Hindu-Americans have the highest socioeconomic levels among all religions in the United States, according to a new study by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life.
Experts say U.S. immigration policy is the main reason Hindus do so well.
Both the 1965 Immigration Act and the more recent H1-B visa program set the table for Hindus to succeed. The former encouraged the immigration of professionals, particularly doctors and engineers, while the latter was designed to encourage the immigration of highly skilled “guest workers.”
The number of H1-B visas issued to Indians grew steadily in the late 1990s and early 2000s and then spiked again in 2007. In 2011, according to the study, India accounted for more than half of all the H1-B visas granted.
“The education capital of this group is phenomenal,” said Khyati Joshi, an associate professor at the Fairleigh Dickinson School of Education in Teaneck, New Jersey.
The Pew study, titled “Asian Americans: A Mosaic of Faiths,” bears that out, and the numbers are staggering.
Eighty-five percent of Hindu-Americans are college graduates, and 57 percent have some postgraduate education, which is nearly five times the national average.
Education levels largely correlate to income, and there as well, Hindus rank at the top of the list.
According to the study, 48 percent of Hindu-American households have an income of $100,000 or more, and 70 percent make at least $75,000.
Another, secondary driver for the success of Hindus can be traced back to India’s caste system, according to Prema Kurien, a professor of sociology and the director of the Asian/Asian American Studies Program at Syracuse University in New York.
“Hindu migrants to the U.S. are largely from upper caste backgrounds,” she said. “Upper castes have had a long history of socioeconomic and educational advantage in India.”
According to Alan Cooperman, the associate director for research for the study, the success of Hindus stems from the type of person that chooses to leave India and who the U.S. admits. This, he said, is quite different from other immigrant groups, where there are often high numbers of refugees or undocumented immigrants.
“This is the first time anybody has had good data on [Hindus],” said Cooperman. “Hindus are a fascinating group.”
=> Indian Americans are citizens of the United States of Indian ancestry and comprise about 3.18 million people, or ~1.0% of the U.S. population, the country's third largest self-reported Asian ancestral group after Chinese Americans and Filipino Americans according to American Community Survey of 2010 data.
Indians comprise 16.4 percent of the Asian-American community. They are the third largest in the Asian American population.
Indian Americans are the third largest Asian American ethnic group today, following Chinese Americans and Filipino Americans.
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Indian Americans had the highest household income of all ethnic groups in the United States.
According to the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin, there are close to 35,000 Indian American doctors.
Among Indian Americans, 72.3% participate in the U.S. work force, of which 57.7% are employed in managerial and professional specialties. As of 2010 66.3% of Indian Americans are employed in select professional and managerial specialties compared with the national average of 35.9%.
Indian Americans lead Asians in income, education in US
Jun 20, 2012
WASHINGTON, Asian Americans are the highest-income, best-educated and fastest-growing racial group in the US with Indian Americans leading them all in their levels of income and education, according to a new survey.
Seven in 10 Indian-American adults ages 25 and older have a college degree, compared with about half of Americans of Korean, Chinese, Filipino and Japanese ancestry, and about a quarter of Vietnamese Americans, according to the Pew Research Centre report released Tuesday.
Indians also have the highest median household income of $88,000 among the largest Asian-American groups. Asians as a whole have a median household income of $66,000 compared with the US median of $49,800.
On the other side of the socio-economic ledger, Americans with Korean, Vietnamese, Chinese and "other US Asian" origins have a higher poverty rate than does the US general public, while those with Indian, Japanese and Filipino origins have lower rates, the survey of six major Asian groups found.
Their geographic settlement patterns also differ. More than seven in 10 Japanese and two-thirds of Filipinos live in the West, compared with fewer than half of Chinese, Vietnamese and Koreans, and only about a quarter of Indians.
There are sub-group differences in social and cultural realms as well. Japanese and Filipino Americans are the most accepting of interracial and intergroup marriage; Koreans, Vietnamese and Indians are less comfortable.
Their pathways into the US are different, the Pew survey found. About half of all Korean and Indian immigrants who received green cards in 2011 got them on the basis of employer sponsorship, compared with about a third of Japanese, a fifth of Chinese, one-in-eight Filipinos and just one percent of Vietnamese.
Compared with the general public, Asian Americans are more likely to support an activist government and less likely to identify as Republicans, according to the Pew report.
Indian Americans are the most heavily Democratic Asian subgroup (65 percent), while Filipino Americans and Vietnamese Americans are the most evenly split between the two parties.
