Bhutanese vs Chinese Community Comparison

COMPARE

Bhutanese
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/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta 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 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

Bhutanese

Chinese

Exceptional
Exceptional
10,144
SOCIAL INDEX
98.9/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
3rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,296
SOCIAL INDEX
90.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
23rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Chinese Integration in Bhutanese Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 63,722,313 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese within Bhutanese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.698. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Bhutanese within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.033% in Chinese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Bhutanese corresponds to an increase of 33.1 Chinese.
Bhutanese Integration in Chinese Communities

Bhutanese vs Chinese Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Bhutanese and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in median male earnings ($61,759 compared to $56,872, a difference of 8.6%), per capita income ($49,894 compared to $46,098, a difference of 8.2%), and householder income over 65 years ($72,288 compared to $77,465, a difference of 7.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($117,750 compared to $116,156, a difference of 1.4%), median household income ($100,151 compared to $98,496, a difference of 1.7%), and householder income under 25 years ($57,078 compared to $58,162, a difference of 1.9%).
Bhutanese vs Chinese Income
Income MetricBhutaneseChinese
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$49,894
Exceptional
$46,098
Median Family Income
Exceptional
$119,800
Exceptional
$116,188
Median Household Income
Exceptional
$100,151
Exceptional
$98,496
Median Earnings
Exceptional
$52,297
Exceptional
$48,836
Median Male Earnings
Exceptional
$61,759
Exceptional
$56,872
Median Female Earnings
Exceptional
$43,648
Exceptional
$41,461
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Exceptional
$57,078
Exceptional
$58,162
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Exceptional
$109,520
Exceptional
$104,264
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Exceptional
$117,750
Exceptional
$116,156
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Exceptional
$72,288
Exceptional
$77,465
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.0%
Average
25.9%

Bhutanese vs Chinese Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Bhutanese and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.6% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 16.7%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (18.2% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 12.6%), and married-couple family poverty (4.1% compared to 3.6%, a difference of 12.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single male poverty (11.1% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 0.81%), child poverty under the age of 5 (13.4% compared to 13.1%, a difference of 2.3%), and single father poverty (15.0% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 2.9%).
Bhutanese vs Chinese Poverty
Poverty MetricBhutaneseChinese
Poverty
Exceptional
10.4%
Exceptional
9.5%
Families
Exceptional
7.0%
Exceptional
6.5%
Males
Exceptional
9.5%
Exceptional
8.7%
Females
Exceptional
11.3%
Exceptional
10.4%
Females 18 to 24 years
Exceptional
18.2%
Exceptional
16.2%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
11.4%
Exceptional
11.0%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
13.4%
Exceptional
13.1%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
12.5%
Exceptional
11.9%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
12.6%
Exceptional
11.9%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
12.7%
Exceptional
12.3%
Single Males
Exceptional
11.1%
Exceptional
11.0%
Single Females
Exceptional
17.7%
Exceptional
16.1%
Single Fathers
Exceptional
15.0%
Exceptional
15.4%
Single Mothers
Exceptional
25.6%
Exceptional
24.6%
Married Couples
Exceptional
4.1%
Exceptional
3.6%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
9.3%
Exceptional
8.3%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
10.6%
Exceptional
9.1%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
9.2%
Exceptional
9.8%

Bhutanese vs Chinese Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Bhutanese and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.0% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 36.2%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.8% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 15.0%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.1% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 14.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of male unemployment (4.9% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 0.55%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.0% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 1.2%), and unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.7% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 1.3%).
Bhutanese vs Chinese Unemployment
Unemployment MetricBhutaneseChinese
Unemployment
Exceptional
4.9%
Exceptional
4.7%
Males
Exceptional
4.9%
Exceptional
4.9%
Females
Exceptional
4.9%
Exceptional
4.5%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.2%
Exceptional
10.7%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
16.4%
Exceptional
16.0%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
10.0%
Exceptional
9.4%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Exceptional
6.2%
Exceptional
6.1%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Exceptional
5.2%
Exceptional
5.1%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Exceptional
4.4%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Exceptional
4.6%
Exceptional
4.4%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.5%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.4%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.8%
Exceptional
4.2%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
8.0%
Exceptional
5.9%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.7%
Exceptional
6.8%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.1%
Tragic
9.3%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.9%

