Potawatomi vs Chinese Community Comparison

COMPARE

Potawatomi
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Chinese
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Potawatomi

Chinese

Fair
Exceptional
3,223
SOCIAL INDEX
29.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
227th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,296
SOCIAL INDEX
90.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
23rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Chinese Integration in Potawatomi Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 39,996,280 people shows a near-perfect positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese within Potawatomi communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.903. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Potawatomi within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.670% in Chinese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Potawatomi corresponds to an increase of 670.1 Chinese.
Potawatomi Integration in Chinese Communities

Potawatomi vs Chinese Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Potawatomi and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($54,212 compared to $77,465, a difference of 42.9%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($84,613 compared to $116,156, a difference of 37.3%), and median household income ($72,576 compared to $98,496, a difference of 35.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.7% compared to 25.9%, a difference of 7.0%), median male earnings ($48,768 compared to $56,872, a difference of 16.6%), and median earnings ($41,288 compared to $48,836, a difference of 18.3%).
Potawatomi vs Chinese Income
Income MetricPotawatomiChinese
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$38,046
Exceptional
$46,098
Median Family Income
Tragic
$88,265
Exceptional
$116,188
Median Household Income
Tragic
$72,576
Exceptional
$98,496
Median Earnings
Tragic
$41,288
Exceptional
$48,836
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$48,768
Exceptional
$56,872
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$34,739
Exceptional
$41,461
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$46,462
Exceptional
$58,162
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$81,774
Exceptional
$104,264
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$84,613
Exceptional
$116,156
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$54,212
Exceptional
$77,465
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.7%
Average
25.9%

Potawatomi vs Chinese Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Potawatomi and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in child poverty among boys under 16 (19.4% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 63.3%), child poverty under the age of 5 (21.0% compared to 13.1%, a difference of 60.8%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (19.0% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 59.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (18.9% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 22.7%), receiving food stamps (12.5% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 27.6%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.8% compared to 8.3%, a difference of 29.7%).
Potawatomi vs Chinese Poverty
Poverty MetricPotawatomiChinese
Poverty
Tragic
14.1%
Exceptional
9.5%
Families
Tragic
10.2%
Exceptional
6.5%
Males
Tragic
12.9%
Exceptional
8.7%
Females
Tragic
15.3%
Exceptional
10.4%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
23.7%
Exceptional
16.2%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
16.5%
Exceptional
11.0%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
21.0%
Exceptional
13.1%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.0%
Exceptional
11.9%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.4%
Exceptional
11.9%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
19.2%
Exceptional
12.3%
Single Males
Tragic
15.8%
Exceptional
11.0%
Single Females
Tragic
25.4%
Exceptional
16.1%
Single Fathers
Tragic
18.9%
Exceptional
15.4%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.1%
Exceptional
24.6%
Married Couples
Poor
5.5%
Exceptional
3.6%
Seniors Over 65 years
Good
10.8%
Exceptional
8.3%
Seniors Over 75 years
Average
12.1%
Exceptional
9.1%
Receiving Food Stamps
Poor
12.5%
Exceptional
9.8%

Potawatomi vs Chinese Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Potawatomi and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.6% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 40.9%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.8% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 32.4%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.1% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 22.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.2% compared to 16.0%, a difference of 7.4%), unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.6% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 8.0%), and male unemployment (5.3% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 8.5%).
Potawatomi vs Chinese Unemployment
Unemployment MetricPotawatomiChinese
Unemployment
Good
5.2%
Exceptional
4.7%
Males
Fair
5.3%
Exceptional
4.9%
Females
Good
5.2%
Exceptional
4.5%
Youth < 25
Average
11.6%
Exceptional
10.7%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Excellent
17.2%
Exceptional
16.0%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Average
10.3%
Exceptional
9.4%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
7.1%
Exceptional
6.1%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.0%
Exceptional
5.1%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
5.0%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
4.7%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Good
4.8%
Exceptional
4.4%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.6%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Average
5.4%
Exceptional
4.4%
Seniors > 65
Good
5.1%
Exceptional
4.2%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.8%
Exceptional
5.9%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
9.6%
Exceptional
6.8%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.5%
Tragic
9.3%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
5.7%
Exceptional
4.9%

