Immigrants from Ecuador vs Pennsylvania German Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 141,996,520 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Pennsylvania Germans within Immigrant from Ecuador communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.032. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Ecuador within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.002% in Pennsylvania Germans. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Ecuador corresponds to an increase of 2.4 Pennsylvania Germans.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Pennsylvania German communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (22.5% compared to 30.7%, a difference of 36.5%), median female earnings ($38,644 compared to $34,802, a difference of 11.0%), and per capita income ($41,195 compared to $37,842, a difference of 8.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($91,462 compared to $91,956, a difference of 0.54%), median male earnings ($50,474 compared to $50,878, a difference of 0.80%), and median family income ($92,837 compared to $91,763, a difference of 1.2%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Pennsylvania German communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 65 (14.4% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 45.9%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (16.1% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 36.8%), and married-couple family poverty (6.7% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 32.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of child poverty under the age of 5 (19.6% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 0.98%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (19.2% compared to 19.7%, a difference of 2.6%), and female poverty among 25-34 year olds (14.6% compared to 15.4%, a difference of 5.4%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Pennsylvania German communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (7.9% compared to 10.8%, a difference of 36.9%), unemployment (6.2% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 35.6%), and female unemployment (6.4% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 32.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (7.4% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 0.020%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.3% compared to 6.3%, a difference of 0.73%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.8% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 0.78%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Pennsylvania German communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.0% compared to 46.4%, a difference of 49.7%), in labor force | age 20-24 (72.3% compared to 78.0%, a difference of 7.9%), and in labor force | age > 16 (65.7% compared to 63.4%, a difference of 3.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 45-54 (82.2% compared to 81.6%, a difference of 0.64%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.3% compared to 83.6%, a difference of 0.82%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (79.3% compared to 78.4%, a difference of 1.1%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Pennsylvania German communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (7.3% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 26.3%), married-couple households (42.9% compared to 50.4%, a difference of 17.5%), and currently married (43.2% compared to 49.6%, a difference of 14.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of births to unmarried women (33.7% compared to 34.0%, a difference of 0.77%), family households with children (27.7% compared to 27.4%, a difference of 1.2%), and single father households (2.4% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 1.4%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Pennsylvania German communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (23.8% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 116.6%), 4 or more vehicles in household (4.2% compared to 7.6%, a difference of 79.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (13.4% compared to 22.3%, a difference of 66.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (76.2% compared to 89.3%, a difference of 17.1%), 2 or more vehicles in household (40.5% compared to 58.5%, a difference of 44.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (13.4% compared to 22.3%, a difference of 66.7%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Pennsylvania German communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (3.1% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 108.0%), professional degree (3.8% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 28.0%), and master's degree (13.6% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 26.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (87.5% compared to 88.7%, a difference of 1.3%), 11th grade (89.1% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 1.4%), and 9th grade (91.8% compared to 93.3%, a difference of 1.6%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Ecuador and Pennsylvania German communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 74.1%), hearing disability (2.5% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 51.0%), and disability age 18 to 34 (5.7% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 36.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (47.4% compared to 47.2%, a difference of 0.56%), disability age 65 to 74 (23.7% compared to 24.0%, a difference of 1.0%), and vision disability (2.3% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 3.2%).