Latvian vs Arapaho Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 22,950,425 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Arapaho within Latvian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.607. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Latvians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.356% in Arapaho. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Latvians corresponds to an increase of 355.8 Arapaho.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Latvian and Arapaho communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($52,649 compared to $32,345, a difference of 62.8%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($115,957 compared to $75,945, a difference of 52.7%), and median male earnings ($63,498 compared to $41,758, a difference of 52.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($67,326 compared to $59,383, a difference of 13.4%), wage/income gap (27.9% compared to 23.5%, a difference of 18.8%), and householder income under 25 years ($52,783 compared to $44,003, a difference of 20.0%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Latvian and Arapaho communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (7.1% compared to 12.7%, a difference of 78.7%), single male poverty (12.7% compared to 21.9%, a difference of 73.1%), and married-couple family poverty (3.9% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 68.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.8% compared to 12.7%, a difference of 17.4%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.5% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 23.1%), and single mother poverty (26.9% compared to 33.4%, a difference of 24.4%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Latvian and Arapaho communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 19.0%, a difference of 181.2%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.0% compared to 12.8%, a difference of 156.7%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.2% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 148.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.6% compared to 8.1%, a difference of 6.5%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.9% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 6.9%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.1% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 13.3%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Latvian and Arapaho communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 25-29 (86.1% compared to 76.6%, a difference of 12.4%), in labor force | age 35-44 (85.4% compared to 78.1%, a difference of 9.4%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.8% compared to 77.1%, a difference of 8.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (76.1% compared to 73.8%, a difference of 3.1%), in labor force | age 16-19 (38.9% compared to 37.3%, a difference of 4.4%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.5% compared to 62.1%, a difference of 5.4%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Latvian and Arapaho communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (27.7% compared to 47.1%, a difference of 69.9%), single father households (2.0% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 44.7%), and single mother households (5.3% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 34.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (26.4% compared to 25.6%, a difference of 3.5%), family households (62.8% compared to 66.5%, a difference of 5.9%), and married-couple households (47.9% compared to 41.8%, a difference of 14.5%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Arapaho communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.1% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 52.8%), 3 or more vehicles in household (19.3% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 37.2%), and no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 33.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.3% compared to 92.7%, a difference of 2.6%), 2 or more vehicles in household (56.2% compared to 60.2%, a difference of 7.1%), and no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 33.2%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Latvian and Arapaho communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (2.6% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 120.8%), professional degree (6.2% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 117.2%), and master's degree (19.8% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 98.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3rd grade (98.4% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.030%), 2nd grade (98.4% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.080%), and 4th grade (98.2% compared to 98.1%, a difference of 0.080%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Arapaho communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.2% compared to 15.1%, a difference of 48.1%), disability age 65 to 74 (21.2% compared to 28.1%, a difference of 32.3%), and vision disability (2.0% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 31.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (16.6% compared to 16.8%, a difference of 1.2%), disability age under 5 (1.3% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 3.1%), and disability age 18 to 34 (6.8% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 4.0%).