Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Native/Alaskan Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 245,440,520 people shows a moderate negative correlation between the proportion of Natives/Alaskans within Immigrant from Hong Kong communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.446. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Hong Kong within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.091% in Natives/Alaskans. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Hong Kong corresponds to a decrease of 91.4 Natives/Alaskans.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Native/Alaskan communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($56,709 compared to $33,279, a difference of 70.4%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($128,140 compared to $75,647, a difference of 69.4%), and median household income ($111,519 compared to $67,879, a difference of 64.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.5% compared to 24.6%, a difference of 3.9%), householder income under 25 years ($62,083 compared to $47,704, a difference of 30.1%), and householder income over 65 years ($71,567 compared to $52,081, a difference of 37.4%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Native/Alaskan communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (12.4% compared to 25.6%, a difference of 105.6%), family poverty (7.3% compared to 14.3%, a difference of 96.6%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (12.1% compared to 23.8%, a difference of 95.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.8% compared to 15.5%, a difference of 20.6%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.1% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 28.6%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (17.5% compared to 25.4%, a difference of 45.6%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Native/Alaskan communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (5.8% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 99.2%), unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.4% compared to 7.3%, a difference of 65.1%), and unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.0% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 63.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.2% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 9.2%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.1% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 13.1%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.3% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 14.4%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Native/Alaskan communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (30.5% compared to 36.6%, a difference of 20.0%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.4% compared to 73.9%, a difference of 8.8%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.7% compared to 60.6%, a difference of 8.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (71.6% compared to 72.4%, a difference of 1.1%), in labor force | age 25-29 (85.0% compared to 79.3%, a difference of 7.3%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (85.2% compared to 78.9%, a difference of 8.0%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Native/Alaskan communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (23.6% compared to 43.0%, a difference of 82.3%), single father households (1.8% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 75.0%), and single mother households (4.8% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 65.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (66.1% compared to 66.4%, a difference of 0.32%), family households with children (27.5% compared to 28.4%, a difference of 3.1%), and average family size (3.26 compared to 3.45, a difference of 5.9%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Native/Alaskan communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.5% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 26.4%), 3 or more vehicles in household (19.2% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 18.7%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (52.6% compared to 57.0%, a difference of 8.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.7% compared to 89.8%, a difference of 1.2%), no vehicles in household (11.3% compared to 10.5%, a difference of 7.7%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (52.6% compared to 57.0%, a difference of 8.4%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Native/Alaskan communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (6.4% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 116.8%), doctorate degree (2.8% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 109.6%), and master's degree (20.5% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 105.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 9th grade (94.1% compared to 93.9%, a difference of 0.24%), 8th grade (94.9% compared to 95.2%, a difference of 0.29%), and 7th grade (95.2% compared to 95.6%, a difference of 0.42%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Native/Alaskan communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (0.95% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 105.2%), disability age 35 to 64 (8.2% compared to 15.3%, a difference of 86.7%), and vision disability (1.8% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 64.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (16.0% compared to 18.1%, a difference of 13.2%), disability age over 75 (46.5% compared to 53.1%, a difference of 14.2%), and self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 17.4%).