Immigrants from China vs Immigrants from Zimbabwe Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 115,403,863 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Zimbabwe within Immigrant from China communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.027. 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 Zimbabwe. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from China corresponds to a decrease of 0.1 Immigrants from Zimbabwe.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($119,756 compared to $97,880, a difference of 22.4%), median household income ($105,335 compared to $89,496, a difference of 17.7%), and median male earnings ($67,353 compared to $57,352, a difference of 17.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (26.7% compared to 25.3%, a difference of 5.3%), householder income over 65 years ($69,174 compared to $63,643, a difference of 8.7%), and householder income under 25 years ($57,931 compared to $51,914, a difference of 11.6%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (13.6% compared to 15.8%, a difference of 16.3%), married-couple family poverty (5.0% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 14.1%), and child poverty among girls under 16 (13.4% compared to 15.3%, a difference of 13.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of poverty (11.6% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 0.44%), female poverty (12.5% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 0.65%), and male poverty (10.7% compared to 10.5%, a difference of 1.4%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.8% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 16.3%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.2% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 14.2%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.0% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 11.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.1% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 0.31%), unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.4% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 2.1%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.2% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 2.2%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.1% compared to 38.0%, a difference of 21.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (71.1% compared to 75.9%, a difference of 6.8%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.4% compared to 66.8%, a difference of 2.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 45-54 (83.2% compared to 83.4%, a difference of 0.21%), in labor force | age 30-34 (85.4% compared to 85.1%, a difference of 0.26%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 85.2%, a difference of 0.61%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (24.7% compared to 30.3%, a difference of 22.9%), single mother households (5.1% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 21.8%), and single father households (1.8% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 21.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.23 compared to 3.19, a difference of 1.2%), family households with children (27.4% compared to 27.8%, a difference of 1.4%), and family households (64.7% compared to 63.5%, a difference of 1.9%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (15.2% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 53.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (51.5% compared to 55.6%, a difference of 7.9%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 90.2%, a difference of 6.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4 or more vehicles in household (6.0% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 0.28%), 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 19.1%, a difference of 4.9%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 90.2%, a difference of 6.2%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (3.1% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 41.3%), no schooling completed (2.6% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 37.4%), and professional degree (6.7% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 27.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of ged/equivalency (86.9% compared to 87.1%, a difference of 0.26%), nursery school (97.5% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.73%), and kindergarten (97.4% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.73%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (0.96% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 25.1%), disability age 18 to 34 (5.4% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 22.5%), and disability age 35 to 64 (8.7% compared to 10.6%, a difference of 22.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.3% compared to 47.2%, a difference of 1.9%), self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 3.5%), and cognitive disability (16.9% compared to 17.5%, a difference of 3.6%).