US President Barack Obama gets higher ratings from Asian Americans than from the general public: 54 percent approve of the way he is handling his job compared with 44 percent of the general public, the survey found.
Super-rich Indians account for more than 20% of the wealth of ultra-high net worth (UHNW) individuals in Britain, a new list showed on Tuesday. As a national group, they are second only to expat Russians.
The list, published by the Singapore-based Wealth-X group, places steel magnate and ArcelorMittal chairman Lakshmi Mittal at second place with a fortune of $15.8 billion. Mittal was pushed to the second spot this year by Russian Alisher Burkhanovich Usmanov, who is part owner of the English football club Arsenal and is worth $16.4 billion.
“Mittal has seen his net worth estimate decline along with the stock price of ArcelorMittal, losing at least $30 billion in recent years,” the report said.
The two other Indians on the top 15 list are the Hinduja brothers — Srichand at number 9 with a net worth of $7.6 billion and Gopichand at 12th with $6 billion.
Taken together, the wealth of the three Indian-origin industrialists makes up 22% of the top 15 total of $133.3 billion.
Apart from Usmanov, the two other Russians in the list include Roman Abramovich (at number 3, $12.1 billion) and Leonard Blavatnik (Number 5, $9.5 billion).
According to Wealth-X estimates, there are 10,760 individuals residents in Britain worth $30 million or more, with at least 310 new individuals joining the ranks of the ultra wealthy. On an average, Britain has added one UHNW individual every day since 2011. The combined wealth of the UHNW in Britain stands at an estimated $1.3 trillion.
“The wealth composition of the United Kingdom, London in particular, is diverse,” said David Lincoln, Director of Research at Wealth-X. “This is reflected in our data showing that 31% of the UHNW population in the United Kingdom is considered non-domiciled, with non-resident Indians and West AsianUHNWIs making up a significant proportion of these.”
How Immigration Has Impoverished Britain:75% of Pakistani and Bangladeshi Children “Live in Poverty”
Claims that immigration is economically beneficial for Britain have been destroyed by news that three-quarters of Pakistani and Bangladeshi children in the UK are being brought up in families that are living on poverty-level income.
The report, issued by Millennium Cohort Study, which is tracking children born between 2000 and 2002, has found that 73 per cent of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi seven-year olds were in families estimated to be living on less than 60 per cent of the average national household income.
Just over half of the black children (51 percent) in the Millennium cohort were in such low-income families, compared with one in four white (26 percent) and Indian (25percent) children, said an official press release.
“Predictably, low income was strongly linked to joblessness among parents, say researchers at the Institute of Education, University of London, who collected information from almost 14,000 families in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2008/9.”
According to the report, among fathers, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had the highest unemployment rate (15 percent) – well above the UK average of 6 per cent. Unemployment among black fathers was also high (11 percent) but Indians were less likely to be unemployed (4 percent) than whites (5.5 percent).
Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of white and Indian mothers had jobs, compared with half (52 percent) of black mothers and only 17 per cent of Pakistani and Bangladeshi mothers.
A much higher proportion of children in lone-parent families (63 percent) were living below the study’s poverty line than those with married (16percent) or cohabiting (30 percent) parents.
“The incidence of income poverty for the Millennium cohort families has not changed appreciably over the first seven years of the children’s lives,” says Professor Heather Joshi, the study’s director.
“Despite government efforts to eradicate child poverty almost three in 10 children are still in poor families at age 7. It’s particularly disappointing that around one in five seven-year-olds is in severe poverty – on incomes below half the national average.”
The findings appear in a report published today by the Institute of Education’s Centre for Longitudinal Studies: Millennium Cohort Study, Fourth Survey: A User's Guide to Initial Findings. Copies of the report can be downloaded here.
above was the news about High Income Group of UK and below is the news about Low Income Group of UK. here we find, Black Caribbeans are intentionally put with Indians to raise the poverty level of Indians while being with Black Caribbeans. and also, it is to give the whites a sense that they are among the least poor
Low income and ethnicity
and the facts are, Christian Religious Black Caribbeans are in the same category as Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in Britain, but these Black Christians are put with Indians to hide poverty of Christian background Blacks. these British shiits just manipulate data's to feed their religious and racial mentality
only around 8% Indian Households in Britain are work less, who can be said to be below of poverty line of Britain, much better than British Shiits and other whites. while Christian Blacks are in the same category of other Blacks as below:
Lakshmi Mittal retains top spot in UK rich list for 7th year in succession
Apr 29, 2012
LONDON: Indian steel tycoon Lakshmi Mittal and his family retained their top spot as Britain's richest for the seventh year in succession while the combined worth of the country's 1000 wealthiest individuals defied double-dip recession to reach record levels during the last year.
