Czechoslovakian vs Immigrants from Norway Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 103,916,040 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Norway within Czechoslovakian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.265. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Czechoslovakians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.059% in Immigrants from Norway. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Czechoslovakians corresponds to an increase of 58.6 Immigrants from Norway.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Norway communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($43,806 compared to $52,217, a difference of 19.2%), median family income ($103,273 compared to $115,847, a difference of 12.2%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($95,070 compared to $106,629, a difference of 12.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($51,224 compared to $50,984, a difference of 0.47%), wage/income gap (28.2% compared to 27.3%, a difference of 3.3%), and householder income over 65 years ($60,581 compared to $66,118, a difference of 9.1%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Norway communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.5% compared to 10.5%, a difference of 10.8%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.9% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 10.8%), and female poverty among 25-34 year olds (13.7% compared to 12.7%, a difference of 7.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of child poverty among boys under 16 (15.3% compared to 15.3%, a difference of 0.080%), child poverty among girls under 16 (15.5% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 0.60%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (15.1% compared to 15.0%, a difference of 0.75%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Norway communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (9.4% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 22.9%), unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.2% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 11.4%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.0% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 9.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.6% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 0.69%), unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.7% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 1.4%), and unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.4% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 2.0%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Norway communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (41.9% compared to 35.9%, a difference of 16.6%), in labor force | age 20-24 (77.5% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 4.1%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (84.6% compared to 84.1%, a difference of 0.58%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age > 16 (64.3% compared to 64.6%, a difference of 0.34%), in labor force | age 20-64 (79.5% compared to 79.2%, a difference of 0.36%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (85.0% compared to 84.6%, a difference of 0.53%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Norway communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.3% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 14.5%), births to unmarried women (32.0% compared to 29.9%, a difference of 7.0%), and single mother households (5.9% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 5.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.13 compared to 3.14, a difference of 0.47%), currently married (48.8% compared to 47.2%, a difference of 3.4%), and family households with children (27.0% compared to 26.1%, a difference of 3.6%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Norway communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.8% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 46.1%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.1% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 16.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.7% compared to 19.0%, a difference of 14.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 88.7%, a difference of 4.1%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.8% compared to 54.4%, a difference of 9.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.7% compared to 19.0%, a difference of 14.6%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Norway communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (4.2% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 42.8%), doctorate degree (1.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 34.0%), and master's degree (14.5% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 29.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of ged/equivalency (87.4% compared to 87.5%, a difference of 0.10%), nursery school (98.5% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.24%), and kindergarten (98.4% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.24%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Czechoslovakian and Immigrants from Norway communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.5% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 19.8%), hearing disability (3.6% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 11.9%), and disability age 35 to 64 (11.8% compared to 10.6%, a difference of 11.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.6% compared to 45.9%, a difference of 1.4%), cognitive disability (16.6% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 2.4%), and vision disability (2.2% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 3.9%).