Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Community Comparison

COMPARE

Luxembourger
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Ecuadorian
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Luxembourgers

Ecuadorians

Excellent
Poor
9,215
SOCIAL INDEX
89.6/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
27th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
2,199
SOCIAL INDEX
19.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
267th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Ecuadorian Integration in Luxembourger Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 112,165,526 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Ecuadorians within Luxembourger communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.052. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Luxembourgers within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.016% in Ecuadorians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Luxembourgers corresponds to an increase of 15.8 Ecuadorians.
Luxembourger Integration in Ecuadorian Communities

Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (27.4% compared to 22.9%, a difference of 19.7%), median family income ($106,183 compared to $95,114, a difference of 11.6%), and householder income over 65 years ($60,967 compared to $54,958, a difference of 10.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median female earnings ($39,891 compared to $39,117, a difference of 2.0%), median household income ($86,418 compared to $82,070, a difference of 5.3%), and median earnings ($47,640 compared to $45,214, a difference of 5.4%).
Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Income
Income MetricLuxembourgerEcuadorian
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$45,663
Poor
$41,958
Median Family Income
Excellent
$106,183
Tragic
$95,114
Median Household Income
Good
$86,418
Poor
$82,070
Median Earnings
Excellent
$47,640
Poor
$45,214
Median Male Earnings
Excellent
$56,300
Tragic
$51,596
Median Female Earnings
Average
$39,891
Fair
$39,117
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$50,379
Exceptional
$53,911
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Excellent
$97,237
Poor
$91,574
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Excellent
$103,536
Tragic
$93,739
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Average
$60,967
Tragic
$54,958
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.4%
Exceptional
22.9%

Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (3.9% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 67.8%), receiving food stamps (9.1% compared to 14.9%, a difference of 62.9%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.2% compared to 14.0%, a difference of 51.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (17.1% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 3.7%), single female poverty (20.4% compared to 21.6%, a difference of 5.9%), and single male poverty (13.4% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 6.9%).
Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Poverty
Poverty MetricLuxembourgerEcuadorian
Poverty
Exceptional
10.6%
Tragic
14.0%
Families
Exceptional
7.2%
Tragic
10.8%
Males
Exceptional
9.5%
Tragic
12.7%
Females
Exceptional
11.6%
Tragic
15.3%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
20.9%
Exceptional
19.1%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
12.1%
Tragic
14.3%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
14.9%
Tragic
19.2%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.6%
Tragic
19.0%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.8%
Tragic
19.3%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.3%
Tragic
18.8%
Single Males
Tragic
13.4%
Excellent
12.5%
Single Females
Excellent
20.4%
Poor
21.6%
Single Fathers
Tragic
17.1%
Fair
16.5%
Single Mothers
Excellent
28.5%
Tragic
30.8%
Married Couples
Exceptional
3.9%
Tragic
6.5%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
9.2%
Tragic
14.0%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
10.8%
Tragic
15.7%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
9.1%
Tragic
14.9%

Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in female unemployment (4.4% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 42.8%), unemployment (4.3% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 42.4%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (15.1% compared to 20.5%, a difference of 36.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.7% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 11.7%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.2% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 11.9%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.8% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 15.6%).
Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Unemployment
Unemployment MetricLuxembourgerEcuadorian
Unemployment
Exceptional
4.3%
Tragic
6.2%
Males
Exceptional
4.5%
Tragic
6.2%
Females
Exceptional
4.4%
Tragic
6.3%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
10.0%
Tragic
13.3%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
15.1%
Tragic
20.5%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.1%
Tragic
11.8%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Exceptional
6.2%
Tragic
7.4%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Exceptional
4.8%
Tragic
6.3%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Tragic
5.4%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Tragic
5.3%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Exceptional
4.5%
Tragic
5.6%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Tragic
5.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
5.2%
Tragic
5.8%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.8%
Tragic
5.6%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.7%
Good
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.6%
Poor
7.9%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.3%
Tragic
10.0%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
5.0%
Tragic
6.5%

Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (45.3% compared to 31.4%, a difference of 44.2%), in labor force | age 20-24 (79.0% compared to 72.4%, a difference of 9.0%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (85.0% compared to 82.3%, a difference of 3.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age > 16 (66.7% compared to 65.6%, a difference of 1.7%), in labor force | age 35-44 (86.4% compared to 84.2%, a difference of 2.6%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (86.6% compared to 84.4%, a difference of 2.6%).
Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricLuxembourgerEcuadorian
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Exceptional
66.7%
Exceptional
65.6%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Exceptional
81.9%
Fair
79.4%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
45.3%
Tragic
31.4%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
79.0%
Tragic
72.4%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Exceptional
86.9%
Poor
84.4%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Exceptional
86.6%
Poor
84.4%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Exceptional
86.4%
Fair
84.2%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Exceptional
85.0%
Tragic
82.3%

Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (5.6% compared to 7.2%, a difference of 29.5%), births to unmarried women (29.4% compared to 33.3%, a difference of 13.1%), and currently married (49.3% compared to 43.6%, a difference of 13.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (63.3% compared to 65.0%, a difference of 2.6%), family households with children (27.0% compared to 27.8%, a difference of 2.9%), and divorced or separated (11.3% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 3.5%).
Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Family Structure
Family Structure MetricLuxembourgerEcuadorian
Family Households
Tragic
63.3%
Exceptional
65.0%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
27.0%
Exceptional
27.8%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
48.5%
Tragic
43.5%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.10
Exceptional
3.32
Single Father Households
Exceptional
2.2%
Fair
2.4%
Single Mother Households
Exceptional
5.6%
Tragic
7.2%
Currently Married
Exceptional
49.3%
Tragic
43.6%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
11.3%
Exceptional
11.7%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
29.4%
Poor
33.3%

Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (5.4% compared to 22.8%, a difference of 324.8%), 3 or more vehicles in household (20.9% compared to 14.1%, a difference of 48.6%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (6.6% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 48.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (94.8% compared to 77.9%, a difference of 21.6%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.1% compared to 42.0%, a difference of 40.7%), and 4 or more vehicles in household (6.6% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 48.3%).
Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricLuxembourgerEcuadorian
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
5.4%
Tragic
22.8%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
94.8%
Tragic
77.9%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.1%
Tragic
42.0%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
20.9%
Tragic
14.1%
4+ Vehicles Available
Excellent
6.6%
Tragic
4.5%

Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.6% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 86.0%), doctorate degree (1.9% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 32.8%), and professional degree (4.6% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 17.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.5% compared to 97.1%, a difference of 1.5%), kindergarten (98.5% compared to 97.0%, a difference of 1.5%), and 1st grade (98.5% compared to 97.0%, a difference of 1.5%).
Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Education Level
Education Level MetricLuxembourgerEcuadorian
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.6%
Tragic
3.0%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.5%
Tragic
97.1%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.5%
Tragic
97.0%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.5%
Tragic
97.0%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.4%
Tragic
96.9%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Tragic
96.7%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Tragic
96.4%
5th Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Tragic
96.0%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Tragic
95.5%
7th Grade
Exceptional
97.2%
Tragic
94.0%
8th Grade
Exceptional
97.0%
Tragic
93.6%
9th Grade
Exceptional
96.3%
Tragic
91.9%
10th Grade
Exceptional
95.4%
Tragic
90.6%
11th Grade
Exceptional
94.5%
Tragic
89.6%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
93.3%
Tragic
88.0%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
91.7%
Tragic
85.1%
GED/Equivalency
Exceptional
88.6%
Tragic
81.7%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
68.2%
Tragic
59.3%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
62.1%
Tragic
54.3%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
48.9%
Tragic
43.0%
Bachelor's Degree
Excellent
39.8%
Tragic
35.4%
Master's Degree
Good
15.3%
Poor
14.0%
Professional Degree
Good
4.6%
Tragic
3.9%
Doctorate Degree
Excellent
1.9%
Tragic
1.5%

Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (3.2% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 29.2%), disability age under 5 (1.3% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 20.4%), and disability age 18 to 34 (6.9% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 18.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 35 to 64 (10.6% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 0.95%), disability (11.3% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 1.4%), and female disability (11.6% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 2.9%).
Luxembourger vs Ecuadorian Disability
Disability MetricLuxembourgerEcuadorian
Disability
Exceptional
11.3%
Exceptional
11.2%
Males
Good
11.1%
Exceptional
10.5%
Females
Exceptional
11.6%
Exceptional
11.9%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.3%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Exceptional
5.3%
Good
5.5%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
6.9%
Exceptional
5.8%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
10.6%
Exceptional
10.7%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
21.4%
Fair
23.6%
Age | Over 75 years
Exceptional
44.8%
Average
47.4%
Vision
Exceptional
1.9%
Tragic
2.3%
Hearing
Tragic
3.2%
Exceptional
2.5%
Cognitive
Exceptional
16.4%
Average
17.2%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.6%
Good
6.1%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.2%
Tragic
2.6%