Immigrants from Uruguay vs Immigrants from Zimbabwe Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,971,265 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Zimbabwe within Immigrant from Uruguay communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.725. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Uruguay within a typical geography, there is an increase of 1.701% in Immigrants from Zimbabwe. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Uruguay corresponds to an increase of 1,701.2 Immigrants from Zimbabwe.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($56,975 compared to $63,643, a difference of 11.7%), median family income ($98,205 compared to $108,830, a difference of 10.8%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($96,086 compared to $104,992, a difference of 9.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($52,302 compared to $51,914, a difference of 0.75%), wage/income gap (24.6% compared to 25.3%, a difference of 2.9%), and median female earnings ($38,945 compared to $41,527, a difference of 6.6%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (5.7% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 31.4%), receiving food stamps (12.5% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 25.9%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.8% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 24.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single female poverty (20.6% compared to 20.0%, a difference of 3.1%), single mother poverty (29.1% compared to 28.1%, a difference of 3.4%), and single father poverty (15.6% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 3.5%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.5% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 20.2%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.2% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 14.9%), and unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.9% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 13.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.3% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 3.8%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.2% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 5.2%), and male unemployment (5.2% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 5.6%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (34.4% compared to 38.0%, a difference of 10.4%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.6% compared to 75.9%, a difference of 1.7%), and in labor force | age > 16 (66.0% compared to 66.8%, a difference of 1.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 45-54 (83.2% compared to 83.4%, a difference of 0.22%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.9% compared to 85.2%, a difference of 0.37%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (84.7% compared to 85.1%, a difference of 0.50%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (33.9% compared to 30.3%, a difference of 11.8%), single mother households (6.7% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 9.2%), and single father households (2.4% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 8.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (63.9% compared to 63.5%, a difference of 0.66%), average family size (3.23 compared to 3.19, a difference of 1.2%), and family households with children (27.4% compared to 27.8%, a difference of 1.7%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.9% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 21.1%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.4% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 11.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.1% compared to 19.1%, a difference of 11.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.1% compared to 90.2%, a difference of 2.4%), 2 or more vehicles in household (51.4% compared to 55.6%, a difference of 8.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.1% compared to 19.1%, a difference of 11.7%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (1.7% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 29.7%), no schooling completed (2.3% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 24.7%), and master's degree (15.0% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 16.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.7% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.49%), kindergarten (97.7% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.49%), and 1st grade (97.6% compared to 98.1%, a difference of 0.50%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Uruguay and Immigrants from Zimbabwe communities in the United States are seen in disability age 18 to 34 (6.2% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 8.0%), hearing disability (2.7% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 7.6%), and self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 7.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of male disability (10.8% compared to 10.8%, a difference of 0.18%), disability (11.3% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 0.51%), and female disability (11.7% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 1.1%).