Ecuadorian vs Immigrants from Uganda Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 109,551,046 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Uganda within Ecuadorian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.332. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Ecuadorians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.008% in Immigrants from Uganda. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Ecuadorians corresponds to an increase of 8.5 Immigrants from Uganda.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($54,958 compared to $61,976, a difference of 12.8%), median family income ($95,114 compared to $106,188, a difference of 11.6%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($93,739 compared to $103,584, a difference of 10.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($53,911 compared to $52,374, a difference of 2.9%), median female earnings ($39,117 compared to $40,739, a difference of 4.2%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($91,574 compared to $95,698, a difference of 4.5%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (15.7% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 33.8%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (14.0% compared to 11.1%, a difference of 26.0%), and married-couple family poverty (6.5% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 25.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single male poverty (12.5% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 0.89%), single father poverty (16.5% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 1.4%), and female poverty among 25-34 year olds (14.3% compared to 13.5%, a difference of 6.3%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (20.5% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 24.4%), unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.6% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 23.7%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.8% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 23.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (10.0% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 6.3%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (7.9% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 6.7%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.6% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 7.2%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.4% compared to 39.2%, a difference of 24.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (72.4% compared to 76.0%, a difference of 5.0%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.6% compared to 67.5%, a difference of 2.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (84.4% compared to 85.2%, a difference of 0.94%), in labor force | age 35-44 (84.2% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 0.98%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (82.3% compared to 83.7%, a difference of 1.7%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (7.2% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 9.6%), births to unmarried women (33.3% compared to 30.5%, a difference of 9.1%), and family households (65.0% compared to 62.7%, a difference of 3.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of divorced or separated (11.7% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 0.0%), single father households (2.4% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 0.15%), and family households with children (27.8% compared to 28.0%, a difference of 0.80%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (22.8% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 127.6%), 4 or more vehicles in household (4.5% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 32.7%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (42.0% compared to 55.0%, a difference of 31.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (77.9% compared to 90.1%, a difference of 15.5%), 3 or more vehicles in household (14.1% compared to 18.4%, a difference of 30.8%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (42.0% compared to 55.0%, a difference of 31.0%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 51.7%), professional degree (3.9% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 28.7%), and no schooling completed (3.0% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 27.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.1% compared to 97.9%, a difference of 0.82%), kindergarten (97.0% compared to 97.8%, a difference of 0.83%), and 1st grade (97.0% compared to 97.8%, a difference of 0.84%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Immigrants from Uganda communities in the United States are seen in disability age 18 to 34 (5.8% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 15.8%), hearing disability (2.5% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 14.1%), and self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 12.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female disability (11.9% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 0.87%), disability (11.2% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 0.93%), and disability age over 75 (47.4% compared to 46.8%, a difference of 1.2%).