Latvian vs Immigrants from China Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 211,502,201 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from China within Latvian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.053. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Latvians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.016% in Immigrants from China. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Latvians corresponds to an increase of 15.6 Immigrants from China.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Latvian and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($108,926 compared to $119,756, a difference of 9.9%), householder income under 25 years ($52,783 compared to $57,931, a difference of 9.8%), and median household income ($97,311 compared to $105,335, a difference of 8.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($67,326 compared to $69,174, a difference of 2.7%), per capita income ($52,649 compared to $54,264, a difference of 3.1%), and median family income ($120,301 compared to $125,540, a difference of 4.4%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Latvian and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (3.9% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 27.2%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.8% compared to 13.2%, a difference of 22.2%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.5% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 21.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of child poverty under the age of 16 (13.2% compared to 13.3%, a difference of 0.79%), child poverty among girls under 16 (13.5% compared to 13.4%, a difference of 0.81%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (13.4% compared to 13.6%, a difference of 1.7%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Latvian and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.6% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 11.9%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.6% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 10.4%), and female unemployment (4.7% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 10.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 18 years (4.9% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 1.0%), unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.2% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 1.1%), and unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.0% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 2.6%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Latvian and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.9% compared to 31.1%, a difference of 24.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (76.1% compared to 71.1%, a difference of 7.1%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (86.1% compared to 84.6%, a difference of 1.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age > 16 (65.5% compared to 65.4%, a difference of 0.20%), in labor force | age 45-54 (83.8% compared to 83.2%, a difference of 0.74%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (85.4% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 0.79%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Latvian and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (11.6% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 15.6%), births to unmarried women (27.7% compared to 24.7%, a difference of 12.4%), and single father households (2.0% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 8.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple households (47.9% compared to 48.4%, a difference of 1.1%), currently married (48.5% compared to 47.9%, a difference of 1.3%), and family households (62.8% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 3.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 15.2%, a difference of 54.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (56.2% compared to 51.5%, a difference of 9.2%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (90.3% compared to 84.9%, a difference of 6.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4 or more vehicles in household (6.1% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 1.5%), 3 or more vehicles in household (19.3% compared to 18.2%, a difference of 5.9%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (90.3% compared to 84.9%, a difference of 6.4%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Latvian and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.5% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 66.2%), doctorate degree (2.6% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 19.8%), and professional degree (6.2% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 7.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of college, 1 year or more (66.1% compared to 66.4%, a difference of 0.47%), college, under 1 year (71.6% compared to 70.9%, a difference of 1.0%), and nursery school (98.5% compared to 97.5%, a difference of 1.1%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Immigrants from China communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.3% compared to 0.96%, a difference of 36.3%), disability age 18 to 34 (6.8% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 25.5%), and hearing disability (3.2% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 22.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 1.5%), cognitive disability (16.6% compared to 16.9%, a difference of 1.7%), and disability age over 75 (45.1% compared to 46.3%, a difference of 2.6%).