Immigrants from Latvia vs Immigrants from Oceania Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 96,252,976 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Oceania within Immigrant from Latvia communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.646. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Latvia within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.072% in Immigrants from Oceania. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Latvia corresponds to an increase of 72.5 Immigrants from Oceania.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($50,914 compared to $45,220, a difference of 12.6%), median male earnings ($61,422 compared to $55,712, a difference of 10.2%), and median earnings ($51,555 compared to $47,617, a difference of 8.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($64,298 compared to $64,416, a difference of 0.18%), householder income under 25 years ($51,737 compared to $53,680, a difference of 3.7%), and wage/income gap (26.7% compared to 25.6%, a difference of 4.3%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (4.5% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 11.4%), family poverty (7.9% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 11.1%), and receiving food stamps (10.3% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 10.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.5% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 0.75%), single male poverty (12.2% compared to 12.4%, a difference of 1.6%), and single father poverty (15.8% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 2.2%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.8% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 14.8%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 7.5%, a difference of 9.9%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.7% compared to 8.1%, a difference of 8.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female unemployment (5.1% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 0.53%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.0% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 0.85%), and unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.1% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 0.93%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (36.8% compared to 37.9%, a difference of 3.0%), in labor force | age 30-34 (85.9% compared to 84.0%, a difference of 2.2%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (85.6% compared to 84.2%, a difference of 1.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age > 16 (65.1% compared to 65.5%, a difference of 0.62%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.1% compared to 79.3%, a difference of 1.0%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (85.0% compared to 83.9%, a difference of 1.4%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in single father households (1.9% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 27.2%), single mother households (5.5% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 14.6%), and family households with children (25.9% compared to 28.1%, a difference of 8.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of currently married (46.7% compared to 46.5%, a difference of 0.45%), married-couple households (46.0% compared to 46.9%, a difference of 2.0%), and divorced or separated (11.6% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 3.2%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (5.5% compared to 7.6%, a difference of 39.0%), 3 or more vehicles in household (17.4% compared to 21.8%, a difference of 25.4%), and no vehicles in household (12.1% compared to 9.7%, a difference of 24.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.1% compared to 90.4%, a difference of 2.6%), 2 or more vehicles in household (52.2% compared to 57.5%, a difference of 10.2%), and no vehicles in household (12.1% compared to 9.7%, a difference of 24.3%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in master's degree (19.1% compared to 14.7%, a difference of 29.9%), professional degree (5.8% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 27.8%), and doctorate degree (2.4% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 24.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.2% compared to 97.8%, a difference of 0.41%), kindergarten (98.2% compared to 97.8%, a difference of 0.41%), and 1st grade (98.2% compared to 97.8%, a difference of 0.42%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and Immigrants from Oceania communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.1% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 12.3%), disability age 65 to 74 (21.6% compared to 24.0%, a difference of 10.9%), and disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 6.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of ambulatory disability (6.0% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 0.62%), hearing disability (3.1% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 1.6%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.3% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 2.0%).