Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Community Comparison

COMPARE

Zimbabwean
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)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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'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
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Zimbabweans

Ecuadorians

Exceptional
Poor
9,358
SOCIAL INDEX
91.0/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
18th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
2,199
SOCIAL INDEX
19.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
267th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Ecuadorian Integration in Zimbabwean Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 62,564,218 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Ecuadorians within Zimbabwean communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.008. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Zimbabweans within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.007% in Ecuadorians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Zimbabweans corresponds to an increase of 6.7 Ecuadorians.
Zimbabwean Integration in Ecuadorian Communities

Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Zimbabwean and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($65,854 compared to $54,958, a difference of 19.8%), median family income ($110,011 compared to $95,114, a difference of 15.7%), and wage/income gap (26.3% compared to 22.9%, a difference of 14.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median female earnings ($40,798 compared to $39,117, a difference of 4.3%), householder income under 25 years ($51,259 compared to $53,911, a difference of 5.2%), and median earnings ($48,229 compared to $45,214, a difference of 6.7%).
Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Income
Income MetricZimbabweanEcuadorian
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$45,804
Poor
$41,958
Median Family Income
Exceptional
$110,011
Tragic
$95,114
Median Household Income
Exceptional
$90,618
Poor
$82,070
Median Earnings
Exceptional
$48,229
Poor
$45,214
Median Male Earnings
Excellent
$56,302
Tragic
$51,596
Median Female Earnings
Exceptional
$40,798
Fair
$39,117
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$51,259
Exceptional
$53,911
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Exceptional
$98,586
Poor
$91,574
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Exceptional
$106,849
Tragic
$93,739
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Exceptional
$65,854
Tragic
$54,958
Wage/Income Gap
Fair
26.3%
Exceptional
22.9%

Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Zimbabwean and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (4.1% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 59.5%), receiving food stamps (9.5% compared to 14.9%, a difference of 56.9%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.6% compared to 14.0%, a difference of 45.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single male poverty (13.1% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 4.8%), single father poverty (15.6% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 5.9%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.4% compared to 19.1%, a difference of 6.8%).
Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Poverty
Poverty MetricZimbabweanEcuadorian
Poverty
Exceptional
11.3%
Tragic
14.0%
Families
Exceptional
7.8%
Tragic
10.8%
Males
Exceptional
10.2%
Tragic
12.7%
Females
Exceptional
12.3%
Tragic
15.3%
Females 18 to 24 years
Fair
20.4%
Exceptional
19.1%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
11.7%
Tragic
14.3%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
15.2%
Tragic
19.2%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.2%
Tragic
19.0%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.3%
Tragic
19.3%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.4%
Tragic
18.8%
Single Males
Poor
13.1%
Excellent
12.5%
Single Females
Exceptional
19.5%
Poor
21.6%
Single Fathers
Exceptional
15.6%
Fair
16.5%
Single Mothers
Exceptional
27.9%
Tragic
30.8%
Married Couples
Exceptional
4.1%
Tragic
6.5%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
9.6%
Tragic
14.0%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
11.2%
Tragic
15.7%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
9.5%
Tragic
14.9%

Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Zimbabwean and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.2% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 33.2%), unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (15.4% compared to 20.5%, a difference of 33.0%), and female unemployment (4.8% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 30.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.6% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 0.74%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.7% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 1.5%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.9% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 2.1%).
Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Unemployment
Unemployment MetricZimbabweanEcuadorian
Unemployment
Exceptional
4.8%
Tragic
6.2%
Males
Exceptional
4.8%
Tragic
6.2%
Females
Exceptional
4.8%
Tragic
6.3%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
10.2%
Tragic
13.3%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
15.4%
Tragic
20.5%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.2%
Tragic
11.8%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Exceptional
6.4%
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
4.2%
Tragic
5.6%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.5%
Tragic
5.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
5.9%
Tragic
5.8%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
5.6%
Tragic
5.6%
Seniors > 75
Average
8.7%
Good
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
7.3%
Poor
7.9%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.6%
Tragic
10.0%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
5.1%
Tragic
6.5%

Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Zimbabwean and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.7% compared to 31.4%, a difference of 23.3%), in labor force | age 20-24 (75.6% compared to 72.4%, a difference of 4.4%), and in labor force | age > 16 (67.3% compared to 65.6%, a difference of 2.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (84.5% compared to 84.4%, a difference of 0.15%), in labor force | age 30-34 (85.6% compared to 84.4%, a difference of 1.5%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (81.0% compared to 79.4%, a difference of 2.0%).
Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricZimbabweanEcuadorian
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Exceptional
67.3%
Exceptional
65.6%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Exceptional
81.0%
Fair
79.4%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.7%
Tragic
31.4%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Excellent
75.6%
Tragic
72.4%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Fair
84.5%
Poor
84.4%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Exceptional
85.6%
Poor
84.4%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Exceptional
86.1%
Fair
84.2%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Exceptional
84.0%
Tragic
82.3%

Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Zimbabwean and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (6.1% compared to 7.2%, a difference of 18.7%), births to unmarried women (28.7% compared to 33.3%, a difference of 16.0%), and married-couple households (47.4% compared to 43.5%, a difference of 8.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (27.9% compared to 27.8%, a difference of 0.43%), family households (64.1% compared to 65.0%, a difference of 1.4%), and divorced or separated (11.6% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 1.5%).
Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Family Structure
Family Structure MetricZimbabweanEcuadorian
Family Households
Fair
64.1%
Exceptional
65.0%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
27.9%
Exceptional
27.8%
Married-couple Households
Excellent
47.4%
Tragic
43.5%
Average Family Size
Poor
3.20
Exceptional
3.32
Single Father Households
Exceptional
2.2%
Fair
2.4%
Single Mother Households
Excellent
6.1%
Tragic
7.2%
Currently Married
Good
47.0%
Tragic
43.6%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
11.6%
Exceptional
11.7%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
28.7%
Poor
33.3%

Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Zimbabwean and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.0% compared to 22.8%, a difference of 151.7%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.4% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 44.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (20.3% compared to 14.1%, a difference of 44.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.0% compared to 77.9%, a difference of 16.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (57.2% compared to 42.0%, a difference of 36.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (20.3% compared to 14.1%, a difference of 44.2%).
Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricZimbabweanEcuadorian
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
9.0%
Tragic
22.8%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
91.0%
Tragic
77.9%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
57.2%
Tragic
42.0%
3+ Vehicles Available
Excellent
20.3%
Tragic
14.1%
4+ Vehicles Available
Good
6.4%
Tragic
4.5%

Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Zimbabwean and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 71.0%), doctorate degree (2.3% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 55.7%), and professional degree (5.2% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 32.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.3% compared to 97.1%, a difference of 1.3%), kindergarten (98.3% compared to 97.0%, a difference of 1.3%), and 1st grade (98.3% compared to 97.0%, a difference of 1.3%).
Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Education Level
Education Level MetricZimbabweanEcuadorian
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.7%
Tragic
3.0%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.3%
Tragic
97.1%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.3%
Tragic
97.0%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Tragic
97.0%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Tragic
96.9%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Tragic
96.7%
4th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Tragic
96.4%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.8%
Tragic
96.0%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Tragic
95.5%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.8%
Tragic
94.0%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.5%
Tragic
93.6%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.9%
Tragic
91.9%
10th Grade
Exceptional
94.9%
Tragic
90.6%
11th Grade
Exceptional
93.9%
Tragic
89.6%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
92.7%
Tragic
88.0%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
91.1%
Tragic
85.1%
GED/Equivalency
Exceptional
88.0%
Tragic
81.7%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
69.9%
Tragic
59.3%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
64.2%
Tragic
54.3%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
51.3%
Tragic
43.0%
Bachelor's Degree
Exceptional
43.3%
Tragic
35.4%
Master's Degree
Exceptional
17.7%
Poor
14.0%
Professional Degree
Exceptional
5.2%
Tragic
3.9%
Doctorate Degree
Exceptional
2.3%
Tragic
1.5%

Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Zimbabwean and Ecuadorian communities in the United States are seen in self-care disability (2.2% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 18.8%), vision disability (2.0% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 15.7%), and hearing disability (2.8% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 13.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 5 to 17 (5.5% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 0.82%), male disability (10.6% compared to 10.5%, a difference of 1.0%), and disability age over 75 (48.1% compared to 47.4%, a difference of 1.4%).
Zimbabwean vs Ecuadorian Disability
Disability MetricZimbabweanEcuadorian
Disability
Exceptional
10.9%
Exceptional
11.2%
Males
Exceptional
10.6%
Exceptional
10.5%
Females
Exceptional
11.3%
Exceptional
11.9%
Age | Under 5 years
Exceptional
1.2%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Good
5.5%
Good
5.5%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Good
6.5%
Exceptional
5.8%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
10.4%
Exceptional
10.7%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
21.5%
Fair
23.6%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
48.1%
Average
47.4%
Vision
Exceptional
2.0%
Tragic
2.3%
Hearing
Excellent
2.8%
Exceptional
2.5%
Cognitive
Tragic
17.6%
Average
17.2%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.4%
Good
6.1%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.2%
Tragic
2.6%