Comanche vs Chickasaw Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 74,683,156 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Comanche communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.158. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Comanche within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.040% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Comanche corresponds to a decrease of 39.7 Chickasaw.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Comanche and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (25.0% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 8.5%), householder income under 25 years ($47,518 compared to $44,763, a difference of 6.2%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($82,152 compared to $77,929, a difference of 5.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median male earnings ($48,202 compared to $47,832, a difference of 0.77%), median earnings ($41,519 compared to $40,672, a difference of 2.1%), and householder income over 65 years ($54,922 compared to $53,732, a difference of 2.2%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Comanche and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.1% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 12.9%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.8% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 10.2%), and child poverty under the age of 5 (21.0% compared to 21.8%, a difference of 3.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of receiving food stamps (13.3% compared to 13.1%, a difference of 1.3%), child poverty among boys under 16 (20.1% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 1.4%), and single mother poverty (33.9% compared to 34.4%, a difference of 1.5%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Comanche and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (20.2% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 21.5%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.0% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 16.6%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (7.8% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 16.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (4.7% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 0.26%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.3% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 1.1%), and unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.2% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 2.4%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Comanche and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age > 16 (63.6% compared to 62.3%, a difference of 2.1%), in labor force | age 16-19 (37.7% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 1.7%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (75.4% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 1.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 25-29 (81.9% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 0.010%), in labor force | age 45-54 (79.2% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 0.17%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (81.5% compared to 80.9%, a difference of 0.69%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Comanche and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.5% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 8.6%), divorced or separated (13.5% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 5.0%), and currently married (45.0% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 3.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single mother households (7.0% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 0.19%), births to unmarried women (36.7% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 1.2%), and family households (63.5% compared to 64.4%, a difference of 1.5%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Comanche and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (10.2% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 30.4%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.8% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 9.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.0% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 5.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (89.9% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 2.6%), 2 or more vehicles in household (56.5% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 4.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.0% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 5.9%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Comanche and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.1% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 21.6%), master's degree (12.1% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 5.9%), and professional degree (3.5% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 5.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of ged/equivalency (83.6% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 0.28%), nursery school (98.0% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.36%), and kindergarten (98.0% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.37%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Comanche and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 40.0%), hearing disability (4.0% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 13.0%), and vision disability (2.8% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 11.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of self-care disability (2.9% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 0.47%), cognitive disability (18.6% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 0.67%), and disability age over 75 (51.7% compared to 51.2%, a difference of 1.0%).