Immigrants from China vs Immigrants from Austria Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 162,767,052 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Austria within Immigrant from China communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.401. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from China within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.003% in Immigrants from Austria. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from China corresponds to an increase of 2.6 Immigrants from Austria.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Austria communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($119,756 compared to $106,103, a difference of 12.9%), median household income ($105,335 compared to $95,277, a difference of 10.6%), and householder income under 25 years ($57,931 compared to $52,400, a difference of 10.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($69,174 compared to $68,208, a difference of 1.4%), per capita income ($54,264 compared to $52,503, a difference of 3.4%), and wage/income gap (26.7% compared to 28.1%, a difference of 5.4%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Austria communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (13.6% compared to 16.0%, a difference of 17.9%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (13.2% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 16.3%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.5% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 16.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of receiving food stamps (9.6% compared to 9.5%, a difference of 0.82%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.2% compared to 19.7%, a difference of 2.3%), and family poverty (7.8% compared to 7.6%, a difference of 2.6%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Austria communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.2% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 24.3%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (7.7% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 14.1%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.2% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 9.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.5% compared to 17.5%, a difference of 0.32%), unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.0% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 0.68%), and unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.5% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 1.5%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Austria communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.1% compared to 37.9%, a difference of 21.8%), in labor force | age 20-24 (71.1% compared to 75.6%, a difference of 6.4%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.4% compared to 63.9%, a difference of 2.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (85.4% compared to 85.2%, a difference of 0.21%), in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 84.4%, a difference of 0.31%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.2% compared to 82.9%, a difference of 0.37%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Austria communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (10.0% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 18.0%), births to unmarried women (24.7% compared to 28.7%, a difference of 16.4%), and single father households (1.8% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 10.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple households (48.4% compared to 47.9%, a difference of 1.1%), currently married (47.9% compared to 48.5%, a difference of 1.3%), and family households (64.7% compared to 63.1%, a difference of 2.6%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Austria communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (15.2% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 48.6%), 2 or more vehicles in household (51.5% compared to 55.5%, a difference of 7.8%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 89.9%, a difference of 5.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4 or more vehicles in household (6.0% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 0.11%), 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 18.9%, a difference of 3.6%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 89.9%, a difference of 5.9%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Austria communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.6% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 52.8%), doctorate degree (3.1% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 26.5%), and master's degree (21.2% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 12.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.5% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.94%), kindergarten (97.4% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.95%), and 1st grade (97.4% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.97%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Austria communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (0.96% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 39.8%), hearing disability (2.6% compared to 3.3%, a difference of 24.8%), and disability age 18 to 34 (5.4% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 22.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.3% compared to 44.9%, a difference of 3.0%), self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 3.2%), and cognitive disability (16.9% compared to 16.3%, a difference of 4.0%).