Chickasaw vs Uruguayan Community Comparison
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Uruguayan
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Chickasaw
Uruguayans
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
4,949
SOCIAL INDEX
47.0/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
188th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Uruguayan Integration in Chickasaw Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 71,253,248 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Uruguayans within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.225. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.133% in Uruguayans. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 133.2 Uruguayans.
Chickasaw vs Uruguayan Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Uruguayan communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($36,475 compared to $44,318, a difference of 21.5%), median household income ($70,005 compared to $84,691, a difference of 21.0%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $93,631, a difference of 20.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 25.2%, a difference of 8.0%), householder income over 65 years ($53,732 compared to $59,090, a difference of 10.0%), and median male earnings ($47,832 compared to $53,680, a difference of 12.2%).
Income Metric | Chickasaw | Uruguayan |
Per Capita Income | Tragic $36,475 | Good $44,318 |
Median Family Income | Tragic $85,356 | Fair $100,656 |
Median Household Income | Tragic $70,005 | Average $84,691 |
Median Earnings | Tragic $40,672 | Average $46,190 |
Median Male Earnings | Tragic $47,832 | Fair $53,680 |
Median Female Earnings | Tragic $34,414 | Fair $39,228 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Tragic $44,763 | Good $52,465 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Tragic $77,929 | Fair $93,631 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Tragic $82,193 | Fair $98,660 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Tragic $53,732 | Poor $59,090 |
Wage/Income Gap | Tragic 27.2% | Excellent 25.2% |
Chickasaw vs Uruguayan Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Uruguayan communities in the United States are seen in single male poverty (16.3% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 36.6%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (24.5% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 30.2%), and single female poverty (26.3% compared to 20.2%, a difference of 30.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 7.5%), receiving food stamps (13.1% compared to 11.8%, a difference of 10.7%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 12.1%, a difference of 13.2%).
Poverty Metric | Chickasaw | Uruguayan |
Poverty | Tragic 14.7% | Average 12.4% |
Families | Tragic 10.8% | Fair 9.1% |
Males | Tragic 13.5% | Average 11.2% |
Females | Tragic 15.9% | Fair 13.6% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Tragic 24.5% | Exceptional 18.8% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Tragic 17.0% | Good 13.3% |
Children Under 5 years | Tragic 21.8% | Good 17.0% |
Children Under 16 years | Tragic 19.5% | Average 16.1% |
Boys Under 16 years | Tragic 19.8% | Average 16.4% |
Girls Under 16 years | Tragic 19.6% | Good 16.2% |
Single Males | Tragic 16.3% | Exceptional 11.9% |
Single Females | Tragic 26.3% | Exceptional 20.2% |
Single Fathers | Tragic 19.0% | Exceptional 15.9% |
Single Mothers | Tragic 34.4% | Exceptional 28.3% |
Married Couples | Tragic 5.8% | Fair 5.4% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Good 10.7% | Tragic 12.1% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Exceptional 11.6% | Tragic 13.5% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Tragic 13.1% | Average 11.8% |
Chickasaw vs Uruguayan Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Uruguayan communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.2% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 19.9%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.0% compared to 7.5%, a difference of 19.4%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.4% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 18.6%). 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 0.41%), male unemployment (5.2% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 1.5%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.9% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 2.5%).
Unemployment Metric | Chickasaw | Uruguayan |
Unemployment | Exceptional 5.0% | Good 5.2% |
Males | Excellent 5.2% | Exceptional 5.1% |
Females | Excellent 5.1% | Poor 5.4% |
Youth < 25 | Exceptional 11.2% | Good 11.5% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Exceptional 16.7% | Good 17.5% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Exceptional 9.9% | Excellent 10.2% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Fair 6.7% | Exceptional 6.4% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Tragic 6.2% | Exceptional 5.2% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Tragic 4.9% | Fair 4.8% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Exceptional 4.2% | Good 4.5% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Good 4.8% | Average 4.8% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Exceptional 4.3% | Poor 4.9% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Exceptional 4.7% | Tragic 5.5% |
Seniors > 65 | Exceptional 4.4% | Poor 5.2% |
Seniors > 75 | Exceptional 7.3% | Exceptional 7.9% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Tragic 9.0% | Good 7.5% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Exceptional 8.6% | Tragic 9.3% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Good 5.4% | Tragic 5.9% |
Chickasaw vs Uruguayan Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Uruguayan communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 34.9%, a difference of 9.8%), in labor force | age > 16 (62.3% compared to 65.9%, a difference of 5.8%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 83.1%, 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 0.16%), in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 84.9%, a difference of 3.6%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 84.9%, a difference of 3.7%).
