Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger 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)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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
Luxembourger
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

Luxembourgers

Excellent
Excellent
8,836
SOCIAL INDEX
85.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
45th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,215
SOCIAL INDEX
89.6/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
27th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Luxembourger Integration in Immigrants from Czechoslovakia Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 92,991,009 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Luxembourgers within Immigrant from Czechoslovakia communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.745. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Czechoslovakia within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.089% in Luxembourgers. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Czechoslovakia corresponds to an increase of 88.6 Luxembourgers.
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia Integration in Luxembourger Communities

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($51,770 compared to $45,663, a difference of 13.4%), median male earnings ($62,217 compared to $56,300, a difference of 10.5%), and median household income ($95,319 compared to $86,418, a difference of 10.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.3% compared to 27.4%, a difference of 0.57%), householder income under 25 years ($54,352 compared to $50,379, a difference of 7.9%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($111,914 compared to $103,536, a difference of 8.1%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Income
Income MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLuxembourger
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$51,770
Exceptional
$45,663
Median Family Income
Exceptional
$116,165
Excellent
$106,183
Median Household Income
Exceptional
$95,319
Good
$86,418
Median Earnings
Exceptional
$52,361
Excellent
$47,640
Median Male Earnings
Exceptional
$62,217
Excellent
$56,300
Median Female Earnings
Exceptional
$43,571
Average
$39,891
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Exceptional
$54,352
Tragic
$50,379
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Exceptional
$106,888
Excellent
$97,237
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Exceptional
$111,914
Excellent
$103,536
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Exceptional
$66,376
Average
$60,967
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.3%
Tragic
27.4%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (4.6% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 18.2%), single male poverty (12.1% compared to 13.4%, a difference of 10.5%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.1% compared to 20.9%, a difference of 9.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 25-34 year olds (12.1% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 0.34%), child poverty among girls under 16 (14.2% compared to 14.3%, a difference of 0.89%), and child poverty under the age of 5 (14.8% compared to 14.9%, a difference of 0.98%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Poverty
Poverty MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLuxembourger
Poverty
Exceptional
11.0%
Exceptional
10.6%
Families
Exceptional
7.7%
Exceptional
7.2%
Males
Exceptional
10.0%
Exceptional
9.5%
Females
Exceptional
11.9%
Exceptional
11.6%
Females 18 to 24 years
Exceptional
19.1%
Tragic
20.9%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
12.1%
Exceptional
12.1%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
14.8%
Exceptional
14.9%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.9%
Exceptional
13.6%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.4%
Exceptional
13.8%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.2%
Exceptional
14.3%
Single Males
Exceptional
12.1%
Tragic
13.4%
Single Females
Exceptional
19.0%
Excellent
20.4%
Single Fathers
Good
16.2%
Tragic
17.1%
Single Mothers
Exceptional
27.4%
Excellent
28.5%
Married Couples
Exceptional
4.6%
Exceptional
3.9%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
10.0%
Exceptional
9.2%
Seniors Over 75 years
Excellent
11.7%
Exceptional
10.8%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
9.6%
Exceptional
9.1%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.8% compared to 15.1%, a difference of 17.8%), unemployment (5.0% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 15.7%), and unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.5% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 14.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.3% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 2.6%), unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.4% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 4.5%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.5% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 4.8%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Unemployment
Unemployment MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLuxembourger
Unemployment
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.3%
Males
Exceptional
5.1%
Exceptional
4.5%
Females
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.4%
Youth < 25
Good
11.5%
Exceptional
10.0%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Fair
17.8%
Exceptional
15.1%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Average
10.3%
Exceptional
9.1%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Good
6.6%
Exceptional
6.2%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Excellent
5.3%
Exceptional
4.8%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Excellent
4.5%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Excellent
4.4%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Fair
4.8%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Fair
4.9%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Good
5.3%
Exceptional
5.2%
Seniors > 65
Good
5.1%
Exceptional
4.8%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
8.4%
Exceptional
7.7%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
7.0%
Exceptional
6.6%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Fair
9.0%
Exceptional
8.3%
Women w/ Children < 18
Excellent
5.2%
Exceptional
