Pima vs Latvian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 48,623,508 people shows a perfect positive correlation between the proportion of Latvians within Pima communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 1.000. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Pima within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.040% in Latvians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Pima corresponds to an increase of 39.6 Latvians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($30,644 compared to $52,649, a difference of 71.8%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($73,365 compared to $115,957, a difference of 58.1%), and median family income ($77,431 compared to $120,301, a difference of 55.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($51,503 compared to $52,783, a difference of 2.5%), median female earnings ($35,326 compared to $43,941, a difference of 24.4%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($82,821 compared to $108,926, a difference of 31.5%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (11.4% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 192.5%), family poverty (18.4% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 159.5%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (29.7% compared to 13.4%, a difference of 122.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (14.8% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 11.5%), single mother poverty (38.6% compared to 26.9%, a difference of 43.6%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (28.4% compared to 19.5%, a difference of 45.9%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (11.8% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 181.2%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (11.7% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 139.9%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (18.9% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 119.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.8% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 0.42%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (9.2% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 7.4%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (6.3% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 27.4%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 20-64 (69.0% compared to 80.5%, a difference of 16.6%), in labor force | age 25-29 (74.3% compared to 86.1%, a difference of 15.9%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (72.8% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 15.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (79.0% compared to 86.0%, a difference of 8.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (69.0% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 10.2%), and in labor force | age 16-19 (34.1% compared to 38.9%, a difference of 14.1%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in single father households (4.2% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 108.2%), births to unmarried women (51.5% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 85.7%), and single mother households (8.3% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 56.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (27.1% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 2.5%), family households (65.9% compared to 62.8%, a difference of 5.1%), and divorced or separated (12.9% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 11.0%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (14.1% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 44.3%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 28.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.0% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 14.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (86.3% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 4.7%), 2 or more vehicles in household (52.0% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 8.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.0% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 14.3%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in master's degree (9.2% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 114.2%), bachelor's degree (23.2% compared to 46.1%, a difference of 98.6%), and doctorate degree (1.3% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 95.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.28%), 1st grade (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.28%), and nursery school (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.29%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Pima and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in disability age 65 to 74 (38.6% compared to 21.2%, a difference of 81.9%), vision disability (3.3% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 67.9%), and disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 58.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.8% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 12.9%), disability age 18 to 34 (7.7% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 13.1%), and disability age 5 to 17 (6.2% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 14.4%).