Pima vs Russian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 60,870,001 people shows a mild negative correlation between the proportion of Russians within Pima communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.349. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Pima within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.040% in Russians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Pima corresponds to a decrease of 39.9 Russians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Pima and Russian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($30,644 compared to $53,154, a difference of 73.5%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($73,365 compared to $116,328, a difference of 58.6%), and median family income ($77,431 compared to $120,487, a difference of 55.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($51,503 compared to $54,389, a difference of 5.6%), median female earnings ($35,326 compared to $44,169, a difference of 25.0%), and wage/income gap (21.1% compared to 28.0%, a difference of 32.6%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Pima and Russian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (11.4% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 164.0%), family poverty (18.4% compared to 7.5%, a difference of 146.4%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (29.7% compared to 13.8%, a difference of 115.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (14.8% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 11.4%), single mother poverty (38.6% compared to 27.3%, a difference of 41.3%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (28.4% compared to 19.5%, a difference of 45.6%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Pima and Russian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (11.8% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 163.4%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (11.7% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 129.6%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (18.9% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 114.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.8% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 2.9%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (9.2% compared to 8.9%, a difference of 3.8%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (6.3% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 21.5%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Pima and Russian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 20-64 (69.0% compared to 80.0%, a difference of 15.9%), in labor force | age 25-29 (74.3% compared to 85.3%, a difference of 14.9%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (72.8% compared to 83.4%, a difference of 14.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (34.1% compared to 36.7%, a difference of 7.7%), in labor force | age 30-34 (79.0% compared to 85.5%, a difference of 8.2%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (69.0% compared to 74.8%, a difference of 8.5%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Pima and Russian 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 28.0%, a difference of 83.7%), 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 26.5%, a difference of 2.2%), family households (65.9% compared to 63.4%, a difference of 4.0%), and divorced or separated (12.9% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 11.8%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Pima and Russian communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 31.6%), no vehicles in household (14.1% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 21.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.0% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 17.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (86.3% compared to 88.7%, a difference of 2.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (52.0% compared to 54.8%, a difference of 5.3%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.0% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 17.0%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Pima and Russian communities in the United States are seen in master's degree (9.2% compared to 19.5%, a difference of 111.3%), bachelor's degree (23.2% compared to 45.3%, a difference of 95.4%), and doctorate degree (1.3% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 93.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (98.2% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.15%), 1st grade (98.2% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.15%), and 2nd grade (98.2% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.15%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Pima and Russian communities in the United States are seen in disability age 65 to 74 (38.6% compared to 21.2%, a difference of 82.5%), vision disability (3.3% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 64.8%), and disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 58.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.8% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 14.5%), self-care disability (2.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 15.5%), and male disability (12.8% compared to 11.1%, a difference of 15.7%).