Hawaiian vs Chinese Community Comparison

COMPARE

Hawaiian
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Chinese
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Hawaiians

Chinese

Fair
Exceptional
3,537
SOCIAL INDEX
32.9/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
218th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,296
SOCIAL INDEX
90.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
23rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Chinese Integration in Hawaiian Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 60,800,639 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chinese within Hawaiian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.002. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Hawaiians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.000% in Chinese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Hawaiians corresponds to an increase of 0.0 Chinese.
Hawaiian Integration in Chinese Communities

Hawaiian vs Chinese Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Hawaiian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($64,920 compared to $77,465, a difference of 19.3%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($98,778 compared to $116,156, a difference of 17.6%), and median family income ($98,869 compared to $116,188, a difference of 17.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (24.9% compared to 25.9%, a difference of 4.1%), householder income under 25 years ($53,078 compared to $58,162, a difference of 9.6%), and median female earnings ($37,497 compared to $41,461, a difference of 10.6%).
Hawaiian vs Chinese Income
Income MetricHawaiianChinese
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$39,403
Exceptional
$46,098
Median Family Income
Poor
$98,869
Exceptional
$116,188
Median Household Income
Average
$84,729
Exceptional
$98,496
Median Earnings
Tragic
$43,673
Exceptional
$48,836
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$50,488
Exceptional
$56,872
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$37,497
Exceptional
$41,461
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Excellent
$53,078
Exceptional
$58,162
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Poor
$90,722
Exceptional
$104,264
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Fair
$98,778
Exceptional
$116,156
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Exceptional
$64,920
Exceptional
$77,465
Wage/Income Gap
Excellent
24.9%
Average
25.9%

Hawaiian vs Chinese Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Hawaiian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (5.1% compared to 3.6%, a difference of 41.0%), child poverty among boys under 16 (16.5% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 39.2%), and family poverty (9.0% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 38.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.1% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 2.1%), single male poverty (12.6% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 14.8%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (18.7% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 15.9%).
Hawaiian vs Chinese Poverty
Poverty MetricHawaiianChinese
Poverty
Fair
12.5%
Exceptional
9.5%
Families
Average
9.0%
Exceptional
6.5%
Males
Fair
11.4%
Exceptional
8.7%
Females
Fair
13.6%
Exceptional
10.4%
Females 18 to 24 years
Exceptional
18.7%
Exceptional
16.2%
Females 25 to 34 years
Poor
14.1%
Exceptional
11.0%
Children Under 5 years
Average
17.4%
Exceptional
13.1%
Children Under 16 years
Fair
16.4%
Exceptional
11.9%
Boys Under 16 years
Average
16.5%
Exceptional
11.9%
Girls Under 16 years
Average
16.6%
Exceptional
12.3%
Single Males
Good
12.6%
Exceptional
11.0%
Single Females
Fair
21.2%
Exceptional
16.1%
Single Fathers
Exceptional
15.1%
Exceptional
15.4%
Single Mothers
Average
29.2%
Exceptional
24.6%
Married Couples
Good
5.1%
Exceptional
3.6%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
10.3%
Exceptional
8.3%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
11.1%
Exceptional
9.1%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
12.9%
Exceptional
9.8%

Hawaiian vs Chinese Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Hawaiian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (9.3% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 56.8%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.4% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 29.0%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.7% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 27.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.4% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 10.7%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.5% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 10.8%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.9% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 11.6%).
Hawaiian vs Chinese Unemployment
Unemployment MetricHawaiianChinese
Unemployment
Tragic
5.5%
Exceptional
4.7%
Males
Tragic
5.7%
Exceptional
4.9%
Females
Fair
5.4%
Exceptional
4.5%
Youth < 25
Tragic
12.0%
Exceptional
10.7%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Poor
17.9%
Exceptional
16.0%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Fair
10.4%
Exceptional
9.4%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Poor
6.8%
Exceptional
6.1%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
5.9%
Exceptional
5.1%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
5.3%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Fair
4.5%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Poor
4.9%
Exceptional
4.4%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.6%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
5.7%
Exceptional
4.4%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
5.4%
Exceptional
4.2%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
9.3%
Exceptional
5.9%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
8.2%
Exceptional
6.8%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.1%
Tragic
9.3%
Women w/ Children < 18
Average
5.5%
Exceptional
4.9%

