Pima vs Latvian Community Comparison
COMPARE
Pima
Latvian
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Pima
Latvians
1,700
SOCIAL INDEX
14.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
291st/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,576
SOCIAL INDEX
93.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
12th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Latvian Integration in Pima Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 48,623,508 people shows a perfect positive correlation between the proportion of Latvians within Pima communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 1.000. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Pima within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.040% in Latvians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Pima corresponds to an increase of 39.6 Latvians.
Pima vs Latvian Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($30,644 compared to $52,649, a difference of 71.8%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($73,365 compared to $115,957, a difference of 58.1%), and median family income ($77,431 compared to $120,301, a difference of 55.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($51,503 compared to $52,783, a difference of 2.5%), median female earnings ($35,326 compared to $43,941, a difference of 24.4%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($82,821 compared to $108,926, a difference of 31.5%).
Income Metric | Pima | Latvian |
Per Capita Income | Tragic $30,644 | Exceptional $52,649 |
Median Family Income | Tragic $77,431 | Exceptional $120,301 |
Median Household Income | Tragic $63,262 | Exceptional $97,311 |
Median Earnings | Tragic $38,285 | Exceptional $53,001 |
Median Male Earnings | Tragic $42,357 | Exceptional $63,498 |
Median Female Earnings | Tragic $35,326 | Exceptional $43,941 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Poor $51,503 | Excellent $52,783 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Tragic $82,821 | Exceptional $108,926 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Tragic $73,365 | Exceptional $115,957 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Tragic $50,539 | Exceptional $67,326 |
Wage/Income Gap | Exceptional 21.1% | Tragic 27.9% |
Pima vs Latvian Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (11.4% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 192.5%), family poverty (18.4% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 159.5%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (29.7% compared to 13.4%, a difference of 122.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (14.8% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 11.5%), single mother poverty (38.6% compared to 26.9%, a difference of 43.6%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (28.4% compared to 19.5%, a difference of 45.9%).
Poverty Metric | Pima | Latvian |
Poverty | Tragic 21.9% | Exceptional 10.5% |
Families | Tragic 18.4% | Exceptional 7.1% |
Males | Tragic 20.4% | Exceptional 9.6% |
Females | Tragic 23.6% | Exceptional 11.4% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Tragic 28.4% | Exceptional 19.5% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Tragic 25.3% | Exceptional 11.8% |
Children Under 5 years | Tragic 27.4% | Exceptional 14.5% |
Children Under 16 years | Tragic 29.0% | Exceptional 13.2% |
Boys Under 16 years | Tragic 29.7% | Exceptional 13.4% |
Girls Under 16 years | Tragic 28.2% | Exceptional 13.5% |
Single Males | Tragic 20.2% | Good 12.7% |
Single Females | Tragic 30.3% | Exceptional 19.0% |
Single Fathers | Exceptional 14.8% | Fair 16.5% |
Single Mothers | Tragic 38.6% | Exceptional 26.9% |
Married Couples | Tragic 11.4% | Exceptional 3.9% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Tragic 19.8% | Exceptional 9.5% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Tragic 23.9% | Exceptional 10.8% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Tragic 19.0% | Exceptional 9.1% |
Pima vs Latvian Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (11.8% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 181.2%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (11.7% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 139.9%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (18.9% compared to 8.6%, 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 (9.2% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 7.4%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (6.3% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 27.4%).
Unemployment Metric | Pima | Latvian |
Unemployment | Tragic 8.2% | Exceptional 4.7% |
Males | Tragic 8.3% | Exceptional 4.8% |
Females | Tragic 9.3% | Exceptional 4.7% |
Youth < 25 | Tragic 16.2% | Exceptional 11.0% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Tragic 23.1% | Exceptional 16.7% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Tragic 14.2% | Exceptional 9.9% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Tragic 11.8% | Exceptional 6.2% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Tragic 9.6% | Exceptional 5.0% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Tragic 11.8% | Exceptional 4.2% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Tragic 6.4% | Exceptional 4.2% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Tragic 6.6% | Exceptional 4.6% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Excellent 4.8% | Good 4.8% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 6.6% | Exceptional 5.1% |
Seniors > 65 | Tragic 6.3% | Exceptional 4.9% |
Seniors > 75 | Tragic 9.2% | Excellent 8.6% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Tragic 13.4% | Exceptional 6.8% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Tragic 18.9% | Exceptional 8.6% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Tragic 11.7% | Exceptional 4.9% |
Pima vs Latvian Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 20-64 (69.0% compared to 80.5%, a difference of 16.6%), in labor force | age 25-29 (74.3% compared to 86.1%, a difference of 15.9%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (72.8% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 15.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (79.0% compared to 86.0%, a difference of 8.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (69.0% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 10.2%), and in labor force | age 16-19 (34.1% compared to 38.9%, a difference of 14.1%).
