Chinese vs Osage Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 36,970,518 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Osage within Chinese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.157. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chinese within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.120% in Osage. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chinese corresponds to an increase of 119.8 Osage.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chinese and Osage communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($77,465 compared to $55,677, a difference of 39.1%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($116,156 compared to $88,390, a difference of 31.4%), and median household income ($98,496 compared to $75,240, a difference of 30.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.9% compared to 27.1%, a difference of 4.5%), median male earnings ($56,872 compared to $50,292, a difference of 13.1%), and median earnings ($48,836 compared to $42,651, a difference of 14.5%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chinese and Osage communities in the United States are seen in female poverty among 18-24 year olds (16.2% compared to 24.5%, a difference of 51.4%), single female poverty (16.1% compared to 24.4%, a difference of 51.2%), and child poverty under the age of 5 (13.1% compared to 19.6%, a difference of 50.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of receiving food stamps (9.8% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 20.2%), single father poverty (15.4% compared to 19.0%, a difference of 23.5%), and seniors poverty over the age of 75 (9.1% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 25.5%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chinese and Osage communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (5.9% compared to 8.9%, a difference of 50.1%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 9.5%, a difference of 39.5%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.0% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 33.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among youth under 25 years (10.7% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 0.060%), unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (9.4% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 0.13%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.3% compared to 8.9%, a difference of 4.0%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chinese and Osage communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (84.1% compared to 80.6%, a difference of 4.4%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.7% compared to 78.0%, a difference of 3.5%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (85.0% compared to 82.3%, a difference of 3.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (38.6% compared to 39.0%, a difference of 0.91%), in labor force | age > 16 (64.7% compared to 63.5%, a difference of 1.9%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.3% compared to 82.3%, a difference of 2.5%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chinese and Osage communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.0% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 25.4%), single mother households (5.2% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 23.2%), and divorced or separated (11.2% compared to 13.4%, a difference of 20.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of currently married (49.5% compared to 47.5%, a difference of 4.3%), average family size (3.34 compared to 3.18, a difference of 5.1%), and births to unmarried women (30.2% compared to 32.1%, a difference of 6.0%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Osage communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 13.9%), no vehicles in household (8.2% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 5.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 5.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.9% compared to 91.4%, a difference of 0.51%), 2 or more vehicles in household (60.1% compared to 58.8%, a difference of 2.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 5.1%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chinese and Osage communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (4.5% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 20.6%), no schooling completed (1.5% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 19.2%), and associate's degree (48.5% compared to 41.5%, a difference of 17.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1st grade (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.23%), nursery school (98.6% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.24%), and kindergarten (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.24%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Osage communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 60.2%), disability age 35 to 64 (10.3% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 40.7%), and disability age 5 to 17 (4.7% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 38.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 0.27%), disability age over 75 (48.7% compared to 49.8%, a difference of 2.2%), and hearing disability (3.7% compared to 4.1%, a difference of 11.3%).