Sometimes one is able to get out of poverty on their own, but that often requires, besides hard work, plenty of luck. Many people end up pennyless or homeless trying to move to areas with higher opportunity, for example.
Key graph: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/the-haves-and-t... (THESE NUMBERS ARE ADJUSTED FOR PURCHASING POWER.)
Sometimes one is able to get out of poverty on their own, but that often requires, besides hard work, plenty of luck.
The role of luck is overstated. Here's a thought experiment. Suppose we import 1 million Gujuratis, all of whom have income below the 95'th percentile of India. Fast forward 20-30 years. Do you still think that this group of a million people - having an average level of luck due to the law of large numbers - will have the same level of income as a similar group of American poor people?
Actually it's not a thought experiment. http://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21683983-se...
We've done this experiment with Chinese, Gujuratis, Punjabis, Bengalis, and all sorts of other folks. Mostly they don't stay poor.
2. Self-selection bias. The ones who import themselves are not a random sample, they move because they see an advantage for themselves.
3. From your link: "Furthermore, this was achieved mostly by just one group, essentially an extended family, the Patels" and "Traditionally, most of the finance to start a business comes from within the family, or at least the community." Most poor people do not have such good connections or ability to borrow money.
You are correct that pretty much everyone sees an advantage for themselves from moving to the US - that's because the US is a vastly wealthier country.
Bit of a survivor bias here, don't you think? Of course you haven't met anyone that died.
(Dying is not the only problem, of course - one could live cheaply in a dangerous neighborhood and without heating on the winter and so on.)
I'm interested in the links you posted, however - I'll have to read through them.
His mother, in particular, is interesting, mostly because her case is typical among her Gujarati friends who she practices Yoga as a religious practice with. She's a high risk OB/GYN.
Adjusted for PPP, she is wealthier in India compared to the relatives she left behind. So are most of her friends in her Yoga group.
His sister, also a doctor with a similar professional stance that makes as much, wouldn't be
In no way is this surprising. Nearly all of his parents friends are Upper Caste, and speak excellent English. Nearly all immigrated here when there were actual shortages of certain types of professions. Almost all brought over important relatives, (eg: his grandparents) and to this day are wealthy enough to go back.
Structural changes in those jobs, however, are leaving their "earlier" children economically behind. Despite the fact that both he and his sister are both Born American citizens (unlike their parents, who are naturalized)
His sister will never have that same PPP. Nor do any of her friends, mostly the early born children of said same immigrants, almost all of whom have felt (and in many cases caved) to pressure to become Doctor/Lawyer/Engineer (with the exception of those who got lucky and work for google while also in a low cost of living area)
My friend, ironically, because of the severe birth delay (almost 10 years) will out-earn his sister. He also is far more "behaviorally whiter" than any of his sister's friends. As far as I can tell, he has few, if any, friends who are Gujarati children of high caste immigrants. He also is the first to choose a non-typical career path in his family. (Department of Defense Analyst)
So fast forwarding a few years, it appears your numbers only work for gen=1, and only if gen=1 is high caste.