Hmong vs Latvian Community Comparison

COMPARE

Hmong
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 RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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 TobagonianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYup'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

Hmong

Latvians

Average
Exceptional
4,737
SOCIAL INDEX
44.9/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
196th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,576
SOCIAL INDEX
93.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
12th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Latvian Integration in Hmong Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 22,579,968 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Latvians within Hmong communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.570. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Hmong within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.197% in Latvians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Hmong corresponds to an increase of 196.7 Latvians.
Hmong Integration in Latvian Communities

Hmong vs Latvian Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Hmong and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($38,120 compared to $52,649, a difference of 38.1%), median family income ($91,296 compared to $120,301, a difference of 31.8%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($88,115 compared to $115,957, a difference of 31.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.7% compared to 27.9%, a difference of 0.64%), householder income under 25 years ($49,364 compared to $52,783, a difference of 6.9%), and householder income over 65 years ($56,339 compared to $67,326, a difference of 19.5%).
Hmong vs Latvian Income
Income MetricHmongLatvian
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$38,120
Exceptional
$52,649
Median Family Income
Tragic
$91,296
Exceptional
$120,301
Median Household Income
Tragic
$75,839
Exceptional
$97,311
Median Earnings
Tragic
$42,111
Exceptional
$53,001
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$48,254
Exceptional
$63,498
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$35,498
Exceptional
$43,941
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$49,364
Excellent
$52,783
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$84,258
Exceptional
$108,926
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$88,115
Exceptional
$115,957
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$56,339
Exceptional
$67,326
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.7%
Tragic
27.9%

Hmong vs Latvian Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Hmong and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 16 (17.1% compared to 13.2%, a difference of 29.7%), child poverty among girls under 16 (17.5% compared to 13.5%, a difference of 29.2%), and family poverty (9.1% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 28.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.0% compared to 19.5%, a difference of 2.9%), single father poverty (15.9% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 3.7%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.4% compared to 9.5%, a difference of 10.0%).
Hmong vs Latvian Poverty
Poverty MetricHmongLatvian
Poverty
Poor
12.8%
Exceptional
10.5%
Families
Average
9.1%
Exceptional
7.1%
Males
Poor
11.6%
Exceptional
9.6%
Females
Fair
13.9%
Exceptional
11.4%
Females 18 to 24 years
Average
20.0%
Exceptional
19.5%
Females 25 to 34 years
Fair
13.9%
Exceptional
11.8%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
18.5%
Exceptional
14.5%
Children Under 16 years
Poor
17.1%
Exceptional
13.2%
Boys Under 16 years
Fair
16.6%
Exceptional
13.4%
Girls Under 16 years
Poor
17.5%
Exceptional
13.5%
Single Males
Tragic
14.2%
Good
12.7%
Single Females
Tragic
23.1%
Exceptional
19.0%
Single Fathers
Exceptional
15.9%
Fair
16.5%
Single Mothers
Tragic
31.2%
Exceptional
26.9%
Married Couples
Excellent
5.0%
Exceptional
3.9%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
10.4%
Exceptional
9.5%
Seniors Over 75 years
Good
12.0%
Exceptional
10.8%
Receiving Food Stamps
Excellent
10.9%
Exceptional
9.1%

Hmong vs Latvian Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Hmong and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (13.7% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 60.0%), unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.7% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 22.9%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.2% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 22.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.7% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 0.96%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.7% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 1.7%), and unemployment among youth under 25 years (10.8% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 2.0%).
Hmong vs Latvian Unemployment
Unemployment MetricHmongLatvian
Unemployment
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.7%
Males
Tragic
5.5%
Exceptional
4.8%
Females
Exceptional
4.4%
Exceptional
4.7%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
10.8%
Exceptional
11.0%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
16.3%
Exceptional
16.7%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.4%
Exceptional
9.9%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Exceptional
5.7%
Exceptional
6.2%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Exceptional
4.9%
Exceptional
5.0%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
5.0%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
3.7%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
5.7%
Exceptional
4.6%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.0%
Good
4.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Exceptional
5.1%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.2%
Exceptional
4.9%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
13.7%
Excellent
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.7%
Exceptional
6.8%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.7%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
4.5%
Exceptional
4.9%

