Icelander vs Chinese Community Comparison

COMPARE

Icelander
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/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianThaiTlingit-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

Icelanders

Chinese

Good
Exceptional
8,070
SOCIAL INDEX
78.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
89th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,296
SOCIAL INDEX
90.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
23rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Chinese Integration in Icelander Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 48,235,515 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese within Icelander communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.753. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Icelanders within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.021% in Chinese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Icelanders corresponds to an increase of 20.8 Chinese.
Icelander Integration in Chinese Communities

Icelander vs Chinese Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Icelander and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($61,270 compared to $77,465, a difference of 26.4%), median household income ($85,797 compared to $98,496, a difference of 14.8%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($102,261 compared to $116,156, a difference of 13.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of per capita income ($44,987 compared to $46,098, a difference of 2.5%), median male earnings ($55,415 compared to $56,872, a difference of 2.6%), and median earnings ($46,916 compared to $48,836, a difference of 4.1%).
Icelander vs Chinese Income
Income MetricIcelanderChinese
Per Capita Income
Excellent
$44,987
Exceptional
$46,098
Median Family Income
Good
$104,282
Exceptional
$116,188
Median Household Income
Good
$85,797
Exceptional
$98,496
Median Earnings
Good
$46,916
Exceptional
$48,836
Median Male Earnings
Good
$55,415
Exceptional
$56,872
Median Female Earnings
Fair
$39,109
Exceptional
$41,461
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$51,247
Exceptional
$58,162
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Good
$95,560
Exceptional
$104,264
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Good
$102,261
Exceptional
$116,156
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Average
$61,270
Exceptional
$77,465
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.5%
Average
25.9%

Icelander vs Chinese Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Icelander and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in single female poverty (21.6% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 33.8%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (21.5% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 33.1%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (15.5% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 31.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (14.5% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 5.9%), receiving food stamps (10.5% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 7.4%), and single male poverty (12.5% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 13.4%).
Icelander vs Chinese Poverty
Poverty MetricIcelanderChinese
Poverty
Good
11.9%
Exceptional
9.5%
Families
Exceptional
8.3%
Exceptional
6.5%
Males
Good
11.0%
Exceptional
8.7%
Females
Excellent
13.0%
Exceptional
10.4%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
21.5%
Exceptional
16.2%
Females 25 to 34 years
Good
13.3%
Exceptional
11.0%
Children Under 5 years
Excellent
16.3%
Exceptional
13.1%
Children Under 16 years
Excellent
15.4%
Exceptional
11.9%
Boys Under 16 years
Excellent
15.5%
Exceptional
11.9%
Girls Under 16 years
Excellent
15.7%
Exceptional
12.3%
Single Males
Excellent
12.5%
Exceptional
11.0%
Single Females
Poor
21.6%
Exceptional
16.1%
Single Fathers
Exceptional
14.5%
Exceptional
15.4%
Single Mothers
Fair
29.5%
Exceptional
24.6%
Married Couples
Exceptional
4.5%
Exceptional
3.6%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
10.3%
Exceptional
8.3%
Seniors Over 75 years
Excellent
11.7%
Exceptional
9.1%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
10.5%
Exceptional
9.8%

Icelander vs Chinese Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Icelander and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.2% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 22.8%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.4% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 22.5%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.0% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 19.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.9% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 0.78%), male unemployment (5.0% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 1.8%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.4% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 2.5%).
Icelander vs Chinese Unemployment
Unemployment MetricIcelanderChinese
Unemployment
Exceptional
4.9%
Exceptional
4.7%
Males
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.9%
Females
Exceptional
4.9%
Exceptional
4.5%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.2%
Exceptional
10.7%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
17.0%
Exceptional
16.0%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.9%
Exceptional
9.4%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Exceptional
6.3%
Exceptional
6.1%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Excellent
5.3%
Exceptional
5.1%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Exceptional
4.4%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.4%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Excellent
4.7%
Exceptional
4.4%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.7%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Poor
5.4%
Exceptional
4.4%
Seniors > 65
Average
5.2%
Exceptional
4.2%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.0%
Exceptional
5.9%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.9%
Exceptional
6.8%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.1%
Tragic
9.3%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
5.1%
Exceptional
4.9%

