Immigrants from Middle Africa vs Burmese Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 194,924,752 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Burmese within Immigrant from Middle Africa communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.119. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Middle Africa within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.015% in Burmese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Middle Africa corresponds to an increase of 15.2 Burmese.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($82,254 compared to $113,701, a difference of 38.2%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($91,293 compared to $121,444, a difference of 33.0%), and median household income ($77,559 compared to $103,145, a difference of 33.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($47,916 compared to $54,800, a difference of 14.4%), median female earnings ($37,965 compared to $44,911, a difference of 18.3%), and householder income over 65 years ($58,375 compared to $71,139, a difference of 21.9%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in receiving food stamps (12.9% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 49.4%), child poverty under the age of 5 (19.7% compared to 13.2%, a difference of 49.2%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (19.0% compared to 12.8%, a difference of 48.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.6% compared to 15.5%, a difference of 1.1%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.1% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 3.4%), and single male poverty (12.7% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 8.3%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (8.1% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 24.6%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.8% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 17.0%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.1% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 14.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.5% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 0.0%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.2% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 0.69%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.1% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 0.78%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (39.9% compared to 34.5%, a difference of 15.8%), in labor force | age 20-24 (76.6% compared to 73.6%, a difference of 4.2%), and in labor force | age > 16 (67.7% compared to 66.2%, a difference of 2.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (85.2% compared to 85.3%, a difference of 0.10%), in labor force | age 25-29 (85.0% compared to 85.1%, a difference of 0.14%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (84.9% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 0.22%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (7.7% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 46.1%), births to unmarried women (34.9% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 32.5%), and single father households (2.5% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 22.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.25 compared to 3.22, a difference of 1.1%), family households with children (28.0% compared to 28.5%, a difference of 1.9%), and family households (61.9% compared to 65.7%, a difference of 6.2%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (5.8% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 17.9%), 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 13.2%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (53.4% compared to 57.8%, a difference of 8.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (89.9% compared to 90.4%, a difference of 0.62%), no vehicles in household (10.2% compared to 9.7%, a difference of 5.2%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (53.4% compared to 57.8%, a difference of 8.2%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (4.2% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 46.1%), doctorate degree (1.9% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 39.3%), and master's degree (14.6% compared to 19.7%, a difference of 35.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.6% compared to 98.1%, a difference of 0.46%), kindergarten (97.6% compared to 98.1%, a difference of 0.47%), and 1st grade (97.6% compared to 98.0%, a difference of 0.47%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Middle Africa and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (12.0% compared to 9.2%, a difference of 29.9%), disability age 5 to 17 (5.9% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 24.3%), and vision disability (2.2% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 18.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of hearing disability (2.8% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 1.3%), disability age over 75 (47.1% compared to 45.9%, a difference of 2.7%), and self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 3.2%).