Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Community Comparison

COMPARE

Immigrants from Hong Kong
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMexicanMexican 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 TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral 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
Ute
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 GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin 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

Immigrants from Hong Kong

Ute

Good
Fair
7,848
SOCIAL INDEX
76.0/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
102nd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
2,439
SOCIAL INDEX
21.9/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
258th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Ute Integration in Immigrants from Hong Kong Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 45,294,577 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Ute within Immigrant from Hong Kong communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.305. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Hong Kong within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.243% in Ute. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Hong Kong corresponds to an increase of 243.2 Ute.
Immigrants from Hong Kong Integration in Ute Communities

Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Ute communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($128,140 compared to $82,166, a difference of 55.9%), per capita income ($56,709 compared to $36,651, a difference of 54.7%), and median household income ($111,519 compared to $72,402, a difference of 54.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.5% compared to 27.8%, a difference of 8.8%), householder income under 25 years ($62,083 compared to $49,997, a difference of 24.2%), and householder income over 65 years ($71,567 compared to $52,949, a difference of 35.2%).
Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Income
Income MetricImmigrants from Hong KongUte
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$56,709
Tragic
$36,651
Median Family Income
Exceptional
$131,067
Tragic
$87,596
Median Household Income
Exceptional
$111,519
Tragic
$72,402
Median Earnings
Exceptional
$59,433
Tragic
$41,051
Median Male Earnings
Exceptional
$70,146
Tragic
$48,899
Median Female Earnings
Exceptional
$49,818
Tragic
$34,960
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Exceptional
$62,083
Tragic
$49,997
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Exceptional
$128,140
Tragic
$82,166
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Exceptional
$127,500
Tragic
$83,937
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Exceptional
$71,567
Tragic
$52,949
Wage/Income Gap
Good
25.5%
Tragic
27.8%

Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Ute communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (12.4% compared to 23.5%, a difference of 89.4%), child poverty under the age of 16 (12.1% compared to 21.5%, a difference of 77.4%), and child poverty among girls under 16 (12.3% compared to 21.8%, a difference of 76.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.8% compared to 12.9%, a difference of 0.66%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.1% compared to 12.2%, a difference of 9.9%), and single father poverty (14.2% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 29.9%).
Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Poverty
Poverty MetricImmigrants from Hong KongUte
Poverty
Exceptional
10.4%
Tragic
16.9%
Families
Exceptional
7.3%
Tragic
12.1%
Males
Exceptional
9.6%
Tragic
16.2%
Females
Exceptional
11.2%
Tragic
17.5%
Females 18 to 24 years
Exceptional
17.5%
Tragic
25.4%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
10.4%
Tragic
17.9%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
12.4%
Tragic
23.5%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
12.1%
Tragic
21.5%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
12.3%
Tragic
21.6%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
12.3%
Tragic
21.8%
Single Males
Exceptional
10.4%
Tragic
15.7%
Single Females
Exceptional
16.5%
Tragic
28.4%
Single Fathers
Exceptional
14.2%
Tragic
18.5%
Single Mothers
Exceptional
24.4%
Tragic
35.7%
Married Couples
Exceptional
4.7%
Tragic
6.4%
Seniors Over 65 years
Fair
11.1%
Tragic
12.2%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
12.8%
Tragic
12.9%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
9.1%
Tragic
14.7%

Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Ute communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.0% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 39.7%), unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.5% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 36.6%), and male unemployment (5.2% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 26.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (7.2% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 2.6%), unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.0% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 2.9%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.2% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 6.2%).
Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Unemployment
Unemployment MetricImmigrants from Hong KongUte
Unemployment
Good
5.2%
Tragic
6.3%
Males
Good
5.2%
Tragic
6.6%
Females
Excellent
5.1%
Tragic
6.1%
Youth < 25
Average
11.6%
Tragic
13.3%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Good
17.4%
Tragic
19.6%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Poor
10.5%
Tragic
11.2%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Exceptional
6.3%
Poor
6.8%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Exceptional
5.0%
Tragic
7.0%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Exceptional
4.4%
Tragic
5.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Average
4.5%
Tragic
6.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
5.0%
Tragic
5.2%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Tragic
5.2%
Fair
4.9%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Excellent
5.3%
Tragic
6.5%
Seniors > 65
Good
5.1%
Tragic
6.3%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.6%
Exceptional
6.8%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
5.8%
Exceptional
6.5%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
7.2%
Exceptional
7.0%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
4.7%
Tragic
5.9%

Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Ute communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (30.5% compared to 37.1%, a difference of 21.7%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.4% compared to 73.7%, a difference of 9.2%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.6% compared to 76.6%, a difference of 9.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (71.6% compared to 73.8%, a difference of 3.0%), in labor force | age 25-29 (85.0% compared to 80.8%, a difference of 5.2%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (85.2% compared to 79.4%, a difference of 7.2%).
Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricImmigrants from Hong KongUte
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Exceptional
65.7%
Tragic
60.9%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Exceptional
80.4%
Tragic
73.7%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Tragic
30.5%
Good
37.1%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Tragic
71.6%
Tragic
73.8%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Exceptional
85.0%
Tragic
80.8%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Exceptional
85.8%
Tragic
78.9%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Exceptional
85.2%
Tragic
79.4%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Exceptional
83.6%
Tragic
76.6%

Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Ute communities in the United States are seen in single father households (1.8% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 61.7%), single mother households (4.8% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 46.9%), and births to unmarried women (23.6% compared to 33.0%, a difference of 40.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (27.5% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 2.2%), family households (66.1% compared to 64.3%, a difference of 2.8%), and average family size (3.26 compared to 3.49, a difference of 7.1%).
Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Family Structure
Family Structure MetricImmigrants from Hong KongUte
Family Households
Exceptional
66.1%
Average
64.3%
Family Households with Children
Good
27.5%
Exceptional
28.2%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
49.6%
Tragic
44.4%
Average Family Size
Excellent
3.26
Exceptional
3.49
Single Father Households
Exceptional
1.8%
Tragic
3.0%
Single Mother Households
Exceptional
4.8%
Tragic
7.1%
Currently Married
Exceptional
48.9%
Tragic
43.9%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
10.0%
Tragic
12.6%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
23.6%
Poor
33.0%

Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Ute communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.5% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 35.1%), 3 or more vehicles in household (19.2% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 18.3%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (52.6% compared to 56.6%, a difference of 7.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.7% compared to 88.7%, a difference of 0.040%), no vehicles in household (11.3% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 2.6%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (52.6% compared to 56.6%, a difference of 7.6%).
Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricImmigrants from Hong KongUte
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
11.3%
Tragic
11.6%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
88.7%
Tragic
88.7%
2+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
52.6%
Exceptional
56.6%
3+ Vehicles Available
Fair
19.2%
Exceptional
22.7%
4+ Vehicles Available
Good
6.5%
Exceptional
8.8%

Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Ute communities in the United States are seen in master's degree (20.5% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 74.5%), professional degree (6.4% compared to 4.0%, a difference of 59.4%), and bachelor's degree (48.2% compared to 30.9%, a difference of 56.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 10th grade (93.1% compared to 93.4%, a difference of 0.40%), 5th grade (96.7% compared to 97.4%, a difference of 0.79%), and 4th grade (96.9% compared to 97.7%, a difference of 0.82%).
Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Education Level
Education Level MetricImmigrants from Hong KongUte
No Schooling Completed
Tragic
2.7%
Tragic
2.3%
Nursery School
Tragic
97.4%
Exceptional
98.2%
Kindergarten
Tragic
97.3%
Exceptional
98.2%
1st Grade
Tragic
97.3%
Exceptional
98.2%
2nd Grade
Tragic
97.2%
Exceptional
98.1%
3rd Grade
Tragic
97.1%
Exceptional
98.0%
4th Grade
Tragic
96.9%
Excellent
97.7%
5th Grade
Tragic
96.7%
Good
97.4%
6th Grade
Tragic
96.3%
Good
97.1%
7th Grade
Tragic
95.2%
Average
96.1%
8th Grade
Tragic
94.9%
Average
95.8%
9th Grade
Tragic
94.1%
Good
95.0%
10th Grade
Tragic
93.1%
Fair
93.4%
11th Grade
Fair
92.2%
Tragic
91.1%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Good
91.3%
Tragic
89.0%
High School Diploma
Average
89.3%
Tragic
86.2%
GED/Equivalency
Exceptional
86.9%
Tragic
81.8%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
71.0%
Tragic
60.2%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
66.4%
Tragic
53.8%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
55.4%
Tragic
38.6%
Bachelor's Degree
Exceptional
48.2%
Tragic
30.9%
Master's Degree
Exceptional
20.5%
Tragic
11.7%
Professional Degree
Exceptional
6.4%
Tragic
4.0%
Doctorate Degree
Exceptional
2.8%
Exceptional
2.0%

Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Hong Kong and Ute communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (8.2% compared to 13.4%, a difference of 63.2%), disability age 65 to 74 (19.9% compared to 27.3%, a difference of 37.5%), and disability age 18 to 34 (5.2% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 33.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 2.9%), cognitive disability (16.0% compared to 17.3%, a difference of 7.9%), and disability age under 5 (0.95% compared to 0.86%, a difference of 10.0%).
Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Ute Disability
Disability MetricImmigrants from Hong KongUte
Disability
Exceptional
10.0%
Poor
11.9%
Males
Exceptional
9.4%
Tragic
11.6%
Females
Exceptional
10.6%
Poor
12.4%
Age | Under 5 years
Exceptional
0.95%
Exceptional
0.86%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Excellent
5.5%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Exceptional
5.2%
Tragic
7.0%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
8.2%
Tragic
13.4%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
19.9%
Tragic
27.3%
Age | Over 75 years
Exceptional
46.5%
Tragic
52.6%
Vision
Exceptional
1.8%
Tragic
2.4%
Hearing
Exceptional
2.7%
Tragic
3.5%
Cognitive
Exceptional
16.0%
Average
17.3%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.3%
Excellent
6.0%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.4%
Average
2.5%