I'd just like to reformulate my question, because I desperately want to hear what I'm missing.
If there are cultutal discrepancies between races on atttitudes that would be expected to impact life outcomes, why should we expect life outcomes to be similar?
You're barking up the wrong tree by focusing on the parts of the list that "impact life outcomes", and then building chains of speculation on top of that. The infographic for instance does not say anything about "equality vs. equity"; that is a tangent added in this thread by others. It seems to be the consensus of people opposed to the idea of the list that fixating on the "work hard" attribute is the easiest way to attack it, I guess.
But the list is larger than "work hard", and the consequences of equating white cultural values with "proper American-ness" go further than how much money someone makes if they come from a culture that does not make a central value out of living-to-work. For instance, "nuclear families" consisting of a dominant male husband, a submissive wife, and an averaged number of children as the "ideal social unit", isn't related to work ethic or the economic returns of same. Some cultures do not compartmentalize family-units in this manner, valuing larger extended-family groups instead. Some do not attach special attractiveness to every person in a household having their own room (and by extension, having a house large enough to accommodate this want), especially when it comes to children. But a family who chooses to live this way rather than conforming to the "nuclear family" unit will probably be looked at by many as "foreign" or having an inferior or flawed standard of living.
Religion is another one. As the list says, Judeo-Christianity is normalized; all others are "foreign". Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and members of other minority religions aren't seen as "fully American" because of that affiliation. Many Americans become distressed or even angry at the sight of evidence that there are other religions with other holidays than Christianity, and view making space for these religions in America to be a chore or imposition.
Food is a big marker. It is entirely typical for supermarkets to confine food associated with "non-American" cultures in dedicated aisles. There is a spectrum, certainly, of how much any given store or chain of stores commits to this; but by and large you can't find jarred salsa on the shelf next to all of the other tomato-based sauces and products even if it has a logical place there, nor canned refried beans next to literally all the rest of the canned beans the store carries (including preparations like "baked beans" or "pork and beans"), or often even the dry beans. You have to go to the "Mexican food" section for those. You won't find low mein, whether canned or boxed, next to other canned or boxed pasta dinners; you have to go to the "Asian section". Meanwhile outside of these discrete compartments, unless you happen to be at one of those snazzy "international markets" all the rest of the food in the store - the European-majority food, the
American food - most typically doesn't get divided into cultural compartments. The closest you might ever get is stores stocking all the dry pasta in the same aisle as all the tomato sauces; but this arrangement most commonly doesn't then get officially labeled the "Italian food section". It's just....food. The
regular food. And again, this isn't to say that Americans of Mexican descent are
objectively harmed by supermarkets having "Mexican food" sections, or any such thing. It's just to underscore that those Americans' culture visibly isn't recognized as "American" culture; and likewise no matter how many Americans eat low mein, it will never be treated as just
regular food.