Mittal, 61, and his family's worth came down by 4,814 million pounds, but they were still the richest in Britain with a net worth of 12.7 billion pounds, according to the Sunday Times Rich List, which annually releases the worth of Britain's wealthiest individuals.
Mittal is marginally ahead with the Russian iron ore magnate, Alisher Usmanov, who takes the second place with an estimated worth of 12.3 billion pounds.
Indian-origin industrialist brothers, Sri and Gopichand Hinduja were the fourth richest in the list with a net worth of 8.6 billion pounds, 'The Sunday Times' said in an advance release on Saturday.
The newspaper's research reveals that the rich got richer over the last year, despite a global recession - the combined worth of the country's 1,000 wealthiest people was 414 billion pounds, which is an increase from last year of 4.7 per cent.
Rich List compiler Philip Beresford told Sky News: "Obviously it's very difficult in this age of austerity...and the rich seem to be getting richer and richer. However, I would caution against bashing the rich because a lot of the people on this rich list are based here, they're investing in companies here, and if they get richer hopefully the rest of us will get a bit more prosperous on the rising tide of wealth.
The number of billionaires in the list is 77, with individuals needing to have at least 72 million pounds to make the top 1,000 individuals.
After Mittal and Usmanov, third on the list is Chelsea owner and oil baron Roman Abramovich, with a net worth of 9.5 billion pounds. The richest woman is former Miss UK Kirsty Bertarelli, with 7.4 billion pounds, while the Duke of Westminster's property portfolio is worth 7.3 billion pounds.
Harry Potter creator JK Rowling's worth has risen by 30 million pounds in the last year to 560 million pounds, putting her 148th on the rich list.
The top ten richest individuals in Britain are (in pounds): 1 - Lakshmi Mittal and family - 12.7 billion. 2 - Alisher Usmanov - 12.3 billion. 3 - Roman Abramovich - 9.5 billion. 4 - Sri and Gopi Hinduja - 8.6 billion. 5 - Leonard Blavatnik - 7.58 billion. 6 - Ernesto and Kirsty Bertarelli - 7.4 billion. 7 - The Duke of Westminster - 7.35 billion 8 - David and Simon Reuben - 7.08 billion. 9 - John Fredriksen and family - 6.6 billion. 10 - Galen and George Weston and family - 5.9 billion.
Income inequality growing faster in UK than any other rich country
Top 10% have incomes 12 times greater than bottom 10%, up from eight times greater in 1985, thinktank's study reveals
Income inequality among working-age people has risen faster in Britain than in any other rich nation since the mid-1970s, according to a report by the OECD.
The thinktank says the gap has come about due to the rise of a financial services elite who, through education and marriage, have concentrated wealth into the hands of a tiny minority.
Economists from the group, which is funded by developed-world taxpayers, say the annual average income in the UK of the top 10% in 2008 was just under £55,000, about 12 times higher than that of the bottom 10%, who had an average income of £4,700.
This is up from a ratio of eight to one in 1985 and significantly higher than the average income gap in developed nations of nine to one.
However, the report makes clear that even in countries viewed as "fairer" – such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden – this pay gap between rich and poor is expanding: from five to one in the 1980s to six to one today. In the rising powers of Brazil, Russia, India and China, the ratio is an alarming 50 to one.
The OECD warned about the rise of the top 1% in rich societies and the falling share of income going to poorer people.
This trend is especially pronounced in Britain, where the dramatic rise in inequality has been fuelled by the creation of a super-rich class. The share of the top 1% of income earners increased from 7.1% in 1970 to 14.3% in 2005.
Just prior to the global recession, the OECD says the very top of British society – the 0.1% of highest earners – accounted for a remarkable 5% of total pre-tax income, a level of wealth hoarding not seen since the second world war.
At the same time as accumulating great wealth, the rich have seen tax rates fall. The top marginal income tax rate dropped from 60% in the 1980s to 40% in the 2000s, before its recent increase to 50%.
The buildup of riches was partly economic: the higher-paid worked longer. Since the mid-1980s, annual hours of low-wage workers remained stable at around 1,050, while those of high-wage workers rose almost 10% to 2,450 hours.
But the concentration of resources in the highest rungs of Britain's society was also a social phenomenon. Unlike in many other nations, the earnings gap between the wives of rich and poor husbands in Britain has grown from £3,900 in 1987 to £10,200 in 2004.