Hmong vs Latvian Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Hmong and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 30-34 (82.4% compared to 86.0%, a difference of 4.4%), in labor force | age 35-44 (82.6% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 3.4%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (77.9% compared to 80.5%, a difference of 3.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (38.7% compared to 38.9%, a difference of 0.42%), in labor force | age 20-24 (76.5% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 0.60%), and in labor force | age > 16 (64.1% compared to 65.5%, a difference of 2.2%).
Hmong vs Latvian Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricHmongLatvian
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
64.1%
Excellent
65.5%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
77.9%
Exceptional
80.5%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.7%
Exceptional
38.9%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
76.5%
Exceptional
76.1%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
83.7%
Exceptional
86.1%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
82.4%
Exceptional
86.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
82.6%
Exceptional
85.4%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
81.7%
Exceptional
83.8%

Hmong vs Latvian Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Hmong and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (6.4% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 20.8%), single father households (2.4% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 18.1%), and family households with children (28.6% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 8.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of births to unmarried women (27.7% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 0.040%), married-couple households (47.0% compared to 47.9%, a difference of 2.0%), and currently married (47.1% compared to 48.5%, a difference of 3.0%).
Hmong vs Latvian Family Structure
Family Structure MetricHmongLatvian
Family Households
Exceptional
64.9%
Tragic
62.8%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.6%
Tragic
26.4%
Married-couple Households
Good
47.0%
Exceptional
47.9%
Average Family Size
Fair
3.21
Tragic
3.11
Single Father Households
Fair
2.4%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Fair
6.4%
Exceptional
5.3%
Currently Married
Good
47.1%
Exceptional
48.5%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
12.3%
Exceptional
11.6%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
27.7%
Exceptional
27.7%

Hmong vs Latvian Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Hmong and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.0% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 14.0%), 3 or more vehicles in household (21.0% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 8.8%), and no vehicles in household (10.4% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 5.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (89.6% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 0.78%), 2 or more vehicles in household (57.8% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 2.8%), and no vehicles in household (10.4% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 5.9%).
Hmong vs Latvian Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricHmongLatvian
No Vehicles Available
Average
10.4%
Excellent
9.8%
1+ Vehicles Available
Average
89.6%
Excellent
90.3%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
57.8%
Excellent
56.2%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
21.0%
Fair
19.3%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.0%
Fair
6.1%

Hmong vs Latvian Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Hmong and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.7% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 66.7%), doctorate degree (1.6% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 64.1%), and master's degree (13.4% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 47.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (98.1% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.46%), 1st grade (98.0% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.46%), and nursery school (98.1% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.47%).
Hmong vs Latvian Education Level
Education Level MetricHmongLatvian
No Schooling Completed
Excellent
1.9%
Exceptional
1.5%
Nursery School
Good
98.1%
Exceptional
98.5%
Kindergarten
Good
98.1%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Good
98.0%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Good
98.0%
Exceptional
98.4%
3rd Grade
Excellent
97.9%
Exceptional
98.4%
4th Grade
Excellent
97.7%
Exceptional
98.2%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.4%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Exceptional
97.2%
8th Grade
Excellent
96.1%
Exceptional
97.0%
9th Grade
Excellent
95.2%
Exceptional
96.4%
10th Grade
Excellent
94.1%
Exceptional
95.6%
11th Grade
Good
92.8%
Exceptional
94.7%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Average
91.3%
Exceptional
93.6%
High School Diploma
Average
89.1%
Exceptional
92.0%
GED/Equivalency
Poor
84.9%
Exceptional
89.2%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
63.5%
Exceptional
71.6%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
57.2%
Exceptional
66.1%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
43.4%
Exceptional
53.9%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
34.8%
Exceptional
46.1%
Master's Degree
Tragic
13.4%
Exceptional
19.8%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.7%
Exceptional
6.2%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.6%
Exceptional
2.6%

Hmong vs Latvian Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Hmong and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (13.1% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 29.2%), disability age 65 to 74 (25.7% compared to 21.2%, a difference of 20.9%), and disability age 18 to 34 (8.1% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 17.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 4.6%), disability age over 75 (48.2% compared to 45.1%, a difference of 6.8%), and hearing disability (3.4% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 7.2%).
Hmong vs Latvian Disability
Disability MetricHmongLatvian
Disability
Tragic
12.8%
Excellent
11.4%
Males
Tragic
12.5%
Good
11.1%
Females
Tragic
13.1%
Exceptional
11.7%
Age | Under 5 years
Exceptional
1.1%
Tragic
1.3%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
5.4%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
8.1%
Poor
6.8%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
13.1%
Exceptional
10.2%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
25.7%
Exceptional
21.2%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
48.2%
Exceptional
45.1%
Vision
Tragic
2.3%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
3.4%
Tragic
3.2%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.4%
Exceptional
16.6%
Ambulatory
Tragic
6.6%
Exceptional
5.7%
Self-Care
Excellent
2.4%
Exceptional
2.3%