Immigrants from Jordan vs Immigrants from China Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 176,019,267 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from China within Immigrant from Jordan communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.192. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Jordan within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.109% in Immigrants from China. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Jordan corresponds to a decrease of 108.9 Immigrants from China.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Jordan and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($97,185 compared to $119,756, a difference of 23.2%), per capita income ($45,066 compared to $54,264, a difference of 20.4%), and median male earnings ($57,145 compared to $67,353, a difference of 17.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (26.3% compared to 26.7%, a difference of 1.5%), householder income over 65 years ($63,041 compared to $69,174, a difference of 9.7%), and householder income under 25 years ($51,370 compared to $57,931, a difference of 12.8%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Jordan and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (16.1% compared to 13.6%, a difference of 18.1%), child poverty under the age of 16 (15.6% compared to 13.3%, a difference of 17.3%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (15.8% compared to 13.6%, a difference of 16.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of male poverty (10.8% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 1.8%), poverty (11.9% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 1.9%), and female poverty (12.8% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 2.5%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Jordan and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (7.5% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 20.1%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.0% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 17.1%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (9.0% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 16.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.4% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 0.25%), female unemployment (5.1% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 0.41%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.3% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 0.85%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Jordan and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (36.9% compared to 31.1%, a difference of 18.6%), in labor force | age 20-24 (75.6% compared to 71.1%, a difference of 6.4%), and in labor force | age > 16 (66.1% compared to 65.4%, a difference of 1.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 45-54 (83.1% compared to 83.2%, a difference of 0.12%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.4% compared to 84.6%, a difference of 0.32%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (84.4% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 0.38%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Jordan and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (6.0% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 19.5%), single father households (2.2% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 18.9%), and births to unmarried women (29.0% compared to 24.7%, a difference of 17.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (65.0% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 0.48%), average family size (3.24 compared to 3.23, a difference of 0.52%), and currently married (47.4% compared to 47.9%, a difference of 1.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Jordan and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (8.7% compared to 15.2%, a difference of 75.2%), 2 or more vehicles in household (57.2% compared to 51.5%, a difference of 11.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.9% compared to 18.2%, a difference of 9.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.4% compared to 84.9%, a difference of 7.6%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.5% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 7.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.9% compared to 18.2%, a difference of 9.3%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Jordan and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (2.0% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 51.8%), professional degree (4.7% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 41.9%), and master's degree (16.1% compared to 21.2%, a difference of 31.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of ged/equivalency (86.8% compared to 86.9%, a difference of 0.17%), nursery school (98.0% compared to 97.5%, a difference of 0.53%), and kindergarten (98.0% compared to 97.4%, a difference of 0.53%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Jordan and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.4% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 19.4%), disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 0.96%, a difference of 17.6%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.3% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 16.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.2% compared to 46.3%, a difference of 0.25%), cognitive disability (17.0% compared to 16.9%, a difference of 0.36%), and self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 1.1%).