Creek vs Latvian Community Comparison

COMPARE

Creek
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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 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
Latvian
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch 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 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

Creek

Latvians

Fair
Exceptional
2,959
SOCIAL INDEX
27.1/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
237th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,576
SOCIAL INDEX
93.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
12th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Latvian Integration in Creek Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 106,855,007 people shows a near-perfect positive correlation between the proportion of Latvians within Creek communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.906. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Creek within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.326% in Latvians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Creek corresponds to an increase of 326.2 Latvians.
Creek Integration in Latvian Communities

Creek vs Latvian Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($35,546 compared to $52,649, a difference of 48.1%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($78,960 compared to $115,957, a difference of 46.9%), and median family income ($82,560 compared to $120,301, a difference of 45.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.1% compared to 27.9%, a difference of 2.7%), householder income under 25 years ($45,371 compared to $52,783, a difference of 16.3%), and householder income over 65 years ($51,949 compared to $67,326, a difference of 29.6%).
Creek vs Latvian Income
Income MetricCreekLatvian
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$35,546
Exceptional
$52,649
Median Family Income
Tragic
$82,560
Exceptional
$120,301
Median Household Income
Tragic
$67,715
Exceptional
$97,311
Median Earnings
Tragic
$39,648
Exceptional
$53,001
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$46,594
Exceptional
$63,498
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$33,437
Exceptional
$43,941
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$45,371
Excellent
$52,783
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$74,847
Exceptional
$108,926
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$78,960
Exceptional
$115,957
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$51,949
Exceptional
$67,326
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.1%
Tragic
27.9%

Creek vs Latvian Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (24.2% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 67.0%), family poverty (11.7% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 64.6%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (21.5% compared to 13.2%, a difference of 63.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 10.8%, a difference of 6.8%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.9% compared to 9.5%, a difference of 15.7%), and single father poverty (19.8% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 20.5%).
Creek vs Latvian Poverty
Poverty MetricCreekLatvian
Poverty
Tragic
15.6%
Exceptional
10.5%
Families
Tragic
11.7%
Exceptional
7.1%
Males
Tragic
14.1%
Exceptional
9.6%
Females
Tragic
17.0%
Exceptional
11.4%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
24.2%
Exceptional
19.5%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
19.2%
Exceptional
11.8%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
24.2%
Exceptional
14.5%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
21.5%
Exceptional
13.2%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
21.5%
Exceptional
13.4%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
21.7%
Exceptional
13.5%
Single Males
Tragic
16.8%
Good
12.7%
Single Females
Tragic
27.4%
Exceptional
19.0%
Single Fathers
Tragic
19.8%
Fair
16.5%
Single Mothers
Tragic
36.7%
Exceptional
26.9%
Married Couples
Tragic
6.2%
Exceptional
3.9%
Seniors Over 65 years
Average
10.9%
Exceptional
9.5%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
11.6%
Exceptional
10.8%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
14.1%
Exceptional
9.1%

Creek vs Latvian Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (8.9% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 31.7%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.6% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 31.2%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (5.4% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 28.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.2% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 1.2%), unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (9.7% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 2.1%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.2% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 3.0%).
Creek vs Latvian Unemployment
Unemployment MetricCreekLatvian
Unemployment
Poor
5.4%
Exceptional
4.7%
Males
Tragic
5.6%
Exceptional
4.8%
Females
Poor
5.4%
Exceptional
4.7%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.2%
Exceptional
11.0%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Excellent
17.2%
Exceptional
16.7%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.7%
Exceptional
9.9%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
7.6%
Exceptional
6.2%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.6%
Exceptional
5.0%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
5.4%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Poor
4.6%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Poor
4.9%
Exceptional
4.6%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.6%
Good
4.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
4.8%
Exceptional
5.1%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.6%
Exceptional
4.9%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.8%
Excellent
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
8.9%
Exceptional
6.8%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
9.4%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
5.8%
Exceptional
4.9%

