Immigrants from China vs Immigrants from Lithuania Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 115,212,071 people shows a moderate negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Lithuania within Immigrant from China communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.408. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from China within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.001% in Immigrants from Lithuania. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from China corresponds to a decrease of 1.4 Immigrants from Lithuania.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($119,756 compared to $108,149, a difference of 10.7%), median household income ($105,335 compared to $96,836, a difference of 8.8%), and median female earnings ($46,972 compared to $43,317, a difference of 8.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($69,174 compared to $66,087, a difference of 4.7%), householder income under 25 years ($57,931 compared to $55,028, a difference of 5.3%), and per capita income ($54,264 compared to $51,361, a difference of 5.7%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (13.2% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 20.4%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.5% compared to 9.7%, a difference of 18.6%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.2% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 15.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of child poverty among boys under 16 (13.6% compared to 13.5%, a difference of 0.81%), female poverty among 25-34 year olds (11.2% compared to 11.1%, a difference of 0.89%), and single female poverty (18.1% compared to 17.8%, a difference of 2.0%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.2% compared to 7.5%, a difference of 21.2%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.8% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 12.1%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (7.7% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 11.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.4% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 0.0%), unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.5% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 0.66%), and unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.1% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 1.1%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.1% compared to 37.2%, a difference of 19.5%), in labor force | age 20-24 (71.1% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 7.1%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.6% compared to 86.1%, a difference of 1.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (85.4% compared to 85.6%, a difference of 0.32%), in labor force | age > 16 (65.4% compared to 65.6%, a difference of 0.35%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 0.77%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (10.0% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 12.4%), births to unmarried women (24.7% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 12.4%), and single mother households (5.1% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 3.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple households (48.4% compared to 48.6%, a difference of 0.37%), family households (64.7% compared to 63.9%, a difference of 1.3%), and currently married (47.9% compared to 48.8%, a difference of 2.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (15.2% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 54.3%), 2 or more vehicles in household (51.5% compared to 55.8%, a difference of 8.4%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (6.0% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 7.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 1.3%), 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 90.2%, a difference of 6.2%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (6.0% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 7.0%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.6% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 51.7%), doctorate degree (3.1% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 39.8%), and professional degree (6.7% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 20.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of college, under 1 year (70.9% compared to 70.3%, a difference of 0.82%), nursery school (97.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.89%), and kindergarten (97.4% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.89%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (0.96% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 31.7%), disability age 5 to 17 (4.5% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 12.9%), and hearing disability (2.6% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 11.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 65 to 74 (20.3% compared to 20.5%, a difference of 1.4%), self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 2.8%), and disability age over 75 (46.3% compared to 44.9%, a difference of 3.2%).