Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Iroquois Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 133,915,992 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Iroquois within Immigrant from Hong Kong communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.096. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Hong Kong within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.011% in Iroquois. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Hong Kong corresponds to an increase of 10.9 Iroquois.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($128,140 compared to $83,682, a difference of 53.1%), median household income ($111,519 compared to $74,279, a difference of 50.1%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($127,500 compared to $87,255, a difference of 46.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.5% compared to 25.1%, a difference of 1.8%), householder income under 25 years ($62,083 compared to $47,380, a difference of 31.0%), and householder income over 65 years ($71,567 compared to $53,737, a difference of 33.2%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (12.4% compared to 22.0%, a difference of 77.0%), female poverty among 25-34 year olds (10.4% compared to 17.5%, a difference of 68.3%), and child poverty among girls under 16 (12.3% compared to 20.4%, a difference of 65.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.1% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 7.7%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.8% compared to 14.0%, a difference of 9.0%), and married-couple family poverty (4.7% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 16.6%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (5.8% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 51.1%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (7.2% compared to 9.2%, a difference of 28.2%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.6% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 22.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.4% compared to 17.6%, a difference of 1.3%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.3% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 2.6%), and unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.6% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 3.2%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (30.5% compared to 39.9%, a difference of 31.1%), in labor force | age 20-24 (71.6% compared to 75.6%, a difference of 5.6%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (85.8% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 4.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (85.0% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 1.5%), in labor force | age 35-44 (85.2% compared to 83.5%, a difference of 2.1%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.6% compared to 80.6%, a difference of 3.7%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (23.6% compared to 38.2%, a difference of 62.1%), single mother households (4.8% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 44.0%), and single father households (1.8% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 42.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.26 compared to 3.16, a difference of 3.2%), family households with children (27.5% compared to 26.1%, a difference of 5.7%), and family households (66.1% compared to 62.2%, a difference of 6.3%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in 2 or more vehicles in household (52.6% compared to 54.7%, a difference of 4.0%), no vehicles in household (11.3% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 3.3%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.2% compared to 19.4%, a difference of 1.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4 or more vehicles in household (6.5% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 0.22%), 1 or more vehicles in household (88.7% compared to 89.2%, a difference of 0.52%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.2% compared to 19.4%, a difference of 1.5%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (2.8% compared to 1.6%, a difference of 73.7%), professional degree (6.4% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 73.4%), and master's degree (20.5% compared to 12.9%, a difference of 58.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of high school diploma (89.3% compared to 89.2%, a difference of 0.050%), 12th grade, no diploma (91.3% compared to 91.1%, a difference of 0.19%), and 11th grade (92.2% compared to 92.8%, a difference of 0.62%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (8.2% compared to 14.4%, a difference of 75.0%), disability age 5 to 17 (4.3% compared to 6.9%, a difference of 60.3%), and disability age under 5 (0.95% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 53.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.5% compared to 48.4%, a difference of 4.2%), self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.7%, a difference of 12.5%), and cognitive disability (16.0% compared to 18.2%, a difference of 13.5%).