Chinese vs Navajo Community Comparison
COMPARE
Chinese
Navajo
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Chinese
Navajo
9,296
SOCIAL INDEX
90.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
23rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
1,296
SOCIAL INDEX
10.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
316th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Navajo Integration in Chinese Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 54,302,251 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Navajo within Chinese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.007. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chinese within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.001% in Navajo. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chinese corresponds to an increase of 1.3 Navajo.
Chinese vs Navajo Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Chinese and Navajo communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($116,156 compared to $69,759, a difference of 66.5%), median household income ($98,496 compared to $59,159, a difference of 66.5%), and median family income ($116,188 compared to $70,989, a difference of 63.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.9% compared to 22.4%, a difference of 15.8%), median female earnings ($41,461 compared to $33,046, a difference of 25.5%), and median earnings ($48,836 compared to $36,999, a difference of 32.0%).
Income Metric | Chinese | Navajo |
Per Capita Income | Exceptional $46,098 | Tragic $29,031 |
Median Family Income | Exceptional $116,188 | Tragic $70,989 |
Median Household Income | Exceptional $98,496 | Tragic $59,159 |
Median Earnings | Exceptional $48,836 | Tragic $36,999 |
Median Male Earnings | Exceptional $56,872 | Tragic $42,098 |
Median Female Earnings | Exceptional $41,461 | Tragic $33,046 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Exceptional $58,162 | Tragic $42,380 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Exceptional $104,264 | Tragic $66,529 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Exceptional $116,156 | Tragic $69,759 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Exceptional $77,465 | Tragic $47,722 |
Wage/Income Gap | Average 25.9% | Exceptional 22.4% |
Chinese vs Navajo Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chinese and Navajo communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (3.6% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 225.0%), family poverty (6.5% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 189.1%), and male poverty (8.7% compared to 22.3%, a difference of 156.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single mother poverty (24.6% compared to 40.2%, a difference of 63.3%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (16.2% compared to 30.3%, a difference of 87.6%), and single father poverty (15.4% compared to 29.2%, a difference of 89.7%).
Poverty Metric | Chinese | Navajo |
Poverty | Exceptional 9.5% | Tragic 23.1% |
Families | Exceptional 6.5% | Tragic 18.8% |
Males | Exceptional 8.7% | Tragic 22.3% |
Females | Exceptional 10.4% | Tragic 23.9% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Exceptional 16.2% | Tragic 30.3% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Exceptional 11.0% | Tragic 23.3% |
Children Under 5 years | Exceptional 13.1% | Tragic 31.6% |
Children Under 16 years | Exceptional 11.9% | Tragic 30.2% |
Boys Under 16 years | Exceptional 11.9% | Tragic 30.3% |
Girls Under 16 years | Exceptional 12.3% | Tragic 30.5% |
Single Males | Exceptional 11.0% | Tragic 25.3% |
Single Females | Exceptional 16.1% | Tragic 31.7% |
Single Fathers | Exceptional 15.4% | Tragic 29.2% |
Single Mothers | Exceptional 24.6% | Tragic 40.2% |
Married Couples | Exceptional 3.6% | Tragic 11.9% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Exceptional 8.3% | Tragic 17.5% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Exceptional 9.1% | Tragic 19.4% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Exceptional 9.8% | Tragic 21.1% |
Chinese vs Navajo Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chinese and Navajo communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.3% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 117.3%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.1% compared to 10.6%, a difference of 106.6%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.1% compared to 12.2%, a difference of 100.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.4% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 52.6%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.3% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 52.9%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (5.9% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 53.4%).
Unemployment Metric | Chinese | Navajo |
Unemployment | Exceptional 4.7% | Tragic 8.4% |
Males | Exceptional 4.9% | Tragic 9.8% |
Females | Exceptional 4.5% | Tragic 7.3% |
Youth < 25 | Exceptional 10.7% | Tragic 18.6% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Exceptional 16.0% | Tragic 29.0% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Exceptional 9.4% | Tragic 16.1% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Exceptional 6.1% | Tragic 12.2% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Exceptional 5.1% | Tragic 10.6% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Exceptional 4.3% | Tragic 9.3% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Exceptional 4.0% | Tragic 6.7% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Exceptional 4.4% | Tragic 6.7% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Exceptional 4.0% | Tragic 6.3% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Exceptional 4.4% | Tragic 6.9% |
Seniors > 65 | Exceptional 4.2% | Tragic 6.7% |
Seniors > 75 | Exceptional 5.9% | Tragic 9.1% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Exceptional 6.8% | Tragic 13.5% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Tragic 9.3% | Tragic 14.2% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Exceptional 4.9% | Tragic 8.2% |
Chinese vs Navajo Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chinese and Navajo communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.6% compared to 32.1%, a difference of 20.3%), in labor force | age 20-24 (77.3% compared to 64.8%, a difference of 19.2%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (80.7% compared to 69.2%, a difference of 16.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (84.3% compared to 74.6%, a difference of 13.0%), in labor force | age > 16 (64.7% compared to 56.6%, a difference of 14.3%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (85.1% compared to 73.8%, a difference of 15.2%).
