Burmese vs Iroquois Community Comparison

COMPARE

Burmese
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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
Iroquois
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianCajunCambodianCanadianCape 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-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

Burmese

Iroquois

Exceptional
Fair
10,002
SOCIAL INDEX
97.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
4th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
2,526
SOCIAL INDEX
22.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
253rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Iroquois Integration in Burmese Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 194,723,607 people shows a moderate positive correlation between the proportion of Iroquois within Burmese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.459. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Burmese within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.008% in Iroquois. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Burmese corresponds to an increase of 8.0 Iroquois.
Burmese Integration in Iroquois Communities

Burmese vs Iroquois Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Burmese and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($121,444 compared to $87,255, a difference of 39.2%), median household income ($103,145 compared to $74,279, a difference of 38.9%), and median family income ($123,369 compared to $90,543, a difference of 36.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (28.0% compared to 25.1%, a difference of 11.7%), householder income under 25 years ($54,800 compared to $47,380, a difference of 15.7%), and median female earnings ($44,911 compared to $36,408, a difference of 23.4%).
Burmese vs Iroquois Income
Income MetricBurmeseIroquois
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$52,005
Tragic
$39,104
Median Family Income
Exceptional
$123,369
Tragic
$90,543
Median Household Income
Exceptional
$103,145
Tragic
$74,279
Median Earnings
Exceptional
$54,559
Tragic
$42,430
Median Male Earnings
Exceptional
$65,236
Tragic
$49,374
Median Female Earnings
Exceptional
$44,911
Tragic
$36,408
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Exceptional
$54,800
Tragic
$47,380
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Exceptional
$113,701
Tragic
$83,682
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Exceptional
$121,444
Tragic
$87,255
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Exceptional
$71,139
Tragic
$53,737
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
28.0%
Excellent
25.1%

Burmese vs Iroquois Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Burmese and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (13.2% compared to 22.0%, a difference of 66.3%), child poverty among girls under 16 (13.0% compared to 20.4%, a difference of 57.0%), and receiving food stamps (8.6% compared to 13.5%, a difference of 56.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (15.5% compared to 17.7%, a difference of 14.7%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.1% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 18.3%), and seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.7% compared to 14.0%, a difference of 20.0%).
Burmese vs Iroquois Poverty
Poverty MetricBurmeseIroquois
Poverty
Exceptional
10.7%
Tragic
14.5%
Families
Exceptional
7.3%
Tragic
10.7%
Males
Exceptional
9.7%
Tragic
13.2%
Females
Exceptional
11.6%
Tragic
15.8%
Females 18 to 24 years
Exceptional
18.9%
Tragic
22.9%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
11.2%
Tragic
17.5%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
13.2%
Tragic
22.0%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
12.8%
Tragic
19.9%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.0%
Tragic
19.6%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.0%
Tragic
20.4%
Single Males
Exceptional
11.7%
Tragic
14.5%
Single Females
Exceptional
18.3%
Tragic
25.7%
Single Fathers
Exceptional
15.5%
Tragic
17.7%
Single Mothers
Exceptional
26.2%
Tragic
34.8%
Married Couples
Exceptional
4.3%
Poor
5.5%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
10.1%
Tragic
11.9%
Seniors Over 75 years
Excellent
11.7%
Tragic
14.0%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
8.6%
Tragic
13.5%

Burmese vs Iroquois Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Burmese and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.5% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 34.9%), unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.2% compared to 7.5%, a difference of 21.5%), and unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.2% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 21.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among youth under 25 years (11.3% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 0.58%), unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.2% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 1.1%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.2% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 1.4%).
Burmese vs Iroquois Unemployment
Unemployment MetricBurmeseIroquois
Unemployment
Exceptional
4.9%
Poor
5.4%
Males
Exceptional
4.9%
Tragic
5.7%
Females
Exceptional
5.0%
Fair
5.4%
Youth < 25
Excellent
11.3%
Exceptional
11.3%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
17.0%
Average
17.6%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Excellent
10.2%
Exceptional
10.1%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Exceptional
6.2%
Tragic
7.5%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Exceptional
5.1%
Tragic
5.9%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Tragic
5.1%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Tragic
5.1%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Exceptional
4.5%
Fair
4.9%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Excellent
4.8%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
5.2%
Exceptional
5.1%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
5.0%
Exceptional
4.9%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
8.2%
Tragic
9.3%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.5%
Tragic
8.7%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.0%
Tragic
9.2%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
4.9%
Tragic
5.7%

Burmese vs Iroquois Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Burmese and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (34.5% compared to 39.9%, a difference of 15.8%), in labor force | age > 16 (66.2% compared to 63.2%, a difference of 4.8%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (85.3% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 4.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 35-44 (84.7% compared to 83.5%, a difference of 1.5%), in labor force | age 25-29 (85.1% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 1.6%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (73.6% compared to 75.6%, a difference of 2.8%).
Burmese vs Iroquois Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricBurmeseIroquois
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Exceptional
66.2%
Tragic
63.2%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Exceptional
80.3%
Tragic
77.5%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Tragic
34.5%
Exceptional
39.9%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Tragic
73.6%
Excellent
75.6%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Exceptional
85.1%
Tragic
83.8%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Exceptional
85.3%
Tragic
81.9%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Exceptional
84.7%
Tragic
83.5%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Exceptional
83.6%
Tragic
80.6%

