Chinese vs Icelander Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 48,235,515 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Icelanders within Chinese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.128. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chinese within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.055% in Icelanders. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chinese corresponds to an increase of 54.6 Icelanders.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chinese and Icelander communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($77,465 compared to $61,270, a difference of 26.4%), median household income ($98,496 compared to $85,797, a difference of 14.8%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($116,156 compared to $102,261, a difference of 13.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of per capita income ($46,098 compared to $44,987, a difference of 2.5%), median male earnings ($56,872 compared to $55,415, a difference of 2.6%), and median earnings ($48,836 compared to $46,916, a difference of 4.1%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chinese and Icelander communities in the United States are seen in single female poverty (16.1% compared to 21.6%, a difference of 33.8%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (16.2% compared to 21.5%, a difference of 33.1%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (11.9% compared to 15.5%, a difference of 31.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.4% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 5.9%), receiving food stamps (9.8% compared to 10.5%, a difference of 7.4%), and single male poverty (11.0% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 13.4%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chinese and Icelander communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.2% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 22.8%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.4% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 22.5%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (5.9% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 19.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 6.9%, a difference of 0.78%), male unemployment (4.9% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 1.8%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.3% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 2.5%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chinese and Icelander communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.6% compared to 40.8%, a difference of 5.6%), in labor force | age 45-54 (84.1% compared to 82.8%, a difference of 1.7%), and in labor force | age > 16 (64.7% compared to 65.6%, a difference of 1.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (85.0% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 0.33%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.3% compared to 84.8%, a difference of 0.50%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (77.3% compared to 76.9%, a difference of 0.51%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chinese and Icelander communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.0% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 17.4%), single mother households (5.2% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 15.9%), and family households (68.1% compared to 63.3%, a difference of 7.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of births to unmarried women (30.2% compared to 30.3%, a difference of 0.24%), currently married (49.5% compared to 47.3%, a difference of 4.7%), and average family size (3.34 compared to 3.19, a difference of 4.9%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Icelander communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 19.8%), no vehicles in household (8.2% compared to 9.6%, a difference of 17.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 21.5%, a difference of 11.0%). 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 58.0%, a difference of 3.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 21.5%, a difference of 11.0%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chinese and Icelander communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.5% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 18.4%), doctorate degree (1.8% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 16.3%), and professional degree (4.5% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 7.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of college, under 1 year (68.3% compared to 68.3%, a difference of 0.090%), college, 1 year or more (62.2% compared to 62.1%, a difference of 0.17%), and nursery school (98.6% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.23%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Icelander communities in the United States are seen in disability age 5 to 17 (4.7% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 21.9%), hearing disability (3.7% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 15.0%), and disability age 18 to 34 (6.3% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 12.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female disability (12.3% compared to 12.0%, a difference of 2.6%), disability (12.2% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 3.5%), and disability age over 75 (48.7% compared to 46.7%, a difference of 4.3%).