Latvian vs Chinese Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 50,426,466 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese within Latvian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.219. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Latvians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.028% in Chinese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Latvians corresponds to an increase of 27.9 Chinese.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($67,326 compared to $77,465, a difference of 15.1%), per capita income ($52,649 compared to $46,098, a difference of 14.2%), and median male earnings ($63,498 compared to $56,872, a difference of 11.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($115,957 compared to $116,156, a difference of 0.17%), median household income ($97,311 compared to $98,496, a difference of 1.2%), and median family income ($120,301 compared to $116,188, a difference of 3.5%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.5% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 20.5%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.8% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 19.3%), and single female poverty (19.0% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 17.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (16.5% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 6.8%), married-couple family poverty (3.9% compared to 3.6%, a difference of 6.9%), and receiving food stamps (9.1% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 7.1%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.6% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 45.2%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.8% compared to 4.0%, a difference of 20.0%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.9% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 17.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 0.47%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (4.9% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 1.1%), and unemployment (4.7% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 1.3%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 25-29 (86.1% compared to 84.3%, a difference of 2.1%), in labor force | age 20-24 (76.1% compared to 77.3%, a difference of 1.6%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.5% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 1.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-64 (80.5% compared to 80.7%, a difference of 0.19%), in labor force | age 35-44 (85.4% compared to 85.1%, a difference of 0.35%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.8% compared to 84.1%, a difference of 0.42%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (27.7% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 9.1%), family households (62.8% compared to 68.1%, a difference of 8.6%), and average family size (3.11 compared to 3.34, a difference of 7.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (26.4% compared to 26.0%, a difference of 1.7%), single father households (2.0% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 1.7%), and currently married (48.5% compared to 49.5%, a difference of 2.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.1% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 44.6%), 3 or more vehicles in household (19.3% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 23.8%), and no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 19.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.3% compared to 91.9%, a difference of 1.7%), 2 or more vehicles in household (56.2% compared to 60.1%, a difference of 6.9%), and no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 19.1%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (2.6% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 46.0%), professional degree (6.2% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 39.9%), and master's degree (19.8% compared to 14.6%, a difference of 36.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (93.6% compared to 93.6%, a difference of 0.010%), high school diploma (92.0% compared to 92.0%, a difference of 0.010%), and 10th grade (95.6% compared to 95.5%, a difference of 0.030%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Chinese communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.3% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 15.0%), hearing disability (3.2% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 15.0%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.4% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 14.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 35 to 64 (10.2% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 1.2%), disability age 65 to 74 (21.2% compared to 21.7%, a difference of 2.2%), and vision disability (2.0% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 3.1%).