Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Community Comparison

COMPARE

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia
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/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 RicaCroatiaCubaDenmarkDominicaDominican 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

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia

Latvians

Excellent
Exceptional
8,836
SOCIAL INDEX
85.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
45th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,576
SOCIAL INDEX
93.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
12th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Latvian Integration in Immigrants from Czechoslovakia Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 132,617,643 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Latvians within Immigrant from Czechoslovakia communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.472. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Czechoslovakia within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.164% in Latvians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Czechoslovakia corresponds to an increase of 163.5 Latvians.
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia Integration in Latvian Communities

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($111,914 compared to $115,957, a difference of 3.6%), median family income ($116,165 compared to $120,301, a difference of 3.6%), and householder income under 25 years ($54,352 compared to $52,783, a difference of 3.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median female earnings ($43,571 compared to $43,941, a difference of 0.85%), median earnings ($52,361 compared to $53,001, a difference of 1.2%), and householder income over 65 years ($66,376 compared to $67,326, a difference of 1.4%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Income
Income MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLatvian
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$51,770
Exceptional
$52,649
Median Family Income
Exceptional
$116,165
Exceptional
$120,301
Median Household Income
Exceptional
$95,319
Exceptional
$97,311
Median Earnings
Exceptional
$52,361
Exceptional
$53,001
Median Male Earnings
Exceptional
$62,217
Exceptional
$63,498
Median Female Earnings
Exceptional
$43,571
Exceptional
$43,941
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Exceptional
$54,352
Excellent
$52,783
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Exceptional
$106,888
Exceptional
$108,926
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Exceptional
$111,914
Exceptional
$115,957
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Exceptional
$66,376
Exceptional
$67,326
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.3%
Tragic
27.9%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (4.6% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 17.5%), family poverty (7.7% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 8.3%), and seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.7% compared to 10.8%, a difference of 8.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single female poverty (19.0% compared to 19.0%, a difference of 0.29%), single father poverty (16.2% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 1.6%), and single mother poverty (27.4% compared to 26.9%, a difference of 1.7%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Poverty
Poverty MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLatvian
Poverty
Exceptional
11.0%
Exceptional
10.5%
Families
Exceptional
7.7%
Exceptional
7.1%
Males
Exceptional
10.0%
Exceptional
9.6%
Females
Exceptional
11.9%
Exceptional
11.4%
Females 18 to 24 years
Exceptional
19.1%
Exceptional
19.5%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
12.1%
Exceptional
11.8%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
14.8%
Exceptional
14.5%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.9%
Exceptional
13.2%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.4%
Exceptional
13.4%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.2%
Exceptional
13.5%
Single Males
Exceptional
12.1%
Good
12.7%
Single Females
Exceptional
19.0%
Exceptional
19.0%
Single Fathers
Good
16.2%
Fair
16.5%
Single Mothers
Exceptional
27.4%
Exceptional
26.9%
Married Couples
Exceptional
4.6%
Exceptional
3.9%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
10.0%
Exceptional
9.5%
Seniors Over 75 years
Excellent
11.7%
Exceptional
10.8%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
9.6%
Exceptional
9.1%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.5% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 7.9%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.2% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 7.6%), and female unemployment (5.0% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 7.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.4% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 1.7%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.9% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 2.2%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.3% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 3.6%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Unemployment
Unemployment MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLatvian
Unemployment
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.7%
Males
Exceptional
5.1%
Exceptional
4.8%
Females
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.7%
Youth < 25
Good
11.5%
Exceptional
11.0%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Fair
17.8%
Exceptional
16.7%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Average
10.3%
Exceptional
9.9%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Good
6.6%
Exceptional
6.2%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Excellent
5.3%
Exceptional
5.0%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Excellent
4.5%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Excellent
4.4%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Fair
4.8%
Exceptional
4.6%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Fair
4.9%
Good
4.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Good
5.3%
Exceptional
5.1%
Seniors > 65
Good
5.1%
Exceptional
4.9%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
8.4%
Excellent
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
7.0%
Exceptional
6.8%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Fair
9.0%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Excellent
5.2%
Exceptional
