Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Central America Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 146,397,361 people shows a mild negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Central America within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.381. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.213% in Immigrants from Central America. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to a decrease of 212.8 Immigrants from Central America.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Central America communities in the United States are seen in householder income under 25 years ($44,763 compared to $51,022, a difference of 14.0%), wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 24.6%, a difference of 10.2%), and median household income ($70,005 compared to $74,217, a difference of 6.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median family income ($85,356 compared to $85,050, a difference of 0.36%), householder income over 65 years ($53,732 compared to $53,420, a difference of 0.58%), and median female earnings ($34,414 compared to $33,953, a difference of 1.4%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Central America communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 15.0%, a difference of 28.6%), married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 28.3%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 13.6%, a difference of 27.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of child poverty under the age of 5 (21.8% compared to 22.0%, a difference of 0.67%), single mother poverty (34.4% compared to 33.6%, a difference of 2.5%), and female poverty among 25-34 year olds (17.0% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 2.7%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Central America communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.4% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 28.9%), unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.7% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 25.7%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.3% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 23.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.2% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 0.54%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.0% compared to 8.9%, a difference of 1.2%), and unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (9.9% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 7.6%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Central America communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 35.0%, a difference of 9.6%), in labor force | age > 16 (62.3% compared to 64.7%, a difference of 3.9%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (76.2% compared to 77.7%, a difference of 2.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 82.4%, a difference of 0.65%), in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 82.5%, a difference of 0.68%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 75.0%, a difference of 0.73%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Central America communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 17.5%), single mother households (7.0% compared to 8.1%, a difference of 14.3%), and family households with children (28.2% compared to 31.0%, a difference of 9.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple households (45.9% compared to 45.7%, a difference of 0.55%), births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 37.4%, a difference of 3.2%), and currently married (46.6% compared to 44.1%, a difference of 5.6%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Central America communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 8.5%, a difference of 14.0%), no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 8.9%, a difference of 13.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 23.4%, a difference of 5.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 58.6%, a difference of 0.68%), 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 91.1%, a difference of 1.2%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 23.4%, a difference of 5.6%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Central America communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 3.6%, a difference of 113.3%), doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 27.3%), and professional degree (3.4% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 17.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.4% compared to 96.4%, a difference of 2.0%), kindergarten (98.4% compared to 96.4%, a difference of 2.1%), and 1st grade (98.3% compared to 96.3%, a difference of 2.1%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Central America communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (4.5% compared to 3.0%, a difference of 51.6%), disability age under 5 (1.7% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 41.8%), and disability age 18 to 34 (9.0% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 38.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 50.5%, a difference of 1.3%), cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 17.7%, a difference of 4.3%), and self-care disability (2.9% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 8.5%).