Chickasaw vs Cuban Community Comparison

COMPARE

Chickasaw
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Cuban
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaAlbaniaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominicaDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLatviaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Chickasaw

Cubans

Fair
Fair
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
3,662
SOCIAL INDEX
34.1/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
213th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Cuban Integration in Chickasaw Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 136,252,751 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Cubans within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.583. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.073% in Cubans. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 72.8 Cubans.
Chickasaw Integration in Cuban Communities

Chickasaw vs Cuban Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Cuban communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 23.3%, a difference of 16.8%), householder income under 25 years ($44,763 compared to $50,655, a difference of 13.2%), and householder income over 65 years ($53,732 compared to $49,152, a difference of 9.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median earnings ($40,672 compared to $40,619, a difference of 0.13%), median family income ($85,356 compared to $84,981, a difference of 0.44%), and median female earnings ($34,414 compared to $34,942, a difference of 1.5%).
Chickasaw vs Cuban Income
Income MetricChickasawCuban
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$36,475
Tragic
$37,383
Median Family Income
Tragic
$85,356
Tragic
$84,981
Median Household Income
Tragic
$70,005
Tragic
$73,392
Median Earnings
Tragic
$40,672
Tragic
$40,619
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$47,832
Tragic
$46,580
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$34,414
Tragic
$34,942
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$44,763
Tragic
$50,655
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$77,929
Tragic
$81,483
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$82,193
Tragic
$86,301
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$53,732
Tragic
$49,152
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.2%
Exceptional
23.3%

Chickasaw vs Cuban Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Cuban communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 18.0%, a difference of 54.2%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 50.7%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (24.5% compared to 17.2%, a difference of 42.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family poverty (10.8% compared to 10.6%, a difference of 2.0%), female poverty (15.9% compared to 15.3%, a difference of 3.6%), and poverty (14.7% compared to 13.9%, a difference of 5.8%).
Chickasaw vs Cuban Poverty
Poverty MetricChickasawCuban
Poverty
Tragic
14.7%
Tragic
13.9%
Families
Tragic
10.8%
Tragic
10.6%
Males
Tragic
13.5%
Tragic
12.4%
Females
Tragic
15.9%
Tragic
15.3%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
24.5%
Exceptional
17.2%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
17.0%
Tragic
14.7%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
21.8%
Tragic
19.1%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.5%
Tragic
17.8%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.8%
Tragic
17.9%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
19.6%
Tragic
18.0%
Single Males
Tragic
16.3%
Good
12.6%
Single Females
Tragic
26.3%
Average
21.0%
Single Fathers
Tragic
19.0%
Poor
16.6%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.4%
Fair
29.6%
Married Couples
Tragic
5.8%
Tragic
6.8%
Seniors Over 65 years
Good
10.7%
Tragic
16.1%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
11.6%
Tragic
18.0%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
13.1%
Tragic
18.2%

Chickasaw vs Cuban Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Cuban communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.0% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 28.0%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.2% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 21.9%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.9% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 17.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.7% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 1.1%), unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (16.7% compared to 16.9%, a difference of 1.5%), and unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.4% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 3.0%).
Chickasaw vs Cuban Unemployment
Unemployment MetricChickasawCuban
Unemployment
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.7%
Males
Excellent
5.2%
Exceptional
4.6%
Females
Excellent
5.1%
Exceptional
4.9%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.2%
Exceptional
10.6%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
16.7%
Exceptional
16.9%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.9%
Exceptional
9.2%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Fair
6.7%
Exceptional
5.9%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.2%
Exceptional
5.1%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
4.9%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Exceptional
4.0%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Good
4.8%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
4.7%
Exceptional
4.8%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.4%
Exceptional
4.6%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.3%
Exceptional
8.0%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
9.0%
Exceptional
7.0%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.6%
Poor
9.2%
Women w/ Children < 18
Good
5.4%
Exceptional
5.2%