Labor Participation Metric | Chinese | Navajo |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Tragic 64.7% | Tragic 56.6% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Exceptional 80.7% | Tragic 69.2% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Exceptional 38.6% | Tragic 32.1% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Exceptional 77.3% | Tragic 64.8% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Poor 84.3% | Tragic 74.6% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Excellent 85.0% | Tragic 73.8% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Exceptional 85.1% | Tragic 73.8% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Exceptional 84.1% | Tragic 72.8% |
Chinese vs Navajo Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chinese and Navajo communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (5.2% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 71.3%), births to unmarried women (30.2% compared to 51.5%, a difference of 70.3%), and single father households (2.0% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 61.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (68.1% compared to 66.4%, a difference of 2.7%), family households with children (26.0% compared to 26.9%, a difference of 3.6%), and divorced or separated (11.2% compared to 12.0%, a difference of 7.2%).
Family Structure Metric | Chinese | Navajo |
Family Households | Exceptional 68.1% | Exceptional 66.4% |
Family Households with Children | Tragic 26.0% | Tragic 26.9% |
Married-couple Households | Exceptional 50.4% | Tragic 40.1% |
Average Family Size | Exceptional 3.34 | Exceptional 3.65 |
Single Father Households | Exceptional 2.0% | Tragic 3.2% |
Single Mother Households | Exceptional 5.2% | Tragic 8.8% |
Currently Married | Exceptional 49.5% | Tragic 39.0% |
Divorced or Separated | Exceptional 11.2% | Good 12.0% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Excellent 30.2% | Tragic 51.5% |
Chinese vs Navajo Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Navajo communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (8.2% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 14.6%), 2 or more vehicles in household (60.1% compared to 55.3%, a difference of 8.6%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 7.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.9% compared to 90.8%, a difference of 1.2%), 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 22.3%, a difference of 7.0%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 7.6%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Chinese | Navajo |
No Vehicles Available | Exceptional 8.2% | Exceptional 9.4% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 91.9% | Exceptional 90.8% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 60.1% | Average 55.3% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 23.9% | Exceptional 22.3% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 8.8% | Exceptional 8.2% |
Chinese vs Navajo Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chinese and Navajo communities in the United States are seen in bachelor's degree (38.5% compared to 23.6%, a difference of 62.9%), professional degree (4.5% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 55.3%), and master's degree (14.6% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 54.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1st grade (98.5% compared to 97.9%, a difference of 0.58%), kindergarten (98.5% compared to 98.0%, a difference of 0.59%), and nursery school (98.6% compared to 98.0%, a difference of 0.60%).
Education Level Metric | Chinese | Navajo |
No Schooling Completed | Exceptional 1.5% | Fair 2.1% |
Nursery School | Exceptional 98.6% | Average 98.0% |
Kindergarten | Exceptional 98.5% | Average 98.0% |
1st Grade | Exceptional 98.5% | Average 97.9% |
2nd Grade | Exceptional 98.5% | Average 97.9% |
3rd Grade | Exceptional 98.4% | Average 97.8% |
4th Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Fair 97.4% |
5th Grade | Exceptional 98.1% | Fair 97.2% |
6th Grade | Exceptional 97.9% | Tragic 96.8% |
7th Grade | Exceptional 97.1% | Poor 95.8% |
8th Grade | Exceptional 96.9% | Tragic 95.3% |
9th Grade | Exceptional 96.3% | Tragic 93.9% |
10th Grade | Exceptional 95.5% | Tragic 92.3% |
11th Grade | Exceptional 94.6% | Tragic 90.0% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Exceptional 93.6% | Tragic 87.1% |
High School Diploma | Exceptional 92.0% | Tragic 85.2% |
GED/Equivalency | Exceptional 89.0% | Tragic 81.5% |
College, Under 1 year | Exceptional 68.3% | Tragic 56.3% |
College, 1 year or more | Exceptional 62.2% | Tragic 50.8% |
Associate's Degree | Exceptional 48.5% | Tragic 32.6% |
Bachelor's Degree | Good 38.5% | Tragic 23.6% |
Master's Degree | Fair 14.6% | Tragic 9.4% |
Professional Degree | Average 4.5% | Tragic 2.9% |
Doctorate Degree | Fair 1.8% | Tragic 1.4% |
Chinese vs Navajo Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Navajo communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (2.0% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 53.7%), disability age 65 to 74 (21.7% compared to 33.3%, a difference of 53.6%), and disability age 35 to 64 (10.3% compared to 15.5%, a difference of 50.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 11.4%), female disability (12.3% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 14.8%), and ambulatory disability (6.5% compared to 7.5%, a difference of 15.7%).
Disability Metric | Chinese | Navajo |
Disability | Tragic 12.2% | Tragic 14.3% |
Males | Tragic 12.1% | Tragic 14.4% |
Females | Fair 12.3% | Tragic 14.2% |
Age | Under 5 years | Exceptional 1.1% | Tragic 1.6% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Exceptional 4.7% | Exceptional 5.4% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Exceptional 6.3% | Tragic 8.1% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Exceptional 10.3% | Tragic 15.5% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Exceptional 21.7% | Tragic 33.3% |
Age | Over 75 years | Tragic 48.7% | Tragic 58.3% |
Vision | Exceptional 2.0% | Tragic 3.1% |
Hearing | Tragic 3.7% | Tragic 4.6% |
Cognitive | Exceptional 15.9% | Tragic 18.8% |
Ambulatory | Tragic 6.5% | Tragic 7.5% |
Self-Care | Tragic 2.6% | Tragic 2.9% |