Immigrants from Brazil vs Immigrants from China Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 323,119,709 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from China within Immigrant from Brazil communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.137. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Brazil within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.065% in Immigrants from China. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Brazil corresponds to a decrease of 65.5 Immigrants from China.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Brazil and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($100,534 compared to $119,756, a difference of 19.1%), median household income ($90,907 compared to $105,335, a difference of 15.9%), and median male earnings ($58,324 compared to $67,353, a difference of 15.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.0% compared to 26.7%, a difference of 1.2%), householder income under 25 years ($54,487 compared to $57,931, a difference of 6.3%), and householder income over 65 years ($62,364 compared to $69,174, a difference of 10.9%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Brazil and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (16.0% compared to 13.6%, a difference of 17.4%), female poverty among 25-34 year olds (12.8% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 14.2%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (15.1% compared to 13.3%, a difference of 13.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple family poverty (5.0% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 0.0%), male poverty (10.6% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 0.46%), and poverty (11.7% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 0.70%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Brazil and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (7.5% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 20.3%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.0% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 16.6%), and unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.7% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 15.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.5% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 0.45%), unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.9% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 0.69%), and unemployment (5.2% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 0.86%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Brazil and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (37.1% compared to 31.1%, a difference of 19.2%), in labor force | age 20-24 (75.5% compared to 71.1%, a difference of 6.3%), and in labor force | age > 16 (66.7% compared to 65.4%, a difference of 2.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (85.5% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 0.11%), in labor force | age 35-44 (85.0% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 0.37%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.9% compared to 83.2%, a difference of 0.83%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Brazil and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (6.1% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 20.2%), births to unmarried women (29.6% compared to 24.7%, a difference of 20.1%), and divorced or separated (12.0% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 19.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (27.4% compared to 27.4%, a difference of 0.20%), average family size (3.18 compared to 3.23, a difference of 1.7%), and family households (63.6% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 1.8%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Brazil and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (10.8% compared to 15.2%, a difference of 40.7%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.2% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 15.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.1% compared to 18.2%, a difference of 6.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 2 or more vehicles in household (52.8% compared to 51.5%, a difference of 2.6%), 1 or more vehicles in household (89.6% compared to 84.9%, a difference of 5.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.1% compared to 18.2%, a difference of 6.4%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Brazil and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (2.2% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 40.1%), professional degree (5.3% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 26.7%), and no schooling completed (2.1% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 24.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of high school diploma (89.5% compared to 89.3%, a difference of 0.26%), 12th grade, no diploma (91.5% compared to 91.3%, a difference of 0.29%), and ged/equivalency (86.6% compared to 86.9%, a difference of 0.30%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Brazil and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.4% compared to 0.96%, a difference of 43.4%), disability age 5 to 17 (5.8% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 28.9%), and vision disability (2.2% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 21.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.3% compared to 46.3%, a difference of 0.010%), cognitive disability (17.0% compared to 16.9%, a difference of 0.58%), and self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 1.4%).