Latvian vs Houma Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 27,828,791 people shows a near-perfect positive correlation between the proportion of Houma within Latvian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.930. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Latvians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 1.648% in Houma. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Latvians corresponds to an increase of 1,648.4 Houma.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($115,957 compared to $72,093, a difference of 60.8%), per capita income ($52,649 compared to $32,996, a difference of 59.6%), and median family income ($120,301 compared to $76,188, a difference of 57.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($52,783 compared to $44,356, a difference of 19.0%), median male earnings ($63,498 compared to $50,547, a difference of 25.6%), and median earnings ($53,001 compared to $38,949, a difference of 36.1%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (7.1% compared to 14.6%, a difference of 106.5%), child poverty among boys under 16 (13.4% compared to 26.2%, a difference of 96.1%), and female poverty among 25-34 year olds (11.8% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 92.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.5% compared to 26.2%, a difference of 34.4%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.8% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 50.1%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.5% compared to 14.7%, a difference of 55.7%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.2% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 87.4%), male unemployment (4.8% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 46.7%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.6% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 44.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.8% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 2.0%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.9% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 3.1%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.6% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 6.3%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (83.8% compared to 74.1%, a difference of 13.1%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.5% compared to 72.7%, a difference of 10.7%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.5% compared to 59.5%, a difference of 10.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (76.1% compared to 73.7%, a difference of 3.3%), in labor force | age 25-29 (86.1% compared to 81.2%, a difference of 6.0%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (85.4% compared to 79.5%, a difference of 7.4%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (27.7% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 67.9%), single mother households (5.3% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 50.0%), and single father households (2.0% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 45.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.11 compared to 3.18, a difference of 2.4%), family households (62.8% compared to 65.7%, a difference of 4.7%), and currently married (48.5% compared to 45.5%, a difference of 6.4%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.1% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 24.6%), 3 or more vehicles in household (19.3% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 20.1%), and no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 17.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.3% compared to 88.6%, a difference of 1.9%), 2 or more vehicles in household (56.2% compared to 54.4%, a difference of 3.3%), and no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 17.1%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (6.2% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 181.7%), doctorate degree (2.6% compared to 0.96%, a difference of 168.9%), and master's degree (19.8% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 150.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3rd grade (98.4% compared to 97.1%, a difference of 1.3%), kindergarten (98.5% compared to 97.3%, a difference of 1.3%), and 1st grade (98.5% compared to 97.2%, a difference of 1.3%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.2% compared to 18.7%, a difference of 83.8%), vision disability (2.0% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 73.5%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.4% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 67.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (16.6% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 15.8%), disability age over 75 (45.1% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 24.5%), and self-care disability (2.3% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 30.0%).