Although the OECD figures stop just before the recession, experts say the trend continued into the downturn.
Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that in the UK "2009-10 incomes went up incredibly fast (at the top end) possibly because the new top rate of tax was coming in".
He pointed out that the growth in the City and bankers' bonuses had played a large part in creating this divide. "If you look at who is racing away, then half the top 1% of high earners work in financial services," he said.
He cited the research of Mark Stewart, a professor of economics at Warwick University, who has shown that "almost all the increase in inequality has come from financial services" in the past 12 years.
Such disparities, the thinktank said, could not be blamed on globalisation but a trend in labour and social policies in rich nations that had helped the wealthy.
Although spending on public services in Britain had gone up in the past decade, at the same time benefits to the poor were worth less and taxes were less redistributive.
The effect has been a dramatic weakening in the state's ability to spread wealth throughout society. From the mid-70s to mid-80s, the tax-benefit system offset more than 50% of the rise in income inequality. It now manages just 20%.
The OECD warned of sweeping consequences for rich societies – and pointed to the rash of occupations and protests, especially by young people, around the world. "Youths who see no future for themselves feel increasingly disenfranchised. They have now been joined by protesters who believe they are bearing the brunt of a crisis for which they have no responsibility, while people on higher incomes appeared to be spared," the OECD said.
It was a paradox, said the OECD, that such moves had not been grounded in popular support. Michael Förster, author of the OECD's Divided We Stand report, said: "In almost all countries apart from the US and Japan, more than 50% of people say that inequality is too high. In the UK, it is 65% so I think everyone agrees it is a problem."
To rebalance society "for the 99%", the authors call for a series of measures focusing on job creation, "increased redistributive effects" and "freely accessible and high-quality public services in education, health and family care".
When it was pointed out that British government plans would instead lead to public sector job cuts of 710,000, more child poverty and a hike in university fees, the OECD's authors said debt was an issue for governments but urged them "not to cut social investments".
Monika Queisser, the head of OECD's social policy division, said: "The OECD agreed that fiscal consolidation was important. We want to governments to see social expenditures as investment so we would want to see, say, early years [funding] rising."
Immigration and Jobs: Where U.S. Workers Come From
Top 5 occupations who were born in India are : 1. Computer software developers 2. Managers and administrators 3. Scientists and quantitative analysts 4. Sales-related occupation 5. Engineers and architects.
thats true. for example, when I came to australia in 2002, i did my two Masters, Master of Engineering & Master of Engineering Management, by the money i brought from my family based in India while after getting citizenship in 2008, I then did part time MBA on the government's money as australian government has fund for all the citizens who want to study, they can borrow student money for 'no tax' upto $100,000, and we may pay back that 'student debt' by our tax itself while working. but still we find that, no matter how much Welfare/Support you give to western nationals, a certain cultural background is lacked, why they got so much beaten by Hindus in US itself, regardless of being of US and having known the country by birth, having fluency in english by birth etc.........
in this report we find, Jewish is a very small community of world, who is always insecured so its obvious that they might be in higher ranks. small and unsecured society/group always has a sense to outperform others. but Indians are around 1% of total population of US, which is no small community . number of chinese and indians in US is almost same. but the average life style of indians in the countries like US/UK/ other western countries is much higher than the local whites. for example, have a look on Christian religious Philippians w.r.t. Hindus, they are the 2nd largest migrants of US after Mexicans, but they are no where in competition. and also among the Orthodox, we do know that they are higher in this list because of mostly Russians of this Orthodox category.......
here in this report, $75k+ is itself not a low income , which brings over 70% Hindus in this category, as compare to how Europeans die to work in australia for hardly $15-$20/hour (i.e. for less than $40k/year)......... and as per my experience, the rest of 30% of Hindu population might be mostly of those hindu house wives who generally work for 4-5 hours every day, like customer service jobs, and hence fall in lower income group. and the 4% unemployed Hindus, as per the news of post #3 itself would have the majority House Wives.....
the report below also separate Orthodox from from other Western White Shiits. Orthodox here are the 3rd highest income group of US, the third largest $100k+ income group of US in this chart. but if we take out Russian Orthox separately then they would be very close to Jewish, HIndus in this list. (check the 3rd from right hand side of this figure, listing Orthodox.)
here, I think the Time has come when Hindus, Jewish and Orthodox of US would get united against "Social Security+ Medical" expanses of US which has a share of 46% in total US's budget. and just to feed these 107million people dependent on Welfare, one day the whole US's economy will fall, together with high tax paying religious background people like Orthodox, Jewish, Hindus also,