Chinese vs Fijian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 28,388,975 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Fijians within Chinese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.072. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chinese within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.079% in Fijians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chinese corresponds to a decrease of 79.1 Fijians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chinese and Fijian communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($77,465 compared to $56,768, a difference of 36.5%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($116,156 compared to $85,187, a difference of 36.3%), and median family income ($116,188 compared to $87,387, a difference of 33.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.9% compared to 22.9%, a difference of 13.1%), householder income under 25 years ($58,162 compared to $50,132, a difference of 16.0%), and median female earnings ($41,461 compared to $35,114, a difference of 18.1%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chinese and Fijian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (3.6% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 58.3%), family poverty (6.5% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 55.7%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (11.9% compared to 18.4%, a difference of 54.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.4% compared to 15.7%, a difference of 1.8%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (16.2% compared to 20.0%, a difference of 23.8%), and single male poverty (11.0% compared to 13.8%, a difference of 25.7%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chinese and Fijian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (5.9% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 47.4%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.3% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 39.6%), and unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 36.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.1% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 0.98%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.2% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 1.2%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.4% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 1.6%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chinese and Fijian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (84.1% compared to 80.2%, a difference of 4.9%), in labor force | age 16-19 (38.6% compared to 40.4%, a difference of 4.8%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (80.7% compared to 78.4%, a difference of 2.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (77.3% compared to 77.4%, a difference of 0.13%), in labor force | age > 16 (64.7% compared to 64.8%, a difference of 0.21%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.3% compared to 82.9%, a difference of 1.8%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chinese and Fijian communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.0% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 52.3%), single mother households (5.2% compared to 7.2%, a difference of 39.4%), and divorced or separated (11.2% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 12.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.34 compared to 3.36, a difference of 0.56%), family households (68.1% compared to 65.9%, a difference of 3.4%), and births to unmarried women (30.2% compared to 32.3%, a difference of 6.7%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Fijian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (8.2% compared to 9.5%, a difference of 15.7%), 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 13.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 7.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.9% compared to 90.5%, a difference of 1.5%), 2 or more vehicles in household (60.1% compared to 57.6%, a difference of 4.3%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 7.3%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chinese and Fijian communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.5% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 68.4%), doctorate degree (1.8% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 56.4%), and professional degree (4.5% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 52.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.6% compared to 97.6%, a difference of 1.0%), kindergarten (98.5% compared to 97.5%, a difference of 1.0%), and 1st grade (98.5% compared to 97.5%, a difference of 1.0%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Fijian communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.3% compared to 13.2%, a difference of 28.4%), disability age 65 to 74 (21.7% compared to 27.0%, a difference of 24.4%), and disability age 5 to 17 (4.7% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 20.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (48.7% compared to 49.0%, a difference of 0.66%), male disability (12.1% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 4.1%), and hearing disability (3.7% compared to 3.5%, a difference of 4.2%).