Immigrants from Zimbabwe vs Immigrants from Latvia Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 60,968,636 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Latvia within Immigrant from Zimbabwe communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.209. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Zimbabwe within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.017% in Immigrants from Latvia. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Zimbabwe corresponds to an increase of 17.5 Immigrants from Latvia.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Zimbabwe and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($97,880 compared to $105,522, a difference of 7.8%), per capita income ($47,394 compared to $50,914, a difference of 7.4%), and median male earnings ($57,352 compared to $61,422, a difference of 7.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($51,914 compared to $51,737, a difference of 0.34%), householder income over 65 years ($63,643 compared to $64,298, a difference of 1.0%), and median female earnings ($41,527 compared to $43,099, a difference of 3.8%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Zimbabwe and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (8.2% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 4.2%), receiving food stamps (9.9% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 4.0%), and married-couple family poverty (4.3% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 3.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of male poverty (10.5% compared to 10.5%, a difference of 0.29%), female poverty among 25-34 year olds (12.6% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 0.79%), and female poverty (12.6% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 0.80%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Zimbabwe and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (9.0% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 15.5%), unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.5% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 9.9%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.0% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 9.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.1% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 1.1%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.0% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 1.4%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (16.3% compared to 16.8%, a difference of 2.9%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Zimbabwe and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.0% compared to 36.8%, a difference of 3.2%), in labor force | age > 16 (66.8% compared to 65.1%, a difference of 2.7%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (75.9% compared to 75.0%, a difference of 1.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 45-54 (83.4% compared to 83.4%, a difference of 0.080%), in labor force | age 35-44 (85.2% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 0.20%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (85.2% compared to 85.6%, a difference of 0.42%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Zimbabwe and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.2% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 16.0%), single mother households (6.2% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 12.6%), and family households with children (27.8% compared to 25.9%, a difference of 7.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of currently married (46.7% compared to 46.7%, a difference of 0.16%), married-couple households (46.3% compared to 46.0%, a difference of 0.68%), and average family size (3.19 compared to 3.13, a difference of 1.8%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Zimbabwe and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.9% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 22.7%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.0% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 10.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.1% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 9.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.2% compared to 88.1%, a difference of 2.5%), 2 or more vehicles in household (55.6% compared to 52.2%, a difference of 6.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.1% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 9.9%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Zimbabwe and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (5.3% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 10.8%), master's degree (17.4% compared to 19.1%, a difference of 9.2%), and doctorate degree (2.2% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 9.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.2% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.040%), kindergarten (98.2% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.040%), and 1st grade (98.1% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.040%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Zimbabwe and Immigrants from Latvia communities in the United States are seen in ambulatory disability (5.6% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 7.4%), hearing disability (3.0% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 6.0%), and disability age 35 to 64 (10.6% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 5.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of male disability (10.8% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 1.2%), disability (11.2% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 1.7%), and vision disability (2.1% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 2.1%).