Bhutanese vs Chinese Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Bhutanese and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (36.3% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 6.4%), in labor force | age 20-24 (75.4% compared to 77.3%, a difference of 2.4%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.5% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 1.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (85.0% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 0.040%), in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 85.1%, a difference of 0.48%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (80.2% compared to 80.7%, a difference of 0.54%).
Bhutanese vs Chinese Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricBhutaneseChinese
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Excellent
65.5%
Tragic
64.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Exceptional
80.2%
Exceptional
80.7%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Fair
36.3%
Exceptional
38.6%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Excellent
75.4%
Exceptional
77.3%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Good
84.8%
Poor
84.3%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Excellent
85.0%
Excellent
85.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Excellent
84.7%
Exceptional
85.1%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Exceptional
83.5%
Exceptional
84.1%

Bhutanese vs Chinese Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Bhutanese and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (27.9% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 8.5%), single father households (2.1% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 7.1%), and family households with children (27.3% compared to 26.0%, a difference of 4.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of divorced or separated (11.2% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 0.060%), currently married (48.6% compared to 49.5%, a difference of 1.8%), and married-couple households (49.3% compared to 50.4%, a difference of 2.2%).
Bhutanese vs Chinese Family Structure
Family Structure MetricBhutaneseChinese
Family Households
Exceptional
65.9%
Exceptional
68.1%
Family Households with Children
Fair
27.3%
Tragic
26.0%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
49.3%
Exceptional
50.4%
Average Family Size
Excellent
3.25
Exceptional
3.34
Single Father Households
Exceptional
2.1%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Exceptional
5.3%
Exceptional
5.2%
Currently Married
Exceptional
48.6%
Exceptional
49.5%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
11.2%
Exceptional
11.2%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
27.9%
Excellent
30.2%

Bhutanese vs Chinese Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Bhutanese and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.8% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 13.5%), 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 7.3%), and no vehicles in household (8.7% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 6.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.4% compared to 91.9%, a difference of 0.53%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.1% compared to 60.1%, a difference of 1.7%), and no vehicles in household (8.7% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 6.0%).
Bhutanese vs Chinese Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricBhutaneseChinese
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
8.7%
Exceptional
8.2%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
91.4%
Exceptional
91.9%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.1%
Exceptional
60.1%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
22.2%
Exceptional
23.9%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.8%
Exceptional
8.8%

Bhutanese vs Chinese Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Bhutanese and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (2.3% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 31.5%), no schooling completed (1.8% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 22.3%), and professional degree (5.4% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 21.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.2% compared to 98.6%, a difference of 0.32%), kindergarten (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.32%), and 1st grade (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.33%).
Bhutanese vs Chinese Education Level
Education Level MetricBhutaneseChinese
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.8%
Exceptional
1.5%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.6%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
98.5%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
98.4%
4th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Exceptional
98.3%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.7%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.5%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.6%
Exceptional
97.1%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Exceptional
96.9%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.7%
Exceptional
96.3%
10th Grade
Exceptional
94.9%
Exceptional
95.5%
11th Grade
Exceptional
94.0%
Exceptional
94.6%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
93.0%
Exceptional
93.6%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
91.2%
Exceptional
92.0%
GED/Equivalency
Exceptional
88.4%
Exceptional
89.0%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
70.3%
Exceptional
68.3%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
64.6%
Exceptional
62.2%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
51.4%
Exceptional
48.5%
Bachelor's Degree
Exceptional
42.7%
Good
38.5%
Master's Degree
Exceptional
17.2%
Fair
14.6%
Professional Degree
Exceptional
5.4%
Average
4.5%
Doctorate Degree
Exceptional
2.3%
Fair
1.8%

Bhutanese vs Chinese Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Bhutanese and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (3.2% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 14.7%), ambulatory disability (5.8% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 12.6%), and male disability (11.0% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 10.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 65 to 74 (21.5% compared to 21.7%, a difference of 0.99%), disability age 18 to 34 (6.2% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 1.5%), and disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 2.6%).
Bhutanese vs Chinese Disability
Disability MetricBhutaneseChinese
Disability
Exceptional
11.2%
Tragic
12.2%
Males
Excellent
11.0%
Tragic
12.1%
Females
Exceptional
11.5%
Fair
12.3%
Age | Under 5 years
Exceptional
1.2%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Exceptional
4.9%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Exceptional
6.2%
Exceptional
6.3%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
9.8%
Exceptional
10.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
21.5%
Exceptional
21.7%
Age | Over 75 years
Good
47.1%
Tragic
48.7%
Vision
Exceptional
2.0%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
3.2%
Tragic
3.7%
Cognitive
Exceptional
16.6%
Exceptional
15.9%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.8%
Tragic
6.5%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.4%
Tragic
2.6%