Labor Participation Metric | Chickasaw | Uruguayan |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Tragic 62.3% | Exceptional 65.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Tragic 76.2% | Exceptional 80.1% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Exceptional 38.3% | Tragic 34.9% |
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% | Good 84.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Tragic 80.9% | Exceptional 84.7% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Tragic 79.0% | Excellent 83.1% |
Chickasaw vs Uruguayan Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Uruguayan communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 15.9%), divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 12.4%, a difference of 14.5%), and births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 33.1%, a difference of 9.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.4% compared to 64.5%, a difference of 0.090%), married-couple households (45.9% compared to 45.5%, a difference of 0.89%), and average family size (3.19 compared to 3.23, a difference of 1.4%).
Family Structure Metric | Chickasaw | Uruguayan |
Family Households | Good 64.4% | Good 64.5% |
Family Households with Children | Exceptional 28.2% | Excellent 27.7% |
Married-couple Households | Fair 45.9% | Poor 45.5% |
Average Family Size | Tragic 3.19 | Average 3.23 |
Single Father Households | Tragic 2.8% | Fair 2.4% |
Single Mother Households | Tragic 7.0% | Poor 6.6% |
Currently Married | Average 46.6% | Tragic 45.6% |
Divorced or Separated | Tragic 14.2% | Tragic 12.4% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Tragic 36.3% | Poor 33.1% |
Chickasaw vs Uruguayan Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Uruguayan communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 43.5%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 32.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 17.8%, a difference of 24.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 88.8%, a difference of 3.9%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 52.7%, a difference of 12.0%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 17.8%, a difference of 24.7%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Chickasaw | Uruguayan |
No Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.9% | Tragic 11.3% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 92.3% | Tragic 88.8% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 59.0% | Tragic 52.7% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 22.2% | Tragic 17.8% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.4% | Tragic 5.6% |
Chickasaw vs Uruguayan Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Uruguayan communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.4% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 37.8%), master's degree (11.4% compared to 15.3%, a difference of 33.6%), and no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 32.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (90.3% compared to 90.4%, a difference of 0.13%), high school diploma (88.4% compared to 88.2%, a difference of 0.26%), and nursery school (98.4% compared to 97.8%, a difference of 0.61%).
Education Level Metric | Chickasaw | Uruguayan |
No Schooling Completed | Exceptional 1.7% | Poor 2.2% |
Nursery School | Exceptional 98.4% | Tragic 97.8% |
Kindergarten | Exceptional 98.4% | Tragic 97.8% |
1st Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Tragic 97.7% |
2nd Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Tragic 97.7% |
3rd Grade | Exceptional 98.2% | Tragic 97.5% |
4th Grade | Exceptional 98.0% | Tragic 97.2% |
5th Grade | Exceptional 97.9% | Tragic 97.0% |
6th Grade | Exceptional 97.6% | Tragic 96.6% |
7th Grade | Exceptional 96.7% | Tragic 95.4% |
8th Grade | Exceptional 96.4% | Tragic 95.1% |
9th Grade | Exceptional 95.5% | Tragic 94.1% |
10th Grade | Excellent 94.1% | Tragic 92.9% |
11th Grade | Fair 92.3% | Tragic 91.8% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Tragic 90.3% | Tragic 90.4% |
High School Diploma | Poor 88.4% | Tragic 88.2% |
GED/Equivalency | Tragic 83.8% | Poor 85.0% |
College, Under 1 year | Tragic 60.4% | Poor 64.2% |
College, 1 year or more | Tragic 53.3% | Fair 58.8% |
Associate's Degree | Tragic 38.6% | Average 46.5% |
Bachelor's Degree | Tragic 30.4% | Good 38.4% |
Master's Degree | Tragic 11.4% | Good 15.3% |
Professional Degree | Tragic 3.4% | Excellent 4.6% |
Doctorate Degree | Tragic 1.5% | Fair 1.8% |
Chickasaw vs Uruguayan Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Uruguayan communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (4.5% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 61.4%), disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 57.3%), and vision disability (3.2% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 46.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 16.8%, a difference of 9.8%), disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 46.2%, a difference of 10.7%), and self-care disability (2.9% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 19.3%).
Disability Metric | Chickasaw | Uruguayan |
Disability | Tragic 15.2% | Exceptional 11.2% |
Males | Tragic 15.1% | Exceptional 10.7% |
Females | Tragic 15.2% | Exceptional 11.7% |
Age | Under 5 years | Tragic 1.7% | Good 1.2% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Tragic 6.8% | Average 5.6% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Tragic 9.0% | Exceptional 6.2% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Tragic 16.1% | Exceptional 10.2% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 30.2% | Exceptional 22.2% |
Age | Over 75 years | Tragic 51.2% | Exceptional 46.2% |
Vision | Tragic 3.2% | Average 2.2% |
Hearing | Tragic 4.5% | Exceptional 2.8% |
Cognitive | Tragic 18.5% | Exceptional 16.8% |
Ambulatory | Tragic 8.0% | Exceptional 5.8% |
Self-Care | Tragic 2.9% | Exceptional 2.4% |