Latvian vs Chickasaw Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 92,722,699 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Latvian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.302. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Latvians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.072% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Latvians corresponds to an increase of 71.7 Chickasaw.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($52,649 compared to $36,475, a difference of 44.3%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($115,957 compared to $82,193, a difference of 41.1%), and median family income ($120,301 compared to $85,356, a difference of 40.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.9% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 2.6%), householder income under 25 years ($52,783 compared to $44,763, a difference of 17.9%), and householder income over 65 years ($67,326 compared to $53,732, a difference of 25.3%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (7.1% compared to 10.8%, a difference of 53.2%), child poverty under the age of 5 (14.5% compared to 21.8%, a difference of 50.5%), and married-couple family poverty (3.9% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 48.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.8% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 7.5%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.5% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 13.0%), and single father poverty (16.5% compared to 19.0%, a difference of 15.2%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 32.4%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.0% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 24.1%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.2% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 17.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.6% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 0.090%), unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.2% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 0.12%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (16.7% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 0.20%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (83.8% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 6.0%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.5% compared to 76.2%, a difference of 5.7%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (85.4% compared to 80.9%, a difference of 5.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (38.9% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 1.5%), in labor force | age 20-24 (76.1% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 2.2%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (86.0% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 5.0%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.0% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 37.2%), single mother households (5.3% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 33.3%), and births to unmarried women (27.7% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 30.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (62.8% compared to 64.4%, a difference of 2.6%), average family size (3.11 compared to 3.19, a difference of 2.7%), and currently married (48.5% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 4.0%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 24.6%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.1% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 21.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.3% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 15.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.3% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 2.1%), 2 or more vehicles in household (56.2% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 4.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.3% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 15.1%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (6.2% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 85.8%), master's degree (19.8% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 73.5%), and doctorate degree (2.6% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 70.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (98.5% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.13%), 1st grade (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.13%), and nursery school (98.5% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.14%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (2.0% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 60.3%), disability age 35 to 64 (10.2% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 58.4%), and disability age 65 to 74 (21.2% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 42.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (16.6% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 11.2%), disability age over 75 (45.1% compared to 51.2%, a difference of 13.5%), and self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 24.5%).