Latvian vs Choctaw Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 139,408,871 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Choctaw within Latvian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.737. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Latvians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.283% in Choctaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Latvians corresponds to an increase of 283.0 Choctaw.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Latvian and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($52,649 compared to $35,999, a difference of 46.3%), median family income ($120,301 compared to $84,835, a difference of 41.8%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($115,957 compared to $82,287, a difference of 40.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.9% compared to 28.1%, a difference of 0.96%), householder income under 25 years ($52,783 compared to $45,450, a difference of 16.1%), and householder income over 65 years ($67,326 compared to $53,060, a difference of 26.9%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Latvian and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (7.1% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 64.2%), child poverty under the age of 5 (14.5% compared to 23.5%, a difference of 62.0%), and married-couple family poverty (3.9% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 61.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.8% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 15.8%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.5% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 20.2%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.5% compared to 24.3%, a difference of 24.6%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Latvian and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 44.6%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.0% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 28.7%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.2% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 26.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.8% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 0.81%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.1% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 1.1%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.9% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 1.1%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Latvian and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (83.8% compared to 78.2%, a difference of 7.2%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.5% compared to 75.4%, a difference of 6.8%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.5% compared to 61.5%, a difference of 6.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (76.1% compared to 74.7%, a difference of 1.8%), in labor force | age 16-19 (38.9% compared to 38.0%, a difference of 2.4%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (86.0% compared to 81.4%, a difference of 5.7%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Latvian and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.0% compared to 2.7%, a difference of 35.3%), single mother households (5.3% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 33.3%), and births to unmarried women (27.7% compared to 36.9%, a difference of 33.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (62.8% compared to 64.9%, a difference of 3.4%), average family size (3.11 compared to 3.21, a difference of 3.5%), and married-couple households (47.9% compared to 46.0%, a difference of 4.2%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.1% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 27.4%), no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 24.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.3% compared to 23.0%, a difference of 19.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.3% compared to 92.2%, a difference of 2.1%), 2 or more vehicles in household (56.2% compared to 59.3%, a difference of 5.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.3% compared to 23.0%, a difference of 19.3%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Latvian and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (6.2% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 93.4%), master's degree (19.8% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 79.6%), and doctorate degree (2.6% compared to 1.4%, a difference of 78.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.25%), kindergarten (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.25%), and 1st grade (98.5% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.25%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (2.0% compared to 3.3%, a difference of 66.2%), disability age 35 to 64 (10.2% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 61.3%), and ambulatory disability (5.7% compared to 8.3%, a difference of 44.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (16.6% compared to 18.4%, a difference of 10.8%), disability age over 75 (45.1% compared to 52.7%, a difference of 16.8%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.4% compared to 6.9%, a difference of 28.0%).