Chickasaw vs Cuban Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Cuban communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 31.8%, a difference of 20.6%), in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 83.4%, a difference of 5.5%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (80.9% compared to 84.8%, a difference of 4.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 83.5%, a difference of 1.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 72.5%, a difference of 2.7%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 84.2%, a difference of 2.8%).
Chickasaw vs Cuban Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricChickasawCuban
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
62.3%
Tragic
64.2%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
76.2%
Average
79.5%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.3%
Tragic
31.8%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Poor
74.5%
Tragic
72.5%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
81.9%
Tragic
83.5%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
81.9%
Tragic
84.2%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
80.9%
Exceptional
84.8%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
79.0%
Exceptional
83.4%

Chickasaw vs Cuban Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Cuban communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 39.4%, a difference of 8.5%), single father households (2.8% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 6.3%), and family households (64.4% compared to 67.7%, a difference of 5.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple households (45.9% compared to 45.4%, a difference of 1.2%), average family size (3.19 compared to 3.25, a difference of 2.0%), and divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 2.1%).
Chickasaw vs Cuban Family Structure
Family Structure MetricChickasawCuban
Family Households
Good
64.4%
Exceptional
67.7%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.2%
Poor
27.1%
Married-couple Households
Fair
45.9%
Tragic
45.4%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.19
Excellent
3.25
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.8%
Tragic
2.6%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.0%
Tragic
7.2%
Currently Married
Average
46.6%
Tragic
44.6%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
14.2%
Tragic
14.5%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
36.3%
Tragic
39.4%

Chickasaw vs Cuban Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Cuban communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 24.8%), 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 15.0%), and no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 8.5%, a difference of 8.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 91.5%, a difference of 0.80%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 56.3%, a difference of 4.8%), and no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 8.5%, a difference of 8.3%).
Chickasaw vs Cuban Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricChickasawCuban
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.9%
Exceptional
8.5%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
92.3%
Exceptional
91.5%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.0%
Excellent
56.3%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
22.2%
Fair
19.3%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.4%
Tragic
6.0%

Chickasaw vs Cuban Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Cuban communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 48.4%), professional degree (3.4% compared to 4.0%, a difference of 17.9%), and doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 1.4%, a difference of 9.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of college, 1 year or more (53.3% compared to 53.4%, a difference of 0.13%), nursery school (98.4% compared to 97.6%, a difference of 0.83%), and kindergarten (98.4% compared to 97.5%, a difference of 0.87%).
Chickasaw vs Cuban Education Level
Education Level MetricChickasawCuban
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.7%
Tragic
2.5%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.4%
Tragic
97.6%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.4%
Tragic
97.5%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Tragic
97.5%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Tragic
97.4%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Tragic
97.3%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Tragic
96.9%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Tragic
96.6%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Tragic
96.2%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.7%
Tragic
94.6%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Tragic
94.1%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.5%
Tragic
93.2%
10th Grade
Excellent
94.1%
Tragic
91.5%
11th Grade
Fair
92.3%
Tragic
90.2%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
90.3%
Tragic
88.9%
High School Diploma
Poor
88.4%
Tragic
85.4%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
83.8%
Tragic
82.0%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
60.4%
Tragic
58.6%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.3%
Tragic
53.4%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
38.6%
Tragic
41.9%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.4%
Tragic
32.5%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.4%
Tragic
12.1%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.4%
Tragic
4.0%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Tragic
1.4%

Chickasaw vs Cuban Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Cuban communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 60.7%), hearing disability (4.5% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 57.3%), and disability age 18 to 34 (9.0% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 57.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of self-care disability (2.9% compared to 2.7%, a difference of 4.7%), disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 47.4%, a difference of 8.0%), and cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 12.3%).
Chickasaw vs Cuban Disability
Disability MetricChickasawCuban
Disability
Tragic
15.2%
Average
11.7%
Males
Tragic
15.1%
Good
11.0%
Females
Tragic
15.2%
Fair
12.3%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.7%
Average
1.2%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.8%
Exceptional
5.3%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.0%
Exceptional
5.7%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.1%
Exceptional
10.0%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
30.2%
Average
23.3%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
51.2%
Average
47.4%
Vision
Tragic
3.2%
Tragic
2.4%
Hearing
Tragic
4.5%
Excellent
2.8%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.5%
Exceptional
16.5%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.0%
Tragic
6.4%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.9%
Tragic
2.7%