Chickasaw vs New Zealander Community Comparison

COMPARE

Chickasaw
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNicaraguanNigerianNorthern 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
New Zealander
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

New Zealanders

Fair
Excellent
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
8,769
SOCIAL INDEX
85.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
50th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

New Zealander Integration in Chickasaw Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 66,993,992 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of New Zealanders within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.450. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.045% in New Zealanders. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 44.8 New Zealanders.
Chickasaw Integration in New Zealander Communities

Chickasaw vs New Zealander Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and New Zealander communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($36,475 compared to $50,575, a difference of 38.7%), median household income ($70,005 compared to $95,146, a difference of 35.9%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($82,193 compared to $111,286, a difference of 35.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 2.0%), householder income under 25 years ($44,763 compared to $53,294, a difference of 19.1%), and median female earnings ($34,414 compared to $42,446, a difference of 23.3%).
Chickasaw vs New Zealander Income
Income MetricChickasawNew Zealander
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$36,475
Exceptional
$50,575
Median Family Income
Tragic
$85,356
Exceptional
$115,230
Median Household Income
Tragic
$70,005
Exceptional
$95,146
Median Earnings
Tragic
$40,672
Exceptional
$51,246
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$47,832
Exceptional
$61,199
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$34,414
Exceptional
$42,446
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$44,763
Exceptional
$53,294
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$77,929
Exceptional
$105,085
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$82,193
Exceptional
$111,286
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$53,732
Exceptional
$67,333
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.2%
Tragic
27.7%

Chickasaw vs New Zealander Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and New Zealander communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (10.8% compared to 8.1%, a difference of 34.1%), receiving food stamps (13.1% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 32.0%), and child poverty under the age of 5 (21.8% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 31.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 0.80%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 6.7%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (24.5% compared to 21.7%, a difference of 12.8%).
Chickasaw vs New Zealander Poverty
Poverty MetricChickasawNew Zealander
Poverty
Tragic
14.7%
Excellent
11.7%
Families
Tragic
10.8%
Exceptional
8.1%
Males
Tragic
13.5%
Excellent
10.8%
Females
Tragic
15.9%
Exceptional
12.7%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
24.5%
Tragic
21.7%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
17.0%
Excellent
13.1%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
21.8%
Good
16.6%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.5%
Excellent
15.3%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.8%
Excellent
15.7%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
19.6%
Excellent
15.6%
Single Males
Tragic
16.3%
Poor
13.2%
Single Females
Tragic
26.3%
Average
21.0%
Single Fathers
Tragic
19.0%
Poor
16.6%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.4%
Average
29.1%
Married Couples
Tragic
5.8%
Exceptional
4.4%
Seniors Over 65 years
Good
10.7%
Exceptional
10.0%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
11.6%
Excellent
11.7%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
13.1%
Exceptional
9.9%

Chickasaw vs New Zealander Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and New Zealander communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.0% compared to 7.2%, a difference of 25.1%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.2% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 16.7%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.4% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 15.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.2% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 0.21%), unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (9.9% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 0.29%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.6% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 0.44%).
Chickasaw vs New Zealander Unemployment
Unemployment MetricChickasawNew Zealander
Unemployment
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.9%
Males
Excellent
5.2%
Exceptional
5.0%
Females
Excellent
5.1%
Exceptional
5.0%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.2%
Exceptional
11.2%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
16.7%
Exceptional
16.8%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.9%
Exceptional
9.9%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Fair
6.7%
Exceptional
6.0%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.2%
Excellent
5.3%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
4.9%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Exceptional
4.4%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Good
4.8%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Poor
4.9%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
4.7%
Good
5.3%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.4%
Excellent
5.1%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.3%
Exceptional
8.1%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
9.0%
Exceptional
7.2%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.6%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Good
5.4%
Good
5.3%

