Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar vs French Canadian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 167,289,464 people shows no correlation between the proportion of French Canadians within Immigrant from Burma/Myanmar communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.019. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.002% in French Canadians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar corresponds to an increase of 1.9 French Canadians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (22.8% compared to 28.1%, a difference of 22.9%), median male earnings ($50,298 compared to $54,722, a difference of 8.8%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($91,385 compared to $99,093, a difference of 8.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median female earnings ($38,028 compared to $38,436, a difference of 1.1%), householder income over 65 years ($57,114 compared to $57,975, a difference of 1.5%), and median earnings ($43,998 compared to $46,026, a difference of 4.6%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (6.0% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 41.7%), family poverty (10.5% compared to 8.1%, a difference of 29.4%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (19.4% compared to 15.6%, a difference of 24.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single mother poverty (30.6% compared to 30.8%, a difference of 0.79%), single female poverty (22.6% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 1.8%), and seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.1% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 5.6%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.7% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 44.8%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (7.5% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 37.1%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.8% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 17.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.4% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 0.73%), male unemployment (5.2% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 1.2%), and unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.4% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 2.3%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (39.0% compared to 43.6%, a difference of 11.6%), in labor force | age > 16 (66.3% compared to 64.0%, a difference of 3.6%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (76.3% compared to 78.1%, a difference of 2.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (84.7% compared to 84.8%, a difference of 0.11%), in labor force | age 35-44 (84.0% compared to 84.3%, a difference of 0.41%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (82.0% compared to 82.5%, a difference of 0.50%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (7.0% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 16.7%), married-couple households (43.4% compared to 47.5%, a difference of 9.5%), and currently married (44.3% compared to 48.0%, a difference of 8.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father households (2.4% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 1.6%), family households (62.6% compared to 63.7%, a difference of 1.8%), and births to unmarried women (32.9% compared to 34.4%, a difference of 4.6%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (10.4% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 32.8%), 3 or more vehicles in household (18.8% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 9.4%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (53.9% compared to 58.9%, a difference of 9.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (89.7% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 2.9%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.2% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 5.8%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (53.9% compared to 58.9%, a difference of 9.1%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (3.1% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 109.6%), high school diploma (86.7% compared to 90.9%, a difference of 4.8%), and ged/equivalency (83.0% compared to 86.9%, a difference of 4.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of bachelor's degree (35.5% compared to 35.6%, a difference of 0.35%), professional degree (3.9% compared to 4.0%, a difference of 1.7%), and nursery school (96.9% compared to 98.6%, a difference of 1.8%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar and French Canadian communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 66.6%), hearing disability (2.9% compared to 3.8%, a difference of 29.8%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.6% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 20.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 65 to 74 (24.0% compared to 23.7%, a difference of 1.3%), disability age over 75 (47.9% compared to 47.0%, a difference of 1.9%), and self-care disability (2.5% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 4.0%).