Potawatomi vs Chinese Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Potawatomi and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (80.0% compared to 84.1%, a difference of 5.2%), in labor force | age 20-64 (77.2% compared to 80.7%, a difference of 4.5%), and in labor force | age 16-19 (40.0% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 3.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (76.2% compared to 77.3%, a difference of 1.4%), in labor force | age 25-29 (82.9% compared to 84.3%, a difference of 1.7%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (82.8% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 2.7%).
Potawatomi vs Chinese Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricPotawatomiChinese
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
62.8%
Tragic
64.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
77.2%
Exceptional
80.7%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
40.0%
Exceptional
38.6%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
76.2%
Exceptional
77.3%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
82.9%
Poor
84.3%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
82.8%
Excellent
85.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
82.7%
Exceptional
85.1%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
80.0%
Exceptional
84.1%

Potawatomi vs Chinese Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Potawatomi and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (6.6% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 27.9%), single father households (2.5% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 27.8%), and divorced or separated (13.5% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 20.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (26.9% compared to 26.0%, a difference of 3.3%), average family size (3.16 compared to 3.34, a difference of 5.6%), and currently married (46.5% compared to 49.5%, a difference of 6.5%).
Potawatomi vs Chinese Family Structure
Family Structure MetricPotawatomiChinese
Family Households
Tragic
63.3%
Exceptional
68.1%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
26.9%
Tragic
26.0%
Married-couple Households
Poor
45.7%
Exceptional
50.4%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.16
Exceptional
3.34
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.5%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Poor
6.6%
Exceptional
5.2%
Currently Married
Average
46.5%
Exceptional
49.5%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
13.5%
Exceptional
11.2%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
36.2%
Excellent
30.2%

Potawatomi vs Chinese Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Potawatomi and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.3% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 21.6%), 3 or more vehicles in household (21.9% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 9.2%), and no vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 7.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.3% compared to 91.9%, a difference of 0.61%), 2 or more vehicles in household (58.0% compared to 60.1%, a difference of 3.7%), and no vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 7.5%).
Potawatomi vs Chinese Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricPotawatomiChinese
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
8.8%
Exceptional
8.2%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
91.3%
Exceptional
91.9%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
58.0%
Exceptional
60.1%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
21.9%
Exceptional
23.9%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.3%
Exceptional
8.8%

Potawatomi vs Chinese Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Potawatomi and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.6% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 25.3%), master's degree (12.1% compared to 14.6%, a difference of 20.8%), and bachelor's degree (31.9% compared to 38.5%, a difference of 20.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.3% compared to 98.6%, a difference of 0.23%), kindergarten (98.3% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.23%), and 1st grade (98.3% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.23%).
Potawatomi vs Chinese Education Level
Education Level MetricPotawatomiChinese
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.7%
Exceptional
1.5%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.6%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.5%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
98.4%
4th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Exceptional
98.3%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.8%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.7%
Exceptional
97.1%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Exceptional
96.9%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.5%
Exceptional
96.3%
10th Grade
Exceptional
94.3%
Exceptional
95.5%
11th Grade
Good
92.8%
Exceptional
94.6%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Fair
91.0%
Exceptional
93.6%
High School Diploma
Average
89.0%
Exceptional
92.0%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
84.7%
Exceptional
89.0%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
61.8%
Exceptional
68.3%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
54.6%
Exceptional
62.2%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
40.4%
Exceptional
48.5%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
31.9%
Good
38.5%
Master's Degree
Tragic
12.1%
Fair
14.6%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.6%
Average
4.5%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.6%
Fair
1.8%

Potawatomi vs Chinese Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Potawatomi and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (14.8% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 43.3%), disability age 5 to 17 (6.5% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 39.2%), and disability age 18 to 34 (8.2% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 30.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (49.0% compared to 48.7%, a difference of 0.64%), self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 2.7%), and hearing disability (4.1% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 11.9%).
Potawatomi vs Chinese Disability
Disability MetricPotawatomiChinese
Disability
Tragic
14.2%
Tragic
12.2%
Males
Tragic
14.2%
Tragic
12.1%
Females
Tragic
14.1%
Fair
12.3%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.4%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.5%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
8.2%
Exceptional
6.3%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
14.8%
Exceptional
10.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
27.0%
Exceptional
21.7%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
49.0%
Tragic
48.7%
Vision
Tragic
2.6%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
4.1%
Tragic
3.7%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.0%
Exceptional
15.9%
Ambulatory
Tragic
7.3%
Tragic
6.5%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.6%
Tragic
2.6%