Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Community Comparison

COMPARE

Chickasaw
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'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 TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Immigrants from Uruguay
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

Immigrants from Uruguay

Fair
Fair
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
3,806
SOCIAL INDEX
35.6/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
209th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Immigrants from Uruguay Integration in Chickasaw Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 67,558,503 people shows a near-perfect positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Uruguay within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.916. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.734% in Immigrants from Uruguay. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 734.5 Immigrants from Uruguay.
Chickasaw Integration in Immigrants from Uruguay Communities

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($36,475 compared to $43,997, a difference of 20.6%), median household income ($70,005 compared to $82,560, a difference of 17.9%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $91,171, a difference of 17.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($53,732 compared to $56,975, a difference of 6.0%), wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 24.6%, a difference of 10.3%), and median male earnings ($47,832 compared to $52,860, a difference of 10.5%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Income
Income MetricChickasawImmigrants from Uruguay
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$36,475
Average
$43,997
Median Family Income
Tragic
$85,356
Tragic
$98,205
Median Household Income
Tragic
$70,005
Poor
$82,560
Median Earnings
Tragic
$40,672
Fair
$45,682
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$47,832
Poor
$52,860
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$34,414
Poor
$38,945
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$44,763
Average
$52,302
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$77,929
Poor
$91,171
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$82,193
Poor
$96,086
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$53,732
Tragic
$56,975
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.2%
Exceptional
24.6%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in single male poverty (16.3% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 37.6%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (24.5% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 29.9%), and single female poverty (26.3% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 27.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 1.4%), receiving food stamps (13.1% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 4.5%), and female poverty (15.9% compared to 14.0%, a difference of 13.1%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Poverty
Poverty MetricChickasawImmigrants from Uruguay
Poverty
Tragic
14.7%
Poor
12.8%
Families
Tragic
10.8%
Poor
9.5%
Males
Tragic
13.5%
Poor
11.6%
Females
Tragic
15.9%
Poor
14.0%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
24.5%
Exceptional
18.8%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
17.0%
Fair
13.7%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
21.8%
Fair
17.7%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.5%
Fair
16.8%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.8%
Poor
17.2%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
19.6%
Fair
16.7%
Single Males
Tragic
16.3%
Exceptional
11.9%
Single Females
Tragic
26.3%
Good
20.6%
Single Fathers
Tragic
19.0%
Exceptional
15.6%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.4%
Average
29.1%
Married Couples
Tragic
5.8%
Tragic
5.7%
Seniors Over 65 years
Good
10.7%
Tragic
12.8%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
11.6%
Tragic
14.3%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
13.1%
Poor
12.5%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.4% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 18.9%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.3% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 17.0%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.7% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 16.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.8% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 0.10%), male unemployment (5.2% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 0.80%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.9% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 1.3%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Unemployment
Unemployment MetricChickasawImmigrants from Uruguay
Unemployment
Exceptional
5.0%
Fair
5.3%
Males
Excellent
5.2%
Good
5.2%
Females
Excellent
5.1%
Tragic
5.5%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.2%
Good
11.5%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
16.7%
Average
17.6%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.9%
Excellent
10.1%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Fair
6.7%
Excellent
6.5%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.2%
Good
5.3%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
4.9%
Poor
4.9%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Fair
4.6%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Good
4.8%
Good
4.8%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Tragic
5.1%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
4.7%
Tragic
5.5%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.4%
Tragic
5.2%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.3%
Exceptional
7.5%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
9.0%
Average
7.7%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.6%
Tragic
9.2%
Women w/ Children < 18
Good
5.4%
Tragic
5.9%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 34.4%, a difference of 11.4%), in labor force | age > 16 (62.3% compared to 66.0%, a difference of 5.9%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 83.2%, a difference of 5.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 74.6%, a difference of 0.18%), in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 3.4%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 84.9%, a difference of 3.7%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricChickasawImmigrants from Uruguay
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
62.3%
Exceptional
66.0%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
76.2%
Exceptional
80.1%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.3%
Tragic
34.4%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Poor
74.5%
Poor
74.6%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
81.9%
Excellent
84.9%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
81.9%
Average
84.7%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
80.9%
Excellent
84.6%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
79.0%
Exceptional
83.2%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 13.4%), divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 12.8%), and births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 33.9%, a difference of 7.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.4% compared to 63.9%, a difference of 0.81%), average family size (3.19 compared to 3.23, a difference of 1.3%), and family households with children (28.2% compared to 27.4%, a difference of 3.1%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Family Structure
Family Structure MetricChickasawImmigrants from Uruguay
Family Households
Good
64.4%
Poor
63.9%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.2%
Fair
27.4%
Married-couple Households
Fair
45.9%
Tragic
44.5%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.19
Average
3.23
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.8%
Poor
2.4%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.0%
Tragic
6.7%
Currently Married
Average
46.6%
Tragic
45.0%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
14.2%
Tragic
12.6%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
36.3%
Tragic
33.9%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 51.9%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 37.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 17.1%, a difference of 29.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 88.1%, a difference of 4.7%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 51.4%, a difference of 14.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 17.1%, a difference of 29.8%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricChickasawImmigrants from Uruguay
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.9%
Tragic
11.9%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
92.3%
Tragic
88.1%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.0%
Tragic
51.4%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
22.2%
Tragic
17.1%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.4%
Tragic
5.4%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 37.3%), professional degree (3.4% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 35.7%), and master's degree (11.4% compared to 15.0%, a difference of 31.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (90.3% compared to 90.0%, a difference of 0.40%), nursery school (98.4% compared to 97.7%, a difference of 0.70%), and kindergarten (98.4% compared to 97.7%, a difference of 0.71%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Education Level
Education Level MetricChickasawImmigrants from Uruguay
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.7%
Tragic
2.3%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.4%
Tragic
97.7%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.4%
Tragic
97.7%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Tragic
97.6%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Tragic
97.6%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Tragic
97.4%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Tragic
97.1%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Tragic
96.9%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Tragic
96.5%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.7%
Tragic
95.2%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Tragic
94.8%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.5%
Tragic
93.8%
10th Grade
Excellent
94.1%
Tragic
92.5%
11th Grade
Fair
92.3%
Tragic
91.3%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
90.3%
Tragic
90.0%
High School Diploma
Poor
88.4%
Tragic
87.6%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
83.8%
Tragic
84.4%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
60.4%
Tragic
63.4%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.3%
Poor
58.1%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
38.6%
Fair
45.8%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.4%
Average
37.8%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.4%
Average
15.0%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.4%
Good
4.6%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Tragic
1.7%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (4.5% compared to 2.7%, a difference of 63.0%), disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 55.7%), and disability age 18 to 34 (9.0% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 45.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 9.0%), disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 46.4%, a difference of 10.2%), and self-care disability (2.9% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 18.4%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Disability
Disability MetricChickasawImmigrants from Uruguay
Disability
Tragic
15.2%
Exceptional
11.3%
Males
Tragic
15.1%
Exceptional
10.8%
Females
Tragic
15.2%
Exceptional
11.7%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.7%
Average
1.2%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.8%
Fair
5.6%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.0%
Exceptional
6.2%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.1%
Exceptional
10.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
30.2%
Exceptional
22.6%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
51.2%
Exceptional
46.4%
Vision
Tragic
3.2%
Poor
2.2%
Hearing
Tragic
4.5%
Exceptional
2.7%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.5%
Exceptional
17.0%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.0%
Exceptional
5.9%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.9%
Excellent
2.4%