Chickasaw vs Serbian 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)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseShoshoneSierra 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
Serbian
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

Serbians

Fair
Excellent
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
8,746
SOCIAL INDEX
84.9/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
53rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Serbian Integration in Chickasaw Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 105,355,348 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Serbians within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.390. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.088% in Serbians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 88.4 Serbians.
Chickasaw Integration in Serbian Communities

Chickasaw vs Serbian Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Serbian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($36,475 compared to $46,551, a difference of 27.6%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $98,320, a difference of 26.2%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($82,193 compared to $103,522, a difference of 26.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 1.9%), householder income over 65 years ($53,732 compared to $61,087, a difference of 13.7%), and householder income under 25 years ($44,763 compared to $51,106, a difference of 14.2%).
Chickasaw vs Serbian Income
Income MetricChickasawSerbian
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$36,475
Exceptional
$46,551
Median Family Income
Tragic
$85,356
Exceptional
$107,157
Median Household Income
Tragic
$70,005
Excellent
$87,572
Median Earnings
Tragic
$40,672
Exceptional
$48,677
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$47,832
Exceptional
$57,975
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$34,414
Excellent
$40,539
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$44,763
Tragic
$51,106
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$77,929
Excellent
$98,320
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$82,193
Excellent
$103,522
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$53,732
Average
$61,087
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.2%
Tragic
27.7%

Chickasaw vs Serbian Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Serbian communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (10.8% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 36.3%), married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 34.6%), and child poverty under the age of 5 (21.8% compared to 16.3%, a difference of 33.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 11.1%, a difference of 4.5%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 9.0%), and single father poverty (19.0% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 15.9%).
Chickasaw vs Serbian Poverty
Poverty MetricChickasawSerbian
Poverty
Tragic
14.7%
Exceptional
11.2%
Families
Tragic
10.8%
Exceptional
8.0%
Males
Tragic
13.5%
Exceptional
10.2%
Females
Tragic
15.9%
Exceptional
12.3%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
24.5%
Exceptional
19.1%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
17.0%
Excellent
13.0%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
21.8%
Excellent
16.3%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.5%
Exceptional
14.8%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.8%
Exceptional
15.1%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
19.6%
Exceptional
15.1%
Single Males
Tragic
16.3%
Excellent
12.5%
Single Females
Tragic
26.3%
Exceptional
20.1%
Single Fathers
Tragic
19.0%
Average
16.4%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.4%
Excellent
28.6%
Married Couples
Tragic
5.8%
Exceptional
4.3%
Seniors Over 65 years
Good
10.7%
Exceptional
9.8%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
11.6%
Exceptional
11.1%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
13.1%
Exceptional
10.3%

Chickasaw vs Serbian Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Serbian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.0% compared to 7.3%, a difference of 23.0%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.2% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 15.5%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.3% compared to 8.4%, a difference of 14.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (16.7% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 0.070%), unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (9.9% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 0.94%), and unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.2% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 0.98%).
Chickasaw vs Serbian Unemployment
Unemployment MetricChickasawSerbian
Unemployment
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.9%
Males
Excellent
5.2%
Exceptional
5.1%
Females
Excellent
5.1%
Exceptional
4.9%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.2%
Exceptional
11.0%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
16.7%
Exceptional
16.7%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.9%
Exceptional
9.8%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Fair
6.7%
Exceptional
6.4%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.2%
Good
5.4%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
4.9%
Exceptional
4.4%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Good
4.8%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
4.7%
Exceptional
5.2%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.4%
Exceptional
5.0%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.3%
Exceptional
8.4%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
9.0%
Exceptional
7.3%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.6%
Excellent
8.8%
Women w/ Children < 18
Good
5.4%
Exceptional
5.1%

