Uruguayan vs Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 84,874,382 people shows a moderate negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar within Uruguayan communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.487. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Uruguayans within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.048% in Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Uruguayans corresponds to a decrease of 48.2 Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($44,318 compared to $39,827, a difference of 11.3%), wage/income gap (25.2% compared to 22.8%, a difference of 10.1%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($98,660 compared to $91,385, a difference of 8.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median female earnings ($39,228 compared to $38,028, a difference of 3.2%), householder income over 65 years ($59,090 compared to $57,114, a difference of 3.5%), and median earnings ($46,190 compared to $43,998, a difference of 5.0%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar communities in the United States are seen in child poverty among girls under 16 (16.2% compared to 19.7%, a difference of 21.4%), child poverty under the age of 16 (16.1% compared to 19.4%, a difference of 20.2%), and child poverty under the age of 5 (17.0% compared to 20.4%, a difference of 19.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.9% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 3.8%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.1% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 7.4%), and single mother poverty (28.3% compared to 30.6%, a difference of 7.9%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.3% compared to 7.5%, a difference of 23.9%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.5% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 13.8%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.2% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 12.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.2% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 1.7%), male unemployment (5.1% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 2.1%), and unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.5% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 2.1%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (34.9% compared to 39.0%, a difference of 11.8%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.6% compared to 76.3%, a difference of 2.4%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.1% compared to 82.0%, a difference of 1.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (84.9% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 0.21%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.9% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 0.26%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (80.1% compared to 79.7%, a difference of 0.56%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (6.6% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 7.2%), married-couple households (45.5% compared to 43.4%, a difference of 4.8%), and family households (64.5% compared to 62.6%, a difference of 3.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of births to unmarried women (33.1% compared to 32.9%, a difference of 0.70%), family households with children (27.7% compared to 28.0%, a difference of 1.2%), and average family size (3.23 compared to 3.29, a difference of 1.8%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (5.6% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 10.9%), no vehicles in household (11.3% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 8.3%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.8% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 5.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.8% compared to 89.7%, a difference of 0.98%), 2 or more vehicles in household (52.7% compared to 53.9%, a difference of 2.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.8% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 5.7%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.2% compared to 3.1%, a difference of 40.5%), professional degree (4.6% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 17.3%), and master's degree (15.3% compared to 13.5%, a difference of 12.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.8% compared to 96.9%, a difference of 0.95%), kindergarten (97.8% compared to 96.8%, a difference of 0.95%), and 1st grade (97.7% compared to 96.8%, a difference of 0.96%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from Burma/Myanmar communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.2% compared to 12.3%, a difference of 19.9%), disability age 18 to 34 (6.2% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 10.2%), and cognitive disability (16.8% compared to 18.2%, a difference of 8.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of vision disability (2.2% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 0.31%), disability age 5 to 17 (5.6% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 0.42%), and self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 2.8%).