Iroquois vs Latvian Community Comparison

COMPARE

Iroquois
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Latvian
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Iroquois

Latvians

Fair
Exceptional
2,526
SOCIAL INDEX
22.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
253rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,576
SOCIAL INDEX
93.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
12th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Latvian Integration in Iroquois Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 121,507,305 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Latvians within Iroquois communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.001. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Iroquois within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.000% in Latvians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Iroquois corresponds to an increase of 0.2 Latvians.
Iroquois Integration in Latvian Communities

Iroquois vs Latvian Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Iroquois and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($39,104 compared to $52,649, a difference of 34.6%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($87,255 compared to $115,957, a difference of 32.9%), and median family income ($90,543 compared to $120,301, a difference of 32.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.1% compared to 27.9%, a difference of 11.1%), householder income under 25 years ($47,380 compared to $52,783, a difference of 11.4%), and median female earnings ($36,408 compared to $43,941, a difference of 20.7%).
Iroquois vs Latvian Income
Income MetricIroquoisLatvian
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$39,104
Exceptional
$52,649
Median Family Income
Tragic
$90,543
Exceptional
$120,301
Median Household Income
Tragic
$74,279
Exceptional
$97,311
Median Earnings
Tragic
$42,430
Exceptional
$53,001
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$49,374
Exceptional
$63,498
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$36,408
Exceptional
$43,941
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$47,380
Excellent
$52,783
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$83,682
Exceptional
$108,926
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$87,255
Exceptional
$115,957
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$53,737
Exceptional
$67,326
Wage/Income Gap
Excellent
25.1%
Tragic
27.9%

Iroquois vs Latvian Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Iroquois and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (22.0% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 51.7%), family poverty (10.7% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 51.4%), and child poverty among girls under 16 (20.4% compared to 13.5%, a difference of 51.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (17.7% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 7.8%), single male poverty (14.5% compared to 12.7%, a difference of 14.3%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (22.9% compared to 19.5%, a difference of 17.8%).
Iroquois vs Latvian Poverty
Poverty MetricIroquoisLatvian
Poverty
Tragic
14.5%
Exceptional
10.5%
Families
Tragic
10.7%
Exceptional
7.1%
Males
Tragic
13.2%
Exceptional
9.6%
Females
Tragic
15.8%
Exceptional
11.4%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
22.9%
Exceptional
19.5%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
17.5%
Exceptional
11.8%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
22.0%
Exceptional
14.5%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.9%
Exceptional
13.2%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.6%
Exceptional
13.4%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
20.4%
Exceptional
13.5%
Single Males
Tragic
14.5%
Good
12.7%
Single Females
Tragic
25.7%
Exceptional
19.0%
Single Fathers
Tragic
17.7%
Fair
16.5%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.8%
Exceptional
26.9%
Married Couples
Poor
5.5%
Exceptional
3.9%
Seniors Over 65 years
Tragic
11.9%
Exceptional
9.5%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
14.0%
Exceptional
10.8%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
13.5%
Exceptional
9.1%

Iroquois vs Latvian Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Iroquois and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (8.7% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 29.1%), unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (7.5% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 21.7%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (5.1% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 20.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.1% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 0.060%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.9% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 0.18%), and unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.1% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 1.1%).
Iroquois vs Latvian Unemployment
Unemployment MetricIroquoisLatvian
Unemployment
Poor
5.4%
Exceptional
4.7%
Males
Tragic
5.7%
Exceptional
4.8%
Females
Fair
5.4%
Exceptional
4.7%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.3%
Exceptional
11.0%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Average
17.6%
Exceptional
16.7%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
10.1%
Exceptional
9.9%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
7.5%
Exceptional
6.2%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
5.9%
Exceptional
5.0%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
5.1%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
5.1%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Fair
4.9%
Exceptional
4.6%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.7%
Good
4.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
5.1%
Exceptional
5.1%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.9%
Exceptional
4.9%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
9.3%
Excellent
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
8.7%
Exceptional
6.8%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
9.2%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
5.7%
Exceptional
4.9%

