Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Community Comparison

COMPARE

Chickasaw
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAmericanApacheArabArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYup'ik
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
Zimbabwean
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

Zimbabweans

Fair
Exceptional
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,358
SOCIAL INDEX
91.0/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
18th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Zimbabwean Integration in Chickasaw Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 48,391,058 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Zimbabweans within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.016. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.004% in Zimbabweans. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to a decrease of 4.2 Zimbabweans.
Chickasaw Integration in Zimbabwean Communities

Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($82,193 compared to $106,849, a difference of 30.0%), median household income ($70,005 compared to $90,618, a difference of 29.4%), and median family income ($85,356 compared to $110,011, a difference of 28.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 26.3%, a difference of 3.2%), householder income under 25 years ($44,763 compared to $51,259, a difference of 14.5%), and median male earnings ($47,832 compared to $56,302, a difference of 17.7%).
Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Income
Income MetricChickasawZimbabwean
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$36,475
Exceptional
$45,804
Median Family Income
Tragic
$85,356
Exceptional
$110,011
Median Household Income
Tragic
$70,005
Exceptional
$90,618
Median Earnings
Tragic
$40,672
Exceptional
$48,229
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$47,832
Excellent
$56,302
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$34,414
Exceptional
$40,798
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$44,763
Tragic
$51,259
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$77,929
Exceptional
$98,586
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$82,193
Exceptional
$106,849
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$53,732
Exceptional
$65,854
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.2%
Fair
26.3%

Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in female poverty among 25-34 year olds (17.0% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 45.9%), child poverty under the age of 5 (21.8% compared to 15.2%, a difference of 43.7%), and married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 4.1%, a difference of 41.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 11.2%, a difference of 4.3%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 9.6%, a difference of 11.2%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (24.5% compared to 20.4%, a difference of 19.8%).
Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Poverty
Poverty MetricChickasawZimbabwean
Poverty
Tragic
14.7%
Exceptional
11.3%
Families
Tragic
10.8%
Exceptional
7.8%
Males
Tragic
13.5%
Exceptional
10.2%
Females
Tragic
15.9%
Exceptional
12.3%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
24.5%
Fair
20.4%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
17.0%
Exceptional
11.7%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
21.8%
Exceptional
15.2%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.5%
Exceptional
14.2%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.8%
Exceptional
14.3%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
19.6%
Exceptional
14.4%
Single Males
Tragic
16.3%
Poor
13.1%
Single Females
Tragic
26.3%
Exceptional
19.5%
Single Fathers
Tragic
19.0%
Exceptional
15.6%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.4%
Exceptional
27.9%
Married Couples
Tragic
5.8%
Exceptional
4.1%
Seniors Over 65 years
Good
10.7%
Exceptional
9.6%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
11.6%
Exceptional
11.2%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
13.1%
Exceptional
9.5%

Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.2% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 28.3%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.4% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 26.2%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.7% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 26.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.6% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 0.52%), unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.2% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 0.95%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.3% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 3.4%).
Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Unemployment
Unemployment MetricChickasawZimbabwean
Unemployment
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.8%
Males
Excellent
5.2%
Exceptional
4.8%
Females
Excellent
5.1%
Exceptional
4.8%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.2%
Exceptional
10.2%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
16.7%
Exceptional
15.4%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.9%
Exceptional
9.2%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Fair
6.7%
Exceptional
6.4%
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
4.2%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
4.7%
Tragic
5.9%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.4%
Tragic
5.6%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.3%
Average
8.7%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
9.0%
Exceptional
7.3%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.6%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Good
5.4%
Exceptional
5.1%

Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age > 16 (62.3% compared to 67.3%, a difference of 8.0%), in labor force | age 35-44 (80.9% compared to 86.1%, a difference of 6.4%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 84.0%, a difference of 6.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 38.7%, a difference of 1.0%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 75.6%, a difference of 1.5%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 84.5%, a difference of 3.2%).
Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricChickasawZimbabwean
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
62.3%
Exceptional
67.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
76.2%
Exceptional
81.0%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.3%
Exceptional
38.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Poor
74.5%
Excellent
75.6%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
81.9%
Fair
84.5%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
81.9%
Exceptional
85.6%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
80.9%
Exceptional
86.1%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
79.0%
Exceptional
84.0%

Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 28.7%, a difference of 26.5%), single father households (2.8% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 24.5%), and divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 22.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.19 compared to 3.20, a difference of 0.38%), family households (64.4% compared to 64.1%, a difference of 0.53%), and currently married (46.6% compared to 47.0%, a difference of 0.86%).
Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Family Structure
Family Structure MetricChickasawZimbabwean
Family Households
Good
64.4%
Fair
64.1%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.2%
Exceptional
27.9%
Married-couple Households
Fair
45.9%
Excellent
47.4%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.19
Poor
3.20
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.8%
Exceptional
2.2%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.0%
Excellent
6.1%
Currently Married
Average
46.6%
Good
47.0%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
14.2%
Exceptional
11.6%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
36.3%
Exceptional
28.7%

Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 15.5%), no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 15.0%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 20.3%, a difference of 9.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 91.0%, a difference of 1.4%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 57.2%, a difference of 3.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 20.3%, a difference of 9.6%).
Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricChickasawZimbabwean
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.9%
Exceptional
9.0%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
92.3%
Exceptional
91.0%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.0%
Exceptional
57.2%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
22.2%
Excellent
20.3%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.4%
Good
6.4%

Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in master's degree (11.4% compared to 17.7%, a difference of 55.2%), professional degree (3.4% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 54.6%), and doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 50.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 6th grade (97.6% compared to 97.6%, a difference of 0.050%), 5th grade (97.9% compared to 97.8%, a difference of 0.060%), and 7th grade (96.7% compared to 96.8%, a difference of 0.060%).
Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Education Level
Education Level MetricChickasawZimbabwean
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.7%
Exceptional
1.7%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.3%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.3%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.3%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.2%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.1%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Exceptional
97.9%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Exceptional
97.8%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Exceptional
97.6%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.7%
Exceptional
96.8%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Exceptional
96.5%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.5%
Exceptional
95.9%
10th Grade
Excellent
94.1%
Exceptional
94.9%
11th Grade
Fair
92.3%
Exceptional
93.9%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
90.3%
Exceptional
92.7%
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
69.9%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.3%
Exceptional
64.2%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
38.6%
Exceptional
51.3%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.4%
Exceptional
43.3%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.4%
Exceptional
17.7%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.4%
Exceptional
5.2%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Exceptional
2.3%

Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Zimbabwean communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (3.2% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 62.0%), hearing disability (4.5% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 57.6%), and disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 54.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 17.6%, a difference of 5.0%), disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 48.1%, a difference of 6.5%), and disability age 5 to 17 (6.8% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 23.2%).
Chickasaw vs Zimbabwean Disability
Disability MetricChickasawZimbabwean
Disability
Tragic
15.2%
Exceptional
10.9%
Males
Tragic
15.1%
Exceptional
10.6%
Females
Tragic
15.2%
Exceptional
11.3%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.7%
Exceptional
1.2%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.8%
Good
5.5%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.0%
Good
6.5%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.1%
Exceptional
10.4%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
30.2%
Exceptional
21.5%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
51.2%
Tragic
48.1%
Vision
Tragic
3.2%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
4.5%
Excellent
2.8%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.5%
Tragic
17.6%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.0%
Exceptional
5.4%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.9%
Exceptional
2.2%