Immigrants from Latvia vs Immigrants from Laos Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 77,708,443 people shows a very strong positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Laos within Immigrant from Latvia communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.808. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Latvia within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.084% in Immigrants from Laos. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Latvia corresponds to an increase of 84.1 Immigrants from Laos.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($50,914 compared to $37,857, a difference of 34.5%), median male earnings ($61,422 compared to $49,190, a difference of 24.9%), and median family income ($114,826 compared to $92,239, a difference of 24.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($51,737 compared to $50,041, a difference of 3.4%), wage/income gap (26.7% compared to 23.8%, a difference of 12.3%), and householder income over 65 years ($64,298 compared to $56,722, a difference of 13.4%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in receiving food stamps (10.3% compared to 13.8%, a difference of 33.1%), family poverty (7.9% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 29.7%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (14.5% compared to 18.7%, a difference of 28.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.0% compared to 12.0%, a difference of 0.23%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.4% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 1.2%), and single father poverty (15.8% compared to 15.1%, a difference of 4.8%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.8% compared to 8.9%, a difference of 13.3%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 7.6%, a difference of 12.2%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.7% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 7.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.6% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 0.020%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.3% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 0.19%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.0% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 1.5%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (36.8% compared to 40.6%, a difference of 10.5%), in labor force | age 20-24 (75.0% compared to 77.4%, a difference of 3.2%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.4% compared to 81.6%, a difference of 2.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (85.6% compared to 84.8%, a difference of 0.96%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.1% compared to 79.4%, a difference of 0.98%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.1% compared to 66.0%, a difference of 1.4%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in single father households (1.9% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 48.0%), single mother households (5.5% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 39.9%), and births to unmarried women (29.1% compared to 34.0%, a difference of 16.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple households (46.0% compared to 45.1%, a difference of 2.0%), currently married (46.7% compared to 45.0%, a difference of 3.8%), and family households (62.0% compared to 65.3%, a difference of 5.4%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (12.1% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 48.0%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.5% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 40.3%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.4% compared to 22.4%, a difference of 28.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.1% compared to 91.8%, a difference of 4.3%), 2 or more vehicles in household (52.2% compared to 59.2%, a difference of 13.3%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.4% compared to 22.4%, a difference of 28.7%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (5.8% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 80.0%), doctorate degree (2.4% compared to 1.4%, a difference of 73.2%), and no schooling completed (1.9% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 69.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.2% compared to 96.9%, a difference of 1.4%), kindergarten (98.2% compared to 96.9%, a difference of 1.4%), and 1st grade (98.2% compared to 96.8%, a difference of 1.4%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.1% compared to 13.0%, a difference of 28.2%), disability age 65 to 74 (21.6% compared to 26.1%, a difference of 20.9%), and vision disability (2.0% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 15.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 1.2%), hearing disability (3.1% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 1.6%), and ambulatory disability (6.0% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 3.7%).