Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Chinese Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 50,544,669 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese within Immigrant from Czechoslovakia communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.723. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Czechoslovakia within a typical geography, there is an increase of 2.520% in Chinese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Czechoslovakia corresponds to an increase of 2,520.2 Chinese.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($66,376 compared to $77,465, a difference of 16.7%), per capita income ($51,770 compared to $46,098, a difference of 12.3%), and median male earnings ($62,217 compared to $56,872, a difference of 9.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median family income ($116,165 compared to $116,188, a difference of 0.020%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($106,888 compared to $104,264, a difference of 2.5%), and median household income ($95,319 compared to $98,496, a difference of 3.3%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.7% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 29.2%), married-couple family poverty (4.6% compared to 3.6%, a difference of 25.7%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (14.4% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 21.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of receiving food stamps (9.6% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 1.3%), single father poverty (16.2% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 5.2%), and single male poverty (12.1% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 10.0%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.4% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 42.7%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.9% compared to 4.0%, a difference of 22.7%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.1% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 21.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.0% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 2.5%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.3% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 2.9%), and unemployment among women with children under 6 years (7.0% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 3.5%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (36.6% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 5.6%), in labor force | age 20-24 (75.0% compared to 77.3%, a difference of 3.0%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (85.4% compared to 84.3%, a difference of 1.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age > 16 (64.8% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 0.16%), in labor force | age 35-44 (84.8% compared to 85.1%, a difference of 0.33%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (85.4% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 0.42%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in family households (63.4% compared to 68.1%, a difference of 7.4%), births to unmarried women (28.4% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 6.5%), and average family size (3.14 compared to 3.34, a difference of 6.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (26.2% compared to 26.0%, a difference of 0.82%), currently married (48.4% compared to 49.5%, a difference of 2.4%), and single mother households (5.3% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 3.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (5.8% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 53.1%), no vehicles in household (11.8% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 43.3%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.5% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 29.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.3% compared to 91.9%, a difference of 4.0%), 2 or more vehicles in household (54.1% compared to 60.1%, a difference of 11.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.5% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 29.2%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (2.4% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 33.9%), professional degree (5.8% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 30.4%), and master's degree (18.5% compared to 14.6%, a difference of 27.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.2% compared to 98.6%, a difference of 0.34%), kindergarten (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.34%), and 1st grade (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.34%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (3.1% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 18.2%), ambulatory disability (5.8% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 11.4%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.2% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 10.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 18 to 34 (6.3% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 0.37%), vision disability (2.0% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 1.4%), and cognitive disability (16.2% compared to 15.9%, a difference of 1.8%).