Chippewa vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 135,812,628 people shows a mild negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Hong Kong within Chippewa communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.381. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chippewa within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.004% in Immigrants from Hong Kong. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chippewa corresponds to a decrease of 4.2 Immigrants from Hong Kong.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($80,005 compared to $128,140, a difference of 60.2%), median household income ($70,539 compared to $111,519, a difference of 58.1%), and per capita income ($36,631 compared to $56,709, a difference of 54.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.0% compared to 25.5%, a difference of 2.2%), householder income under 25 years ($47,015 compared to $62,083, a difference of 32.1%), and householder income over 65 years ($53,847 compared to $71,567, a difference of 32.9%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (23.4% compared to 12.4%, a difference of 88.2%), female poverty among 25-34 year olds (18.0% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 73.7%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (21.0% compared to 12.3%, a difference of 71.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (13.1% compared to 12.8%, a difference of 1.6%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.1% compared to 11.1%, a difference of 9.6%), and married-couple family poverty (5.4% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 15.2%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (13.3% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 130.4%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (11.1% compared to 7.2%, a difference of 54.3%), and unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (7.8% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 53.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (18.0% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 3.2%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.9% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 5.2%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.4% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 6.0%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (43.8% compared to 30.5%, a difference of 43.7%), in labor force | age 20-24 (77.1% compared to 71.6%, a difference of 7.6%), and in labor force | age > 16 (63.1% compared to 65.7%, a difference of 4.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (82.9% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 2.6%), in labor force | age 35-44 (82.9% compared to 85.2%, a difference of 2.8%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (81.3% compared to 83.6%, a difference of 2.9%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (42.6% compared to 23.6%, a difference of 80.8%), single father households (3.1% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 68.7%), and single mother households (8.0% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 65.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.20 compared to 3.26, a difference of 1.8%), family households with children (26.7% compared to 27.5%, a difference of 3.0%), and family households (62.1% compared to 66.1%, a difference of 6.5%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.4% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 19.7%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.6% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 16.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.5% compared to 19.2%, a difference of 12.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.7% compared to 88.7%, a difference of 2.2%), 2 or more vehicles in household (57.2% compared to 52.6%, a difference of 8.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.5% compared to 19.2%, a difference of 12.3%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.5% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 84.8%), doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 82.0%), and master's degree (11.4% compared to 20.5%, a difference of 79.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (91.5% compared to 91.3%, a difference of 0.23%), high school diploma (89.7% compared to 89.3%, a difference of 0.54%), and nursery school (98.5% compared to 97.4%, a difference of 1.2%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.9% compared to 0.95%, a difference of 98.6%), disability age 35 to 64 (15.0% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 82.5%), and disability age 18 to 34 (9.0% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 72.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (48.4% compared to 46.5%, a difference of 4.2%), self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 10.7%), and cognitive disability (18.1% compared to 16.0%, a difference of 12.9%).