Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Uruguay Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 67,558,503 people shows a near-perfect positive correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Uruguay within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.916. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.734% in Immigrants from Uruguay. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 734.5 Immigrants from Uruguay.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($36,475 compared to $43,997, a difference of 20.6%), median household income ($70,005 compared to $82,560, a difference of 17.9%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($77,929 compared to $91,171, a difference of 17.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($53,732 compared to $56,975, a difference of 6.0%), wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 24.6%, a difference of 10.3%), and median male earnings ($47,832 compared to $52,860, a difference of 10.5%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in single male poverty (16.3% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 37.6%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (24.5% compared to 18.8%, a difference of 29.9%), and single female poverty (26.3% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 27.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 1.4%), receiving food stamps (13.1% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 4.5%), and female poverty (15.9% compared to 14.0%, a difference of 13.1%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.4% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 18.9%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.3% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 17.0%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.7% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 16.8%). 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 0.10%), male unemployment (5.2% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 0.80%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.9% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 1.3%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 34.4%, a difference of 11.4%), in labor force | age > 16 (62.3% compared to 66.0%, a difference of 5.9%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 83.2%, 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 0.18%), in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 3.4%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 84.9%, a difference of 3.7%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.8% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 13.4%), divorced or separated (14.2% compared to 12.6%, a difference of 12.8%), and births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 33.9%, a difference of 7.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.4% compared to 63.9%, a difference of 0.81%), average family size (3.19 compared to 3.23, a difference of 1.3%), and family households with children (28.2% compared to 27.4%, a difference of 3.1%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 51.9%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 37.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 17.1%, a difference of 29.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 88.1%, a difference of 4.7%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 51.4%, a difference of 14.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 17.1%, a difference of 29.8%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (1.7% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 37.3%), professional degree (3.4% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 35.7%), and master's degree (11.4% compared to 15.0%, a difference of 31.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (90.3% compared to 90.0%, a difference of 0.40%), nursery school (98.4% compared to 97.7%, a difference of 0.70%), and kindergarten (98.4% compared to 97.7%, a difference of 0.71%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Immigrants from Uruguay communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (4.5% compared to 2.7%, a difference of 63.0%), disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 10.3%, a difference of 55.7%), and disability age 18 to 34 (9.0% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 45.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 9.0%), disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 46.4%, a difference of 10.2%), and self-care disability (2.9% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 18.4%).