Pima vs Chickasaw Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 48,064,971 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Pima communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.116. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Pima within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.048% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Pima corresponds to an increase of 47.9 Chickasaw.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Pima and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (21.1% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 28.7%), per capita income ($30,644 compared to $36,475, a difference of 19.0%), and householder income under 25 years ($51,503 compared to $44,763, a difference of 15.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median female earnings ($35,326 compared to $34,414, a difference of 2.6%), median earnings ($38,285 compared to $40,672, a difference of 6.2%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($82,821 compared to $77,929, a difference of 6.3%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Pima and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 75 (23.9% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 105.2%), married-couple family poverty (11.4% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 97.0%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (19.8% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 85.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single mother poverty (38.6% compared to 34.4%, a difference of 12.1%), single female poverty (30.3% compared to 26.3%, a difference of 15.5%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (28.4% compared to 24.5%, a difference of 16.1%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Pima and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (11.8% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 138.9%), unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (18.9% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 119.6%), and unemployment among women with children under 18 years (11.7% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 117.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.8% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 10.5%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (9.2% compared to 7.3%, a difference of 25.5%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (6.6% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 38.3%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Pima and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (34.1% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 12.4%), in labor force | age 20-64 (69.0% compared to 76.2%, a difference of 10.4%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (74.3% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 10.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (79.0% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 3.6%), in labor force | age 20-24 (69.0% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 7.9%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (74.8% compared to 80.9%, a difference of 8.1%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Pima and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in single father households (4.2% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 51.7%), births to unmarried women (51.5% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 41.8%), and currently married (35.9% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 29.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (65.9% compared to 64.4%, a difference of 2.4%), family households with children (27.1% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 4.1%), and divorced or separated (12.9% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 10.3%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Pima and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (14.1% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 79.8%), 2 or more vehicles in household (52.0% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 13.4%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (86.3% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 6.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (22.0% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 0.75%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 5.8%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (86.3% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 6.9%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Pima and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in bachelor's degree (23.2% compared to 30.4%, a difference of 31.0%), associate's degree (30.2% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 27.8%), and no schooling completed (2.1% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 24.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.2% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.15%), kindergarten (98.2% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.15%), and 1st grade (98.2% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.15%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Pima and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.1% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 64.0%), disability age 65 to 74 (38.6% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 27.8%), and hearing disability (3.7% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 20.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 0.20%), cognitive disability (18.8% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 1.6%), and ambulatory disability (8.2% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 2.6%).