Latvian vs Houma Community Comparison
COMPARE
Latvian
Houma
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Latvians
Houma
9,576
SOCIAL INDEX
93.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
12th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
384
SOCIAL INDEX
1.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
346th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Houma Integration in Latvian Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 27,828,791 people shows a near-perfect positive correlation between the proportion of Houma within Latvian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.930. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Latvians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 1.648% in Houma. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Latvians corresponds to an increase of 1,648.4 Houma.
Latvian vs Houma Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($115,957 compared to $72,093, a difference of 60.8%), per capita income ($52,649 compared to $32,996, a difference of 59.6%), and median family income ($120,301 compared to $76,188, a difference of 57.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($52,783 compared to $44,356, a difference of 19.0%), median male earnings ($63,498 compared to $50,547, a difference of 25.6%), and median earnings ($53,001 compared to $38,949, a difference of 36.1%).
Income Metric | Latvian | Houma |
Per Capita Income | Exceptional $52,649 | Tragic $32,996 |
Median Family Income | Exceptional $120,301 | Tragic $76,188 |
Median Household Income | Exceptional $97,311 | Tragic $62,575 |
Median Earnings | Exceptional $53,001 | Tragic $38,949 |
Median Male Earnings | Exceptional $63,498 | Tragic $50,547 |
Median Female Earnings | Exceptional $43,941 | Tragic $30,343 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Excellent $52,783 | Tragic $44,356 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Exceptional $108,926 | Tragic $77,044 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Exceptional $115,957 | Tragic $72,093 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Exceptional $67,326 | Tragic $44,822 |
Wage/Income Gap | Tragic 27.9% | Tragic 38.7% |
Latvian vs Houma Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (7.1% compared to 14.6%, a difference of 106.5%), child poverty among boys under 16 (13.4% compared to 26.2%, a difference of 96.1%), and female poverty among 25-34 year olds (11.8% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 92.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.5% compared to 26.2%, a difference of 34.4%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.8% compared to 16.2%, a difference of 50.1%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.5% compared to 14.7%, a difference of 55.7%).
Poverty Metric | Latvian | Houma |
Poverty | Exceptional 10.5% | Tragic 18.4% |
Families | Exceptional 7.1% | Tragic 14.6% |
Males | Exceptional 9.6% | Tragic 16.7% |
Females | Exceptional 11.4% | Tragic 20.0% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Exceptional 19.5% | Tragic 26.2% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Exceptional 11.8% | Tragic 22.7% |
Children Under 5 years | Exceptional 14.5% | Tragic 22.7% |
Children Under 16 years | Exceptional 13.2% | Tragic 24.9% |
Boys Under 16 years | Exceptional 13.4% | Tragic 26.2% |
Girls Under 16 years | Exceptional 13.5% | Tragic 21.5% |
Single Males | Good 12.7% | Tragic 23.5% |
Single Females | Exceptional 19.0% | Tragic 33.8% |
Single Fathers | Fair 16.5% | Tragic 26.7% |
Single Mothers | Exceptional 26.9% | Tragic 43.5% |
Married Couples | Exceptional 3.9% | Tragic 6.4% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Exceptional 9.5% | Tragic 14.7% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Exceptional 10.8% | Tragic 16.2% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Exceptional 9.1% | Tragic 16.5% |
Latvian vs Houma Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.2% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 87.4%), male unemployment (4.8% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 46.7%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.6% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 44.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.8% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 2.0%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.9% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 3.1%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.6% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 6.3%).
Unemployment Metric | Latvian | Houma |
Unemployment | Exceptional 4.7% | Tragic 6.7% |
Males | Exceptional 4.8% | Tragic 7.1% |
Females | Exceptional 4.7% | Tragic 6.4% |
Youth < 25 | Exceptional 11.0% | Tragic 13.8% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Exceptional 16.7% | Tragic 21.6% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Exceptional 9.9% | Tragic 12.6% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Exceptional 6.2% | Tragic 8.7% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Exceptional 5.0% | Tragic 7.2% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Exceptional 4.2% | Tragic 7.8% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Exceptional 4.2% | Tragic 5.6% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Exceptional 4.6% | Tragic 5.6% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Good 4.8% | Fair 4.9% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Exceptional 5.1% | Tragic 5.8% |
Seniors > 65 | Exceptional 4.9% | Exceptional 4.8% |
Seniors > 75 | Excellent 8.6% | Tragic 9.1% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Exceptional 6.8% | Tragic 9.4% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Exceptional 8.6% | Tragic 12.5% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Exceptional 4.9% | Tragic 6.8% |
Latvian vs Houma Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (83.8% compared to 74.1%, a difference of 13.1%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.5% compared to 72.7%, a difference of 10.7%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.5% compared to 59.5%, a difference of 10.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (76.1% compared to 73.7%, a difference of 3.3%), in labor force | age 25-29 (86.1% compared to 81.2%, a difference of 6.0%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (85.4% compared to 79.5%, a difference of 7.4%).
