Immigrants from China vs Latvian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 211,489,723 people shows a weak negative correlation between the proportion of Latvians within Immigrant from China communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.280. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from China within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.001% in Latvians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from China corresponds to a decrease of 1.0 Latvians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($119,756 compared to $108,926, a difference of 9.9%), householder income under 25 years ($57,931 compared to $52,783, a difference of 9.8%), and median household income ($105,335 compared to $97,311, a difference of 8.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($69,174 compared to $67,326, a difference of 2.7%), per capita income ($54,264 compared to $52,649, a difference of 3.1%), and median family income ($125,540 compared to $120,301, a difference of 4.4%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (5.0% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 27.2%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (13.2% compared to 10.8%, a difference of 22.2%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.5% compared to 9.5%, a difference of 21.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of child poverty under the age of 16 (13.3% compared to 13.2%, a difference of 0.79%), child poverty among girls under 16 (13.4% compared to 13.5%, a difference of 0.81%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (13.6% compared to 13.4%, a difference of 1.7%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (7.7% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 11.9%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.8% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 10.4%), and female unemployment (5.2% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 10.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 18 years (4.9% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 1.0%), unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.2% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 1.1%), and unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.1% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 2.6%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.1% compared to 38.9%, a difference of 24.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (71.1% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 7.1%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.6% compared to 86.1%, a difference of 1.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age > 16 (65.4% compared to 65.5%, a difference of 0.20%), in labor force | age 45-54 (83.2% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 0.74%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 0.79%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (10.0% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 15.6%), births to unmarried women (24.7% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 12.4%), and single father households (1.8% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 8.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple households (48.4% compared to 47.9%, a difference of 1.1%), currently married (47.9% compared to 48.5%, a difference of 1.3%), and family households (64.7% compared to 62.8%, a difference of 3.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (15.2% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 54.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (51.5% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 9.2%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 6.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4 or more vehicles in household (6.0% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 1.5%), 3 or more vehicles in household (18.2% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 5.9%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (84.9% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 6.4%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.6% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 66.2%), doctorate degree (3.1% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 19.8%), and professional degree (6.7% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 7.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of college, 1 year or more (66.4% compared to 66.1%, a difference of 0.47%), college, under 1 year (70.9% compared to 71.6%, a difference of 1.0%), and nursery school (97.5% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 1.1%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from China and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (0.96% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 36.3%), disability age 18 to 34 (5.4% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 25.5%), and hearing disability (2.6% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 22.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 1.5%), cognitive disability (16.9% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 1.7%), and disability age over 75 (46.3% compared to 45.1%, a difference of 2.6%).