Chinese vs Australian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 52,739,532 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Australians within Chinese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.522. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chinese within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.066% in Australians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chinese corresponds to an increase of 66.4 Australians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chinese and Australian communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($77,465 compared to $66,891, a difference of 15.8%), per capita income ($46,098 compared to $52,074, a difference of 13.0%), and median male earnings ($56,872 compared to $62,857, a difference of 10.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median family income ($116,188 compared to $118,440, a difference of 1.9%), median household income ($98,496 compared to $96,490, a difference of 2.1%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($116,156 compared to $113,533, a difference of 2.3%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chinese and Australian communities in the United States are seen in female poverty among 18-24 year olds (16.2% compared to 20.8%, a difference of 28.6%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (9.1% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 26.6%), and single female poverty (16.1% compared to 20.3%, a difference of 26.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of receiving food stamps (9.8% compared to 9.6%, a difference of 1.5%), single father poverty (15.4% compared to 15.7%, a difference of 2.1%), and single mother poverty (24.6% compared to 28.3%, a difference of 14.9%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chinese and Australian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (5.9% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 47.9%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.2% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 20.8%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.0% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 20.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (9.4% compared to 9.6%, a difference of 1.9%), male unemployment (4.9% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 2.0%), and unemployment among youth under 25 years (10.7% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 2.2%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chinese and Australian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 20-24 (77.3% compared to 75.5%, a difference of 2.3%), in labor force | age 16-19 (38.6% compared to 37.8%, a difference of 2.2%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (84.1% compared to 82.5%, a difference of 2.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (85.0% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 0.050%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.3% compared to 84.9%, a difference of 0.66%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (85.1% compared to 84.3%, a difference of 0.94%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chinese and Australian communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.0% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 10.3%), family households (68.1% compared to 62.8%, a difference of 8.4%), and single mother households (5.2% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 7.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of births to unmarried women (30.2% compared to 29.5%, a difference of 2.4%), family households with children (26.0% compared to 26.9%, a difference of 3.5%), and currently married (49.5% compared to 47.6%, a difference of 4.0%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Australian communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 35.0%), no vehicles in household (8.2% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 22.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 20.1%, a difference of 18.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.9% compared to 90.0%, a difference of 2.0%), 2 or more vehicles in household (60.1% compared to 56.7%, a difference of 6.0%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 20.1%, a difference of 18.8%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chinese and Australian communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (1.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 35.8%), professional degree (4.5% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 31.9%), and master's degree (14.6% compared to 18.4%, a difference of 26.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.6% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.12%), kindergarten (98.5% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.12%), and 1st grade (98.5% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.12%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Australian communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.4%, a difference of 21.0%), disability age 5 to 17 (4.7% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 17.3%), and hearing disability (3.7% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 16.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of vision disability (2.0% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 0.66%), disability age 65 to 74 (21.7% compared to 22.0%, a difference of 1.5%), and disability age 35 to 64 (10.3% compared to 10.8%, a difference of 4.4%).