Chinese vs Jordanian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 48,203,676 people shows a moderate negative correlation between the proportion of Jordanians within Chinese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.495. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chinese within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.158% in Jordanians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chinese corresponds to a decrease of 157.9 Jordanians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chinese and Jordanian communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($77,465 compared to $64,313, a difference of 20.4%), householder income under 25 years ($58,162 compared to $51,796, a difference of 12.3%), and median household income ($98,496 compared to $91,794, a difference of 7.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median female earnings ($41,461 compared to $41,464, a difference of 0.010%), per capita income ($46,098 compared to $45,605, a difference of 1.1%), and median earnings ($48,836 compared to $49,632, a difference of 1.6%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chinese and Jordanian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (3.6% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 32.3%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (9.1% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 28.2%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (11.9% compared to 15.1%, a difference of 27.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of receiving food stamps (9.8% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 4.0%), single father poverty (15.4% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 4.6%), and single mother poverty (24.6% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 7.3%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chinese and Jordanian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (5.9% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 54.3%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.2% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 15.7%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.0% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 15.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (16.0% compared to 16.0%, a difference of 0.050%), unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.3% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 0.26%), and male unemployment (4.9% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 0.77%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chinese and Jordanian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.6% compared to 36.4%, a difference of 6.1%), in labor force | age > 16 (64.7% compared to 66.3%, a difference of 2.5%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (77.3% compared to 75.5%, a difference of 2.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (85.0% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 0.020%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.3% compared to 84.2%, a difference of 0.13%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (80.7% compared to 80.1%, a difference of 0.68%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chinese and Jordanian communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (5.2% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 15.3%), family households with children (26.0% compared to 29.0%, a difference of 11.4%), and single father households (2.0% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 11.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of divorced or separated (11.2% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 2.5%), average family size (3.34 compared to 3.24, a difference of 3.0%), and currently married (49.5% compared to 48.0%, a difference of 3.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Jordanian communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 34.7%), 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 20.1%, a difference of 18.6%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (60.1% compared to 57.6%, a difference of 4.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.9% compared to 91.4%, a difference of 0.47%), no vehicles in household (8.2% compared to 8.5%, a difference of 3.7%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (60.1% compared to 57.6%, a difference of 4.4%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chinese and Jordanian communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.5% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 33.9%), doctorate degree (1.8% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 13.6%), and master's degree (14.6% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 13.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of college, 1 year or more (62.2% compared to 62.2%, a difference of 0.010%), college, under 1 year (68.3% compared to 68.0%, a difference of 0.44%), and nursery school (98.6% compared to 98.1%, a difference of 0.52%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Jordanian communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (3.7% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 29.4%), ambulatory disability (6.5% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 15.9%), and male disability (12.1% compared to 10.5%, a difference of 15.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 1.5%), disability age 35 to 64 (10.3% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 1.5%), and disability age 65 to 74 (21.7% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 2.2%).