Hmong vs Chinese Community Comparison

COMPARE

Hmong
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/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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 IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYup'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

Hmong

Chinese

Average
Exceptional
4,737
SOCIAL INDEX
44.9/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
196th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,296
SOCIAL INDEX
90.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
23rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Chinese Integration in Hmong Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 18,636,399 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese within Hmong communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.221. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Hmong within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.175% in Chinese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Hmong corresponds to an increase of 175.4 Chinese.
Hmong Integration in Chinese Communities

Hmong vs Chinese Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Hmong and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($56,339 compared to $77,465, a difference of 37.5%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($88,115 compared to $116,156, a difference of 31.8%), and median household income ($75,839 compared to $98,496, a difference of 29.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.7% compared to 25.9%, a difference of 6.9%), median earnings ($42,111 compared to $48,836, a difference of 16.0%), and median female earnings ($35,498 compared to $41,461, a difference of 16.8%).
Hmong vs Chinese Income
Income MetricHmongChinese
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$38,120
Exceptional
$46,098
Median Family Income
Tragic
$91,296
Exceptional
$116,188
Median Household Income
Tragic
$75,839
Exceptional
$98,496
Median Earnings
Tragic
$42,111
Exceptional
$48,836
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$48,254
Exceptional
$56,872
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$35,498
Exceptional
$41,461
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$49,364
Exceptional
$58,162
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$84,258
Exceptional
$104,264
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$88,115
Exceptional
$116,156
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$56,339
Exceptional
$77,465
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.7%
Average
25.9%

Hmong vs Chinese Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Hmong and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 16 (17.1% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 43.3%), single female poverty (23.1% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 42.9%), and child poverty under the age of 5 (18.5% compared to 13.1%, a difference of 42.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.9% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 3.1%), receiving food stamps (10.9% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 11.6%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.0% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 24.1%).
Hmong vs Chinese Poverty
Poverty MetricHmongChinese
Poverty
Poor
12.8%
Exceptional
9.5%
Families
Average
9.1%
Exceptional
6.5%
Males
Poor
11.6%
Exceptional
8.7%
Females
Fair
13.9%
Exceptional
10.4%
Females 18 to 24 years
Average
20.0%
Exceptional
16.2%
Females 25 to 34 years
Fair
13.9%
Exceptional
11.0%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
18.5%
Exceptional
13.1%
Children Under 16 years
Poor
17.1%
Exceptional
11.9%
Boys Under 16 years
Fair
16.6%
Exceptional
11.9%
Girls Under 16 years
Poor
17.5%
Exceptional
12.3%
Single Males
Tragic
14.2%
Exceptional
11.0%
Single Females
Tragic
23.1%
Exceptional
16.1%
Single Fathers
Exceptional
15.9%
Exceptional
15.4%
Single Mothers
Tragic
31.2%
Exceptional
24.6%
Married Couples
Excellent
5.0%
Exceptional
3.6%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
10.4%
Exceptional
8.3%
Seniors Over 75 years
Good
12.0%
Exceptional
9.1%
Receiving Food Stamps
Excellent
10.9%
Exceptional
9.8%

Hmong vs Chinese Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Hmong and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (13.7% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 132.3%), unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.7% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 29.3%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (5.0% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 15.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (9.4% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 0.12%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.0% compared to 4.0%, a difference of 0.42%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.2% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 0.91%).
Hmong vs Chinese Unemployment
Unemployment MetricHmongChinese
Unemployment
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.7%
Males
Tragic
5.5%
Exceptional
4.9%
Females
Exceptional
4.4%
Exceptional
4.5%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
10.8%
Exceptional
10.7%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
16.3%
Exceptional
16.0%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.4%
Exceptional
9.4%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Exceptional
5.7%
Exceptional
6.1%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Exceptional
4.9%
Exceptional
5.1%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
5.0%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
3.7%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
5.7%
Exceptional
4.4%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.0%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Exceptional
4.4%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.2%
Exceptional
4.2%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
13.7%
Exceptional
5.9%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.7%
Exceptional
6.8%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.7%
Tragic
9.3%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
4.5%
Exceptional
4.9%

