Latvian vs Pima Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 48,623,508 people shows a mild negative correlation between the proportion of Pima within Latvian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.358. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Latvians within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.064% in Pima. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Latvians corresponds to a decrease of 63.9 Pima.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Latvian and Pima communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($52,649 compared to $30,644, a difference of 71.8%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($115,957 compared to $73,365, a difference of 58.1%), and median family income ($120,301 compared to $77,431, a difference of 55.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($52,783 compared to $51,503, a difference of 2.5%), median female earnings ($43,941 compared to $35,326, a difference of 24.4%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($108,926 compared to $82,821, a difference of 31.5%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Latvian and Pima communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (3.9% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 192.5%), family poverty (7.1% compared to 18.4%, a difference of 159.5%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (13.4% compared to 29.7%, a difference of 122.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (16.5% compared to 14.8%, a difference of 11.5%), single mother poverty (26.9% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 43.6%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.5% compared to 28.4%, a difference of 45.9%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Latvian and Pima communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.2% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 181.2%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (4.9% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 139.9%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.6% compared to 18.9%, a difference of 119.4%). 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 0.42%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.6% compared to 9.2%, a difference of 7.4%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.9% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 27.4%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Latvian and Pima communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 20-64 (80.5% compared to 69.0%, a difference of 16.6%), in labor force | age 25-29 (86.1% compared to 74.3%, a difference of 15.9%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.8% compared to 72.8%, a difference of 15.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (86.0% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 8.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (76.1% compared to 69.0%, a difference of 10.2%), and in labor force | age 16-19 (38.9% compared to 34.1%, a difference of 14.1%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Latvian and Pima communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.0% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 108.2%), births to unmarried women (27.7% compared to 51.5%, a difference of 85.7%), and single mother households (5.3% compared to 8.3%, a difference of 56.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (26.4% compared to 27.1%, a difference of 2.5%), family households (62.8% compared to 65.9%, a difference of 5.1%), and divorced or separated (11.6% compared to 12.9%, a difference of 11.0%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Pima communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 14.1%, a difference of 44.3%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.1% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 28.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.3% compared to 22.0%, a difference of 14.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.3% compared to 86.3%, a difference of 4.7%), 2 or more vehicles in household (56.2% compared to 52.0%, a difference of 8.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.3% compared to 22.0%, a difference of 14.3%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Latvian and Pima communities in the United States are seen in master's degree (19.8% compared to 9.2%, a difference of 114.2%), bachelor's degree (46.1% compared to 23.2%, a difference of 98.6%), and doctorate degree (2.6% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 95.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (98.5% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.28%), 1st grade (98.5% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.28%), and nursery school (98.5% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.29%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Pima communities in the United States are seen in disability age 65 to 74 (21.2% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 81.9%), vision disability (2.0% compared to 3.3%, a difference of 67.9%), and disability age 35 to 64 (10.2% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 58.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (16.6% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 12.9%), disability age 18 to 34 (6.8% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 13.1%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.4% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 14.4%).