Chinese vs Ute Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 26,792,243 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Ute within Chinese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.314. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chinese within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.020% in Ute. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chinese corresponds to an increase of 20.2 Ute.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chinese and Ute communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($77,465 compared to $52,949, a difference of 46.3%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($116,156 compared to $83,937, a difference of 38.4%), and median household income ($98,496 compared to $72,402, a difference of 36.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.9% compared to 27.8%, a difference of 7.2%), median male earnings ($56,872 compared to $48,899, a difference of 16.3%), and householder income under 25 years ($58,162 compared to $49,997, a difference of 16.3%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chinese and Ute communities in the United States are seen in male poverty (8.7% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 87.0%), family poverty (6.5% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 85.3%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (11.9% compared to 21.6%, a difference of 81.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.4% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 20.2%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (9.1% compared to 12.9%, a difference of 42.6%), and single male poverty (11.0% compared to 15.7%, a difference of 42.8%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chinese and Ute communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.0% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 56.2%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.2% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 50.9%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.4% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 46.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 5.0%), unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.1% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 12.4%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (5.9% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 15.1%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chinese and Ute communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (84.1% compared to 76.6%, a difference of 9.8%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.7% compared to 73.7%, a difference of 9.5%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (85.0% compared to 78.9%, a difference of 7.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (38.6% compared to 37.1%, a difference of 4.1%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.3% compared to 80.8%, a difference of 4.4%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (77.3% compared to 73.8%, a difference of 4.7%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chinese and Ute communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.0% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 50.2%), single mother households (5.2% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 37.6%), and married-couple households (50.4% compared to 44.4%, a difference of 13.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.34 compared to 3.49, a difference of 4.5%), family households (68.1% compared to 64.3%, a difference of 5.9%), and family households with children (26.0% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 8.3%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Ute communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (8.2% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 41.1%), 2 or more vehicles in household (60.1% compared to 56.6%, a difference of 6.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 5.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 1.1%), 1 or more vehicles in household (91.9% compared to 88.7%, a difference of 3.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 5.3%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chinese and Ute communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.5% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 53.4%), associate's degree (48.5% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 25.7%), and bachelor's degree (38.5% compared to 30.9%, a difference of 24.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.6% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.35%), kindergarten (98.5% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.35%), and 1st grade (98.5% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.35%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Ute communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 0.86%, a difference of 32.5%), disability age 35 to 64 (10.3% compared to 13.4%, a difference of 29.9%), and disability age 65 to 74 (21.7% compared to 27.3%, a difference of 25.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female disability (12.3% compared to 12.4%, a difference of 0.46%), disability (12.2% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 2.7%), and male disability (12.1% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 4.3%).