Immigrants from China vs Immigrants from Jamaica Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 269,336,502 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Jamaica within Immigrant from China communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.177. 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 Jamaica. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from China corresponds to a decrease of 3.0 Immigrants from Jamaica.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Jamaica communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($119,756 compared to $83,298, a difference of 43.8%), wage/income gap (26.7% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 41.6%), and median family income ($125,540 compared to $89,268, a difference of 40.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($57,931 compared to $51,038, a difference of 13.5%), median female earnings ($46,972 compared to $38,625, a difference of 21.6%), and householder income over 65 years ($69,174 compared to $54,027, a difference of 28.0%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Jamaica communities in the United States are seen in receiving food stamps (9.6% compared to 16.9%, a difference of 76.5%), child poverty under the age of 5 (13.6% compared to 20.5%, a difference of 50.6%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (13.3% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 49.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.2% compared to 18.9%, a difference of 6.6%), single mother poverty (26.1% compared to 29.6%, a difference of 13.4%), and single male poverty (11.4% compared to 13.0%, a difference of 14.0%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Jamaica communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.2% compared to 8.9%, a difference of 43.1%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (4.9% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 30.7%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.2% compared to 8.1%, a difference of 29.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.2% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 4.1%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.4% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 4.2%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.0% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 4.5%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Jamaica communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.1% compared to 32.2%, a difference of 3.4%), in labor force | age 20-24 (71.1% compared to 72.4%, a difference of 1.8%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.2% compared to 82.1%, a difference of 1.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 84.6%, a difference of 0.18%), in labor force | age 20-64 (79.7% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 0.90%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.6% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 0.99%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Jamaica communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (5.1% compared to 8.4%, a difference of 65.2%), births to unmarried women (24.7% compared to 38.8%, a difference of 57.2%), and divorced or separated (10.0% compared to 13.0%, a difference of 29.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.7% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 0.030%), family households with children (27.4% compared to 26.8%, a difference of 2.5%), and average family size (3.23 compared to 3.33, a difference of 3.3%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Jamaica communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.0% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 36.7%), 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 14.7%, a difference of 24.1%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (51.5% compared to 44.5%, a difference of 15.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 85.8%, a difference of 1.1%), no vehicles in household (15.2% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 6.5%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (51.5% compared to 44.5%, a difference of 15.8%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Jamaica communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (3.1% compared to 1.4%, a difference of 125.9%), professional degree (6.7% compared to 3.6%, a difference of 88.6%), and master's degree (21.2% compared to 13.0%, a difference of 62.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4th grade (97.0% compared to 97.0%, a difference of 0.020%), 5th grade (96.8% compared to 96.8%, a difference of 0.020%), and kindergarten (97.4% compared to 97.5%, a difference of 0.040%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Jamaica communities in the United States are seen in disability age 5 to 17 (4.5% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 35.0%), disability age 35 to 64 (8.7% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 34.8%), and vision disability (1.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 30.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of hearing disability (2.6% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 0.24%), disability age over 75 (46.3% compared to 47.6%, a difference of 2.8%), and cognitive disability (16.9% compared to 17.6%, a difference of 3.8%).