Fijian vs Chinese Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 28,388,975 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese within Fijian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.160. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Fijians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.040% in Chinese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Fijians corresponds to an increase of 40.2 Chinese.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Fijian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($56,768 compared to $77,465, a difference of 36.5%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($85,187 compared to $116,156, a difference of 36.3%), and median family income ($87,387 compared to $116,188, a difference of 33.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (22.9% compared to 25.9%, a difference of 13.1%), householder income under 25 years ($50,132 compared to $58,162, a difference of 16.0%), and median female earnings ($35,114 compared to $41,461, a difference of 18.1%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Fijian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 3.6%, a difference of 58.3%), family poverty (10.1% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 55.7%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (18.4% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 54.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.7% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 1.8%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.0% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 23.8%), and single male poverty (13.8% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 25.7%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Fijian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.7% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 47.4%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (6.6% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 39.6%), and unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.3% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 36.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.1% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 0.98%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.2% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 1.2%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.5% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 1.6%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Fijian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (80.2% compared to 84.1%, a difference of 4.9%), in labor force | age 16-19 (40.4% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 4.8%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (78.4% compared to 80.7%, a difference of 2.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (77.4% compared to 77.3%, a difference of 0.13%), in labor force | age > 16 (64.8% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 0.21%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (82.9% compared to 84.3%, a difference of 1.8%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Fijian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in single father households (3.0% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 52.3%), single mother households (7.2% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 39.4%), and divorced or separated (12.6% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 12.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.36 compared to 3.34, a difference of 0.56%), family households (65.9% compared to 68.1%, a difference of 3.4%), and births to unmarried women (32.3% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 6.7%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Fijian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.5% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 15.7%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.8% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 13.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 7.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.5% compared to 91.9%, a difference of 1.5%), 2 or more vehicles in household (57.6% compared to 60.1%, a difference of 4.3%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 7.3%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Fijian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.5% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 68.4%), doctorate degree (1.1% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 56.4%), and professional degree (2.9% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 52.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.6% compared to 98.6%, a difference of 1.0%), kindergarten (97.5% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 1.0%), and 1st grade (97.5% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 1.0%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Fijian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (13.2% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 28.4%), disability age 65 to 74 (27.0% compared to 21.7%, a difference of 24.4%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.7% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 20.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (49.0% compared to 48.7%, a difference of 0.66%), male disability (12.6% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 4.1%), and hearing disability (3.5% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 4.2%).