Hmong vs Chinese Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Hmong and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 20-64 (77.9% compared to 80.7%, a difference of 3.5%), in labor force | age 30-34 (82.4% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 3.1%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (82.6% compared to 85.1%, a difference of 3.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (38.7% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 0.30%), in labor force | age 25-29 (83.7% compared to 84.3%, a difference of 0.76%), and in labor force | age > 16 (64.1% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 0.90%).
Hmong vs Chinese Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricHmongChinese
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
64.1%
Tragic
64.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
77.9%
Exceptional
80.7%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.7%
Exceptional
38.6%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
76.5%
Exceptional
77.3%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
83.7%
Poor
84.3%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
82.4%
Excellent
85.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
82.6%
Exceptional
85.1%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
81.7%
Exceptional
84.1%

Hmong vs Chinese Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Hmong and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (6.4% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 23.6%), single father households (2.4% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 20.1%), and divorced or separated (12.3% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 10.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.21 compared to 3.34, a difference of 4.1%), family households (64.9% compared to 68.1%, a difference of 5.0%), and currently married (47.1% compared to 49.5%, a difference of 5.2%).
Hmong vs Chinese Family Structure
Family Structure MetricHmongChinese
Family Households
Exceptional
64.9%
Exceptional
68.1%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.6%
Tragic
26.0%
Married-couple Households
Good
47.0%
Exceptional
50.4%
Average Family Size
Fair
3.21
Exceptional
3.34
Single Father Households
Fair
2.4%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Fair
6.4%
Exceptional
5.2%
Currently Married
Good
47.1%
Exceptional
49.5%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
12.3%
Exceptional
11.2%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
27.7%
Excellent
30.2%

Hmong vs Chinese Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Hmong and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.0% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 26.8%), no vehicles in household (10.4% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 26.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.0% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 13.8%). 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 (57.8% compared to 60.1%, a difference of 3.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.0% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 13.8%).
Hmong vs Chinese Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricHmongChinese
No Vehicles Available
Average
10.4%
Exceptional
8.2%
1+ Vehicles Available
Average
89.6%
Exceptional
91.9%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
57.8%
Exceptional
60.1%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
21.0%
Exceptional
23.9%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.0%
Exceptional
8.8%

Hmong vs Chinese Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Hmong and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.9% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 32.2%), professional degree (3.7% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 19.1%), and doctorate degree (1.6% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 12.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (98.1% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.50%), 1st grade (98.0% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.50%), and nursery school (98.1% compared to 98.6%, a difference of 0.51%).
Hmong vs Chinese Education Level
Education Level MetricHmongChinese
No Schooling Completed
Excellent
1.9%
Exceptional
1.5%
Nursery School
Good
98.1%
Exceptional
98.6%
Kindergarten
Good
98.1%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Good
98.0%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Good
98.0%
Exceptional
98.5%
3rd Grade
Excellent
97.9%
Exceptional
98.4%
4th Grade
Excellent
97.7%
Exceptional
98.3%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.4%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Exceptional
97.1%
8th Grade
Excellent
96.1%
Exceptional
96.9%
9th Grade
Excellent
95.2%
Exceptional
96.3%
10th Grade
Excellent
94.1%
Exceptional
95.5%
11th Grade
Good
92.8%
Exceptional
94.6%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Average
91.3%
Exceptional
93.6%
High School Diploma
Average
89.1%
Exceptional
92.0%
GED/Equivalency
Poor
84.9%
Exceptional
89.0%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
63.5%
Exceptional
68.3%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
57.2%
Exceptional
62.2%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
43.4%
Exceptional
48.5%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
34.8%
Good
38.5%
Master's Degree
Tragic
13.4%
Fair
14.6%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.7%
Average
4.5%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.6%
Fair
1.8%

Hmong vs Chinese Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Hmong and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in disability age 5 to 17 (6.3% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 35.0%), disability age 35 to 64 (13.1% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 27.6%), and disability age 18 to 34 (8.1% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 27.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 0.87%), disability age over 75 (48.2% compared to 48.7%, a difference of 1.1%), and ambulatory disability (6.6% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 1.5%).
Hmong vs Chinese Disability
Disability MetricHmongChinese
Disability
Tragic
12.8%
Tragic
12.2%
Males
Tragic
12.5%
Tragic
12.1%
Females
Tragic
13.1%
Fair
12.3%
Age | Under 5 years
Exceptional
1.1%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
8.1%
Exceptional
6.3%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
13.1%
Exceptional
10.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
25.7%
Exceptional
21.7%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
48.2%
Tragic
48.7%
Vision
Tragic
2.3%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
3.4%
Tragic
3.7%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.4%
Exceptional
15.9%
Ambulatory
Tragic
6.6%
Tragic
6.5%
Self-Care
Excellent
2.4%
Tragic
2.6%