Iroquois vs Latvian Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Iroquois and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 86.0%, a difference of 5.1%), in labor force | age 45-54 (80.6% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 3.9%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (77.5% compared to 80.5%, a difference of 3.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (75.6% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 0.59%), in labor force | age 35-44 (83.5% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 2.3%), and in labor force | age 16-19 (39.9% compared to 38.9%, a difference of 2.7%).
Iroquois vs Latvian Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricIroquoisLatvian
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
63.2%
Excellent
65.5%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
77.5%
Exceptional
80.5%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
39.9%
Exceptional
38.9%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Excellent
75.6%
Exceptional
76.1%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
83.8%
Exceptional
86.1%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
81.9%
Exceptional
86.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
83.5%
Exceptional
85.4%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
80.6%
Exceptional
83.8%

Iroquois vs Latvian Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Iroquois and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (38.2% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 37.8%), single mother households (7.0% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 31.8%), and single father households (2.6% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 29.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (62.2% compared to 62.8%, a difference of 0.83%), family households with children (26.1% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 1.5%), and average family size (3.16 compared to 3.11, a difference of 1.7%).
Iroquois vs Latvian Family Structure
Family Structure MetricIroquoisLatvian
Family Households
Tragic
62.2%
Tragic
62.8%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
26.1%
Tragic
26.4%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
43.7%
Exceptional
47.9%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.16
Tragic
3.11
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.6%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.0%
Exceptional
5.3%
Currently Married
Tragic
44.7%
Exceptional
48.5%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
12.9%
Exceptional
11.6%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
38.2%
Exceptional
27.7%

Iroquois vs Latvian Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Iroquois and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (10.9% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 11.8%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.5% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 5.6%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (54.7% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 2.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (19.4% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 0.82%), 1 or more vehicles in household (89.2% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 1.3%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (54.7% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 2.9%).
Iroquois vs Latvian Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricIroquoisLatvian
No Vehicles Available
Poor
10.9%
Excellent
9.8%
1+ Vehicles Available
Poor
89.2%
Excellent
90.3%
2+ Vehicles Available
Fair
54.7%
Excellent
56.2%
3+ Vehicles Available
Average
19.4%
Fair
19.3%
4+ Vehicles Available
Good
6.5%
Fair
6.1%

Iroquois vs Latvian Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Iroquois and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.7% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 69.0%), doctorate degree (1.6% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 61.3%), and master's degree (12.9% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 53.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.35%), kindergarten (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.35%), and 1st grade (98.1% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.35%).
Iroquois vs Latvian Education Level
Education Level MetricIroquoisLatvian
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.9%
Exceptional
1.5%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.5%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
98.4%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Exceptional
98.4%
4th Grade
Exceptional
97.8%
Exceptional
98.2%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.7%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.4%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.6%
Exceptional
97.2%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.3%
Exceptional
97.0%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.4%
Exceptional
96.4%
10th Grade
Exceptional
94.3%
Exceptional
95.6%
11th Grade
Good
92.8%
Exceptional
94.7%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Average
91.1%
Exceptional
93.6%
High School Diploma
Average
89.2%
Exceptional
92.0%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
84.6%
Exceptional
89.2%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
62.6%
Exceptional
71.6%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
56.2%
Exceptional
66.1%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
42.8%
Exceptional
53.9%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
33.2%
Exceptional
46.1%
Master's Degree
Tragic
12.9%
Exceptional
19.8%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.7%
Exceptional
6.2%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.6%
Exceptional
2.6%

Iroquois vs Latvian Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Iroquois and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (14.4% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 41.1%), vision disability (2.6% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 31.5%), and disability age 5 to 17 (6.9% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 27.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (48.4% compared to 45.1%, a difference of 7.4%), cognitive disability (18.2% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 9.3%), and disability age under 5 (1.5% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 10.9%).
Iroquois vs Latvian Disability
Disability MetricIroquoisLatvian
Disability
Tragic
13.8%
Excellent
11.4%
Males
Tragic
13.6%
Good
11.1%
Females
Tragic
14.0%
Exceptional
11.7%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.5%
Tragic
1.3%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.9%
Exceptional
5.4%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
7.9%
Poor
6.8%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
14.4%
Exceptional
10.2%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
25.4%
Exceptional
21.2%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
48.4%
Exceptional
45.1%
Vision
Tragic
2.6%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
3.7%
Tragic
3.2%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.2%
Exceptional
16.6%
Ambulatory
Tragic
7.1%
Exceptional
5.7%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.7%
Exceptional
2.3%