Immigrants from Eastern Asia vs Chippewa Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 205,616,917 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Chippewa within Immigrant from Eastern Asia communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.167. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Eastern Asia within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.001% in Chippewa. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Eastern Asia corresponds to a decrease of 0.9 Chippewa.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Asia and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in median household income ($104,796 compared to $70,539, a difference of 48.6%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($118,056 compared to $80,005, a difference of 47.6%), and per capita income ($53,806 compared to $36,631, a difference of 46.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.1% compared to 25.0%, a difference of 8.4%), householder income under 25 years ($57,123 compared to $47,015, a difference of 21.5%), and householder income over 65 years ($69,872 compared to $53,847, a difference of 29.8%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Asia and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (13.5% compared to 23.4%, a difference of 73.1%), female poverty among 25-34 year olds (11.2% compared to 18.0%, a difference of 60.7%), and receiving food stamps (9.3% compared to 14.7%, a difference of 57.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.8% compared to 13.1%, a difference of 2.1%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.1% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 9.7%), and married-couple family poverty (4.8% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 13.3%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Asia and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.3% compared to 13.3%, a difference of 111.5%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.1% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 51.1%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (7.7% compared to 11.1%, a difference of 43.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.0% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 1.3%), unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.4% compared to 18.0%, a difference of 3.4%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.1% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 5.3%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Asia and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (32.0% compared to 43.8%, a difference of 36.8%), in labor force | age 20-24 (71.8% compared to 77.1%, a difference of 7.3%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.7% compared to 63.1%, a difference of 4.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 82.9%, a difference of 2.2%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.8% compared to 82.9%, a difference of 2.3%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.4% compared to 81.3%, a difference of 2.6%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Asia and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (25.0% compared to 42.6%, a difference of 70.2%), single father households (1.9% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 63.7%), and single mother households (5.1% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 56.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.22 compared to 3.20, a difference of 0.69%), family households with children (27.7% compared to 26.7%, a difference of 3.5%), and family households (64.9% compared to 62.1%, a difference of 4.5%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Asia and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (13.5% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 43.4%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.2% compared to 7.6%, a difference of 21.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.8% compared to 21.5%, a difference of 14.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (86.5% compared to 90.7%, a difference of 4.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (53.2% compared to 57.2%, a difference of 7.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.8% compared to 21.5%, a difference of 14.3%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Asia and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (3.0% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 94.4%), professional degree (6.6% compared to 3.5%, a difference of 89.3%), and master's degree (20.8% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 82.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of high school diploma (89.9% compared to 89.7%, a difference of 0.12%), 12th grade, no diploma (91.8% compared to 91.5%, a difference of 0.25%), and 11th grade (92.7% compared to 93.5%, a difference of 0.80%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Asia and Chippewa communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.0% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 84.1%), disability age 35 to 64 (8.8% compared to 15.0%, a difference of 70.4%), and disability age 18 to 34 (5.6% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 60.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.2% compared to 48.4%, a difference of 4.9%), cognitive disability (16.8% compared to 18.1%, a difference of 7.6%), and self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 14.7%).