Labor Participation Metric | Pima | Latvian |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Tragic 57.4% | Excellent 65.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Tragic 69.0% | Exceptional 80.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Tragic 34.1% | Exceptional 38.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Tragic 69.0% | Exceptional 76.1% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Tragic 74.3% | Exceptional 86.1% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Tragic 79.0% | Exceptional 86.0% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Tragic 74.8% | Exceptional 85.4% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Tragic 72.8% | Exceptional 83.8% |
Pima vs Latvian Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in single father households (4.2% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 108.2%), births to unmarried women (51.5% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 85.7%), and single mother households (8.3% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 56.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (27.1% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 2.5%), family households (65.9% compared to 62.8%, a difference of 5.1%), and divorced or separated (12.9% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 11.0%).
Family Structure Metric | Pima | Latvian |
Family Households | Exceptional 65.9% | Tragic 62.8% |
Family Households with Children | Tragic 27.1% | Tragic 26.4% |
Married-couple Households | Tragic 35.6% | Exceptional 47.9% |
Average Family Size | Exceptional 3.75 | Tragic 3.11 |
Single Father Households | Tragic 4.2% | Exceptional 2.0% |
Single Mother Households | Tragic 8.3% | Exceptional 5.3% |
Currently Married | Tragic 35.9% | Exceptional 48.5% |
Divorced or Separated | Tragic 12.9% | Exceptional 11.6% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Tragic 51.5% | Exceptional 27.7% |
Pima vs Latvian Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (14.1% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 44.3%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 28.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.0% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 14.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (86.3% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 4.7%), 2 or more vehicles in household (52.0% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 8.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.0% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 14.3%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Pima | Latvian |
No Vehicles Available | Tragic 14.1% | Excellent 9.8% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Tragic 86.3% | Excellent 90.3% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Tragic 52.0% | Excellent 56.2% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 22.0% | Fair 19.3% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.9% | Fair 6.1% |
Pima vs Latvian Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in master's degree (9.2% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 114.2%), bachelor's degree (23.2% compared to 46.1%, a difference of 98.6%), and doctorate degree (1.3% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 95.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.28%), 1st grade (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.28%), and nursery school (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.29%).
Education Level Metric | Pima | Latvian |
No Schooling Completed | Average 2.1% | Exceptional 1.5% |
Nursery School | Exceptional 98.2% | Exceptional 98.5% |
Kindergarten | Exceptional 98.2% | Exceptional 98.5% |
1st Grade | Exceptional 98.2% | Exceptional 98.5% |
2nd Grade | Exceptional 98.2% | Exceptional 98.4% |
3rd Grade | Exceptional 98.0% | Exceptional 98.4% |
4th Grade | Exceptional 97.7% | Exceptional 98.2% |
5th Grade | Exceptional 97.6% | Exceptional 98.1% |
6th Grade | Excellent 97.2% | Exceptional 97.9% |
7th Grade | Good 96.1% | Exceptional 97.2% |
8th Grade | Fair 95.6% | Exceptional 97.0% |
9th Grade | Tragic 93.9% | Exceptional 96.4% |
10th Grade | Tragic 91.2% | Exceptional 95.6% |
11th Grade | Tragic 88.3% | Exceptional 94.7% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Tragic 84.6% | Exceptional 93.6% |
High School Diploma | Tragic 81.6% | Exceptional 92.0% |
GED/Equivalency | Tragic 76.4% | Exceptional 89.2% |
College, Under 1 year | Tragic 51.4% | Exceptional 71.6% |
College, 1 year or more | Tragic 45.6% | Exceptional 66.1% |
Associate's Degree | Tragic 30.2% | Exceptional 53.9% |
Bachelor's Degree | Tragic 23.2% | Exceptional 46.1% |
Master's Degree | Tragic 9.2% | Exceptional 19.8% |
Professional Degree | Tragic 3.3% | Exceptional 6.2% |
Doctorate Degree | Tragic 1.3% | Exceptional 2.6% |
Pima vs Latvian Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in disability age 65 to 74 (38.6% compared to 21.2%, a difference of 81.9%), vision disability (3.3% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 67.9%), and disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 58.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.8% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 12.9%), disability age 18 to 34 (7.7% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 13.1%), and disability age 5 to 17 (6.2% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 14.4%).
Disability Metric | Pima | Latvian |
Disability | Tragic 13.7% | Excellent 11.4% |
Males | Tragic 12.8% | Good 11.1% |
Females | Tragic 14.8% | Exceptional 11.7% |
Age | Under 5 years | Exceptional 1.1% | Tragic 1.3% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Tragic 6.2% | Exceptional 5.4% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Tragic 7.7% | Poor 6.8% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Tragic 16.1% | Exceptional 10.2% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 38.6% | Exceptional 21.2% |
Age | Over 75 years | Tragic 55.8% | Exceptional 45.1% |
Vision | Tragic 3.3% | Exceptional 2.0% |
Hearing | Tragic 3.7% | Tragic 3.2% |
Cognitive | Tragic 18.8% | Exceptional 16.6% |
Ambulatory | Tragic 8.2% | Exceptional 5.7% |
Self-Care | Tragic 2.8% | Exceptional 2.3% |