Immigrants from Oceania vs Immigrants from Laos Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 158,106,168 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Laos within Immigrant from Oceania communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.241. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Oceania within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.031% in Immigrants from Laos. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Oceania corresponds to an increase of 31.2 Immigrants from Laos.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Oceania and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($45,220 compared to $37,857, a difference of 19.5%), median family income ($106,453 compared to $92,239, a difference of 15.4%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($97,623 compared to $85,553, a difference of 14.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($53,680 compared to $50,041, a difference of 7.3%), wage/income gap (25.6% compared to 23.8%, a difference of 7.6%), and median female earnings ($40,297 compared to $36,841, a difference of 9.4%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Oceania and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in receiving food stamps (11.4% compared to 13.8%, a difference of 21.0%), child poverty under the age of 16 (15.9% compared to 18.7%, a difference of 17.4%), and child poverty among girls under 16 (16.1% compared to 18.9%, a difference of 17.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.4% compared to 15.1%, a difference of 2.5%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.7% compared to 12.0%, a difference of 2.6%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.7% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 4.6%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Oceania and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.3% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 3.7%), unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.4% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 3.6%), and unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.4% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 3.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.7% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 0.040%), unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (17.2% compared to 17.1%, a difference of 0.58%), and unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.0% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 0.66%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Oceania and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (37.9% compared to 40.6%, a difference of 7.2%), in labor force | age 20-24 (76.1% compared to 77.4%, a difference of 1.7%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.5% compared to 66.0%, a difference of 0.81%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-64 (79.3% compared to 79.4%, a difference of 0.030%), in labor force | age 35-44 (83.9% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 0.080%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (84.0% compared to 84.2%, a difference of 0.21%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Oceania and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (6.3% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 22.0%), single father households (2.5% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 16.4%), and births to unmarried women (30.6% compared to 34.0%, a difference of 11.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.9% compared to 65.3%, a difference of 0.63%), average family size (3.29 compared to 3.34, a difference of 1.4%), and currently married (46.5% compared to 45.0%, a difference of 3.4%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Oceania and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.7% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 19.1%), 2 or more vehicles in household (57.5% compared to 59.2%, a difference of 2.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.8% compared to 22.4%, a difference of 2.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4 or more vehicles in household (7.6% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 0.98%), 1 or more vehicles in household (90.4% compared to 91.8%, a difference of 1.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.8% compared to 22.4%, a difference of 2.7%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Oceania and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (4.6% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 40.8%), no schooling completed (2.2% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 40.3%), and doctorate degree (1.9% compared to 1.4%, a difference of 38.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.8% compared to 96.9%, a difference of 0.97%), kindergarten (97.8% compared to 96.9%, a difference of 0.97%), and 1st grade (97.8% compared to 96.8%, a difference of 0.98%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Oceania and Immigrants from Laos communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (11.4% compared to 13.0%, a difference of 14.1%), disability age 65 to 74 (24.0% compared to 26.1%, a difference of 9.0%), and disability age 18 to 34 (6.7% compared to 7.2%, a difference of 8.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of hearing disability (3.2% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 0.040%), disability age over 75 (48.0% compared to 49.2%, a difference of 2.5%), and cognitive disability (17.6% compared to 18.1%, a difference of 2.7%).