Icelander vs Chinese Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Icelander and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (40.8% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 5.6%), in labor force | age 45-54 (82.8% compared to 84.1%, a difference of 1.7%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.6% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 1.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (84.7% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 0.33%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.8% compared to 84.3%, a difference of 0.50%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (76.9% compared to 77.3%, a difference of 0.51%).
Icelander vs Chinese Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricIcelanderChinese
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Exceptional
65.6%
Tragic
64.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Good
79.7%
Exceptional
80.7%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
40.8%
Exceptional
38.6%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
76.9%
Exceptional
77.3%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Good
84.8%
Poor
84.3%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Average
84.7%
Excellent
85.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
84.0%
Exceptional
85.1%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Average
82.8%
Exceptional
84.1%

Icelander vs Chinese Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Icelander and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.3% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 17.4%), single mother households (6.0% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 15.9%), and family households (63.3% compared to 68.1%, a difference of 7.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of births to unmarried women (30.3% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 0.24%), currently married (47.3% compared to 49.5%, a difference of 4.7%), and average family size (3.19 compared to 3.34, a difference of 4.9%).
Icelander vs Chinese Family Structure
Family Structure MetricIcelanderChinese
Family Households
Tragic
63.3%
Exceptional
68.1%
Family Households with Children
Good
27.6%
Tragic
26.0%
Married-couple Households
Good
47.0%
Exceptional
50.4%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.19
Exceptional
3.34
Single Father Households
Good
2.3%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Excellent
6.0%
Exceptional
5.2%
Currently Married
Excellent
47.3%
Exceptional
49.5%
Divorced or Separated
Good
12.0%
Exceptional
11.2%
Births to Unmarried Women
Excellent
30.3%
Excellent
30.2%

Icelander vs Chinese Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Icelander and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 19.8%), no vehicles in household (9.6% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 17.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.5% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 11.0%). 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 (58.0% compared to 60.1%, a difference of 3.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.5% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 11.0%).
Icelander vs Chinese Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricIcelanderChinese
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
9.6%
Exceptional
8.2%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
90.5%
Exceptional
91.9%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
58.0%
Exceptional
60.1%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
21.5%
Exceptional
23.9%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.4%
Exceptional
8.8%

Icelander vs Chinese Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Icelander and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 18.4%), doctorate degree (2.1% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 16.3%), and professional degree (4.8% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 7.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of college, under 1 year (68.3% compared to 68.3%, a difference of 0.090%), college, 1 year or more (62.1% compared to 62.2%, a difference of 0.17%), and nursery school (98.3% compared to 98.6%, a difference of 0.23%).
Icelander vs Chinese Education Level
Education Level MetricIcelanderChinese
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.7%
Exceptional
1.5%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.6%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.5%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
98.4%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Exceptional
98.3%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.8%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.7%
Exceptional
97.1%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.5%
Exceptional
96.9%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.7%
Exceptional
96.3%
10th Grade
Exceptional
94.7%
Exceptional
95.5%
11th Grade
Exceptional
93.6%
Exceptional
94.6%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
92.3%
Exceptional
93.6%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
90.5%
Exceptional
92.0%
GED/Equivalency
Exceptional
87.1%
Exceptional
89.0%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
68.3%
Exceptional
68.3%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
62.1%
Exceptional
62.2%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
48.3%
Exceptional
48.5%
Bachelor's Degree
Excellent
39.5%
Good
38.5%
Master's Degree
Good
15.5%
Fair
14.6%
Professional Degree
Exceptional
4.8%
Average
4.5%
Doctorate Degree
Exceptional
2.1%
Fair
1.8%

Icelander vs Chinese Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Icelander and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in disability age 5 to 17 (5.7% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 21.9%), hearing disability (3.2% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 15.0%), and disability age 18 to 34 (7.1% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 12.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female disability (12.0% compared to 12.3%, a difference of 2.6%), disability (11.8% compared to 12.2%, a difference of 3.5%), and disability age over 75 (46.7% compared to 48.7%, a difference of 4.3%).
Icelander vs Chinese Disability
Disability MetricIcelanderChinese
Disability
Fair
11.8%
Tragic
12.2%
Males
Poor
11.6%
Tragic
12.1%
Females
Excellent
12.0%
Fair
12.3%
Age | Under 5 years
Good
1.2%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Poor
5.7%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
7.1%
Exceptional
6.3%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Fair
11.4%
Exceptional
10.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Average
23.3%
Exceptional
21.7%
Age | Over 75 years
Exceptional
46.7%
Tragic
48.7%
Vision
Good
2.1%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
3.2%
Tragic
3.7%
Cognitive
Tragic
17.6%
Exceptional
15.9%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.9%
Tragic
6.5%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.4%
Tragic
2.6%