Immigrants from Guatemala vs Immigrants from Latvia Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 101,920,948 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Latvia within Immigrant from Guatemala communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.078. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Guatemala within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.001% in Immigrants from Latvia. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Guatemala corresponds to an increase of 0.9 Immigrants from Latvia.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($37,550 compared to $50,914, a difference of 35.6%), median male earnings ($46,244 compared to $61,422, a difference of 32.8%), and median family income ($87,191 compared to $114,826, a difference of 31.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($51,447 compared to $51,737, a difference of 0.56%), wage/income gap (22.5% compared to 26.7%, a difference of 19.1%), and householder income over 65 years ($53,950 compared to $64,298, a difference of 19.2%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (7.2% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 59.4%), family poverty (12.0% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 52.0%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (21.6% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 49.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.9% compared to 20.4%, a difference of 2.3%), single father poverty (16.6% compared to 15.8%, a difference of 5.3%), and single male poverty (13.8% compared to 12.2%, a difference of 12.7%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (8.6% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 26.9%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (6.4% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 18.9%), and female unemployment (6.1% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 18.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.5% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 4.1%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.4% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 7.4%), and unemployment among youth under 25 years (12.1% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 7.7%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (35.3% compared to 36.8%, a difference of 4.3%), in labor force | age 45-54 (81.1% compared to 83.4%, a difference of 2.9%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (83.7% compared to 85.9%, a difference of 2.6%). 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 > 16 (65.6% compared to 65.1%, a difference of 0.87%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (78.7% compared to 80.1%, a difference of 1.8%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in single father households (3.0% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 54.8%), single mother households (7.7% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 41.1%), and births to unmarried women (37.5% compared to 29.1%, a difference of 28.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (65.0% compared to 62.0%, a difference of 5.0%), divorced or separated (12.2% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 5.4%), and married-couple households (42.8% compared to 46.0%, a difference of 7.4%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.8% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 24.3%), 3 or more vehicles in household (19.7% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 13.5%), and no vehicles in household (11.2% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 8.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.9% compared to 88.1%, a difference of 0.93%), 2 or more vehicles in household (53.5% compared to 52.2%, a difference of 2.4%), and no vehicles in household (11.2% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 8.2%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (3.6% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 92.9%), doctorate degree (1.4% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 71.6%), and professional degree (3.4% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 69.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (96.4% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 1.8%), kindergarten (96.4% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 1.8%), and 1st grade (96.4% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 1.9%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Guatemala and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in disability age 65 to 74 (25.7% compared to 21.6%, a difference of 18.9%), vision disability (2.4% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 15.9%), and disability age 35 to 64 (11.6% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 14.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of male disability (11.0% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 0.94%), disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 1.2%), and disability age 18 to 34 (6.3% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 1.4%).