Immigrants from China vs Immigrants from Guyana Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 165,365,865 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Guyana within Immigrant from China communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.179. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from China within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.003% in Immigrants from Guyana. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from China corresponds to a decrease of 2.9 Immigrants from Guyana.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Guyana communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (26.7% compared to 18.4%, a difference of 45.4%), median family income ($125,540 compared to $92,513, a difference of 35.7%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($122,178 compared to $90,186, a difference of 35.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($57,931 compared to $55,726, a difference of 4.0%), median female earnings ($46,972 compared to $40,773, a difference of 15.2%), and householder income over 65 years ($69,174 compared to $56,495, a difference of 22.4%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Guyana communities in the United States are seen in receiving food stamps (9.6% compared to 16.9%, a difference of 76.8%), child poverty under the age of 16 (13.3% compared to 19.4%, a difference of 45.9%), and child poverty under the age of 5 (13.6% compared to 19.6%, a difference of 44.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.2% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 4.3%), single father poverty (14.9% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 10.3%), and single male poverty (11.4% compared to 12.7%, a difference of 11.8%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Guyana communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.5% compared to 25.5%, a difference of 46.0%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.1% compared to 7.2%, a difference of 40.6%), and unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.6% compared to 15.9%, a difference of 37.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.4% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 4.5%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.1% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 6.8%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.2% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 8.1%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Guyana communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.1% compared to 27.3%, a difference of 14.2%), in labor force | age 20-24 (71.1% compared to 69.3%, a difference of 2.6%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.4% compared to 64.0%, a difference of 2.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 83.6%, a difference of 1.3%), in labor force | age 30-34 (85.4% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 1.9%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.6% compared to 83.0%, a difference of 2.0%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Guyana communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (5.1% compared to 7.6%, a difference of 49.4%), births to unmarried women (24.7% compared to 35.0%, a difference of 41.6%), and married-couple households (48.4% compared to 41.6%, a difference of 16.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.7% compared to 65.5%, a difference of 1.3%), family households with children (27.4% compared to 26.3%, a difference of 4.2%), and average family size (3.23 compared to 3.40, a difference of 5.4%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Guyana communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (15.2% compared to 29.5%, a difference of 94.6%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.0% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 77.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 62.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 70.6%, a difference of 20.4%), 2 or more vehicles in household (51.5% compared to 35.0%, a difference of 47.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 62.0%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Guyana communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (3.1% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 131.5%), professional degree (6.7% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 83.6%), and master's degree (21.2% compared to 13.4%, a difference of 57.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.5% compared to 96.9%, a difference of 0.60%), kindergarten (97.4% compared to 96.8%, a difference of 0.62%), and 1st grade (97.4% compared to 96.8%, a difference of 0.63%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Guyana communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (8.7% compared to 11.1%, a difference of 27.3%), ambulatory disability (5.3% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 26.4%), and vision disability (1.8% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 21.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 18 to 34 (5.4% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 0.56%), disability age over 75 (46.3% compared to 47.1%, a difference of 1.7%), and cognitive disability (16.9% compared to 17.3%, a difference of 2.3%).