Immigrants from China vs Immigrants from Uganda Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 123,466,701 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Uganda within Immigrant from China communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.052. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from China within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.000% in Immigrants from Uganda. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from China corresponds to a decrease of 0.3 Immigrants from Uganda.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($119,756 compared to $95,698, a difference of 25.1%), per capita income ($54,264 compared to $45,043, a difference of 20.5%), and median household income ($105,335 compared to $87,553, a difference of 20.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (26.7% compared to 24.9%, a difference of 7.0%), householder income under 25 years ($57,931 compared to $52,374, a difference of 10.6%), and householder income over 65 years ($69,174 compared to $61,976, a difference of 11.6%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (13.6% compared to 17.7%, a difference of 30.3%), child poverty under the age of 16 (13.3% compared to 16.8%, a difference of 26.6%), and child poverty among girls under 16 (13.4% compared to 16.8%, a difference of 25.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.2% compared to 20.8%, a difference of 3.2%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.5% compared to 11.1%, a difference of 3.3%), and married-couple family poverty (5.0% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 4.6%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (7.7% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 38.6%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.2% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 19.0%), and unemployment among women with children under 18 years (4.9% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 15.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.6% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 1.1%), unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.4% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 1.3%), and unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.1% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 1.5%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.1% compared to 39.2%, a difference of 25.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (71.1% compared to 76.0%, a difference of 7.0%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.4% compared to 67.5%, a difference of 3.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (85.4% compared to 85.2%, a difference of 0.19%), in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 0.39%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.2% compared to 83.7%, a difference of 0.60%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (5.1% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 29.8%), single father households (1.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 29.1%), and births to unmarried women (24.7% compared to 30.5%, a difference of 23.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.23 compared to 3.23, a difference of 0.19%), family households with children (27.4% compared to 28.0%, a difference of 2.1%), and family households (64.7% compared to 62.7%, a difference of 3.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (15.2% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 51.6%), 2 or more vehicles in household (51.5% compared to 55.0%, a difference of 6.8%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 90.1%, a difference of 6.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 18.4%, a difference of 0.95%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.0% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 1.8%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 90.1%, a difference of 6.0%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (3.1% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 39.5%), professional degree (6.7% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 33.4%), and master's degree (21.2% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 27.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 11th grade (92.3% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 0.0%), 10th grade (93.2% compared to 93.5%, a difference of 0.32%), and 12th grade, no diploma (91.3% compared to 90.9%, a difference of 0.37%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (8.7% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 28.7%), disability age 5 to 17 (4.5% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 27.2%), and disability age 18 to 34 (5.4% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 23.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.3% compared to 46.8%, a difference of 1.1%), self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 2.1%), and ambulatory disability (5.3% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 6.6%).