Immigrants from Latvia vs White/Caucasian Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 113,739,608 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Whites/Caucasians within Immigrant from Latvia communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.038. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Latvia within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.186% in Whites/Caucasians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Latvia corresponds to an increase of 186.1 Whites/Caucasians.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and White/Caucasian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($50,914 compared to $42,180, a difference of 20.7%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($105,522 compared to $91,668, a difference of 15.1%), and median family income ($114,826 compared to $99,800, a difference of 15.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($51,737 compared to $50,336, a difference of 2.8%), wage/income gap (26.7% compared to 28.5%, a difference of 6.6%), and householder income over 65 years ($64,298 compared to $58,847, a difference of 9.3%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and White/Caucasian communities in the United States are seen in single male poverty (12.2% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 18.6%), single female poverty (19.3% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 17.5%), and female poverty among 25-34 year olds (12.5% compared to 14.7%, a difference of 17.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.4% compared to 20.8%, a difference of 1.8%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.5% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 4.7%), and seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.0% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 4.9%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and White/Caucasian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.8% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 28.6%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.8% compared to 8.4%, a difference of 22.8%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.7% compared to 9.6%, a difference of 10.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (16.8% compared to 16.8%, a difference of 0.010%), unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.2% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 0.50%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.0% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 0.55%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and White/Caucasian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (36.8% compared to 41.3%, a difference of 12.3%), in labor force | age 20-24 (75.0% compared to 76.9%, a difference of 2.6%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (85.9% compared to 83.9%, a difference of 2.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (85.6% compared to 84.2%, a difference of 1.7%), in labor force | age 35-44 (85.0% compared to 83.6%, a difference of 1.7%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.4% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 1.9%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and White/Caucasian communities in the United States are seen in single father households (1.9% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 23.7%), births to unmarried women (29.1% compared to 33.3%, a difference of 14.2%), and single mother households (5.5% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 11.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.13 compared to 3.14, a difference of 0.32%), currently married (46.7% compared to 48.6%, a difference of 4.0%), and family households (62.0% compared to 65.1%, a difference of 5.0%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and White/Caucasian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (12.1% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 71.9%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.5% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 34.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.4% compared to 22.6%, a difference of 29.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.1% compared to 93.1%, a difference of 5.7%), 2 or more vehicles in household (52.2% compared to 60.8%, a difference of 16.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.4% compared to 22.6%, a difference of 29.9%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and White/Caucasian communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (5.8% compared to 4.1%, a difference of 43.3%), master's degree (19.1% compared to 13.8%, a difference of 37.9%), and doctorate degree (2.4% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 35.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 10th grade (94.7% compared to 94.7%, a difference of 0.090%), 9th grade (95.6% compared to 95.8%, a difference of 0.16%), and nursery school (98.2% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.23%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Latvia and White/Caucasian communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 33.9%), disability age 35 to 64 (10.1% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 24.7%), and disability age 18 to 34 (6.4% compared to 7.6%, a difference of 19.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (17.2% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 1.1%), disability age over 75 (46.2% compared to 47.3%, a difference of 2.5%), and self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 8.1%).