Luxembourger vs Pima Community Comparison

COMPARE

Luxembourger
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto 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
Pima
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Luxembourgers

Pima

Excellent
Poor
9,215
SOCIAL INDEX
89.6/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
27th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
1,700
SOCIAL INDEX
14.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
291st/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Pima Integration in Luxembourger Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 45,370,571 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Pima within Luxembourger communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.221. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Luxembourgers within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.145% in Pima. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Luxembourgers corresponds to an increase of 144.6 Pima.
Luxembourger Integration in Pima Communities

Luxembourger vs Pima Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Pima communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($45,663 compared to $30,644, a difference of 49.0%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($103,536 compared to $73,365, a difference of 41.1%), and median family income ($106,183 compared to $77,431, a difference of 37.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($50,379 compared to $51,503, a difference of 2.2%), median female earnings ($39,891 compared to $35,326, a difference of 12.9%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($97,237 compared to $82,821, a difference of 17.4%).
Luxembourger vs Pima Income
Income MetricLuxembourgerPima
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$45,663
Tragic
$30,644
Median Family Income
Excellent
$106,183
Tragic
$77,431
Median Household Income
Good
$86,418
Tragic
$63,262
Median Earnings
Excellent
$47,640
Tragic
$38,285
Median Male Earnings
Excellent
$56,300
Tragic
$42,357
Median Female Earnings
Average
$39,891
Tragic
$35,326
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$50,379
Poor
$51,503
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Excellent
$97,237
Tragic
$82,821
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Excellent
$103,536
Tragic
$73,365
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Average
$60,967
Tragic
$50,539
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.4%
Exceptional
21.1%

Luxembourger vs Pima Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Pima communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (3.9% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 194.1%), family poverty (7.2% compared to 18.4%, a difference of 154.4%), and seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.8% compared to 23.9%, a difference of 121.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (17.1% compared to 14.8%, a difference of 15.8%), single mother poverty (28.5% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 35.3%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.9% compared to 28.4%, a difference of 36.1%).
Luxembourger vs Pima Poverty
Poverty MetricLuxembourgerPima
Poverty
Exceptional
10.6%
Tragic
21.9%
Families
Exceptional
7.2%
Tragic
18.4%
Males
Exceptional
9.5%
Tragic
20.4%
Females
Exceptional
11.6%
Tragic
23.6%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
20.9%
Tragic
28.4%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
12.1%
Tragic
25.3%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
14.9%
Tragic
27.4%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.6%
Tragic
29.0%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.8%
Tragic
29.7%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.3%
Tragic
28.2%
Single Males
Tragic
13.4%
Tragic
20.2%
Single Females
Excellent
20.4%
Tragic
30.3%
Single Fathers
Tragic
17.1%
Exceptional
14.8%
Single Mothers
Excellent
28.5%
Tragic
38.6%
Married Couples
Exceptional
3.9%
Tragic
11.4%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
9.2%
Tragic
19.8%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
10.8%
Tragic
23.9%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
9.1%
Tragic
19.0%

Luxembourger vs Pima Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Pima communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.3% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 172.9%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.0% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 134.8%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.3% compared to 18.9%, a difference of 127.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.3% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 11.7%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.7% compared to 9.2%, a difference of 19.8%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.2% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 27.2%).
Luxembourger vs Pima Unemployment
Unemployment MetricLuxembourgerPima
Unemployment
Exceptional
4.3%
Tragic
8.2%
Males
Exceptional
4.5%
Tragic
8.3%
Females
Exceptional
4.4%
Tragic
9.3%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
10.0%
Tragic
16.2%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
15.1%
Tragic
23.1%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.1%
Tragic
14.2%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Exceptional
6.2%
Tragic
11.8%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Exceptional
4.8%
Tragic
9.6%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Tragic
11.8%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Tragic
6.4%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Exceptional
4.5%
Tragic
6.6%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Excellent
4.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
5.2%
Tragic
6.6%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.8%
Tragic
6.3%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.7%
Tragic
9.2%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.6%
Tragic
13.4%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.3%
Tragic
18.9%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
5.0%
Tragic
11.7%

Luxembourger vs Pima Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Pima communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (45.3% compared to 34.1%, a difference of 32.8%), in labor force | age 20-64 (81.9% compared to 69.0%, a difference of 18.5%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (86.9% compared to 74.3%, a difference of 17.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (86.6% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 9.6%), in labor force | age 20-24 (79.0% compared to 69.0%, a difference of 14.4%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (86.4% compared to 74.8%, a difference of 15.4%).
Luxembourger vs Pima Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricLuxembourgerPima
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Exceptional
66.7%
Tragic
57.4%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Exceptional
81.9%
Tragic
69.0%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
45.3%
Tragic
34.1%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
79.0%
Tragic
69.0%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Exceptional
86.9%
Tragic
74.3%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Exceptional
86.6%
Tragic
79.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Exceptional
86.4%
Tragic
74.8%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Exceptional
85.0%
Tragic
72.8%

