Immigrants from Uruguay vs Czechoslovakian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 110,387,740 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Czechoslovakians within Immigrant from Uruguay communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.726. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Uruguay within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.164% in Czechoslovakians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Uruguay corresponds to an increase of 164.5 Czechoslovakians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Czechoslovakian communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (24.6% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 14.5%), householder income over 65 years ($56,975 compared to $60,581, a difference of 6.3%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($96,086 compared to $101,387, a difference of 5.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of per capita income ($43,997 compared to $43,806, a difference of 0.44%), median female earnings ($38,945 compared to $38,738, a difference of 0.53%), and householder income under 25 years ($52,302 compared to $51,224, a difference of 2.1%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Czechoslovakian communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.8% compared to 9.5%, a difference of 35.0%), married-couple family poverty (5.7% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 31.3%), and seniors poverty over the age of 75 (14.3% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 31.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 25-34 year olds (13.7% compared to 13.7%, a difference of 0.24%), single mother poverty (29.1% compared to 29.7%, a difference of 2.3%), and single female poverty (20.6% compared to 21.3%, a difference of 3.5%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Czechoslovakian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.5% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 25.7%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.9% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 15.9%), and female unemployment (5.5% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 14.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 6 years (7.7% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 0.41%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.2% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 1.3%), and unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.3% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 1.4%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Czechoslovakian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (34.4% compared to 41.9%, a difference of 21.8%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.6% compared to 77.5%, a difference of 3.9%), and in labor force | age > 16 (66.0% compared to 64.3%, a difference of 2.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 35-44 (84.6% compared to 84.6%, a difference of 0.030%), in labor force | age 30-34 (84.7% compared to 84.8%, a difference of 0.040%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.9% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 0.16%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Czechoslovakian communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (6.7% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 14.5%), married-couple households (44.5% compared to 48.5%, a difference of 9.1%), and currently married (45.0% compared to 48.8%, a difference of 8.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (63.9% compared to 64.6%, a difference of 1.2%), family households with children (27.4% compared to 27.0%, a difference of 1.2%), and divorced or separated (12.6% compared to 12.3%, a difference of 2.7%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Czechoslovakian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.9% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 52.4%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.4% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 31.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.1% compared to 21.7%, a difference of 27.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.1% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 4.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (51.4% compared to 59.8%, a difference of 16.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.1% compared to 21.7%, a difference of 27.0%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Czechoslovakian communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.3% compared to 1.6%, a difference of 43.5%), professional degree (4.6% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 8.4%), and doctorate degree (1.7% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 6.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of associate's degree (45.8% compared to 46.0%, a difference of 0.37%), nursery school (97.7% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.78%), and kindergarten (97.7% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.78%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Czechoslovakian communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (2.7% compared to 3.6%, a difference of 29.3%), disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 22.9%), and disability age 18 to 34 (6.2% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 20.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.4% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 0.28%), vision disability (2.2% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 1.2%), and disability age 65 to 74 (22.6% compared to 23.0%, a difference of 1.9%).