Uruguayan vs Immigrants from South Central Asia Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 141,248,455 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from South Central Asia within Uruguayan communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.045. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Uruguayans within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.020% in Immigrants from South Central Asia. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Uruguayans corresponds to a decrease of 20.0 Immigrants from South Central Asia.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from South Central Asia communities in the United States are seen in median male earnings ($53,680 compared to $68,960, a difference of 28.5%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($98,660 compared to $124,188, a difference of 25.9%), and median household income ($84,691 compared to $106,057, a difference of 25.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($52,465 compared to $57,818, a difference of 10.2%), wage/income gap (25.2% compared to 29.3%, a difference of 16.6%), and median female earnings ($39,228 compared to $46,324, a difference of 18.1%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from South Central Asia communities in the United States are seen in receiving food stamps (11.8% compared to 8.8%, a difference of 33.9%), child poverty among boys under 16 (16.4% compared to 12.7%, a difference of 29.8%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (16.1% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 28.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (18.8% compared to 17.6%, a difference of 6.9%), single father poverty (15.9% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 9.3%), and single male poverty (11.9% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 9.3%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from South Central Asia communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.9% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 18.4%), unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.8% compared to 4.1%, a difference of 17.1%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (9.3% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 17.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.2% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 0.18%), unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.5% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 2.4%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.9% compared to 8.2%, a difference of 3.6%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from South Central Asia communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age > 16 (65.9% compared to 67.1%, a difference of 1.8%), in labor force | age 45-54 (83.1% compared to 84.0%, a difference of 1.1%), and in labor force | age 16-19 (34.9% compared to 34.6%, a difference of 1.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (84.9% compared to 85.1%, a difference of 0.27%), in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 0.27%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.9% compared to 85.2%, a difference of 0.39%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from South Central Asia communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (33.1% compared to 24.7%, a difference of 34.1%), single mother households (6.6% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 21.8%), and single father households (2.4% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 20.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.23 compared to 3.23, a difference of 0.16%), family households (64.5% compared to 66.4%, a difference of 3.0%), and family households with children (27.7% compared to 30.0%, a difference of 8.5%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from South Central Asia communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.3% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 31.7%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.6% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 8.7%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.8% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 8.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.8% compared to 91.5%, a difference of 3.0%), 2 or more vehicles in household (52.7% compared to 56.6%, a difference of 7.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.8% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 8.6%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from South Central Asia communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (1.8% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 48.6%), master's degree (15.3% compared to 20.7%, a difference of 35.7%), and professional degree (4.6% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 27.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.8% compared to 98.0%, a difference of 0.25%), kindergarten (97.8% compared to 98.0%, a difference of 0.25%), and 1st grade (97.7% compared to 98.0%, a difference of 0.25%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Immigrants from South Central Asia communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (2.2% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 21.9%), disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.0%, a difference of 18.5%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.6% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 18.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.2% compared to 46.0%, a difference of 0.57%), cognitive disability (16.8% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 2.9%), and hearing disability (2.8% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 7.4%).