Czechoslovakian vs Immigrants from Lithuania Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 105,468,220 people shows a very strong positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Lithuania within Czechoslovakian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.828. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Czechoslovakians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.356% in Immigrants from Lithuania. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Czechoslovakians corresponds to an increase of 355.8 Immigrants from Lithuania.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($43,806 compared to $51,361, a difference of 17.2%), median male earnings ($55,382 compared to $63,346, a difference of 14.4%), and median family income ($103,273 compared to $118,053, a difference of 14.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (28.2% compared to 28.6%, a difference of 1.5%), householder income under 25 years ($51,224 compared to $55,028, a difference of 7.4%), and householder income over 65 years ($60,581 compared to $66,087, a difference of 9.1%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in female poverty among 25-34 year olds (13.7% compared to 11.1%, a difference of 23.3%), single female poverty (21.3% compared to 17.8%, a difference of 19.9%), and child poverty under the age of 5 (16.8% compared to 14.1%, a difference of 19.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple family poverty (4.4% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 0.71%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.9% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 0.71%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.5% compared to 9.7%, a difference of 2.3%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.2% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 8.5%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (9.4% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 8.4%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.7% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 8.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.0% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 0.35%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.3% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 0.95%), and unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.1% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 1.6%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (41.9% compared to 37.2%, a difference of 12.5%), in labor force | age > 16 (64.3% compared to 65.6%, a difference of 1.9%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (77.5% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 1.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 35-44 (84.6% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 0.92%), in labor force | age 30-34 (84.8% compared to 85.6%, a difference of 1.0%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.0% compared to 83.9%, a difference of 1.1%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.3% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 23.2%), births to unmarried women (32.0% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 15.5%), and single mother households (5.9% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 12.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of currently married (48.8% compared to 48.8%, a difference of 0.070%), married-couple households (48.5% compared to 48.6%, a difference of 0.10%), and average family size (3.13 compared to 3.15, a difference of 0.85%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.1% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 26.1%), no vehicles in household (7.8% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 25.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.7% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 17.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 90.2%, a difference of 2.3%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.8% compared to 55.8%, a difference of 7.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.7% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 17.7%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (4.2% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 32.5%), master's degree (14.5% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 27.4%), and doctorate degree (1.8% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 23.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.12%), kindergarten (98.4% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.12%), and 10th grade (95.1% compared to 95.0%, a difference of 0.12%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Lithuania communities in the United States are seen in disability age 18 to 34 (7.4% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 28.4%), disability age 35 to 64 (11.8% compared to 9.6%, a difference of 23.0%), and hearing disability (3.6% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 21.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.6% compared to 44.9%, a difference of 3.8%), cognitive disability (16.6% compared to 16.0%, a difference of 4.0%), and self-care disability (2.5% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 8.6%).