Immigrants from China vs Immigrants from Ghana Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 192,243,533 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Ghana within Immigrant from China communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.099. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from China within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.002% in Immigrants from Ghana. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from China corresponds to a decrease of 2.0 Immigrants from Ghana.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Ghana communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($119,756 compared to $87,760, a difference of 36.5%), per capita income ($54,264 compared to $41,131, a difference of 31.9%), and median family income ($125,540 compared to $96,544, a difference of 30.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($57,931 compared to $51,333, a difference of 12.9%), median female earnings ($46,972 compared to $39,894, a difference of 17.7%), and householder income over 65 years ($69,174 compared to $58,624, a difference of 18.0%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Ghana communities in the United States are seen in receiving food stamps (9.6% compared to 14.1%, a difference of 47.6%), child poverty under the age of 5 (13.6% compared to 19.6%, a difference of 44.4%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (13.3% compared to 19.1%, a difference of 43.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.2% compared to 20.5%, a difference of 1.8%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (13.2% compared to 14.4%, a difference of 8.6%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.5% compared to 12.8%, a difference of 11.2%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Ghana communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.2% compared to 8.3%, a difference of 33.6%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (4.9% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 26.6%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (7.7% compared to 9.5%, a difference of 23.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.1% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 0.68%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.4% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 2.6%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.2% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 3.2%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Ghana communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.1% compared to 35.4%, a difference of 13.7%), in labor force | age 20-24 (71.1% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 4.9%), 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 35-44 (84.7% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 0.040%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.6% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 0.11%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (85.4% compared to 85.2%, a difference of 0.23%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Ghana communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (5.1% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 57.8%), births to unmarried women (24.7% compared to 34.5%, a difference of 39.9%), and single father households (1.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 32.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.23 compared to 3.29, a difference of 1.8%), family households (64.7% compared to 63.4%, a difference of 2.1%), and family households with children (27.4% compared to 28.6%, a difference of 4.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Ghana communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.0% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 16.6%), 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 12.7%), and no vehicles in household (15.2% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 9.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 83.4%, a difference of 1.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (51.5% compared to 47.4%, a difference of 8.7%), and no vehicles in household (15.2% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 9.6%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Ghana communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (3.1% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 75.1%), professional degree (6.7% compared to 4.1%, a difference of 65.5%), and master's degree (21.2% compared to 15.0%, a difference of 41.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.5% compared to 97.4%, a difference of 0.050%), 1st grade (97.4% compared to 97.4%, a difference of 0.050%), and 2nd grade (97.3% compared to 97.3%, a difference of 0.050%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Ghana communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (8.7% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 36.0%), disability age 5 to 17 (4.5% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 29.9%), and disability age under 5 (0.96% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 26.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of hearing disability (2.6% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 2.1%), disability age over 75 (46.3% compared to 47.7%, a difference of 3.0%), and self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 8.1%).