Chinese vs Latvian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 50,382,188 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Latvians within Chinese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.095. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chinese within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.007% in Latvians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chinese corresponds to a decrease of 7.3 Latvians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chinese and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($77,465 compared to $67,326, a difference of 15.1%), per capita income ($46,098 compared to $52,649, a difference of 14.2%), and median male earnings ($56,872 compared to $63,498, a difference of 11.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($116,156 compared to $115,957, a difference of 0.17%), median household income ($98,496 compared to $97,311, a difference of 1.2%), and median family income ($116,188 compared to $120,301, a difference of 3.5%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chinese and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in female poverty among 18-24 year olds (16.2% compared to 19.5%, a difference of 20.5%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (9.1% compared to 10.8%, a difference of 19.3%), and single female poverty (16.1% compared to 19.0%, a difference of 17.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.4% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 6.8%), married-couple family poverty (3.6% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 6.9%), and receiving food stamps (9.8% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 7.1%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chinese and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (5.9% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 45.2%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.0% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 20.0%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.2% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 17.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 0.47%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (4.9% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 1.1%), and unemployment (4.7% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 1.3%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chinese and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 25-29 (84.3% compared to 86.1%, a difference of 2.1%), in labor force | age 20-24 (77.3% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 1.6%), and in labor force | age > 16 (64.7% compared to 65.5%, a difference of 1.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-64 (80.7% compared to 80.5%, a difference of 0.19%), in labor force | age 35-44 (85.1% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 0.35%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (84.1% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 0.42%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chinese and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (30.2% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 9.1%), family households (68.1% compared to 62.8%, a difference of 8.6%), and average family size (3.34 compared to 3.11, a difference of 7.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (26.0% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 1.7%), single father households (2.0% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 1.7%), and currently married (49.5% compared to 48.5%, a difference of 2.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 44.6%), 3 or more vehicles in household (23.9% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 23.8%), and no vehicles in household (8.2% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 19.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.9% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 1.7%), 2 or more vehicles in household (60.1% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 6.9%), and no vehicles in household (8.2% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 19.1%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chinese and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (1.8% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 46.0%), professional degree (4.5% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 39.9%), and master's degree (14.6% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 36.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (93.6% compared to 93.6%, a difference of 0.010%), high school diploma (92.0% compared to 92.0%, a difference of 0.010%), and 10th grade (95.5% compared to 95.6%, a difference of 0.030%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chinese and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 15.0%), hearing disability (3.7% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 15.0%), and disability age 5 to 17 (4.7% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 14.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 35 to 64 (10.3% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 1.2%), disability age 65 to 74 (21.7% compared to 21.2%, a difference of 2.2%), and vision disability (2.0% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 3.1%).