Chickasaw vs Iroquois Community Comparison
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Iroquois
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Chickasaw
Iroquois
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
2,526
SOCIAL INDEX
22.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
253rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Iroquois Integration in Chickasaw Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 92,297,794 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Iroquois within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.705. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.114% in Iroquois. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 113.7 Iroquois.
Chickasaw vs Iroquois Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 25.1%, a difference of 8.3%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $83,682, a difference of 7.4%), and per capita income ($36,475 compared to $39,104, a difference of 7.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($53,732 compared to $53,737, a difference of 0.010%), median male earnings ($47,832 compared to $49,374, a difference of 3.2%), and median earnings ($40,672 compared to $42,430, a difference of 4.3%).
Income Metric | Chickasaw | Iroquois |
Per Capita Income | Tragic $36,475 | Tragic $39,104 |
Median Family Income | Tragic $85,356 | Tragic $90,543 |
Median Household Income | Tragic $70,005 | Tragic $74,279 |
Median Earnings | Tragic $40,672 | Tragic $42,430 |
Median Male Earnings | Tragic $47,832 | Tragic $49,374 |
Median Female Earnings | Tragic $34,414 | Tragic $36,408 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Tragic $44,763 | Tragic $47,380 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Tragic $77,929 | Tragic $83,682 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Tragic $82,193 | Tragic $87,255 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Tragic $53,732 | Tragic $53,737 |
Wage/Income Gap | Tragic 27.2% | Excellent 25.1% |
Chickasaw vs Iroquois Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 14.0%, a difference of 20.4%), single male poverty (16.3% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 12.6%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 11.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty (15.9% compared to 15.8%, a difference of 0.26%), child poverty under the age of 5 (21.8% compared to 22.0%, a difference of 0.83%), and poverty (14.7% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 0.96%).
Poverty Metric | Chickasaw | Iroquois |
Poverty | Tragic 14.7% | Tragic 14.5% |
Families | Tragic 10.8% | Tragic 10.7% |
Males | Tragic 13.5% | Tragic 13.2% |
Females | Tragic 15.9% | Tragic 15.8% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Tragic 24.5% | Tragic 22.9% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Tragic 17.0% | Tragic 17.5% |
Children Under 5 years | Tragic 21.8% | Tragic 22.0% |
Children Under 16 years | Tragic 19.5% | Tragic 19.9% |
Boys Under 16 years | Tragic 19.8% | Tragic 19.6% |
Girls Under 16 years | Tragic 19.6% | Tragic 20.4% |
Single Males | Tragic 16.3% | Tragic 14.5% |
Single Females | Tragic 26.3% | Tragic 25.7% |
Single Fathers | Tragic 19.0% | Tragic 17.7% |
Single Mothers | Tragic 34.4% | Tragic 34.8% |
Married Couples | Tragic 5.8% | Poor 5.5% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Good 10.7% | Tragic 11.9% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Exceptional 11.6% | Tragic 14.0% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Tragic 13.1% | Tragic 13.5% |
Chickasaw vs Iroquois Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.3% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 27.0%), unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.2% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 20.6%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.4% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 11.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.2% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 1.1%), unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.8% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 1.3%), and unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (9.9% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 1.4%).
Unemployment Metric | Chickasaw | Iroquois |
Unemployment | Exceptional 5.0% | Poor 5.4% |
Males | Excellent 5.2% | Tragic 5.7% |
Females | Excellent 5.1% | Fair 5.4% |
Youth < 25 | Exceptional 11.2% | Exceptional 11.3% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Exceptional 16.7% | Average 17.6% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Exceptional 9.9% | Exceptional 10.1% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Fair 6.7% | Tragic 7.5% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Tragic 6.2% | Tragic 5.9% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Tragic 4.9% | Tragic 5.1% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Exceptional 4.2% | Tragic 5.1% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Good 4.8% | Fair 4.9% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Exceptional 4.3% | Exceptional 4.7% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Exceptional 4.7% | Exceptional 5.1% |
Seniors > 65 | Exceptional 4.4% | Exceptional 4.9% |
Seniors > 75 | Exceptional 7.3% | Tragic 9.3% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Tragic 9.0% | Tragic 8.7% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Exceptional 8.6% | Tragic 9.2% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Good 5.4% | Tragic 5.7% |
Chickasaw vs Iroquois Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 39.9%, a difference of 4.2%), in labor force | age 35-44 (80.9% compared to 83.5%, a difference of 3.2%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 2.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 0.020%), in labor force | age > 16 (62.3% compared to 63.2%, a difference of 1.4%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 75.6%, a difference of 1.6%).