Burmese vs Iroquois Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Burmese and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (26.4% compared to 38.2%, a difference of 44.9%), single mother households (5.3% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 31.7%), and single father households (2.0% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 28.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.22 compared to 3.16, a difference of 1.8%), family households (65.7% compared to 62.2%, a difference of 5.6%), and family households with children (28.5% compared to 26.1%, a difference of 9.4%).
Burmese vs Iroquois Family Structure
Family Structure MetricBurmeseIroquois
Family Households
Exceptional
65.7%
Tragic
62.2%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.5%
Tragic
26.1%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
49.8%
Tragic
43.7%
Average Family Size
Fair
3.22
Tragic
3.16
Single Father Households
Exceptional
2.0%
Tragic
2.6%
Single Mother Households
Exceptional
5.3%
Tragic
7.0%
Currently Married
Exceptional
48.9%
Tragic
44.7%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
10.7%
Tragic
12.9%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
26.4%
Tragic
38.2%

Burmese vs Iroquois Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Burmese and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.7% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 13.2%), 3 or more vehicles in household (20.6% compared to 19.4%, a difference of 6.2%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (57.8% compared to 54.7%, a difference of 5.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.4% compared to 89.2%, a difference of 1.4%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.8% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 5.6%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (57.8% compared to 54.7%, a difference of 5.7%).
Burmese vs Iroquois Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricBurmeseIroquois
No Vehicles Available
Excellent
9.7%
Poor
10.9%
1+ Vehicles Available
Excellent
90.4%
Poor
89.2%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
57.8%
Fair
54.7%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
20.6%
Average
19.4%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
6.8%
Good
6.5%

Burmese vs Iroquois Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Burmese and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (6.1% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 66.2%), doctorate degree (2.6% compared to 1.6%, a difference of 65.0%), and master's degree (19.7% compared to 12.9%, a difference of 52.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 9th grade (95.4% compared to 95.4%, a difference of 0.010%), nursery school (98.1% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.090%), and kindergarten (98.1% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.090%).
Burmese vs Iroquois Education Level
Education Level MetricBurmeseIroquois
No Schooling Completed
Excellent
1.9%
Exceptional
1.9%
Nursery School
Excellent
98.1%
Exceptional
98.2%
Kindergarten
Excellent
98.1%
Exceptional
98.2%
1st Grade
Excellent
98.0%
Exceptional
98.1%
2nd Grade
Excellent
98.0%
Exceptional
98.1%
3rd Grade
Good
97.9%
Exceptional
98.0%
4th Grade
Excellent
97.7%
Exceptional
97.8%
5th Grade
Excellent
97.5%
Exceptional
97.7%
6th Grade
Excellent
97.3%
Exceptional
97.4%
7th Grade
Excellent
96.3%
Exceptional
96.6%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.1%
Exceptional
96.3%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.4%
Exceptional
95.4%
10th Grade
Exceptional
94.5%
Exceptional
94.3%
11th Grade
Exceptional
93.6%
Good
92.8%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
92.6%
Average
91.1%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
90.8%
Average
89.2%
GED/Equivalency
Exceptional
88.3%
Tragic
84.6%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
71.9%
Tragic
62.6%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
66.7%
Tragic
56.2%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
54.6%
Tragic
42.8%
Bachelor's Degree
Exceptional
46.9%
Tragic
33.2%
Master's Degree
Exceptional
19.7%
Tragic
12.9%
Professional Degree
Exceptional
6.1%
Tragic
3.7%
Doctorate Degree
Exceptional
2.6%
Tragic
1.6%

Burmese vs Iroquois Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Burmese and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (9.2% compared to 14.4%, a difference of 55.8%), disability age 5 to 17 (4.8% compared to 6.9%, a difference of 44.1%), and vision disability (1.8% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 41.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (45.9% compared to 48.4%, a difference of 5.5%), cognitive disability (16.7% compared to 18.2%, a difference of 9.1%), and self-care disability (2.3% compared to 2.7%, a difference of 19.0%).
Burmese vs Iroquois Disability
Disability MetricBurmeseIroquois
Disability
Exceptional
10.4%
Tragic
13.8%
Males
Exceptional
10.0%
Tragic
13.6%
Females
Exceptional
10.7%
Tragic
14.0%
Age | Under 5 years
Exceptional
1.1%
Tragic
1.5%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Exceptional
4.8%
Tragic
6.9%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Exceptional
6.0%
Tragic
7.9%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
9.2%
Tragic
14.4%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
20.6%
Tragic
25.4%
Age | Over 75 years
Exceptional
45.9%
Tragic
48.4%
Vision
Exceptional
1.8%
Tragic
2.6%
Hearing
Exceptional
2.8%
Tragic
3.7%
Cognitive
Exceptional
16.7%
Tragic
18.2%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.3%
Tragic
7.1%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.3%
Tragic
2.7%