Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Community Comparison

COMPARE

Chickasaw
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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
Luxembourger
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

Luxembourgers

Fair
Excellent
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,215
SOCIAL INDEX
89.6/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
27th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Luxembourger Integration in Chickasaw Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 75,531,931 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Luxembourgers within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.715. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.141% in Luxembourgers. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 141.1 Luxembourgers.
Chickasaw Integration in Luxembourger Communities

Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($82,193 compared to $103,536, a difference of 26.0%), per capita income ($36,475 compared to $45,663, a difference of 25.2%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $97,237, a difference of 24.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 27.4%, a difference of 0.98%), householder income under 25 years ($44,763 compared to $50,379, a difference of 12.6%), and householder income over 65 years ($53,732 compared to $60,967, a difference of 13.5%).
Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Income
Income MetricChickasawLuxembourger
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$36,475
Exceptional
$45,663
Median Family Income
Tragic
$85,356
Excellent
$106,183
Median Household Income
Tragic
$70,005
Good
$86,418
Median Earnings
Tragic
$40,672
Excellent
$47,640
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$47,832
Excellent
$56,300
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$34,414
Average
$39,891
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$44,763
Tragic
$50,379
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$77,929
Excellent
$97,237
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$82,193
Excellent
$103,536
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$53,732
Average
$60,967
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.2%
Tragic
27.4%

Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (10.8% compared to 7.2%, a difference of 50.2%), married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 49.3%), and child poverty under the age of 5 (21.8% compared to 14.9%, a difference of 46.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 10.8%, a difference of 7.8%), single father poverty (19.0% compared to 17.1%, a difference of 10.8%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 9.2%, a difference of 15.6%).
Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Poverty
Poverty MetricChickasawLuxembourger
Poverty
Tragic
14.7%
Exceptional
10.6%
Families
Tragic
10.8%
Exceptional
7.2%
Males
Tragic
13.5%
Exceptional
9.5%
Females
Tragic
15.9%
Exceptional
11.6%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
24.5%
Tragic
20.9%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
17.0%
Exceptional
12.1%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
21.8%
Exceptional
14.9%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.5%
Exceptional
13.6%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.8%
Exceptional
13.8%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
19.6%
Exceptional
14.3%
Single Males
Tragic
16.3%
Tragic
13.4%
Single Females
Tragic
26.3%
Excellent
20.4%
Single Fathers
Tragic
19.0%
Tragic
17.1%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.4%
Excellent
28.5%
Married Couples
Tragic
5.8%
Exceptional
3.9%
Seniors Over 65 years
Good
10.7%
Exceptional
9.2%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
11.6%
Exceptional
10.8%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
13.1%
Exceptional
9.1%

Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.0% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 35.2%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.2% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 28.9%), and female unemployment (5.1% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 16.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.2% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 0.45%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.3% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 1.0%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.6% compared to 8.3%, a difference of 3.7%).
Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Unemployment
Unemployment MetricChickasawLuxembourger
Unemployment
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.3%
Males
Excellent
5.2%
Exceptional
4.5%
Females
Excellent
5.1%
Exceptional
4.4%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.2%
Exceptional
10.0%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
16.7%
Exceptional
15.1%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.9%
Exceptional
9.1%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Fair
6.7%
Exceptional
6.2%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.2%
Exceptional
4.8%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
4.9%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Good
4.8%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
4.7%
Exceptional
5.2%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.4%
Exceptional
4.8%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.3%
Exceptional
7.7%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
9.0%
Exceptional
6.6%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.6%
Exceptional
8.3%
Women w/ Children < 18
Good
5.4%
Exceptional
5.0%

Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 45.3%, a difference of 18.2%), in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 7.5%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (76.2% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 7.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 86.6%, a difference of 5.8%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 6.0%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 86.9%, a difference of 6.1%).
Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricChickasawLuxembourger
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
62.3%
Exceptional
66.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
76.2%
Exceptional
81.9%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.3%
Exceptional
45.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Poor
74.5%
Exceptional
79.0%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
81.9%
Exceptional
86.9%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
81.9%
Exceptional
86.6%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
80.9%
Exceptional
86.4%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
79.0%
Exceptional
85.0%

Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (7.0% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 26.7%), divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 25.2%), and single father households (2.8% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 23.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.4% compared to 63.3%, a difference of 1.8%), average family size (3.19 compared to 3.10, a difference of 2.8%), and family households with children (28.2% compared to 27.0%, a difference of 4.4%).
Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Family Structure
Family Structure MetricChickasawLuxembourger
Family Households
Good
64.4%
Tragic
63.3%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.2%
Tragic
27.0%
Married-couple Households
Fair
45.9%
Exceptional
48.5%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.19
Tragic
3.10
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.8%
Exceptional
2.2%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.0%
Exceptional
5.6%
Currently Married
Average
46.6%
Exceptional
49.3%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
14.2%
Exceptional
11.3%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
36.3%
Exceptional
29.4%

Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 46.7%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 12.3%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 20.9%, a difference of 6.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 59.1%, a difference of 0.11%), 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 94.8%, a difference of 2.7%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 20.9%, a difference of 6.3%).
Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricChickasawLuxembourger
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.9%
Exceptional
5.4%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
92.3%
Exceptional
94.8%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.0%
Exceptional
59.1%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
22.2%
Exceptional
20.9%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.4%
Excellent
6.6%

Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.4% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 37.3%), master's degree (11.4% compared to 15.3%, a difference of 34.4%), and bachelor's degree (30.4% compared to 39.8%, a difference of 30.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (98.4% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.12%), 1st grade (98.3% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.12%), and nursery school (98.4% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.13%).
Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Education Level
Education Level MetricChickasawLuxembourger
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.7%
Exceptional
1.6%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.5%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.4%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.3%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Exceptional
98.2%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.7%
Exceptional
97.2%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Exceptional
97.0%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.5%
Exceptional
96.3%
10th Grade
Excellent
94.1%
Exceptional
95.4%
11th Grade
Fair
92.3%
Exceptional
94.5%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
90.3%
Exceptional
93.3%
High School Diploma
Poor
88.4%
Exceptional
91.7%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
83.8%
Exceptional
88.6%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
60.4%
Exceptional
68.2%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.3%
Exceptional
62.1%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
38.6%
Exceptional
48.9%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.4%
Excellent
39.8%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.4%
Good
15.3%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.4%
Good
4.6%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Excellent
1.9%

Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (3.2% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 64.0%), disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 10.6%, a difference of 52.2%), and ambulatory disability (8.0% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 43.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 12.9%), disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 44.8%, a difference of 14.2%), and disability age 5 to 17 (6.8% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 29.8%).
Chickasaw vs Luxembourger Disability
Disability MetricChickasawLuxembourger
Disability
Tragic
15.2%
Exceptional
11.3%
Males
Tragic
15.1%
Good
11.1%
Females
Tragic
15.2%
Exceptional
11.6%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.7%
Tragic
1.3%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.8%
Exceptional
5.3%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.0%
Tragic
6.9%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.1%
Exceptional
10.6%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
30.2%
Exceptional
21.4%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
51.2%
Exceptional
44.8%
Vision
Tragic
3.2%
Exceptional
1.9%
Hearing
Tragic
4.5%
Tragic
3.2%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.5%
Exceptional
16.4%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.0%
Exceptional
5.6%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.9%
Exceptional
2.2%