4.9%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (36.6% compared to 38.9%, a difference of 6.3%), in labor force | age 20-24 (75.0% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 1.5%), and in labor force | age > 16 (64.8% compared to 65.5%, a difference of 1.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 45-54 (83.4% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 0.47%), in labor force | age 35-44 (84.8% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 0.68%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (79.9% compared to 80.5%, a difference of 0.77%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLatvian
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Poor
64.8%
Excellent
65.5%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Excellent
79.9%
Exceptional
80.5%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Average
36.6%
Exceptional
38.9%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Average
75.0%
Exceptional
76.1%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Exceptional
85.4%
Exceptional
86.1%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Exceptional
85.4%
Exceptional
86.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Exceptional
84.8%
Exceptional
85.4%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Exceptional
83.4%
Exceptional
83.8%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (28.4% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 2.4%), single father households (2.0% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 1.4%), and average family size (3.14 compared to 3.11, a difference of 1.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple households (47.8% compared to 47.9%, a difference of 0.22%), currently married (48.4% compared to 48.5%, a difference of 0.23%), and single mother households (5.3% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 0.72%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Family Structure
Family Structure MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLatvian
Family Households
Tragic
63.4%
Tragic
62.8%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
26.2%
Tragic
26.4%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
47.8%
Exceptional
47.9%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.14
Tragic
3.11
Single Father Households
Exceptional
2.0%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Exceptional
5.3%
Exceptional
5.3%
Currently Married
Exceptional
48.4%
Exceptional
48.5%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
11.7%
Exceptional
11.6%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
28.4%
Exceptional
27.7%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.8% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 20.4%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.8% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 5.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.5% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 4.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.3% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 2.3%), 2 or more vehicles in household (54.1% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 4.0%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.5% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 4.4%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLatvian
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
11.8%
Excellent
9.8%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
88.3%
Excellent
90.3%
2+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
54.1%
Excellent
56.2%
3+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
18.5%
Fair
19.3%
4+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
5.8%
Fair
6.1%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.8% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 18.1%), doctorate degree (2.4% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 9.0%), and professional degree (5.8% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 7.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.29%), kindergarten (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.30%), and 1st grade (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.30%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Education Level
Education Level MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLatvian
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.8%
Exceptional
1.5%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.5%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
98.4%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Exceptional
98.4%
4th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Exceptional
98.2%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.7%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.4%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.6%
Exceptional
97.2%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Exceptional
97.0%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.7%
Exceptional
96.4%
10th Grade
Exceptional
94.7%
Exceptional
95.6%
11th Grade
Exceptional
93.8%
Exceptional
94.7%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
92.7%
Exceptional
93.6%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
90.9%
Exceptional
92.0%
GED/Equivalency
Exceptional
87.9%
Exceptional
89.2%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
69.6%
Exceptional
71.6%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
64.1%
Exceptional
66.1%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
51.9%
Exceptional
53.9%
Bachelor's Degree
Exceptional
44.0%
Exceptional
46.1%
Master's Degree
Exceptional
18.5%
Exceptional
19.8%
Professional Degree
Exceptional
5.8%
Exceptional
6.2%
Doctorate Degree
Exceptional
2.4%
Exceptional
2.6%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 9.7%), disability age 18 to 34 (6.3% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 8.6%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.2% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 3.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (45.1% compared to 45.1%, a difference of 0.010%), disability age 65 to 74 (21.0% compared to 21.2%, a difference of 1.1%), and female disability (11.6% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 1.3%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Latvian Disability
Disability MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLatvian
Disability
Exceptional
11.2%
Excellent
11.4%
Males
Excellent
10.9%
Good
11.1%
Females
Exceptional
11.6%
Exceptional
11.7%
Age | Under 5 years
Excellent
1.2%
Tragic
1.3%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Exceptional
5.2%
Exceptional
5.4%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Exceptional
6.3%
Poor
6.8%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
10.0%
Exceptional
10.2%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
21.0%
Exceptional
21.2%
Age | Over 75 years
Exceptional
45.1%
Exceptional
45.1%
Vision
Exceptional
2.0%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Poor
3.1%
Tragic
3.2%
Cognitive
Exceptional
16.2%
Exceptional
16.6%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.8%
Exceptional
5.7%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.4%
Exceptional
2.3%