Labor Participation Metric | Latvian | Houma |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Excellent 65.5% | Tragic 59.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Exceptional 80.5% | Tragic 72.7% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Exceptional 38.9% | Poor 35.6% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Exceptional 76.1% | Tragic 73.7% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Exceptional 86.1% | Tragic 81.2% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Exceptional 86.0% | Tragic 79.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Exceptional 85.4% | Tragic 79.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Exceptional 83.8% | Tragic 74.1% |
Latvian vs Houma Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (27.7% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 67.9%), single mother households (5.3% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 50.0%), and single father households (2.0% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 45.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.11 compared to 3.18, a difference of 2.4%), family households (62.8% compared to 65.7%, a difference of 4.7%), and currently married (48.5% compared to 45.5%, a difference of 6.4%).
Family Structure Metric | Latvian | Houma |
Family Households | Tragic 62.8% | Exceptional 65.7% |
Family Households with Children | Tragic 26.4% | Exceptional 28.5% |
Married-couple Households | Exceptional 47.9% | Tragic 44.6% |
Average Family Size | Tragic 3.11 | Tragic 3.18 |
Single Father Households | Exceptional 2.0% | Tragic 2.9% |
Single Mother Households | Exceptional 5.3% | Tragic 7.9% |
Currently Married | Exceptional 48.5% | Tragic 45.5% |
Divorced or Separated | Exceptional 11.6% | Tragic 13.6% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Exceptional 27.7% | Tragic 46.6% |
Latvian vs Houma Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.1% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 24.6%), 3 or more vehicles in household (19.3% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 20.1%), and no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 17.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.3% compared to 88.6%, a difference of 1.9%), 2 or more vehicles in household (56.2% compared to 54.4%, a difference of 3.3%), and no vehicles in household (9.8% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 17.1%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Latvian | Houma |
No Vehicles Available | Excellent 9.8% | Tragic 11.5% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Excellent 90.3% | Tragic 88.6% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Excellent 56.2% | Poor 54.4% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Fair 19.3% | Tragic 16.1% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Fair 6.1% | Tragic 4.9% |
Latvian vs Houma Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (6.2% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 181.7%), doctorate degree (2.6% compared to 0.96%, a difference of 168.9%), and master's degree (19.8% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 150.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3rd grade (98.4% compared to 97.1%, a difference of 1.3%), kindergarten (98.5% compared to 97.3%, a difference of 1.3%), and 1st grade (98.5% compared to 97.2%, a difference of 1.3%).
Education Level Metric | Latvian | Houma |
No Schooling Completed | Exceptional 1.5% | Tragic 2.8% |
Nursery School | Exceptional 98.5% | Tragic 97.3% |
Kindergarten | Exceptional 98.5% | Tragic 97.3% |
1st Grade | Exceptional 98.5% | Tragic 97.2% |
2nd Grade | Exceptional 98.4% | Tragic 97.2% |
3rd Grade | Exceptional 98.4% | Tragic 97.1% |
4th Grade | Exceptional 98.2% | Tragic 96.8% |
5th Grade | Exceptional 98.1% | Tragic 96.6% |
6th Grade | Exceptional 97.9% | Tragic 96.2% |
7th Grade | Exceptional 97.2% | Tragic 95.1% |
8th Grade | Exceptional 97.0% | Tragic 94.2% |
9th Grade | Exceptional 96.4% | Tragic 92.3% |
10th Grade | Exceptional 95.6% | Tragic 90.2% |
11th Grade | Exceptional 94.7% | Tragic 87.0% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Exceptional 93.6% | Tragic 83.7% |
High School Diploma | Exceptional 92.0% | Tragic 81.5% |
GED/Equivalency | Exceptional 89.2% | Tragic 75.0% |
College, Under 1 year | Exceptional 71.6% | Tragic 47.6% |
College, 1 year or more | Exceptional 66.1% | Tragic 41.2% |
Associate's Degree | Exceptional 53.9% | Tragic 28.2% |
Bachelor's Degree | Exceptional 46.1% | Tragic 21.4% |
Master's Degree | Exceptional 19.8% | Tragic 7.9% |
Professional Degree | Exceptional 6.2% | Tragic 2.2% |
Doctorate Degree | Exceptional 2.6% | Tragic 0.96% |
Latvian vs Houma Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Latvian and Houma communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.2% compared to 18.7%, a difference of 83.8%), vision disability (2.0% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 73.5%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.4% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 67.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (16.6% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 15.8%), disability age over 75 (45.1% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 24.5%), and self-care disability (2.3% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 30.0%).
Disability Metric | Latvian | Houma |
Disability | Excellent 11.4% | Tragic 17.1% |
Males | Good 11.1% | Tragic 17.4% |
Females | Exceptional 11.7% | Tragic 16.9% |
Age | Under 5 years | Tragic 1.3% | Tragic 1.9% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Exceptional 5.4% | Tragic 9.1% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Poor 6.8% | Tragic 9.7% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Exceptional 10.2% | Tragic 18.7% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Exceptional 21.2% | Tragic 32.3% |
Age | Over 75 years | Exceptional 45.1% | Tragic 56.2% |
Vision | Exceptional 2.0% | Tragic 3.4% |
Hearing | Tragic 3.2% | Tragic 4.2% |
Cognitive | Exceptional 16.6% | Tragic 19.3% |
Ambulatory | Exceptional 5.7% | Tragic 9.3% |
Self-Care | Exceptional 2.3% | Tragic 3.0% |