Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama 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-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 EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabweAzores
Immigrants from Panama
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

Immigrants from Panama

Fair
Poor
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
1,936
SOCIAL INDEX
16.9/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
282nd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Immigrants from Panama Integration in Chickasaw Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 94,959,010 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Panama within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.305. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.189% in Immigrants from Panama. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 188.9 Immigrants from Panama.
Chickasaw Integration in Immigrants from Panama Communities

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Panama communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 23.4%, a difference of 16.0%), median household income ($70,005 compared to $80,873, a difference of 15.5%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $89,451, a difference of 14.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($53,732 compared to $56,944, a difference of 6.0%), median male earnings ($47,832 compared to $51,962, a difference of 8.6%), and median earnings ($40,672 compared to $45,198, a difference of 11.1%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Income
Income MetricChickasawImmigrants from Panama
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$36,475
Poor
$41,853
Median Family Income
Tragic
$85,356
Tragic
$95,647
Median Household Income
Tragic
$70,005
Tragic
$80,873
Median Earnings
Tragic
$40,672
Poor
$45,198
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$47,832
Tragic
$51,962
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$34,414
Fair
$39,049
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$44,763
Tragic
$51,278
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$77,929
Tragic
$89,451
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$82,193
Tragic
$93,815
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$53,732
Tragic
$56,944
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.2%
Exceptional
23.4%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Panama communities in the United States are seen in single male poverty (16.3% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 29.1%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (24.5% compared to 19.4%, a difference of 26.0%), and single female poverty (26.3% compared to 21.6%, a difference of 21.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 0.26%), receiving food stamps (13.1% compared to 13.6%, a difference of 4.1%), and family poverty (10.8% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 8.2%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Poverty
Poverty MetricChickasawImmigrants from Panama
Poverty
Tragic
14.7%
Tragic
13.3%
Families
Tragic
10.8%
Tragic
10.0%
Males
Tragic
13.5%
Tragic
12.1%
Females
Tragic
15.9%
Tragic
14.4%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
24.5%
Exceptional
19.4%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
17.0%
Poor
14.1%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
21.8%
Tragic
18.5%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
19.5%
Tragic
17.7%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
19.8%
Tragic
17.9%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
19.6%
Tragic
17.9%
Single Males
Tragic
16.3%
Good
12.6%
Single Females
Tragic
26.3%
Poor
21.6%
Single Fathers
Tragic
19.0%
Exceptional
15.9%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.4%
Poor
29.8%
Married Couples
Tragic
5.8%
Tragic
5.8%
Seniors Over 65 years
Good
10.7%
Tragic
12.4%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
11.6%
Tragic
13.9%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
13.1%
Tragic
13.6%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Panama communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.0% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 16.1%), unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (16.7% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 15.6%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.4% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 15.3%). 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 0.080%), unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.9% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 0.94%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.7% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 3.4%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Unemployment
Unemployment MetricChickasawImmigrants from Panama
Unemployment
Exceptional
5.0%
Tragic
5.5%
Males
Excellent
5.2%
Tragic
5.6%
Females
Excellent
5.1%
Tragic
5.5%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.2%
Tragic
12.4%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
16.7%
Tragic
19.3%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.9%
Tragic
10.8%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Fair
6.7%
Tragic
7.0%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
6.2%
Tragic
5.7%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
4.9%
Tragic
5.0%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Poor
4.6%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Good
4.8%
Good
4.8%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Good
4.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
4.7%
Excellent
5.3%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.4%
Excellent
5.1%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.3%
Exceptional
8.2%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
9.0%
Fair
7.7%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.6%
Fair
9.1%
Women w/ Children < 18
Good
5.4%
Tragic
5.8%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Panama communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 34.0%, a difference of 12.8%), in labor force | age > 16 (62.3% compared to 65.1%, a difference of 4.4%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 82.2%, a difference of 4.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 73.9%, a difference of 0.73%), in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 84.2%, a difference of 2.9%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 84.3%, a difference of 2.9%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricChickasawImmigrants from Panama
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
62.3%
Average
65.1%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
76.2%
Tragic
79.1%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
38.3%
Tragic
34.0%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Poor
74.5%
Tragic
73.9%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
81.9%
Tragic
84.2%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
81.9%
Tragic
84.3%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
80.9%
Tragic
84.0%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
79.0%
Tragic
82.2%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Panama communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 17.0%), divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 12.6%), and births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 34.2%, a difference of 6.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.4% compared to 64.8%, a difference of 0.66%), single mother households (7.0% compared to 7.2%, a difference of 1.7%), and family households with children (28.2% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 1.8%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Family Structure
Family Structure MetricChickasawImmigrants from Panama
Family Households
Good
64.4%
Exceptional
64.8%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.2%
Excellent
27.7%
Married-couple Households
Fair
45.9%
Tragic
44.6%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.19
Exceptional
3.27
Single Father Households
Tragic
2.8%
Average
2.4%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.0%
Tragic
7.2%
Currently Married
Average
46.6%
Tragic
44.9%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
14.2%
Tragic
12.6%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
36.3%
Tragic
34.2%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Panama communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 14.6%, a difference of 86.4%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 31.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 17.7%, a difference of 25.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 8.0%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 51.1%, a difference of 15.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 17.7%, a difference of 25.2%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricChickasawImmigrants from Panama
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.9%
Tragic
14.6%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
92.3%
Tragic
85.4%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.0%
Tragic
51.1%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
22.2%
Tragic
17.7%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.4%
Tragic
5.7%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Panama communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 33.1%), master's degree (11.4% compared to 14.3%, a difference of 24.8%), and professional degree (3.4% compared to 4.1%, a difference of 21.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (90.3% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 0.0%), high school diploma (88.4% compared to 88.0%, a difference of 0.50%), and 11th grade (92.3% compared to 91.8%, a difference of 0.57%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Education Level
Education Level MetricChickasawImmigrants from Panama
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.7%
Tragic
2.3%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.4%
Tragic
97.8%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.4%
Tragic
97.7%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Tragic
97.7%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Tragic
97.6%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Tragic
97.5%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Tragic
97.3%
5th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Tragic
97.0%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.6%
Tragic
96.7%
7th Grade
Exceptional
96.7%
Tragic
95.6%
8th Grade
Exceptional
96.4%
Tragic
95.2%
9th Grade
Exceptional
95.5%
Tragic
94.3%
10th Grade
Excellent
94.1%
Tragic
93.1%
11th Grade
Fair
92.3%
Tragic
91.8%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
90.3%
Tragic
90.3%
High School Diploma
Poor
88.4%
Tragic
88.0%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
83.8%
Tragic
84.4%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
60.4%
Tragic
63.4%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.3%
Tragic
57.6%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
38.6%
Poor
44.7%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.4%
Poor
36.2%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.4%
Fair
14.3%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.4%
Poor
4.1%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Tragic
1.6%

Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Panama communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (4.5% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 53.8%), disability age under 5 (1.7% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 50.4%), and disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 39.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 17.5%, a difference of 5.7%), disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 47.9%, a difference of 6.8%), and self-care disability (2.9% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 10.2%).
Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Panama Disability
Disability MetricChickasawImmigrants from Panama
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%
Exceptional
1.2%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.8%
Tragic
5.8%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.0%
Good
6.5%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.1%
Fair
11.6%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
30.2%
Tragic
24.1%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
51.2%
Poor
47.9%
Vision
Tragic
3.2%
Tragic
2.3%
Hearing
Tragic
4.5%
Good
2.9%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.5%
Poor
17.5%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.0%
Tragic
6.5%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.9%
Tragic
2.6%