Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Community Comparison

COMPARE

Tsimshian
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianComancheCosta 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 SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin 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
Immigrants from Hong Kong
Race
Ancestry
AfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAustralianAustrianBangladeshiBasqueBelgianBelizeanBhutaneseBlackfeetBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCanadianCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanHaitianHonduranHopiHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)InupiatIranianIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseKenyanKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLuxembourgerMalaysianMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPanamanianPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSerbianShoshoneSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSpaniardSpanishSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianThaiTlingit-HaidaTonganTurkishUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfricaArgentinaAsiaAustraliaBangladeshBelarusBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEthiopiaEuropeFranceGermanyGhanaGuatemalaGuyanaHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIrelandItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandRomaniaRussiaSerbiaSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandTaiwanThailandUkraineUruguayVenezuelaVietnamWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeZimbabwe
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Tsimshian

Immigrants from Hong Kong

Average
Good
4,927
SOCIAL INDEX
46.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
189th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
7,848
SOCIAL INDEX
76.0/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
102nd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Immigrants from Hong Kong Integration in Tsimshian Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 13,959,594 people shows a very strong negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Hong Kong within Tsimshian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.814. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Tsimshian within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.077% in Immigrants from Hong Kong. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Tsimshian corresponds to a decrease of 77.2 Immigrants from Hong Kong.
Tsimshian Integration in Immigrants from Hong Kong Communities

Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Tsimshian and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in median male earnings ($48,836 compared to $70,146, a difference of 43.6%), per capita income ($40,344 compared to $56,709, a difference of 40.6%), and median earnings ($43,695 compared to $59,433, a difference of 36.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (23.9% compared to 25.5%, a difference of 6.9%), householder income under 25 years ($54,649 compared to $62,083, a difference of 13.6%), and householder income over 65 years ($58,202 compared to $71,567, a difference of 23.0%).
Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Income
Income MetricTsimshianImmigrants from Hong Kong
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$40,344
Exceptional
$56,709
Median Family Income
Fair
$101,543
Exceptional
$131,067
Median Household Income
Fair
$83,346
Exceptional
$111,519
Median Earnings
Tragic
$43,695
Exceptional
$59,433
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$48,836
Exceptional
$70,146
Median Female Earnings
Average
$39,530
Exceptional
$49,818
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Exceptional
$54,649
Exceptional
$62,083
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Excellent
$97,809
Exceptional
$128,140
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Poor
$96,783
Exceptional
$127,500
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$58,202
Exceptional
$71,567
Wage/Income Gap
Exceptional
23.9%
Good
25.5%

Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Tsimshian and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in receiving food stamps (15.7% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 73.0%), child poverty among boys under 16 (16.4% compared to 12.3%, a difference of 34.0%), and male poverty (12.8% compared to 9.6%, a difference of 33.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.8% compared to 11.1%, a difference of 2.6%), single male poverty (11.1% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 6.1%), and child poverty among girls under 16 (11.5% compared to 12.3%, a difference of 7.4%).
Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Poverty
Poverty MetricTsimshianImmigrants from Hong Kong
Poverty
Tragic
13.0%
Exceptional
10.4%
Families
Good
8.8%
Exceptional
7.3%
Males
Tragic
12.8%
Exceptional
9.6%
Females
Good
13.1%
Exceptional
11.2%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
21.2%
Exceptional
17.5%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
12.7%
Exceptional
10.4%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
14.7%
Exceptional
12.4%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.1%
Exceptional
12.1%
Boys Under 16 years
Average
16.4%
Exceptional
12.3%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
11.5%
Exceptional
12.3%
Single Males
Exceptional
11.1%
Exceptional
10.4%
Single Females
Exceptional
19.1%
Exceptional
16.5%
Single Fathers
Exceptional
12.7%
Exceptional
14.2%
Single Mothers
Exceptional
26.8%
Exceptional
24.4%
Married Couples
Tragic
5.9%
Exceptional
4.7%
Seniors Over 65 years
Good
10.8%
Fair
11.1%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
16.1%
Tragic
12.8%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
15.7%
Exceptional
9.1%

Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Tsimshian and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (13.8% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 173.1%), unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (18.0% compared to 10.5%, a difference of 72.0%), and male unemployment (8.5% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 61.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.3% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 0.41%), unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.5% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 1.5%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.2% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 2.8%).
Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Unemployment
Unemployment MetricTsimshianImmigrants from Hong Kong
Unemployment
Tragic
7.2%
Good
5.2%
Males
Tragic
8.5%
Good
5.2%
Females
Fair
5.4%
Excellent
5.1%
Youth < 25
Tragic
16.5%
Average
11.6%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Good
17.3%
Good
17.4%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
18.0%
Poor
10.5%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
8.0%
Exceptional
6.3%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
13.8%
Exceptional
5.0%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
6.2%
Exceptional
4.4%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Good
4.5%
Average
4.5%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
5.2%
Tragic
5.0%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.4%
Tragic
5.2%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
4.6%
Excellent
5.3%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.5%
Good
5.1%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
10.5%
Exceptional
7.6%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.6%
Exceptional
5.8%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
11.4%
Exceptional
7.2%
Women w/ Children < 18
Poor
5.6%
Exceptional
4.7%

Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Tsimshian and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (37.4% compared to 30.5%, a difference of 22.6%), in labor force | age 45-54 (77.4% compared to 83.6%, a difference of 8.0%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (88.7% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 4.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (85.8% compared to 85.8%, a difference of 0.040%), in labor force | age 20-24 (72.3% compared to 71.6%, a difference of 0.91%), and in labor force | age > 16 (64.5% compared to 65.7%, a difference of 1.9%).
Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricTsimshianImmigrants from Hong Kong
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
64.5%
Exceptional
65.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
78.7%
Exceptional
80.4%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Excellent
37.4%
Tragic
30.5%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Tragic
72.3%
Tragic
71.6%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Exceptional
88.7%
Exceptional
85.0%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Exceptional
85.8%
Exceptional
85.8%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
83.5%
Exceptional
85.2%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
77.4%
Exceptional
83.6%

Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Tsimshian and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (42.2% compared to 23.6%, a difference of 78.8%), single father households (2.9% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 57.8%), and divorced or separated (13.3% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 33.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.25 compared to 3.26, a difference of 0.30%), family households (67.1% compared to 66.1%, a difference of 1.4%), and family households with children (27.0% compared to 27.5%, a difference of 1.8%).
Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Family Structure
Family Structure MetricTsimshianImmigrants from Hong Kong
Family Households
Exceptional
67.1%
Exceptional
66.1%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
27.0%
Good
27.5%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
48.7%
Exceptional
49.6%
Average Family Size
Excellent
3.25
Excellent
3.26
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.9%
Exceptional
1.8%
Single Mother Households
Excellent
6.0%
Exceptional
4.8%
Currently Married
Exceptional
47.7%
Exceptional
48.9%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
13.3%
Exceptional
10.0%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
42.2%
Exceptional
23.6%

Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Tsimshian and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (8.6% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 31.6%), 2 or more vehicles in household (56.7% compared to 52.6%, a difference of 7.8%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (6.2% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 5.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (19.1% compared to 19.2%, a difference of 0.39%), 1 or more vehicles in household (91.4% compared to 88.7%, a difference of 3.0%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (6.2% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 5.1%).
Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricTsimshianImmigrants from Hong Kong
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
8.6%
Tragic
11.3%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
91.4%
Tragic
88.7%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
56.7%
Tragic
52.6%
3+ Vehicles Available
Fair
19.1%
Fair
19.2%
4+ Vehicles Available
Fair
6.2%
Good
6.5%

Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Tsimshian and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.2% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 101.5%), doctorate degree (1.4% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 97.4%), and master's degree (11.4% compared to 20.5%, a difference of 79.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of ged/equivalency (86.6% compared to 86.9%, a difference of 0.35%), nursery school (98.9% compared to 97.4%, a difference of 1.5%), and kindergarten (98.8% compared to 97.3%, a difference of 1.6%).
Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Education Level
Education Level MetricTsimshianImmigrants from Hong Kong
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.7%
Tragic
2.7%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.9%
Tragic
97.4%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.8%
Tragic
97.3%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.8%
Tragic
97.3%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.8%
Tragic
97.2%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.8%
Tragic
97.1%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.6%
Tragic
96.9%
5th Grade
Exceptional
98.4%
Tragic
96.7%
6th Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Tragic
96.3%
7th Grade
Exceptional
97.8%
Tragic
95.2%
8th Grade
Exceptional
99.0%
Tragic
94.9%
9th Grade
Exceptional
97.0%
Tragic
94.1%
10th Grade
Exceptional
95.6%
Tragic
93.1%
11th Grade
Exceptional
94.4%
Fair
92.2%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
92.9%
Good
91.3%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
91.3%
Average
89.3%
GED/Equivalency
Excellent
86.6%
Exceptional
86.9%
College, Under 1 year
Poor
64.3%
Exceptional
71.0%
College, 1 year or more
Poor
57.9%
Exceptional
66.4%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
38.6%
Exceptional
55.4%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
28.8%
Exceptional
48.2%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.4%
Exceptional
20.5%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.2%
Exceptional
6.4%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.4%
Exceptional
2.8%

Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Tsimshian and Immigrants from Hong Kong communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (2.4% compared to 0.95%, a difference of 154.5%), disability age 35 to 64 (16.7% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 104.0%), and disability age 5 to 17 (7.9% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 84.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (17.3% compared to 16.0%, a difference of 7.9%), self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 10.2%), and disability age over 75 (59.2% compared to 46.5%, a difference of 27.4%).
Tsimshian vs Immigrants from Hong Kong Disability
Disability MetricTsimshianImmigrants from Hong Kong
Disability
Tragic
16.1%
Exceptional
10.0%
Males
Tragic
15.6%
Exceptional
9.4%
Females
Tragic
16.8%
Exceptional
10.6%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
2.4%
Exceptional
0.95%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
7.9%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
7.4%
Exceptional
5.2%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.7%
Exceptional
8.2%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
32.9%
Exceptional
19.9%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
59.2%
Exceptional
46.5%
Vision
Tragic
3.2%
Exceptional
1.8%
Hearing
Tragic
4.7%
Exceptional
2.7%
Cognitive
Average
17.3%
Exceptional
16.0%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.8%
Exceptional
5.3%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.6%
Exceptional
2.4%