Immigrants from Costa Rica vs Immigrants from Latvia Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 78,741,606 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Latvia within Immigrant from Costa Rica communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.166. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Costa Rica within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.014% in Immigrants from Latvia. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Costa Rica corresponds to an increase of 14.3 Immigrants from Latvia.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Costa Rica and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($43,464 compared to $50,914, a difference of 17.1%), median male earnings ($53,237 compared to $61,422, a difference of 15.4%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($92,876 compared to $105,522, a difference of 13.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($52,643 compared to $51,737, a difference of 1.8%), householder income over 65 years ($59,848 compared to $64,298, a difference of 7.4%), and wage/income gap (24.7% compared to 26.7%, a difference of 8.2%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Costa Rica and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (5.4% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 20.5%), family poverty (9.4% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 19.3%), and receiving food stamps (12.2% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 17.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single male poverty (12.5% compared to 12.2%, a difference of 2.7%), single father poverty (16.3% compared to 15.8%, a difference of 3.0%), and single mother poverty (29.2% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 5.5%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Costa Rica and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (8.0% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 18.1%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.5% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 8.9%), and unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.6% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 8.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.7% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 1.6%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.0% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 2.5%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.0% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 3.0%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Costa Rica and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (35.6% compared to 36.8%, a difference of 3.4%), in labor force | age 30-34 (84.5% compared to 85.9%, a difference of 1.6%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (84.2% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 1.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.9% compared to 75.0%, a difference of 0.11%), in labor force | age 25-29 (85.1% compared to 85.6%, a difference of 0.54%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (79.7% compared to 80.1%, a difference of 0.59%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Costa Rica and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.4% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 24.1%), single mother households (6.7% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 22.8%), and births to unmarried women (33.4% compared to 29.1%, a difference of 14.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple households (46.3% compared to 46.0%, a difference of 0.70%), currently married (46.0% compared to 46.7%, a difference of 1.6%), and average family size (3.26 compared to 3.13, a difference of 4.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Costa Rica and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.5% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 18.3%), no vehicles in household (10.3% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 17.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.7% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 13.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (89.8% compared to 88.1%, a difference of 2.0%), 2 or more vehicles in household (55.4% compared to 52.2%, a difference of 6.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.7% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 13.2%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Costa Rica and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (1.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 33.7%), professional degree (4.4% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 33.2%), and master's degree (14.7% compared to 19.1%, a difference of 30.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.7% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.50%), kindergarten (97.7% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.51%), and 1st grade (97.7% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.51%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Costa Rica and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (2.9% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 8.8%), vision disability (2.2% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 7.7%), and disability age under 5 (1.3% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 6.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of male disability (11.0% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 0.28%), disability (11.4% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 0.41%), and female disability (11.7% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 1.1%).