Immigrants from Scotland vs Immigrants from Uruguay Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 86,944,106 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Uruguay within Immigrant from Scotland communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.448. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Scotland within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.094% in Immigrants from Uruguay. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Scotland corresponds to an increase of 94.2 Immigrants from Uruguay.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Scotland and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in householder income over 65 years ($66,620 compared to $56,975, a difference of 16.9%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($112,175 compared to $96,086, a difference of 16.7%), and wage/income gap (28.7% compared to 24.6%, a difference of 16.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($52,638 compared to $52,302, a difference of 0.64%), median female earnings ($41,771 compared to $38,945, a difference of 7.3%), and median earnings ($50,741 compared to $45,682, a difference of 11.1%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Scotland and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in receiving food stamps (9.0% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 39.3%), married-couple family poverty (4.2% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 37.6%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.3% compared to 12.8%, a difference of 37.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (18.6% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 1.5%), single mother poverty (27.6% compared to 29.1%, a difference of 5.3%), and single female poverty (19.4% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 6.1%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Scotland and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (9.2% compared to 7.5%, a difference of 23.0%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.2% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 13.7%), and female unemployment (4.9% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 11.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.2% compared to 9.2%, a difference of 0.11%), unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.4% compared to 11.5%, a difference of 1.0%), and unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.2% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 1.0%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Scotland and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.5% compared to 34.4%, a difference of 11.9%), in labor force | age > 16 (64.2% compared to 66.0%, a difference of 2.7%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (75.8% compared to 74.6%, a difference of 1.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 84.6%, a difference of 0.12%), in labor force | age 45-54 (83.0% compared to 83.2%, a difference of 0.21%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (85.1% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 0.46%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Scotland and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (5.5% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 22.7%), single father households (2.1% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 16.9%), and births to unmarried women (30.4% compared to 33.9%, a difference of 11.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.7% compared to 63.9%, a difference of 1.3%), family households with children (26.8% compared to 27.4%, a difference of 2.1%), and average family size (3.12 compared to 3.23, a difference of 3.4%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Scotland and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (8.3% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 43.2%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.7% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 23.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (20.8% compared to 17.1%, a difference of 21.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.8% compared to 88.1%, a difference of 4.1%), 2 or more vehicles in household (58.9% compared to 51.4%, a difference of 14.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (20.8% compared to 17.1%, a difference of 21.6%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Scotland and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.6% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 42.7%), doctorate degree (2.2% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 28.7%), and master's degree (17.4% compared to 15.0%, a difference of 16.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.4% compared to 97.7%, a difference of 0.75%), kindergarten (98.4% compared to 97.7%, a difference of 0.75%), and 1st grade (98.4% compared to 97.6%, a difference of 0.76%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Scotland and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (3.3% compared to 2.7%, a difference of 21.5%), disability age under 5 (1.4% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 11.5%), and disability age 18 to 34 (6.8% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 10.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 5 to 17 (5.6% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 1.2%), self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 1.6%), and female disability (12.0% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 2.8%).