Creek vs Latvian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 106,855,007 people shows a near-perfect positive correlation between the proportion of Latvians within Creek communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.906. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Creek within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.326% in Latvians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Creek corresponds to an increase of 326.2 Latvians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($35,546 compared to $52,649, a difference of 48.1%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($78,960 compared to $115,957, a difference of 46.9%), and median family income ($82,560 compared to $120,301, a difference of 45.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.1% compared to 27.9%, a difference of 2.7%), householder income under 25 years ($45,371 compared to $52,783, a difference of 16.3%), and householder income over 65 years ($51,949 compared to $67,326, a difference of 29.6%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (24.2% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 67.0%), family poverty (11.7% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 64.6%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (21.5% compared to 13.2%, a difference of 63.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 10.8%, a difference of 6.8%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.9% compared to 9.5%, a difference of 15.7%), and single father poverty (19.8% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 20.5%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (8.9% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 31.7%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.6% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 31.2%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (5.4% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 28.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.2% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 1.2%), unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (9.7% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 2.1%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.2% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 3.0%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (77.7% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 7.8%), in labor force | age 20-64 (75.1% compared to 80.5%, a difference of 7.2%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (80.4% compared to 86.0%, a difference of 7.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (39.1% compared to 38.9%, a difference of 0.68%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 2.1%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (80.7% compared to 86.1%, a difference of 6.7%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (37.6% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 35.5%), single mother households (7.0% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 32.9%), and single father households (2.6% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 29.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.2% compared to 62.8%, a difference of 2.2%), average family size (3.20 compared to 3.11, a difference of 3.0%), and family households with children (27.4% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 3.5%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.8% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 25.9%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.2% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 17.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.9% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 13.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 2.2%), 2 or more vehicles in household (58.3% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 3.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.9% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 13.6%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.1% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 101.7%), doctorate degree (1.3% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 91.3%), and master's degree (10.5% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 88.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.4% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.10%), kindergarten (98.4% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.10%), and 1st grade (98.4% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.10%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Creek and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (16.9% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 66.0%), vision disability (3.2% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 61.6%), and ambulatory disability (8.5% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 47.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.3% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 9.8%), disability age over 75 (51.5% compared to 45.1%, a difference of 14.0%), and self-care disability (2.8% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 23.5%).