Hawaiian vs Chinese Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Hawaiian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (81.5% compared to 84.1%, a difference of 3.2%), in labor force | age 20-64 (78.7% compared to 80.7%, a difference of 2.5%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (83.0% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 2.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age > 16 (64.7% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 0.080%), in labor force | age 20-24 (77.0% compared to 77.3%, a difference of 0.28%), and in labor force | age 16-19 (38.4% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 0.52%).
Hawaiian vs Chinese Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricHawaiianChinese
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
64.7%
Tragic
64.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
78.7%
Exceptional
80.7%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.4%
Exceptional
38.6%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
77.0%
Exceptional
77.3%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
83.0%
Poor
84.3%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
83.0%
Excellent
85.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
83.2%
Exceptional
85.1%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
81.5%
Exceptional
84.1%

Hawaiian vs Chinese Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Hawaiian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.7% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 34.8%), single mother households (6.6% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 27.8%), and family households with children (28.7% compared to 26.0%, a difference of 10.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (67.4% compared to 68.1%, a difference of 1.1%), average family size (3.41 compared to 3.34, a difference of 2.0%), and married-couple households (47.8% compared to 50.4%, a difference of 5.3%).
Hawaiian vs Chinese Family Structure
Family Structure MetricHawaiianChinese
Family Households
Exceptional
67.4%
Exceptional
68.1%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.7%
Tragic
26.0%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
47.8%
Exceptional
50.4%
Average Family Size
Exceptional
3.41
Exceptional
3.34
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.7%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Poor
6.6%
Exceptional
5.2%
Currently Married
Average
46.6%
Exceptional
49.5%
Divorced or Separated
Average
12.1%
Exceptional
11.2%
Births to Unmarried Women
Poor
33.2%
Excellent
30.2%

Hawaiian vs Chinese Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Hawaiian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (8.0% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 2.2%), 3 or more vehicles in household (24.3% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 1.7%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (8.9% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 1.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.0% compared to 91.9%, a difference of 0.20%), 2 or more vehicles in household (60.4% compared to 60.1%, a difference of 0.52%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (8.9% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 1.0%).
Hawaiian vs Chinese Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricHawaiianChinese
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
8.0%
Exceptional
8.2%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
92.0%
Exceptional
91.9%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
60.4%
Exceptional
60.1%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
24.3%
Exceptional
23.9%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
8.9%
Exceptional
8.8%

Hawaiian vs Chinese Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Hawaiian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.2% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 46.7%), professional degree (3.4% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 29.6%), and master's degree (11.6% compared to 14.6%, a difference of 25.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.9% compared to 98.6%, a difference of 0.67%), kindergarten (97.9% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.67%), and 1st grade (97.9% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.68%).
Hawaiian vs Chinese Education Level
Education Level MetricHawaiianChinese
No Schooling Completed
Fair
2.2%
Exceptional
1.5%
Nursery School
Fair
97.9%
Exceptional
98.6%
Kindergarten
Fair
97.9%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Fair
97.9%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Fair
97.8%
Exceptional
98.5%
3rd Grade
Fair
97.7%
Exceptional
98.4%
4th Grade
Fair
97.4%
Exceptional
98.3%
5th Grade
Fair
97.2%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Fair
96.9%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Poor
95.8%
Exceptional
97.1%
8th Grade
Poor
95.5%
Exceptional
96.9%
9th Grade
Fair
94.7%
Exceptional
96.3%
10th Grade
Fair
93.5%
Exceptional
95.5%
11th Grade
Fair
92.3%
Exceptional
94.6%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Poor
90.8%
Exceptional
93.6%
High School Diploma
Poor
88.6%
Exceptional
92.0%
GED/Equivalency
Poor
85.0%
Exceptional
89.0%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
62.1%
Exceptional
68.3%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
55.6%
Exceptional
62.2%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
40.9%
Exceptional
48.5%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
31.6%
Good
38.5%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.6%
Fair
14.6%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.4%
Average
4.5%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Fair
1.8%

Hawaiian vs Chinese Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Hawaiian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (12.3% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 19.8%), disability age 65 to 74 (25.5% compared to 21.7%, a difference of 17.6%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.5% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 17.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of ambulatory disability (6.5% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 0.18%), disability age over 75 (49.2% compared to 48.7%, a difference of 0.95%), and self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 1.5%).
Hawaiian vs Chinese Disability
Disability MetricHawaiianChinese
Disability
Tragic
12.5%
Tragic
12.2%
Males
Tragic
12.3%
Tragic
12.1%
Females
Tragic
12.7%
Fair
12.3%
Age | Under 5 years
Good
1.2%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Good
5.5%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
6.9%
Exceptional
6.3%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
12.3%
Exceptional
10.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
25.5%
Exceptional
21.7%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
49.2%
Tragic
48.7%
Vision
Tragic
2.3%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
3.5%
Tragic
3.7%
Cognitive
Tragic
17.6%
Exceptional
15.9%
Ambulatory
Tragic
6.5%
Tragic
6.5%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.6%
Tragic
2.6%