Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Community Comparison

COMPARE

Luxembourger
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAmericanApacheArabArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYup'ik
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
Zimbabwean
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

Zimbabweans

Excellent
Exceptional
9,215
SOCIAL INDEX
89.6/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
27th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,358
SOCIAL INDEX
91.0/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
18th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Zimbabwean Integration in Luxembourger Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 48,752,188 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Zimbabweans within Luxembourger communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.304. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Luxembourgers within a typical geography, there is an increase of 1.075% in Zimbabweans. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Luxembourgers corresponds to an increase of 1,075.2 Zimbabweans.
Luxembourger Integration in Zimbabwean Communities

Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($60,967 compared to $65,854, a difference of 8.0%), median household income ($86,418 compared to $90,618, a difference of 4.9%), and wage/income gap (27.4% compared to 26.3%, a difference of 4.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median male earnings ($56,300 compared to $56,302, a difference of 0.0%), per capita income ($45,663 compared to $45,804, a difference of 0.31%), and median earnings ($47,640 compared to $48,229, a difference of 1.2%).
Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Income
Income MetricLuxembourgerZimbabwean
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$45,663
Exceptional
$45,804
Median Family Income
Excellent
$106,183
Exceptional
$110,011
Median Household Income
Good
$86,418
Exceptional
$90,618
Median Earnings
Excellent
$47,640
Exceptional
$48,229
Median Male Earnings
Excellent
$56,300
Excellent
$56,302
Median Female Earnings
Average
$39,891
Exceptional
$40,798
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$50,379
Tragic
$51,259
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Excellent
$97,237
Exceptional
$98,586
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Excellent
$103,536
Exceptional
$106,849
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Average
$60,967
Exceptional
$65,854
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.4%
Fair
26.3%

Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in single father poverty (17.1% compared to 15.6%, a difference of 9.8%), family poverty (7.2% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 8.0%), and male poverty (9.5% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 7.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of child poverty among girls under 16 (14.3% compared to 14.4%, a difference of 0.73%), child poverty under the age of 5 (14.9% compared to 15.2%, a difference of 1.8%), and single male poverty (13.4% compared to 13.1%, a difference of 2.0%).
Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Poverty
Poverty MetricLuxembourgerZimbabwean
Poverty
Exceptional
10.6%
Exceptional
11.3%
Families
Exceptional
7.2%
Exceptional
7.8%
Males
Exceptional
9.5%
Exceptional
10.2%
Females
Exceptional
11.6%
Exceptional
12.3%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
20.9%
Fair
20.4%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
12.1%
Exceptional
11.7%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
14.9%
Exceptional
15.2%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.6%
Exceptional
14.2%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.8%
Exceptional
14.3%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.3%
Exceptional
14.4%
Single Males
Tragic
13.4%
Poor
13.1%
Single Females
Excellent
20.4%
Exceptional
19.5%
Single Fathers
Tragic
17.1%
Exceptional
15.6%
Single Mothers
Excellent
28.5%
Exceptional
27.9%
Married Couples
Exceptional
3.9%
Exceptional
4.1%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
9.2%
Exceptional
9.6%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
10.8%
Exceptional
11.2%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
9.1%
Exceptional
9.5%

Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.8% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 14.7%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.2% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 14.2%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.7% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 13.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.3% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 0.33%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (4.8% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 0.48%), and unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.2% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 0.51%).
Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Unemployment
Unemployment MetricLuxembourgerZimbabwean
Unemployment
Exceptional
4.3%
Exceptional
4.8%
Males
Exceptional
4.5%
Exceptional
4.8%
Females
Exceptional
4.4%
Exceptional
4.8%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
10.0%
Exceptional
10.2%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
15.1%
Exceptional
15.4%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.1%
Exceptional
9.2%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Exceptional
6.2%
Exceptional
6.4%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Exceptional
4.8%
Exceptional
4.8%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Exceptional
4.5%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
5.2%
Tragic
5.9%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.8%
Tragic
5.6%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.7%
Average
8.7%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.6%
Exceptional
7.3%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.3%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
5.1%

Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (45.3% compared to 38.7%, a difference of 17.0%), in labor force | age 20-24 (79.0% compared to 75.6%, a difference of 4.4%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (86.9% compared to 84.5%, a difference of 2.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 35-44 (86.4% compared to 86.1%, a difference of 0.35%), in labor force | age > 16 (66.7% compared to 67.3%, a difference of 0.84%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (81.9% compared to 81.0%, a difference of 1.1%).
Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricLuxembourgerZimbabwean
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Exceptional
66.7%
Exceptional
67.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Exceptional
81.9%
Exceptional
81.0%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
45.3%
Exceptional
38.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
79.0%
Excellent
75.6%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Exceptional
86.9%
Fair
84.5%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Exceptional
86.6%
Exceptional
85.6%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Exceptional
86.4%
Exceptional
86.1%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Exceptional
85.0%
Exceptional
84.0%

Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (5.6% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 9.1%), currently married (49.3% compared to 47.0%, a difference of 4.9%), and family households with children (27.0% compared to 27.9%, a difference of 3.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father households (2.2% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 0.92%), family households (63.3% compared to 64.1%, a difference of 1.2%), and divorced or separated (11.3% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 2.0%).
Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Family Structure
Family Structure MetricLuxembourgerZimbabwean
Family Households
Tragic
63.3%
Fair
64.1%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
27.0%
Exceptional
27.9%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
48.5%
Excellent
47.4%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.10
Poor
3.20
Single Father Households
Exceptional
2.2%
Exceptional
2.2%
Single Mother Households
Exceptional
5.6%
Excellent
6.1%
Currently Married
Exceptional
49.3%
Good
47.0%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
11.3%
Exceptional
11.6%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
29.4%
Exceptional
28.7%

Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (5.4% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 68.8%), 1 or more vehicles in household (94.8% compared to 91.0%, a difference of 4.2%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (59.1% compared to 57.2%, a difference of 3.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4 or more vehicles in household (6.6% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 2.8%), 3 or more vehicles in household (20.9% compared to 20.3%, a difference of 3.1%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (59.1% compared to 57.2%, a difference of 3.2%).
Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricLuxembourgerZimbabwean
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
5.4%
Exceptional
9.0%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
94.8%
Exceptional
91.0%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.1%
Exceptional
57.2%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
20.9%
Excellent
20.3%
4+ Vehicles Available
Excellent
6.6%
Good
6.4%

Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (1.9% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 17.3%), master's degree (15.3% compared to 17.7%, a difference of 15.5%), and professional degree (4.6% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 12.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.21%), kindergarten (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.21%), and 1st grade (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.21%).
Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Education Level
Education Level MetricLuxembourgerZimbabwean
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.6%
Exceptional
1.7%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.3%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.3%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.3%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.2%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.1%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
97.9%
5th Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
97.8%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Exceptional
97.6%
7th Grade
Exceptional
97.2%
Exceptional
96.8%
8th Grade
Exceptional
97.0%
Exceptional
96.5%
9th Grade
Exceptional
96.3%
Exceptional
95.9%
10th Grade
Exceptional
95.4%
Exceptional
94.9%
11th Grade
Exceptional
94.5%
Exceptional
93.9%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
93.3%
Exceptional
92.7%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
91.7%
Exceptional
91.1%
GED/Equivalency
Exceptional
88.6%
Exceptional
88.0%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
68.2%
Exceptional
69.9%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
62.1%
Exceptional
64.2%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
48.9%
Exceptional
51.3%
Bachelor's Degree
Excellent
39.8%
Exceptional
43.3%
Master's Degree
Good
15.3%
Exceptional
17.7%
Professional Degree
Good
4.6%
Exceptional
5.2%
Doctorate Degree
Excellent
1.9%
Exceptional
2.3%

Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (3.2% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 14.1%), disability age under 5 (1.3% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 11.9%), and cognitive disability (16.4% compared to 17.6%, a difference of 7.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 65 to 74 (21.4% compared to 21.5%, a difference of 0.75%), vision disability (1.9% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 1.2%), and disability age 35 to 64 (10.6% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 1.3%).
Luxembourger vs Zimbabwean Disability
Disability MetricLuxembourgerZimbabwean
Disability
Exceptional
11.3%
Exceptional
10.9%
Males
Good
11.1%
Exceptional
10.6%
Females
Exceptional
11.6%
Exceptional
11.3%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.3%
Exceptional
1.2%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Exceptional
5.3%
Good
5.5%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
6.9%
Good
6.5%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
10.6%
Exceptional
10.4%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
21.4%
Exceptional
21.5%
Age | Over 75 years
Exceptional
44.8%
Tragic
48.1%
Vision
Exceptional
1.9%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
3.2%
Excellent
2.8%
Cognitive
Exceptional
16.4%
Tragic
17.6%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.6%
Exceptional
5.4%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.2%
Exceptional
2.2%