Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Philippines Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 140,952,155 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Philippines within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.123. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.008% in Immigrants from Philippines. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 8.1 Immigrants from Philippines.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Philippines communities in the United States are seen in median household income ($70,005 compared to $93,899, a difference of 34.1%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $102,910, a difference of 32.1%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($82,193 compared to $108,471, a difference of 32.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 24.7%, a difference of 10.1%), median male earnings ($47,832 compared to $55,809, a difference of 16.7%), and median earnings ($40,672 compared to $48,266, a difference of 18.7%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Philippines communities in the United States are seen in single male poverty (16.3% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 49.7%), child poverty under the age of 5 (21.8% compared to 14.7%, a difference of 48.4%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (24.5% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 46.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 2.4%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 2.6%), and married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 21.0%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Philippines communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.3% compared to 8.9%, a difference of 21.7%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.0% compared to 7.5%, a difference of 19.0%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.4% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 18.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.7% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 1.1%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.4% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 1.2%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.8% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 1.7%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Philippines communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 35.1%, a difference of 9.2%), in labor force | age > 16 (62.3% compared to 65.6%, a difference of 5.4%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 82.9%, a difference of 4.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 75.1%, a difference of 0.89%), in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 84.2%, a difference of 2.8%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 84.6%, a difference of 3.2%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Philippines communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 25.6%), births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 30.4%, a difference of 19.3%), and single father households (2.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 15.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of currently married (46.6% compared to 47.6%, a difference of 2.1%), family households with children (28.2% compared to 29.0%, a difference of 2.8%), and average family size (3.19 compared to 3.37, a difference of 5.9%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Philippines communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 8.5%, a difference of 15.0%), no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 8.5%, a difference of 8.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 23.8%, a difference of 7.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 91.5%, a difference of 0.84%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 60.1%, a difference of 1.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 23.8%, a difference of 7.0%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Philippines communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 52.2%), bachelor's degree (30.4% compared to 36.4%, a difference of 19.8%), and master's degree (11.4% compared to 13.6%, a difference of 19.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (90.3% compared to 90.2%, a difference of 0.18%), high school diploma (88.4% compared to 87.8%, a difference of 0.69%), and nursery school (98.4% compared to 97.5%, a difference of 0.95%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Philippines communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 55.1%), vision disability (3.2% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 52.4%), and disability age under 5 (1.7% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 49.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 48.8%, a difference of 5.0%), cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 10.6%), and self-care disability (2.9% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 11.2%).