Ecuadorian vs Latvian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 170,337,556 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Latvians within Ecuadorian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.056. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Ecuadorians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.000% in Latvians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Ecuadorians corresponds to an increase of 0.4 Latvians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in median family income ($95,114 compared to $120,301, a difference of 26.5%), per capita income ($41,958 compared to $52,649, a difference of 25.5%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($93,739 compared to $115,957, a difference of 23.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($53,911 compared to $52,783, a difference of 2.1%), median female earnings ($39,117 compared to $43,941, a difference of 12.3%), and median earnings ($45,214 compared to $53,001, a difference of 17.2%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (6.5% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 66.9%), receiving food stamps (14.9% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 63.1%), and family poverty (10.8% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 52.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (16.5% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 0.25%), single male poverty (12.5% compared to 12.7%, a difference of 1.4%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.1% compared to 19.5%, a difference of 1.8%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 18 years (6.5% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 34.3%), female unemployment (6.3% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 33.9%), and unemployment (6.2% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 31.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.6% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 0.17%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.8% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 13.0%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.6% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 13.9%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.4% compared to 38.9%, a difference of 23.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (72.4% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 5.1%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.4% compared to 86.1%, a difference of 2.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age > 16 (65.6% compared to 65.5%, a difference of 0.21%), in labor force | age 35-44 (84.2% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 1.4%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (79.4% compared to 80.5%, a difference of 1.5%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (7.2% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 36.2%), births to unmarried women (33.3% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 20.0%), and single father households (2.4% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 19.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of divorced or separated (11.7% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 1.2%), family households (65.0% compared to 62.8%, a difference of 3.5%), and family households with children (27.8% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 5.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (22.8% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 132.4%), 3 or more vehicles in household (14.1% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 37.2%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (4.5% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 37.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (77.9% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 15.9%), 2 or more vehicles in household (42.0% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 34.0%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (4.5% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 37.1%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (3.0% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 91.6%), doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 76.6%), and professional degree (3.9% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 59.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.1% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 1.5%), kindergarten (97.0% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 1.5%), and 1st grade (97.0% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 1.5%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Ecuadorian and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (2.5% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 27.6%), disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 20.0%), and disability age 18 to 34 (5.8% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 17.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female disability (11.9% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 1.3%), disability (11.2% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 2.0%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.5% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 2.0%).