Chinese vs Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 47,842,039 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago within Chinese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.186. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chinese within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.064% in Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chinese corresponds to a decrease of 63.7 Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chinese and Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($77,465 compared to $55,598, a difference of 39.3%), wage/income gap (25.9% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 34.0%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($116,156 compared to $91,347, a difference of 27.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median female earnings ($41,461 compared to $40,895, a difference of 1.4%), median earnings ($48,836 compared to $45,729, a difference of 6.8%), and median male earnings ($56,872 compared to $51,376, a difference of 10.7%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chinese and Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (3.6% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 74.5%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (9.1% compared to 15.7%, a difference of 73.5%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (8.3% compared to 14.1%, a difference of 69.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.4% compared to 16.8%, a difference of 9.4%), single male poverty (11.0% compared to 12.9%, a difference of 17.6%), and single mother poverty (24.6% compared to 29.5%, a difference of 19.7%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chinese and Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (16.0% compared to 23.1%, a difference of 43.9%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (5.9% compared to 8.5%, a difference of 43.4%), and unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (9.4% compared to 12.8%, a difference of 37.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.3% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 1.4%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 18.0%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.4% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 19.8%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chinese and Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.6% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 28.0%), in labor force | age 20-24 (77.3% compared to 71.1%, a difference of 8.7%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (84.1% compared to 82.0%, a difference of 2.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age > 16 (64.7% compared to 64.8%, a difference of 0.24%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.3% compared to 83.7%, a difference of 0.80%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (85.1% compared to 84.4%, a difference of 0.83%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chinese and Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (5.2% compared to 7.6%, a difference of 47.3%), married-couple households (50.4% compared to 41.2%, a difference of 22.2%), and births to unmarried women (30.2% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 20.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.34 compared to 3.33, a difference of 0.36%), family households with children (26.0% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 1.3%), and family households (68.1% compared to 64.2%, a difference of 6.2%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (8.2% compared to 24.6%, a difference of 199.6%), 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 4.1%, a difference of 115.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 13.3%, a difference of 78.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.9% compared to 76.8%, a difference of 19.6%), 2 or more vehicles in household (60.1% compared to 40.3%, a difference of 49.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 13.3%, a difference of 78.9%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chinese and Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.5% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 79.0%), doctorate degree (1.8% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 19.6%), and professional degree (4.5% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 14.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.6% compared to 97.4%, a difference of 1.2%), kindergarten (98.5% compared to 97.3%, a difference of 1.2%), and 1st grade (98.5% compared to 97.3%, a difference of 1.2%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (3.7% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 47.9%), disability age 5 to 17 (4.7% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 19.4%), and vision disability (2.0% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 10.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female disability (12.3% compared to 12.3%, a difference of 0.13%), disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 0.85%), and disability age over 75 (48.7% compared to 47.6%, a difference of 2.3%).