Chinese vs Hawaiian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 60,800,748 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Hawaiians within Chinese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.343. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chinese within a typical geography, there is an increase of 1.091% in Hawaiians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chinese corresponds to an increase of 1,091.3 Hawaiians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chinese and Hawaiian communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($77,465 compared to $64,920, a difference of 19.3%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($116,156 compared to $98,778, a difference of 17.6%), and median family income ($116,188 compared to $98,869, a difference of 17.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.9% compared to 24.9%, a difference of 4.1%), householder income under 25 years ($58,162 compared to $53,078, a difference of 9.6%), and median female earnings ($41,461 compared to $37,497, a difference of 10.6%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chinese and Hawaiian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (3.6% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 41.0%), child poverty among boys under 16 (11.9% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 39.2%), and family poverty (6.5% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 38.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.4% compared to 15.1%, a difference of 2.1%), single male poverty (11.0% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 14.8%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (16.2% compared to 18.7%, a difference of 15.9%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chinese and Hawaiian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (5.9% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 56.8%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.2% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 29.0%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.4% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 27.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (9.4% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 10.7%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (4.9% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 10.8%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.4% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 11.6%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chinese and Hawaiian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (84.1% compared to 81.5%, a difference of 3.2%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.7% compared to 78.7%, a difference of 2.5%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (85.0% compared to 83.0%, a difference of 2.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age > 16 (64.7% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 0.080%), in labor force | age 20-24 (77.3% compared to 77.0%, a difference of 0.28%), and in labor force | age 16-19 (38.6% compared to 38.4%, a difference of 0.52%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chinese and Hawaiian communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.0% compared to 2.7%, a difference of 34.8%), single mother households (5.2% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 27.8%), and family households with children (26.0% compared to 28.7%, a difference of 10.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (68.1% compared to 67.4%, a difference of 1.1%), average family size (3.34 compared to 3.41, a difference of 2.0%), and married-couple households (50.4% compared to 47.8%, a difference of 5.3%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Hawaiian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (8.2% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 2.2%), 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 24.3%, a difference of 1.7%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 8.9%, a difference of 1.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.9% compared to 92.0%, a difference of 0.20%), 2 or more vehicles in household (60.1% compared to 60.4%, a difference of 0.52%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 8.9%, a difference of 1.0%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chinese and Hawaiian communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.5% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 46.7%), professional degree (4.5% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 29.6%), and master's degree (14.6% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 25.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.6% compared to 97.9%, a difference of 0.67%), kindergarten (98.5% compared to 97.9%, a difference of 0.67%), and 1st grade (98.5% compared to 97.9%, a difference of 0.68%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Hawaiian communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.3% compared to 12.3%, a difference of 19.8%), disability age 65 to 74 (21.7% compared to 25.5%, a difference of 17.6%), and disability age 5 to 17 (4.7% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 17.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of ambulatory disability (6.5% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 0.18%), disability age over 75 (48.7% compared to 49.2%, a difference of 0.95%), and self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 1.5%).