Immigrants from Ecuador vs Immigrants from Latvia Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 91,040,497 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Latvia within Immigrant from Ecuador communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.151. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Ecuador within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.001% in Immigrants from Latvia. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Ecuador corresponds to a decrease of 1.1 Immigrants from Latvia.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in median family income ($92,837 compared to $114,826, a difference of 23.7%), per capita income ($41,195 compared to $50,914, a difference of 23.6%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($91,462 compared to $111,454, a difference of 21.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($53,722 compared to $51,737, a difference of 3.8%), median female earnings ($38,644 compared to $43,099, a difference of 11.5%), and median earnings ($44,462 compared to $51,555, a difference of 16.0%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (6.7% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 49.7%), receiving food stamps (15.0% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 45.5%), and family poverty (11.1% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 41.3%). 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 3.3%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.2% compared to 20.4%, a difference of 6.4%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in female unemployment (6.4% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 24.1%), unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (20.9% compared to 16.8%, a difference of 24.1%), and unemployment among women with children under 18 years (6.6% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 23.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.5% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 9.2%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.8% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 9.9%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.6% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 11.7%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.0% compared to 36.8%, a difference of 18.6%), in labor force | age 20-24 (72.3% compared to 75.0%, a difference of 3.8%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (84.3% compared to 85.9%, a difference of 1.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age > 16 (65.7% compared to 65.1%, a difference of 0.96%), in labor force | age 20-64 (79.3% compared to 80.1%, a difference of 1.0%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (84.1% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 1.1%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (7.3% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 34.0%), single father households (2.4% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 24.8%), and births to unmarried women (33.7% compared to 29.1%, a difference of 15.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of divorced or separated (11.8% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 2.5%), family households (64.8% compared to 62.0%, a difference of 4.6%), and average family size (3.32 compared to 3.13, a difference of 6.0%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (23.8% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 97.1%), 3 or more vehicles in household (13.4% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 29.8%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (4.2% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 29.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (76.2% compared to 88.1%, a difference of 15.5%), 2 or more vehicles in household (40.5% compared to 52.2%, a difference of 29.0%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (4.2% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 29.6%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (1.4% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 69.2%), no schooling completed (3.1% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 66.4%), and professional degree (3.8% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 53.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (96.9% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 1.3%), kindergarten (96.9% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 1.3%), and 1st grade (96.9% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 1.4%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (2.5% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 26.5%), vision disability (2.3% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 12.4%), and disability age 18 to 34 (5.7% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 11.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (17.2% compared to 17.2%, a difference of 0.30%), female disability (11.9% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 0.68%), and ambulatory disability (6.1% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 1.0%).