Chickasaw vs New Zealander Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and New Zealander communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age > 16 (62.3% compared to 65.7%, a difference of 5.5%), in labor force | age 20-64 (76.2% compared to 79.7%, a difference of 4.6%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 82.6%, a difference of 4.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 38.0%, a difference of 0.90%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 75.2%, a difference of 1.0%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 3.8%).
Chickasaw vs New Zealander Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricChickasawNew Zealander
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
62.3%
Exceptional
65.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
76.2%
Good
79.7%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.3%
Exceptional
38.0%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Poor
74.5%
Good
75.2%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
81.9%
Exceptional
85.0%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
81.9%
Excellent
85.0%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
80.9%
Poor
84.1%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
79.0%
Fair
82.6%

Chickasaw vs New Zealander Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and New Zealander communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.8% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 31.6%), single mother households (7.0% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 25.4%), and divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 19.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.19 compared to 3.15, a difference of 1.1%), currently married (46.6% compared to 47.4%, a difference of 1.7%), and family households (64.4% compared to 62.9%, a difference of 2.4%).
Chickasaw vs New Zealander Family Structure
Family Structure MetricChickasawNew Zealander
Family Households
Good
64.4%
Tragic
62.9%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.2%
Tragic
27.1%
Married-couple Households
Fair
45.9%
Excellent
47.2%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.19
Tragic
3.15
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.8%
Exceptional
2.1%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.0%
Exceptional
5.6%
Currently Married
Average
46.6%
Excellent
47.4%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
14.2%
Excellent
11.9%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
36.3%
Excellent
30.3%

Chickasaw vs New Zealander Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and New Zealander communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 29.6%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 14.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 20.4%, a difference of 9.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 90.1%, a difference of 2.5%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 56.7%, a difference of 4.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 20.4%, a difference of 9.0%).
Chickasaw vs New Zealander Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricChickasawNew Zealander
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.9%
Good
10.2%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
92.3%
Good
90.1%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.0%
Exceptional
56.7%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
22.2%
Exceptional
20.4%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.4%
Good
6.5%

Chickasaw vs New Zealander Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and New Zealander communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.4% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 77.2%), doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 2.5%, a difference of 65.9%), and master's degree (11.4% compared to 18.3%, a difference of 60.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 2nd grade (98.3% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.020%), 3rd grade (98.2% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.020%), and nursery school (98.4% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.030%).
Chickasaw vs New Zealander Education Level
Education Level MetricChickasawNew Zealander
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.7%
Exceptional
1.7%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.4%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.4%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.4%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.3%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.2%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Exceptional
98.0%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Exceptional
97.9%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Exceptional
97.7%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.7%
Exceptional
96.8%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Exceptional
96.6%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.5%
Exceptional
95.9%
10th Grade
Excellent
94.1%
Exceptional
95.0%
11th Grade
Fair
92.3%
Exceptional
94.0%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
90.3%
Exceptional
92.8%
High School Diploma
Poor
88.4%
Exceptional
91.1%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
83.8%
Exceptional
88.0%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
60.4%
Exceptional
70.2%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.3%
Exceptional
64.6%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
38.6%
Exceptional
51.8%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.4%
Exceptional
44.0%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.4%
Exceptional
18.3%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.4%
Exceptional
6.0%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Exceptional
2.5%

Chickasaw vs New Zealander Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and New Zealander communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (3.2% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 51.5%), disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 46.9%), and disability age under 5 (1.7% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 45.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 17.4%, a difference of 6.0%), disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 46.2%, a difference of 10.9%), and self-care disability (2.9% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 23.8%).
Chickasaw vs New Zealander Disability
Disability MetricChickasawNew Zealander
Disability
Tragic
15.2%
Excellent
11.5%
Males
Tragic
15.1%
Average
11.2%
Females
Tragic
15.2%
Exceptional
11.7%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.7%
Excellent
1.2%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.8%
Exceptional
5.4%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.0%
Tragic
7.0%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.1%
Good
11.0%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
30.2%
Good
22.9%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
51.2%
Exceptional
46.2%
Vision
Tragic
3.2%
Excellent
2.1%
Hearing
Tragic
4.5%
Tragic
3.2%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.5%
Fair
17.4%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.0%
Exceptional
5.8%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.9%
Exceptional
2.3%