from 1980 to 1998 and also lower than in any single year during that period. In 1998, for example, the poverty rate was 12.8 percent.

Now if you're going to Blame Bush for the recession (which alas, many econ illiterates do), then you've gotta Blame Clinton for the 12.8% that persisted nearly 8 years into his regime.

More context on that:

Poverty fell almost every year under Clinton (after a huge jump at the beginning of Reagan's term and rising under Bush I), but increased every year under Dubya. Do I blame Bush? Not entirely, but that needs to be mentioned.

I'm also no Clinton fan. Welfare reform was a sham.

As for living space - European living spaces as a whole are smaller. I don't consider a relevant indicator of poverty here. You can buy a car for $100, and how else would someone get to work in an area with poor public transit? DVD, TV, etc - much cheaper substitutes for adequate child care. Also, I couldn't find where they cited their source on this.

"Poverty fell almost every year under Clinton (after a huge jump at the beginning of Reagan's term and rising under Bush I), but increased every year under Dubya. Do I blame Bush? Not entirely, but that needs to be mentioned."

That's an awfully selective reading of the past 24 years. One of the reasons poverty took such a big jump in Reagan's first two years was that Paul Volker raised interest rates so high, that unemployment reached levels not seen since the Great Depression. But it effectively killed inflation, so much so that the boom in the economy by November 1984 allowed Reagan to enjoy on of the biggest landslides (both popular and electoral) in history.

As for Bush I, the recession was rather shallow by historic standards, with the main effects being felt in the NE and the declining defense industry of Southern California. The unemployment rate right now is about the same it was under Clinton in 1996.

"I'm also no Clinton fan. Welfare reform was a sham."

I thought that was one of the things Clinton did right. Just as only a staunch anti-communist like Nixon could go to China, so only could a liberal like Clinton enact welfare reform. Lowering the welfare rolls is a sign of poverty reduction, which did occur under Clinton, and a Republican-led Congress.

"As for living space - European living spaces as a whole are smaller. I don't consider a relevant indicator of poverty here. You can buy a car for $100, and how else would someone get to work in an area with poor public transit? DVD, TV, etc - much cheaper substitutes for adequate child care. Also, I couldn't find where they cited their source on this."

Well, this seems more indicative of your own values. You may not put much value on larger living quarters, but there are plenty of others that do. As for spending on TVs and DVD players, those purchases can be considered a waste if the individual in question is spending money on them as opposed to something else. Like Bill Cosby's recent speech of how some lower-class people claim to have no opportunity, yet spend $200 on sneakers but not on Hooked on Phonics. If a person makes poor choices, and suffers for those choices, the resulting consequences cannot be laid at the foot of whoever happens to be President.

Quick point - lowering welfare rolls is not indicative of poverty rates. people get kicked out of welfare but not necessarily brought out of poverty. this is why i don't entirely blame bush for the increase in poverty. the increase started around the time the first time limit ended.

More later, i promise, especially on the farce of reagonomics.

Thanks abhi, that did address my question.

Indian women are twice as likely to not be educated? Good grief...who the hell is conducting these surveys??