5.0%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (36.6% compared to 45.3%, a difference of 23.8%), in labor force | age 20-24 (75.0% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 5.3%), and in labor force | age > 16 (64.8% compared to 66.7%, a difference of 3.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (85.4% compared to 86.6%, a difference of 1.5%), in labor force | age 25-29 (85.4% compared to 86.9%, a difference of 1.7%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (84.8% compared to 86.4%, a difference of 1.9%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLuxembourger
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Poor
64.8%
Exceptional
66.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Excellent
79.9%
Exceptional
81.9%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Average
36.6%
Exceptional
45.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Average
75.0%
Exceptional
79.0%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Exceptional
85.4%
Exceptional
86.9%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Exceptional
85.4%
Exceptional
86.6%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Exceptional
84.8%
Exceptional
86.4%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Exceptional
83.4%
Exceptional
85.0%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.0% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 9.7%), single mother households (5.3% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 4.4%), and births to unmarried women (28.4% compared to 29.4%, a difference of 3.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (63.4% compared to 63.3%, a difference of 0.23%), average family size (3.14 compared to 3.10, a difference of 1.3%), and married-couple households (47.8% compared to 48.5%, a difference of 1.5%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Family Structure
Family Structure MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLuxembourger
Family Households
Tragic
63.4%
Tragic
63.3%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
26.2%
Tragic
27.0%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
47.8%
Exceptional
48.5%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.14
Tragic
3.10
Single Father Households
Exceptional
2.0%
Exceptional
2.2%
Single Mother Households
Exceptional
5.3%
Exceptional
5.6%
Currently Married
Exceptional
48.4%
Exceptional
49.3%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
11.7%
Exceptional
11.3%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
28.4%
Exceptional
29.4%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.8% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 120.0%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.8% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 14.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.5% compared to 20.9%, a difference of 13.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.3% compared to 94.8%, a difference of 7.3%), 2 or more vehicles in household (54.1% compared to 59.1%, a difference of 9.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (18.5% compared to 20.9%, a difference of 13.0%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLuxembourger
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
11.8%
Exceptional
5.4%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
88.3%
Exceptional
94.8%
2+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
54.1%
Exceptional
59.1%
3+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
18.5%
Exceptional
20.9%
4+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
5.8%
Excellent
6.6%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (5.8% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 26.1%), doctorate degree (2.4% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 22.0%), and master's degree (18.5% compared to 15.3%, a difference of 20.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.28%), kindergarten (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.29%), and 1st grade (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.29%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Education Level
Education Level MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLuxembourger
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.8%
Exceptional
1.6%
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
98.3%
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
96.3%
10th Grade
Exceptional
94.7%
Exceptional
95.4%
11th Grade
Exceptional
93.8%
Exceptional
94.5%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
92.7%
Exceptional
93.3%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
90.9%
Exceptional
91.7%
GED/Equivalency
Exceptional
87.9%
Exceptional
88.6%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
69.6%
Exceptional
68.2%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
64.1%
Exceptional
62.1%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
51.9%
Exceptional
48.9%
Bachelor's Degree
Exceptional
44.0%
Excellent
39.8%
Master's Degree
Exceptional
18.5%
Good
15.3%
Professional Degree
Exceptional
5.8%
Good
4.6%
Doctorate Degree
Exceptional
2.4%
Excellent
1.9%

Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Czechoslovakia and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 10.1%), disability age 18 to 34 (6.3% compared to 6.9%, a difference of 8.9%), and self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 7.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female disability (11.6% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 0.27%), disability age over 75 (45.1% compared to 44.8%, a difference of 0.64%), and cognitive disability (16.2% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 1.0%).
Immigrants from Czechoslovakia vs Luxembourger Disability
Disability MetricImmigrants from CzechoslovakiaLuxembourger
Disability
Exceptional
11.2%
Exceptional
11.3%
Males
Excellent
10.9%
Good
11.1%
Females
Exceptional
11.6%
Exceptional
11.6%
Age | Under 5 years
Excellent
1.2%
Tragic
1.3%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Exceptional
5.2%
Exceptional
5.3%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Exceptional
6.3%
Tragic
6.9%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
10.0%
Exceptional
10.6%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
21.0%
Exceptional
21.4%
Age | Over 75 years
Exceptional
45.1%
Exceptional
44.8%
Vision
Exceptional
2.0%
Exceptional
1.9%
Hearing
Poor
3.1%
Tragic
3.2%
Cognitive
Exceptional
16.2%
Exceptional
16.4%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.8%
Exceptional
5.6%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.4%
Exceptional
2.2%