Grigoris Argeros
Rethinking the Greek American Success Story

For many of us raised in Greek America, a single narrative dominates how we understand our past: that is, our grandparents/parents arrived in the United States with nothing, worked long, demanding hours, bought homes, raised families, and secured a place in the middle class, in line with expectations of the American Dream. The narrative also assumes that successive native-born generations continue to move upward. While these accounts undoubtedly created pride, continuity, and a sense of belonging, they tell only one version of the Greek American historical narrative. They capture some experiences but omit others, often relegating those that do not fit the dominant narrative to the background. Many Greek Americans have indeed “made it,” but there is also a small yet significant segment that has not. Their stories complicate the conventional success narrative that often defines how we see ourselves as a community.

This becomes evident when we examine the data.¹ According to my research, among Greek-born individuals, about 7% receive food stamps, around 6% lack health insurance, roughly 12% live below the poverty line, another 8% are near poverty, and about one-quarter have not completed high school. Even among those who have lived in the U.S. for more than twenty years, about 28% do not have a high school diploma, about 18% rent rather than own, nearly 12% are poor, another 8% are near poor, and roughly 7% rely on food stamps.

A somewhat similar pattern emerges when we disaggregate the data by generation (1st and 2nd) among immigrants to the U.S. post-1965. While most are not poor, about 13% of both first- and second-generation Greek Americans are poor or near poor. Educational attainment also varies by generation. While the second generation has, as expected, higher educational attainment levels than the first generation, roughly one in five have not graduated from high school. About 6.3% of the first generation and 6.9% of the second generation receive food stamps. We also see that although most Greek Americans identify as non-Hispanic white, the second generation shows growing diversity, with small but meaningful shares identifying as Hispanic or multiracial.

The share of Greek-born individuals reporting Greek ancestry has decreased over time. From a high of 95% in 1980,² the share of Greek-born reporting Greek ancestry has declined to 78% in 2023. Although most Greek-born individuals still identify as Greek, the decline may indicate shifts in identity, intermarriage, and how people describe their background. Overall, it supports the broader pattern of growing diversity within the Greek American community.

The above brief snapshot reveals a Greek American community more diverse than the familiar narrative suggests. The differences extend beyond economic issues; there’s also a change in its sociodemographic composition. All of the above raises an important question: How do we plan for the future of a community we do not fully understand?

It is also important to note that this critique is not new. Since at least the 1990s, scholarship on Greek America has questioned the success narrative by examining its cultural and ideological dimensions, including its tendency to give less attention to structures of inequality and focus, instead, on individual-level factors in explaining success. This work has often received limited attention or been ignored by Greek American elites and institutions. The goal of this writing is not to replace that critique, but to complement it by providing empirical evidence to the questions such scholarship has raised.

A community guided only by its preferred stories risks losing sight of its own internal diversity. When we assume success is universal, we overlook those who are struggling. When we rely solely on nostalgia or inherited narratives, we fail to recognize the emerging and shaping forms of diversity in Greek America today. Greek Americans, like many other ethnic groups, frame their success through the broader American “bootstraps” narrative that emphasizes individual effort over structural factors. It highlights hard work as critical to socioeconomic success but downplays the broader sociohistorical forces that shape access to opportunities and the outcomes individuals can achieve. This belief makes it harder to see the sociohistorical factors that shape opportunities. It also helps explain why the “success story” endures and why evidence that challenges it can feel uncomfortable. To the extent that Greeks achieved success in the U.S., part of it can also be attributed to immigrant selectivity, which includes the skills, motivations, and social resources they brought with them before arriving. Recognizing this does not minimize hard work, but it also shows that socioeconomic mobility is shaped by factors beyond effort alone. However, without empirical grounding, we cannot make responsible decisions about how to support, represent, and sustain our community.

Of course, data will not answer every question, but they provide a clearer view of the people behind the narrative: those who thrive, those who struggle, and those whose experiences fall entirely outside the frame. Pride, narrative, and ideology have their place, but they cannot substitute for evidence. To plan for the future, Greek America needs the stories we tell and the empirical data that help us test, understand, and rethink them. If Greek America wants to promote its community, strengthen its institutions, and meaningfully assist those in need, whether through educational programs, social services, or cultural initiatives, we must begin with a more accurate empirical understanding of who we are.

January 06, 2026

Grigoris Argeros is a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University. His research examines racial and ethnic change in neighborhood composition, as well as class- and race-related differences in locational attainment and residential segregation.

Notes

¹ Unless noted otherwise, all data come from the 2023 5-Year American Community Survey (IPUMS); all estimates are based on author’s calculations.

² 1980 Census IPUMS.