Immigrants from Lithuania vs Immigrants from Cuba Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 100,708,976 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Cuba within Immigrant from Lithuania communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.136. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Lithuania within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.125% in Immigrants from Cuba. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Lithuania corresponds to an increase of 124.7 Immigrants from Cuba.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Lithuania and Immigrants from Cuba communities in the United States are seen in median family income ($118,053 compared to $78,249, a difference of 50.9%), householder income over 65 years ($66,087 compared to $44,735, a difference of 47.7%), and per capita income ($51,361 compared to $34,910, a difference of 47.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($55,028 compared to $50,374, a difference of 9.2%), wage/income gap (28.6% compared to 22.4%, a difference of 28.0%), and median female earnings ($43,317 compared to $33,291, a difference of 30.1%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Lithuania and Immigrants from Cuba communities in the United States are seen in receiving food stamps (9.2% compared to 20.8%, a difference of 125.2%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.7% compared to 17.9%, a difference of 85.3%), and seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.0% compared to 19.9%, a difference of 81.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single male poverty (11.6% compared to 12.2%, a difference of 5.1%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (17.4% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 6.0%), and single father poverty (15.3% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 6.9%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Lithuania and Immigrants from Cuba communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.1% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 17.3%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.7% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 17.2%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.8% compared to 4.1%, a difference of 17.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female unemployment (4.9% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 0.48%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.2% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 1.4%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.0% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 2.5%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Lithuania and Immigrants from Cuba communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (37.2% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 23.1%), in labor force | age 20-24 (76.1% compared to 72.0%, a difference of 5.8%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (86.1% compared to 83.2%, a difference of 3.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 45-54 (83.9% compared to 83.7%, a difference of 0.21%), in labor force | age 35-44 (85.4% compared to 84.9%, a difference of 0.48%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (80.7% compared to 79.7%, a difference of 1.3%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Lithuania and Immigrants from Cuba communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (27.7% compared to 41.5%, a difference of 49.5%), single mother households (5.3% compared to 7.5%, a difference of 43.3%), and single father households (1.9% compared to 2.7%, a difference of 41.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (26.8% compared to 26.8%, a difference of 0.030%), average family size (3.15 compared to 3.26, a difference of 3.5%), and family households (63.9% compared to 68.2%, a difference of 6.8%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Lithuania and Immigrants from Cuba communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 12.8%), 3 or more vehicles in household (18.5% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 1.6%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (90.2% compared to 91.3%, a difference of 1.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4 or more vehicles in household (5.6% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 0.48%), 2 or more vehicles in household (55.8% compared to 55.3%, a difference of 0.98%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (90.2% compared to 91.3%, a difference of 1.2%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Lithuania and Immigrants from Cuba communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (2.2% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 87.7%), master's degree (18.5% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 70.3%), and no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 66.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.3% compared to 97.2%, a difference of 1.2%), kindergarten (98.3% compared to 97.1%, a difference of 1.2%), and 1st grade (98.3% compared to 97.1%, a difference of 1.2%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Lithuania and Immigrants from Cuba communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (1.9% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 29.3%), self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 25.3%), and ambulatory disability (5.6% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 14.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 35 to 64 (9.6% compared to 9.7%, a difference of 0.94%), disability age 5 to 17 (5.1% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 2.2%), and cognitive disability (16.0% compared to 16.3%, a difference of 2.4%).