Uruguayan vs Immigrants from Northern Africa Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 125,517,679 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Northern Africa within Uruguayan communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.564. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Uruguayans within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.117% in Immigrants from Northern Africa. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Uruguayans corresponds to an increase of 117.3 Immigrants from Northern Africa.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Northern Africa communities in the United States are seen in median male earnings ($53,680 compared to $58,008, a difference of 8.1%), median earnings ($46,190 compared to $49,648, a difference of 7.5%), and median family income ($100,656 compared to $108,161, a difference of 7.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.2% compared to 25.2%, a difference of 0.33%), householder income under 25 years ($52,465 compared to $53,185, a difference of 1.4%), and per capita income ($44,318 compared to $46,531, a difference of 5.0%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Northern Africa communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.1% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 10.0%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (13.5% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 8.5%), and receiving food stamps (11.8% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 7.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single male poverty (11.9% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 0.020%), male poverty (11.2% compared to 11.1%, a difference of 0.87%), and child poverty among girls under 16 (16.2% compared to 16.0%, a difference of 1.0%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Northern Africa communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.9% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 8.6%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.3% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 7.2%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.8% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 5.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.2% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 0.040%), unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.5% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 0.25%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.2% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 0.32%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Northern Africa communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (34.9% compared to 35.9%, a difference of 2.9%), in labor force | age > 16 (65.9% compared to 66.6%, a difference of 1.1%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.9% compared to 85.2%, a difference of 0.37%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.6% compared to 74.6%, a difference of 0.080%), in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 84.8%, a difference of 0.14%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.1% compared to 83.3%, a difference of 0.21%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Northern Africa communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (33.1% compared to 29.5%, a difference of 12.2%), single father households (2.4% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 10.9%), and divorced or separated (12.4% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 8.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.23 compared to 3.22, a difference of 0.32%), family households with children (27.7% compared to 27.8%, a difference of 0.45%), and married-couple households (45.5% compared to 46.0%, a difference of 0.99%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Northern Africa communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.3% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 11.7%), 1 or more vehicles in household (88.8% compared to 87.4%, a difference of 1.5%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (52.7% compared to 52.3%, a difference of 0.62%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (17.8% compared to 17.8%, a difference of 0.15%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.6% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 0.36%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (52.7% compared to 52.3%, a difference of 0.62%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Northern Africa communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (1.8% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 19.7%), master's degree (15.3% compared to 17.1%, a difference of 11.9%), and professional degree (4.6% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 9.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.8% compared to 97.8%, a difference of 0.040%), kindergarten (97.8% compared to 97.8%, a difference of 0.040%), and 1st grade (97.7% compared to 97.8%, a difference of 0.040%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Northern Africa communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (2.2% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 8.0%), disability age 5 to 17 (5.6% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 5.0%), and disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 4.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 35 to 64 (10.2% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 0.44%), disability age 65 to 74 (22.2% compared to 22.4%, a difference of 0.68%), and hearing disability (2.8% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 0.73%).