Chickasaw vs Serbian Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Serbian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 83.4%, a difference of 5.5%), in labor force | age 20-64 (76.2% compared to 80.3%, a difference of 5.3%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (80.9% compared to 85.1%, a difference of 5.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 77.3%, a difference of 3.8%), in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 39.9%, a difference of 4.2%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 85.5%, a difference of 4.4%).
Chickasaw vs Serbian Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricChickasawSerbian
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
62.3%
Good
65.2%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
76.2%
Exceptional
80.3%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.3%
Exceptional
39.9%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Poor
74.5%
Exceptional
77.3%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
81.9%
Exceptional
85.5%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
81.9%
Exceptional
85.8%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
80.9%
Exceptional
85.1%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
79.0%
Exceptional
83.4%

Chickasaw vs Serbian Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Serbian communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.8% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 25.6%), single mother households (7.0% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 23.0%), and births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 30.7%, a difference of 18.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.4% compared to 63.0%, a difference of 2.1%), average family size (3.19 compared to 3.12, a difference of 2.1%), and married-couple households (45.9% compared to 47.0%, a difference of 2.3%).
Chickasaw vs Serbian Family Structure
Family Structure MetricChickasawSerbian
Family Households
Good
64.4%
Tragic
63.0%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.2%
Tragic
26.4%
Married-couple Households
Fair
45.9%
Good
47.0%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.19
Tragic
3.12
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.8%
Exceptional
2.2%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.0%
Exceptional
5.7%
Currently Married
Average
46.6%
Exceptional
47.8%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
14.2%
Average
12.0%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
36.3%
Good
30.7%

Chickasaw vs Serbian Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Serbian communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 6.0%, a difference of 24.1%), no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 9.4%, a difference of 19.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 19.1%, a difference of 16.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 90.7%, a difference of 1.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 56.1%, a difference of 5.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 19.1%, a difference of 16.4%).
Chickasaw vs Serbian Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricChickasawSerbian
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.9%
Exceptional
9.4%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
92.3%
Exceptional
90.7%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.0%
Excellent
56.1%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
22.2%
Fair
19.1%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.4%
Poor
6.0%

Chickasaw vs Serbian Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Serbian communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.4% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 43.1%), master's degree (11.4% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 40.7%), and bachelor's degree (30.4% compared to 40.1%, a difference of 32.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.4% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.0%), kindergarten (98.4% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.0%), and 1st grade (98.3% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.0%).
Chickasaw vs Serbian Education Level
Education Level MetricChickasawSerbian
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
98.3%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.3%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.2%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Exceptional
98.1%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Exceptional
97.9%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Exceptional
97.7%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.7%
Exceptional
97.0%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Exceptional
96.7%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.5%
Exceptional
96.0%
10th Grade
Excellent
94.1%
Exceptional
95.1%
11th Grade
Fair
92.3%
Exceptional
94.1%
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
87.9%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
60.4%
Exceptional
67.4%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.3%
Exceptional
61.4%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
38.6%
Exceptional
48.5%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.4%
Exceptional
40.1%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.4%
Exceptional
16.1%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.4%
Exceptional
4.8%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Excellent
2.0%

Chickasaw vs Serbian Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Serbian communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (3.2% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 48.8%), disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 45.9%), and hearing disability (4.5% compared to 3.3%, a difference of 37.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 10.8%), disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 46.1%, a difference of 11.0%), and self-care disability (2.9% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 19.7%).
Chickasaw vs Serbian Disability
Disability MetricChickasawSerbian
Disability
Tragic
15.2%
Poor
11.9%
Males
Tragic
15.1%
Poor
11.5%
Females
Tragic
15.2%
Fair
12.3%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.7%
Tragic
1.3%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.8%
Average
5.6%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.0%
Tragic
6.9%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.1%
Good
11.0%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
30.2%
Exceptional
22.3%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
51.2%
Exceptional
46.1%
Vision
Tragic
3.2%
Good
2.1%
Hearing
Tragic
4.5%
Tragic
3.3%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.5%
Exceptional
16.7%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.0%
Average
6.1%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.9%
Exceptional
2.4%