Labor Participation Metric | Chickasaw | Iroquois |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Tragic 62.3% | Tragic 63.2% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Tragic 76.2% | Tragic 77.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Exceptional 38.3% | Exceptional 39.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Poor 74.5% | Excellent 75.6% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Tragic 81.9% | Tragic 83.8% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Tragic 81.9% | Tragic 81.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Tragic 80.9% | Tragic 83.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Tragic 79.0% | Tragic 80.6% |
Chickasaw vs Iroquois Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 12.9%, a difference of 10.4%), family households with children (28.2% compared to 26.1%, a difference of 8.3%), and single father households (2.8% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 5.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.19 compared to 3.16, a difference of 0.95%), single mother households (7.0% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 1.2%), and family households (64.4% compared to 62.2%, a difference of 3.5%).
Family Structure Metric | Chickasaw | Iroquois |
Family Households | Good 64.4% | Tragic 62.2% |
Family Households with Children | Exceptional 28.2% | Tragic 26.1% |
Married-couple Households | Fair 45.9% | Tragic 43.7% |
Average Family Size | Tragic 3.19 | Tragic 3.16 |
Single Father Households | Tragic 2.8% | Tragic 2.6% |
Single Mother Households | Tragic 7.0% | Tragic 7.0% |
Currently Married | Average 46.6% | Tragic 44.7% |
Divorced or Separated | Tragic 14.2% | Tragic 12.9% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Tragic 36.3% | Tragic 38.2% |
Chickasaw vs Iroquois Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 39.3%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 15.0%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 19.4%, a difference of 14.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 89.2%, a difference of 3.4%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 54.7%, a difference of 7.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 19.4%, a difference of 14.2%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Chickasaw | Iroquois |
No Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.9% | Poor 10.9% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 92.3% | Poor 89.2% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 59.0% | Fair 54.7% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 22.2% | Average 19.4% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.4% | Good 6.5% |
Chickasaw vs Iroquois Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in master's degree (11.4% compared to 12.9%, a difference of 12.9%), no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 11.1%), and associate's degree (38.6% compared to 42.8%, a difference of 10.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 9th grade (95.5% compared to 95.4%, a difference of 0.040%), 8th grade (96.4% compared to 96.3%, a difference of 0.13%), and 7th grade (96.7% compared to 96.6%, a difference of 0.15%).
Education Level Metric | Chickasaw | Iroquois |
No Schooling Completed | Exceptional 1.7% | Exceptional 1.9% |
Nursery School | Exceptional 98.4% | Exceptional 98.2% |
Kindergarten | Exceptional 98.4% | Exceptional 98.2% |
1st Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Exceptional 98.1% |
2nd Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Exceptional 98.1% |
3rd Grade | Exceptional 98.2% | Exceptional 98.0% |
4th Grade | Exceptional 98.0% | Exceptional 97.8% |
5th Grade | Exceptional 97.9% | Exceptional 97.7% |
6th Grade | Exceptional 97.6% | Exceptional 97.4% |
7th Grade | Exceptional 96.7% | Exceptional 96.6% |
8th Grade | Exceptional 96.4% | Exceptional 96.3% |
9th Grade | Exceptional 95.5% | Exceptional 95.4% |
10th Grade | Excellent 94.1% | Exceptional 94.3% |
11th Grade | Fair 92.3% | Good 92.8% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Tragic 90.3% | Average 91.1% |
High School Diploma | Poor 88.4% | Average 89.2% |
GED/Equivalency | Tragic 83.8% | Tragic 84.6% |
College, Under 1 year | Tragic 60.4% | Tragic 62.6% |
College, 1 year or more | Tragic 53.3% | Tragic 56.2% |
Associate's Degree | Tragic 38.6% | Tragic 42.8% |
Bachelor's Degree | Tragic 30.4% | Tragic 33.2% |
Master's Degree | Tragic 11.4% | Tragic 12.9% |
Professional Degree | Tragic 3.4% | Tragic 3.7% |
Doctorate Degree | Tragic 1.5% | Tragic 1.6% |
Chickasaw vs Iroquois Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (3.2% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 21.9%), hearing disability (4.5% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 21.0%), and disability age under 5 (1.7% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 19.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 5 to 17 (6.8% compared to 6.9%, a difference of 0.68%), cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 18.2%, a difference of 1.7%), and disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 48.4%, a difference of 5.7%).
Disability Metric | Chickasaw | Iroquois |
Disability | Tragic 15.2% | Tragic 13.8% |
Males | Tragic 15.1% | Tragic 13.6% |
Females | Tragic 15.2% | Tragic 14.0% |
Age | Under 5 years | Tragic 1.7% | Tragic 1.5% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Tragic 6.8% | Tragic 6.9% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Tragic 9.0% | Tragic 7.9% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Tragic 16.1% | Tragic 14.4% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 30.2% | Tragic 25.4% |
Age | Over 75 years | Tragic 51.2% | Tragic 48.4% |
Vision | Tragic 3.2% | Tragic 2.6% |
Hearing | Tragic 4.5% | Tragic 3.7% |
Cognitive | Tragic 18.5% | Tragic 18.2% |
Ambulatory | Tragic 8.0% | Tragic 7.1% |
Self-Care | Tragic 2.9% | Tragic 2.7% |