Luxembourger vs Pima Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Pima communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.2% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 87.2%), births to unmarried women (29.4% compared to 51.5%, a difference of 74.9%), and single mother households (5.6% compared to 8.3%, a difference of 48.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (27.0% compared to 27.1%, a difference of 0.31%), family households (63.3% compared to 65.9%, a difference of 4.2%), and divorced or separated (11.3% compared to 12.9%, a difference of 13.5%).
Luxembourger vs Pima Family Structure
Family Structure MetricLuxembourgerPima
Family Households
Tragic
63.3%
Exceptional
65.9%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
27.0%
Tragic
27.1%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
48.5%
Tragic
35.6%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.10
Exceptional
3.75
Single Father Households
Exceptional
2.2%
Tragic
4.2%
Single Mother Households
Exceptional
5.6%
Tragic
8.3%
Currently Married
Exceptional
49.3%
Tragic
35.9%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
11.3%
Tragic
12.9%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
29.4%
Tragic
51.5%

Luxembourger vs Pima Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Pima communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (5.4% compared to 14.1%, a difference of 163.8%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.6% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 18.8%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (59.1% compared to 52.0%, a difference of 13.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (20.9% compared to 22.0%, a difference of 5.5%), 1 or more vehicles in household (94.8% compared to 86.3%, a difference of 9.9%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (59.1% compared to 52.0%, a difference of 13.6%).
Luxembourger vs Pima Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricLuxembourgerPima
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
5.4%
Tragic
14.1%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
94.8%
Tragic
86.3%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.1%
Tragic
52.0%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
20.9%
Exceptional
22.0%
4+ Vehicles Available
Excellent
6.6%
Exceptional
7.9%

Luxembourger vs Pima Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Pima communities in the United States are seen in bachelor's degree (39.8% compared to 23.2%, a difference of 71.3%), master's degree (15.3% compared to 9.2%, a difference of 65.9%), and associate's degree (48.9% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 61.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (98.5% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.27%), 1st grade (98.5% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.27%), and nursery school (98.5% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.28%).
Luxembourger vs Pima Education Level
Education Level MetricLuxembourgerPima
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.6%
Average
2.1%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.2%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.2%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.2%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.2%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.0%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
97.7%
5th Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
97.6%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Excellent
97.2%
7th Grade
Exceptional
97.2%
Good
96.1%
8th Grade
Exceptional
97.0%
Fair
95.6%
9th Grade
Exceptional
96.3%
Tragic
93.9%
10th Grade
Exceptional
95.4%
Tragic
91.2%
11th Grade
Exceptional
94.5%
Tragic
88.3%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
93.3%
Tragic
84.6%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
91.7%
Tragic
81.6%
GED/Equivalency
Exceptional
88.6%
Tragic
76.4%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
68.2%
Tragic
51.4%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
62.1%
Tragic
45.6%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
48.9%
Tragic
30.2%
Bachelor's Degree
Excellent
39.8%
Tragic
23.2%
Master's Degree
Good
15.3%
Tragic
9.2%
Professional Degree
Good
4.6%
Tragic
3.3%
Doctorate Degree
Excellent
1.9%
Tragic
1.3%

Luxembourger vs Pima Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Pima communities in the United States are seen in disability age 65 to 74 (21.4% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 80.5%), vision disability (1.9% compared to 3.3%, a difference of 71.9%), and disability age 35 to 64 (10.6% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 52.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 18 to 34 (6.9% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 12.8%), hearing disability (3.2% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 14.5%), and cognitive disability (16.4% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 14.7%).
Luxembourger vs Pima Disability
Disability MetricLuxembourgerPima
Disability
Exceptional
11.3%
Tragic
13.7%
Males
Good
11.1%
Tragic
12.8%
Females
Exceptional
11.6%
Tragic
14.8%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.3%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Exceptional
5.3%
Tragic
6.2%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
6.9%
Tragic
7.7%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
10.6%
Tragic
16.1%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
21.4%
Tragic
38.6%
Age | Over 75 years
Exceptional
44.8%
Tragic
55.8%
Vision
Exceptional
1.9%
Tragic
3.3%
Hearing
Tragic
3.2%
Tragic
3.7%
Cognitive
Exceptional
16.4%
Tragic
18.8%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.6%
Tragic
8.2%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.2%
Tragic
2.8%