Immigrants from El Salvador vs Immigrants from Latvia Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 98,905,341 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Latvia within Immigrant from El Salvador communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.266. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from El Salvador within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.004% in Immigrants from Latvia. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from El Salvador corresponds to an increase of 4.1 Immigrants from Latvia.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from El Salvador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($38,394 compared to $50,914, a difference of 32.6%), median male earnings ($47,973 compared to $61,422, a difference of 28.0%), and median family income ($92,545 compared to $114,826, a difference of 24.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($54,599 compared to $51,737, a difference of 5.5%), householder income over 65 years ($58,226 compared to $64,298, a difference of 10.4%), and median household income ($81,213 compared to $93,602, a difference of 15.3%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from El Salvador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (6.8% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 50.1%), family poverty (11.0% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 40.5%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (19.7% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 35.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single male poverty (12.6% compared to 12.2%, a difference of 2.9%), single father poverty (15.0% compared to 15.8%, a difference of 5.3%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.3% compared to 20.4%, a difference of 5.8%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from El Salvador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in female unemployment (6.1% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 19.3%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (8.1% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 19.0%), and unemployment among women with children under 18 years (6.3% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 17.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.1% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 5.2%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.3% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 5.8%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (7.0% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 6.0%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from El Salvador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (34.3% compared to 36.8%, a difference of 7.2%), in labor force | age > 16 (66.8% compared to 65.1%, a difference of 2.7%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (83.7% compared to 85.6%, a difference of 2.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (75.3% compared to 75.0%, a difference of 0.43%), in labor force | age 20-64 (79.4% compared to 80.1%, a difference of 0.88%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (83.5% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 1.8%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from El Salvador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.9% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 52.4%), single mother households (7.6% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 39.2%), and births to unmarried women (36.4% compared to 29.1%, a difference of 25.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of divorced or separated (11.7% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 0.89%), married-couple households (44.3% compared to 46.0%, a difference of 3.9%), and family households (67.0% compared to 62.0%, a difference of 8.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from El Salvador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.7% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 40.8%), 3 or more vehicles in household (21.5% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 23.8%), and no vehicles in household (10.4% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 16.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (89.6% compared to 88.1%, a difference of 1.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (55.6% compared to 52.2%, a difference of 6.3%), and no vehicles in household (10.4% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 16.1%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from El Salvador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (3.9% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 109.1%), professional degree (3.5% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 68.0%), and doctorate degree (1.4% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 64.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (96.2% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 2.1%), kindergarten (96.2% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 2.1%), and 1st grade (96.1% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 2.1%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from El Salvador and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (2.6% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 21.3%), disability age 65 to 74 (25.1% compared to 21.6%, a difference of 16.0%), and disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 14.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 5 to 17 (5.3% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 0.94%), cognitive disability (17.6% compared to 17.2%, a difference of 2.6%), and female disability (11.4% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 3.5%).