Creek vs Latvian Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (77.7% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 7.8%), in labor force | age 20-64 (75.1% compared to 80.5%, a difference of 7.2%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (80.4% compared to 86.0%, a difference of 7.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (39.1% compared to 38.9%, a difference of 0.68%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 2.1%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (80.7% compared to 86.1%, a difference of 6.7%).
Creek vs Latvian Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricCreekLatvian
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
61.3%
Excellent
65.5%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
75.1%
Exceptional
80.5%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
39.1%
Exceptional
38.9%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Poor
74.5%
Exceptional
76.1%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
80.7%
Exceptional
86.1%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
80.4%
Exceptional
86.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
80.0%
Exceptional
85.4%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
77.7%
Exceptional
83.8%

Creek vs Latvian Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (37.6% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 35.5%), single mother households (7.0% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 32.9%), and single father households (2.6% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 29.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.2% compared to 62.8%, a difference of 2.2%), average family size (3.20 compared to 3.11, a difference of 3.0%), and family households with children (27.4% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 3.5%).
Creek vs Latvian Family Structure
Family Structure MetricCreekLatvian
Family Households
Fair
64.2%
Tragic
62.8%
Family Households with Children
Fair
27.4%
Tragic
26.4%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
45.3%
Exceptional
47.9%
Average Family Size
Poor
3.20
Tragic
3.11
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.6%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.0%
Exceptional
5.3%
Currently Married
Poor
46.0%
Exceptional
48.5%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
14.4%
Exceptional
11.6%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
37.6%
Exceptional
27.7%

Creek vs Latvian Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.8% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 25.9%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.2% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 17.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.9% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 13.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 2.2%), 2 or more vehicles in household (58.3% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 3.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.9% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 13.6%).
Creek vs Latvian Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricCreekLatvian
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.8%
Excellent
9.8%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
92.3%
Excellent
90.3%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
58.3%
Excellent
56.2%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
21.9%
Fair
19.3%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.2%
Fair
6.1%

Creek vs Latvian Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.1% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 101.7%), doctorate degree (1.3% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 91.3%), and master's degree (10.5% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 88.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.4% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.10%), kindergarten (98.4% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.10%), and 1st grade (98.4% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.10%).
Creek vs Latvian Education Level
Education Level MetricCreekLatvian
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.6%
Exceptional
1.5%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.5%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.4%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.4%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
98.2%
5th Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.7%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.9%
Exceptional
97.2%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.6%
Exceptional
97.0%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.6%
Exceptional
96.4%
10th Grade
Exceptional
94.2%
Exceptional
95.6%
11th Grade
Average
92.4%
Exceptional
94.7%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
90.3%
Exceptional
93.6%
High School Diploma
Tragic
88.3%
Exceptional
92.0%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
83.6%
Exceptional
89.2%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
59.3%
Exceptional
71.6%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
52.2%
Exceptional
66.1%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
37.6%
Exceptional
53.9%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
28.9%
Exceptional
46.1%
Master's Degree
Tragic
10.5%
Exceptional
19.8%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.1%
Exceptional
6.2%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.3%
Exceptional
2.6%

Creek vs Latvian Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (16.9% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 66.0%), vision disability (3.2% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 61.6%), and ambulatory disability (8.5% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 47.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.3% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 9.8%), disability age over 75 (51.5% compared to 45.1%, a difference of 14.0%), and self-care disability (2.8% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 23.5%).
Creek vs Latvian Disability
Disability MetricCreekLatvian
Disability
Tragic
15.6%
Excellent
11.4%
Males
Tragic
15.5%
Good
11.1%
Females
Tragic
15.7%
Exceptional
11.7%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.6%
Tragic
1.3%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.9%
Exceptional
5.4%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.0%
Poor
6.8%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.9%
Exceptional
10.2%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
30.2%
Exceptional
21.2%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
51.5%
Exceptional
45.1%
Vision
Tragic
3.2%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
4.4%
Tragic
3.2%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.3%
Exceptional
16.6%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.5%
Exceptional
5.7%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.8%
Exceptional
2.3%