Burmese vs Immigrants from Czechoslovakia Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 188,231,318 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Czechoslovakia within Burmese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.020. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Burmese within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.000% in Immigrants from Czechoslovakia. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Burmese corresponds to a decrease of 0.1 Immigrants from Czechoslovakia.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Burmese and Immigrants from Czechoslovakia communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($121,444 compared to $111,914, a difference of 8.5%), median household income ($103,145 compared to $95,319, a difference of 8.2%), and householder income over 65 years ($71,139 compared to $66,376, a difference of 7.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of per capita income ($52,005 compared to $51,770, a difference of 0.45%), householder income under 25 years ($54,800 compared to $54,352, a difference of 0.82%), and wage/income gap (28.0% compared to 27.3%, a difference of 2.7%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Burmese and Immigrants from Czechoslovakia communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (13.2% compared to 14.8%, a difference of 11.7%), receiving food stamps (8.6% compared to 9.6%, a difference of 11.5%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (13.0% compared to 14.4%, a difference of 10.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.7% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 0.34%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.1% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 0.62%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (18.9% compared to 19.1%, a difference of 1.1%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Burmese and Immigrants from Czechoslovakia communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.0% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 13.5%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.5% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 8.6%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.2% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 6.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female unemployment (5.0% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 0.22%), unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.3% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 1.5%), and unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.2% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 1.8%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Burmese and Immigrants from Czechoslovakia communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (34.5% compared to 36.6%, a difference of 6.0%), in labor force | age > 16 (66.2% compared to 64.8%, a difference of 2.2%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (73.6% compared to 75.0%, a difference of 1.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 84.8%, a difference of 0.12%), in labor force | age 30-34 (85.3% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 0.13%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.6% compared to 83.4%, a difference of 0.27%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Burmese and Immigrants from Czechoslovakia communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (10.7% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 9.2%), family households with children (28.5% compared to 26.2%, a difference of 8.7%), and births to unmarried women (26.4% compared to 28.4%, a difference of 7.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father households (2.0% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 0.020%), single mother households (5.3% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 0.66%), and currently married (48.9% compared to 48.4%, a difference of 1.2%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Burmese and Immigrants from Czechoslovakia communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.7% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 21.8%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.8% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 18.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (20.6% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 11.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.4% compared to 88.3%, a difference of 2.4%), 2 or more vehicles in household (57.8% compared to 54.1%, a difference of 6.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (20.6% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 11.7%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Burmese and Immigrants from Czechoslovakia communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (2.6% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 11.5%), no schooling completed (1.9% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 7.0%), and bachelor's degree (46.9% compared to 44.0%, a difference of 6.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (92.6% compared to 92.7%, a difference of 0.040%), high school diploma (90.8% compared to 90.9%, a difference of 0.040%), and nursery school (98.1% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.14%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Burmese and Immigrants from Czechoslovakia communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (2.8% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 11.2%), ambulatory disability (5.3% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 10.2%), and male disability (10.0% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 9.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (45.9% compared to 45.1%, a difference of 1.8%), disability age 65 to 74 (20.6% compared to 21.0%, a difference of 1.8%), and cognitive disability (16.7% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 2.8%).