Ethiopian vs Chinese Community Comparison
COMPARE
Ethiopian
Chinese
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Ethiopians
Chinese
7,266
SOCIAL INDEX
70.1/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
126th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,296
SOCIAL INDEX
90.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
23rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Chinese Integration in Ethiopian Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 51,998,695 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese within Ethiopian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.312. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Ethiopians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.014% in Chinese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Ethiopians corresponds to an increase of 13.8 Chinese.
Ethiopian vs Chinese Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Ethiopian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($64,989 compared to $77,465, a difference of 19.2%), wage/income gap (21.8% compared to 25.9%, a difference of 18.6%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($103,736 compared to $116,156, a difference of 12.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of per capita income ($46,569 compared to $46,098, a difference of 1.0%), median male earnings ($56,243 compared to $56,872, a difference of 1.1%), and median earnings ($49,572 compared to $48,836, a difference of 1.5%).
Income Metric | Ethiopian | Chinese |
Per Capita Income | Exceptional $46,569 | Exceptional $46,098 |
Median Family Income | Exceptional $108,251 | Exceptional $116,188 |
Median Household Income | Exceptional $89,640 | Exceptional $98,496 |
Median Earnings | Exceptional $49,572 | Exceptional $48,836 |
Median Male Earnings | Excellent $56,243 | Exceptional $56,872 |
Median Female Earnings | Exceptional $43,243 | Exceptional $41,461 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Exceptional $53,818 | Exceptional $58,162 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Good $96,824 | Exceptional $104,264 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Excellent $103,736 | Exceptional $116,156 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Exceptional $64,989 | Exceptional $77,465 |
Wage/Income Gap | Exceptional 21.8% | Average 25.9% |
Ethiopian vs Chinese Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Ethiopian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (5.1% compared to 3.6%, a difference of 40.0%), child poverty among boys under 16 (16.5% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 38.8%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (16.3% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 36.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single male poverty (11.2% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 1.7%), receiving food stamps (10.6% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 8.7%), and single mother poverty (27.7% compared to 24.6%, a difference of 12.6%).
Poverty Metric | Ethiopian | Chinese |
Poverty | Average 12.2% | Exceptional 9.5% |
Families | Good 8.8% | Exceptional 6.5% |
Males | Average 11.1% | Exceptional 8.7% |
Females | Good 13.3% | Exceptional 10.4% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Average 20.2% | Exceptional 16.2% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Exceptional 12.4% | Exceptional 11.0% |
Children Under 5 years | Excellent 16.5% | Exceptional 13.1% |
Children Under 16 years | Average 16.3% | Exceptional 11.9% |
Boys Under 16 years | Average 16.5% | Exceptional 11.9% |
Girls Under 16 years | Average 16.5% | Exceptional 12.3% |
Single Males | Exceptional 11.2% | Exceptional 11.0% |
Single Females | Exceptional 19.9% | Exceptional 16.1% |
Single Fathers | Exceptional 13.5% | Exceptional 15.4% |
Single Mothers | Exceptional 27.7% | Exceptional 24.6% |
Married Couples | Good 5.1% | Exceptional 3.6% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Good 10.7% | Exceptional 8.3% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Excellent 11.8% | Exceptional 9.1% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Exceptional 10.6% | Exceptional 9.8% |
Ethiopian vs Chinese Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Ethiopian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.6% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 45.8%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.7% compared to 4.0%, a difference of 17.6%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.9% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 15.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 0.19%), unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.1% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 0.61%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.5% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 1.7%).
Unemployment Metric | Ethiopian | Chinese |
Unemployment | Excellent 5.1% | Exceptional 4.7% |
Males | Exceptional 5.1% | Exceptional 4.9% |
Females | Excellent 5.1% | Exceptional 4.5% |
Youth < 25 | Excellent 11.4% | Exceptional 10.7% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Fair 17.8% | Exceptional 16.0% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Exceptional 9.8% | Exceptional 9.4% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Exceptional 6.1% | Exceptional 6.1% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Exceptional 4.9% | Exceptional 5.1% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Excellent 4.5% | Exceptional 4.3% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Exceptional 4.3% | Exceptional 4.0% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Exceptional 4.5% | Exceptional 4.4% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Exceptional 4.7% | Exceptional 4.0% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Exceptional 5.0% | Exceptional 4.4% |
Seniors > 65 | Exceptional 4.9% | Exceptional 4.2% |
Seniors > 75 | Good 8.6% | Exceptional 5.9% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Exceptional 6.8% | Exceptional 6.8% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Fair 9.0% | Tragic 9.3% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Excellent 5.3% | Exceptional 4.9% |
Ethiopian vs Chinese Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Ethiopian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age > 16 (69.3% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 7.2%), in labor force | age 25-29 (86.2% compared to 84.3%, a difference of 2.2%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (86.6% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 1.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (77.3% compared to 77.3%, a difference of 0.060%), in labor force | age 45-54 (84.8% compared to 84.1%, a difference of 0.73%), and in labor force | age 16-19 (38.2% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 0.95%).
