Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Community Comparison

COMPARE

Immigrants from Ecuador
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAmericanApacheArabArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianCosta RicanCreekCroatianCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHonduranHungarianIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsagePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYaquiYugoslavianYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral 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 GrenadinesSudanSwedenSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
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)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 RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEgyptEl 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 Ecuador

Hmong

Poor
Average
2,063
SOCIAL INDEX
18.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
272nd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
4,737
SOCIAL INDEX
44.9/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
196th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Hmong Integration in Immigrants from Ecuador Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 22,868,695 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Hmong within Immigrant from Ecuador communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.159. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Ecuador within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.003% in Hmong. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Ecuador corresponds to a decrease of 2.7 Hmong.
Immigrants from Ecuador Integration in Hmong Communities

Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (22.5% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 23.2%), median female earnings ($38,644 compared to $35,498, a difference of 8.9%), and householder income under 25 years ($53,722 compared to $49,364, a difference of 8.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median family income ($92,837 compared to $91,296, a difference of 1.7%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($91,462 compared to $88,115, a difference of 3.8%), and householder income over 65 years ($54,030 compared to $56,339, a difference of 4.3%).
Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Income
Income MetricImmigrants from EcuadorHmong
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$41,195
Tragic
$38,120
Median Family Income
Tragic
$92,837
Tragic
$91,296
Median Household Income
Tragic
$80,341
Tragic
$75,839
Median Earnings
Tragic
$44,462
Tragic
$42,111
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$50,474
Tragic
$48,254
Median Female Earnings
Poor
$38,644
Tragic
$35,498
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Exceptional
$53,722
Tragic
$49,364
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$89,673
Tragic
$84,258
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$91,462
Tragic
$88,115
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$54,030
Tragic
$56,339
Wage/Income Gap
Exceptional
22.5%
Tragic
27.7%

Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 65 (14.4% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 38.7%), receiving food stamps (15.0% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 38.0%), and married-couple family poverty (6.7% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 35.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single mother poverty (31.3% compared to 31.2%, a difference of 0.28%), single father poverty (16.3% compared to 15.9%, a difference of 2.6%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.2% compared to 20.0%, a difference of 4.6%).
Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Poverty
Poverty MetricImmigrants from EcuadorHmong
Poverty
Tragic
14.3%
Poor
12.8%
Families
Tragic
11.1%
Average
9.1%
Males
Tragic
12.9%
Poor
11.6%
Females
Tragic
15.6%
Fair
13.9%
Females 18 to 24 years
Exceptional
19.2%
Average
20.0%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
14.6%
Fair
13.9%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
19.6%
Tragic
18.5%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.4%
Poor
17.1%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.8%
Fair
16.6%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
19.3%
Poor
17.5%
Single Males
Excellent
12.5%
Tragic
14.2%
Single Females
Tragic
22.0%
Tragic
23.1%
Single Fathers
Average
16.3%
Exceptional
15.9%
Single Mothers
Tragic
31.3%
Tragic
31.2%
Married Couples
Tragic
6.7%
Excellent
5.0%
Seniors Over 65 years
Tragic
14.4%
Exceptional
10.4%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
16.1%
Good
12.0%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
15.0%
Excellent
10.9%

Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.5% compared to 13.7%, a difference of 60.7%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (6.6% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 47.5%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.8% compared to 4.0%, a difference of 44.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.7% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 0.23%), unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (5.4% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 9.7%), and male unemployment (6.2% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 13.3%).
Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Unemployment
Unemployment MetricImmigrants from EcuadorHmong
Unemployment
Tragic
6.2%
Exceptional
5.0%
Males
Tragic
6.2%
Tragic
5.5%
Females
Tragic
6.4%
Exceptional
4.4%
Youth < 25
Tragic
13.4%
Exceptional
10.8%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Tragic
20.9%
Exceptional
16.3%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
11.8%
Exceptional
9.4%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
7.4%
Exceptional
5.7%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
4.9%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
5.4%
Tragic
5.0%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
5.3%
Exceptional
3.7%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
5.7%
Tragic
5.7%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Tragic
5.8%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
5.8%
Exceptional
4.2%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
5.6%
Exceptional
4.2%
Seniors > 75
Excellent
8.5%
Tragic
13.7%
Women w/ Children < 6
Poor
7.9%
Exceptional
6.7%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
10.2%
Exceptional
8.7%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
6.6%
Exceptional
4.5%

Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.0% compared to 38.7%, a difference of 24.8%), in labor force | age 20-24 (72.3% compared to 76.5%, a difference of 5.9%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.7% compared to 64.1%, a difference of 2.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 45-54 (82.2% compared to 81.7%, a difference of 0.55%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.3% compared to 83.7%, a difference of 0.69%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (79.3% compared to 77.9%, a difference of 1.8%).
Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricImmigrants from EcuadorHmong
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Exceptional
65.7%
Tragic
64.1%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Poor
79.3%
Tragic
77.9%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Tragic
31.0%
Exceptional
38.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Tragic
72.3%
Exceptional
76.5%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
84.3%
Tragic
83.7%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
84.3%
Tragic
82.4%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Poor
84.1%
Tragic
82.6%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
82.2%
Tragic
81.7%

Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (33.7% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 21.6%), single mother households (7.3% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 15.0%), and married-couple households (42.9% compared to 47.0%, a difference of 9.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.8% compared to 64.9%, a difference of 0.10%), single father households (2.4% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 1.9%), and family households with children (27.7% compared to 28.6%, a difference of 3.2%).
Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Family Structure
Family Structure MetricImmigrants from EcuadorHmong
Family Households
Exceptional
64.8%
Exceptional
64.9%
Family Households with Children
Excellent
27.7%
Exceptional
28.6%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
42.9%
Good
47.0%
Average Family Size
Exceptional
3.32
Fair
3.21
Single Father Households
Poor
2.4%
Fair
2.4%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.3%
Fair
6.4%
Currently Married
Tragic
43.2%
Good
47.1%
Divorced or Separated
Excellent
11.8%
Tragic
12.3%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
33.7%
Exceptional
27.7%

Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (23.8% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 129.9%), 4 or more vehicles in household (4.2% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 64.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (13.4% compared to 21.0%, a difference of 56.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (76.2% compared to 89.6%, a difference of 17.6%), 2 or more vehicles in household (40.5% compared to 57.8%, a difference of 42.7%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (13.4% compared to 21.0%, a difference of 56.6%).
Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricImmigrants from EcuadorHmong
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
23.8%
Average
10.4%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
76.2%
Average
89.6%
2+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
40.5%
Exceptional
57.8%
3+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
13.4%
Exceptional
21.0%
4+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
4.2%
Exceptional
7.0%

Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (3.1% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 58.4%), doctorate degree (1.4% compared to 1.6%, a difference of 11.5%), and college, under 1 year (58.7% compared to 63.5%, a difference of 8.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of bachelor's degree (34.7% compared to 34.8%, a difference of 0.11%), nursery school (96.9% compared to 98.1%, a difference of 1.2%), and kindergarten (96.9% compared to 98.1%, a difference of 1.2%).
Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Education Level
Education Level MetricImmigrants from EcuadorHmong
No Schooling Completed
Tragic
3.1%
Excellent
1.9%
Nursery School
Tragic
96.9%
Good
98.1%
Kindergarten
Tragic
96.9%
Good
98.1%
1st Grade
Tragic
96.9%
Good
98.0%
2nd Grade
Tragic
96.8%
Good
98.0%
3rd Grade
Tragic
96.6%
Excellent
97.9%
4th Grade
Tragic
96.2%
Excellent
97.7%
5th Grade
Tragic
95.8%
Exceptional
97.6%
6th Grade
Tragic
95.3%
Exceptional
97.4%
7th Grade
Tragic
93.7%
Exceptional
96.4%
8th Grade
Tragic
93.3%
Excellent
96.1%
9th Grade
Tragic
91.8%
Excellent
95.2%
10th Grade
Tragic
90.4%
Excellent
94.1%
11th Grade
Tragic
89.1%
Good
92.8%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
87.5%
Average
91.3%
High School Diploma
Tragic
84.8%
Average
89.1%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
81.0%
Poor
84.9%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
58.7%
Tragic
63.5%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.4%
Tragic
57.2%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
42.2%
Tragic
43.4%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
34.7%
Tragic
34.8%
Master's Degree
Tragic
13.6%
Tragic
13.4%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.8%
Tragic
3.7%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.4%
Tragic
1.6%

Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Hmong communities in the United States are seen in disability age 18 to 34 (5.7% compared to 8.1%, a difference of 40.3%), hearing disability (2.5% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 38.7%), and disability age 35 to 64 (10.7% compared to 13.1%, a difference of 22.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of vision disability (2.3% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 0.31%), disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 0.94%), and disability age over 75 (47.4% compared to 48.2%, a difference of 1.6%).
Immigrants from Ecuador vs Hmong Disability
Disability MetricImmigrants from EcuadorHmong
Disability
Exceptional
11.2%
Tragic
12.8%
Males
Exceptional
10.4%
Tragic
12.5%
Females
Exceptional
11.9%
Tragic
13.1%
Age | Under 5 years
Exceptional
1.1%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Good
5.5%
Tragic
6.3%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Exceptional
5.7%
Tragic
8.1%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
10.7%
Tragic
13.1%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Fair
23.7%
Tragic
25.7%
Age | Over 75 years
Average
47.4%
Tragic
48.2%
Vision
Tragic
2.3%
Tragic
2.3%
Hearing
Exceptional
2.5%
Tragic
3.4%
Cognitive
Good
17.2%
Tragic
18.4%
Ambulatory
Average
6.1%
Tragic
6.6%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.6%
Excellent
2.4%