Immigrants from China vs Immigrants from Congo Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 89,502,356 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Congo within Immigrant from China communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.012. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from China within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.000% in Immigrants from Congo. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from China corresponds to an increase of 0.1 Immigrants from Congo.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Congo communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($119,756 compared to $72,178, a difference of 65.9%), median household income ($105,335 compared to $66,768, a difference of 57.8%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($122,178 compared to $77,850, a difference of 56.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (26.7% compared to 21.7%, a difference of 23.0%), householder income under 25 years ($57,931 compared to $43,266, a difference of 33.9%), and householder income over 65 years ($69,174 compared to $51,393, a difference of 34.6%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Congo communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (13.6% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 75.5%), child poverty under the age of 16 (13.3% compared to 22.5%, a difference of 69.7%), and child poverty among girls under 16 (13.4% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 69.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.5% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 2.1%), single father poverty (14.9% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 3.0%), and seniors poverty over the age of 75 (13.2% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 6.0%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Congo communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.2% compared to 8.5%, a difference of 36.0%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.1% compared to 4.1%, a difference of 22.7%), and unemployment among women with children under 18 years (4.9% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 21.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of male unemployment (5.2% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 0.86%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.1% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 1.1%), and unemployment (5.2% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 1.7%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Congo communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.1% compared to 41.7%, a difference of 33.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (71.1% compared to 77.4%, a difference of 8.9%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.4% compared to 67.1%, a difference of 2.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-64 (79.7% compared to 79.3%, a difference of 0.47%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.6% compared to 84.2%, a difference of 0.48%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (85.4% compared to 84.6%, a difference of 0.97%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Congo communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (5.1% compared to 8.1%, a difference of 60.4%), births to unmarried women (24.7% compared to 36.8%, a difference of 49.1%), and single father households (1.8% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 36.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.23 compared to 3.23, a difference of 0.050%), family households with children (27.4% compared to 27.3%, a difference of 0.49%), and family households (64.7% compared to 59.2%, a difference of 9.2%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Congo communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (15.2% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 50.7%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.0% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 14.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 7.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 2 or more vehicles in household (51.5% compared to 52.1%, a difference of 1.2%), 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 90.0%, a difference of 6.0%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 7.3%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Congo communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (3.1% compared to 1.6%, a difference of 93.7%), professional degree (6.7% compared to 3.6%, a difference of 84.7%), and master's degree (21.2% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 67.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 7th grade (95.3% compared to 95.3%, a difference of 0.0%), 6th grade (96.4% compared to 96.5%, a difference of 0.030%), and 5th grade (96.8% compared to 96.8%, a difference of 0.040%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Congo communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (8.7% compared to 13.3%, a difference of 53.0%), disability age 5 to 17 (4.5% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 36.8%), and disability age 18 to 34 (5.4% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 30.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 0.99%), disability age over 75 (46.3% compared to 48.7%, a difference of 5.2%), and hearing disability (2.6% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 10.6%).