Labor Participation Metric | Ethiopian | Chinese |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Exceptional 69.3% | Tragic 64.7% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Exceptional 82.0% | Exceptional 80.7% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Exceptional 38.2% | Exceptional 38.6% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Exceptional 77.3% | Exceptional 77.3% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Exceptional 86.2% | Poor 84.3% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Exceptional 86.6% | Excellent 85.0% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Exceptional 85.9% | Exceptional 85.1% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Exceptional 84.8% | Exceptional 84.1% |
Ethiopian vs Chinese Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Ethiopian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (6.5% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 25.7%), single father households (2.4% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 22.1%), and married-couple households (43.2% compared to 50.4%, a difference of 16.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of births to unmarried women (29.8% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 1.3%), average family size (3.24 compared to 3.34, a difference of 3.2%), and family households with children (27.6% compared to 26.0%, a difference of 6.2%).
Family Structure Metric | Ethiopian | Chinese |
Family Households | Tragic 61.2% | Exceptional 68.1% |
Family Households with Children | Good 27.6% | Tragic 26.0% |
Married-couple Households | Tragic 43.2% | Exceptional 50.4% |
Average Family Size | Good 3.24 | Exceptional 3.34 |
Single Father Households | Poor 2.4% | Exceptional 2.0% |
Single Mother Households | Fair 6.5% | Exceptional 5.2% |
Currently Married | Tragic 44.5% | Exceptional 49.5% |
Divorced or Separated | Average 12.0% | Exceptional 11.2% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Exceptional 29.8% | Excellent 30.2% |
Ethiopian vs Chinese Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Ethiopian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (5.8% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 53.1%), 3 or more vehicles in household (17.9% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 33.4%), and no vehicles in household (10.5% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 27.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (89.6% compared to 91.9%, a difference of 2.5%), 2 or more vehicles in household (53.1% compared to 60.1%, a difference of 13.1%), and no vehicles in household (10.5% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 27.3%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Ethiopian | Chinese |
No Vehicles Available | Average 10.5% | Exceptional 8.2% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Average 89.6% | Exceptional 91.9% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Tragic 53.1% | Exceptional 60.1% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Tragic 17.9% | Exceptional 23.9% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Tragic 5.8% | Exceptional 8.8% |
Ethiopian vs Chinese Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Ethiopian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.4% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 64.7%), doctorate degree (2.3% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 33.2%), and master's degree (18.0% compared to 14.6%, a difference of 23.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of college, under 1 year (68.3% compared to 68.3%, a difference of 0.030%), nursery school (97.6% compared to 98.6%, a difference of 0.96%), and kindergarten (97.6% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.97%).
Education Level Metric | Ethiopian | Chinese |
No Schooling Completed | Tragic 2.4% | Exceptional 1.5% |
Nursery School | Tragic 97.6% | Exceptional 98.6% |
Kindergarten | Tragic 97.6% | Exceptional 98.5% |
1st Grade | Tragic 97.6% | Exceptional 98.5% |
2nd Grade | Tragic 97.5% | Exceptional 98.5% |
3rd Grade | Tragic 97.4% | Exceptional 98.4% |
4th Grade | Tragic 97.1% | Exceptional 98.3% |
5th Grade | Tragic 96.9% | Exceptional 98.1% |
6th Grade | Tragic 96.6% | Exceptional 97.9% |
7th Grade | Tragic 95.4% | Exceptional 97.1% |
8th Grade | Tragic 95.1% | Exceptional 96.9% |
9th Grade | Tragic 94.4% | Exceptional 96.3% |
10th Grade | Tragic 93.2% | Exceptional 95.5% |
11th Grade | Poor 92.2% | Exceptional 94.6% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Fair 91.0% | Exceptional 93.6% |
High School Diploma | Fair 89.0% | Exceptional 92.0% |
GED/Equivalency | Good 86.0% | Exceptional 89.0% |
College, Under 1 year | Exceptional 68.3% | Exceptional 68.3% |
College, 1 year or more | Exceptional 62.9% | Exceptional 62.2% |
Associate's Degree | Exceptional 50.4% | Exceptional 48.5% |
Bachelor's Degree | Exceptional 42.8% | Good 38.5% |
Master's Degree | Exceptional 18.0% | Fair 14.6% |
Professional Degree | Exceptional 5.4% | Average 4.5% |
Doctorate Degree | Exceptional 2.3% | Fair 1.8% |
Ethiopian vs Chinese Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Ethiopian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (2.7% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 37.7%), ambulatory disability (5.4% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 21.0%), and male disability (10.2% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 18.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 0.030%), disability age 18 to 34 (6.2% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 1.3%), and disability age 35 to 64 (10.5% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 1.5%).
Disability Metric | Ethiopian | Chinese |
Disability | Exceptional 10.7% | Tragic 12.2% |
Males | Exceptional 10.2% | Tragic 12.1% |
Females | Exceptional 11.2% | Fair 12.3% |
Age | Under 5 years | Exceptional 1.1% | Exceptional 1.1% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Exceptional 5.3% | Exceptional 4.7% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Exceptional 6.2% | Exceptional 6.3% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Exceptional 10.5% | Exceptional 10.3% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Excellent 22.7% | Exceptional 21.7% |
Age | Over 75 years | Excellent 46.8% | Tragic 48.7% |
Vision | Exceptional 2.0% | Exceptional 2.0% |
Hearing | Exceptional 2.7% | Tragic 3.7% |
Cognitive | Tragic 17.9% | Exceptional 15.9% |
Ambulatory | Exceptional 5.4% | Tragic 6.5% |
Self-Care | Exceptional 2.2% | Tragic 2.6% |