Immigrants from Eastern Europe vs Chickasaw Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 139,296,889 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Immigrant from Eastern Europe communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.080. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Eastern Europe within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.001% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Eastern Europe corresponds to a decrease of 0.7 Chickasaw.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Europe and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($49,316 compared to $36,475, a difference of 35.2%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($104,662 compared to $77,929, a difference of 34.3%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($109,335 compared to $82,193, a difference of 33.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (26.4% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 3.0%), householder income over 65 years ($62,693 compared to $53,732, a difference of 16.7%), and householder income under 25 years ($55,572 compared to $44,763, a difference of 24.1%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Europe and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (15.1% compared to 21.8%, a difference of 44.2%), female poverty among 25-34 year olds (12.0% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 42.0%), and single female poverty (19.0% compared to 26.3%, a difference of 37.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.9% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 1.8%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.6% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 8.2%), and married-couple family poverty (4.9% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 18.7%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Europe and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (7.1% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 26.8%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.8% compared to 7.3%, a difference of 20.1%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.1% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 16.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female unemployment (5.1% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 0.18%), unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.8% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 0.55%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.5% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 1.0%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Europe and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (35.8% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 7.2%), in labor force | age 45-54 (83.3% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 5.4%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (80.2% compared to 76.2%, a difference of 5.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.9% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 0.55%), in labor force | age 25-29 (85.2% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 4.0%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (85.4% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 4.3%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Europe and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.0% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 38.2%), births to unmarried women (27.6% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 31.7%), and single mother households (5.6% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 25.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.17 compared to 3.19, a difference of 0.51%), family households (64.0% compared to 64.4%, a difference of 0.69%), and currently married (48.0% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 3.0%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Europe and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (13.6% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 73.0%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.4% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 36.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.4% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 27.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (86.7% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 6.4%), 2 or more vehicles in household (51.7% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 14.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.4% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 27.6%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Europe and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (5.2% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 55.9%), master's degree (17.6% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 53.9%), and bachelor's degree (42.5% compared to 30.4%, a difference of 39.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 10th grade (94.3% compared to 94.1%, a difference of 0.21%), 9th grade (95.2% compared to 95.5%, a difference of 0.30%), and nursery school (98.0% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.38%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Eastern Europe and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.1% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 60.0%), vision disability (2.0% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 56.7%), and hearing disability (3.0% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 50.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.3% compared to 51.2%, a difference of 10.5%), cognitive disability (16.5% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 12.4%), and self-care disability (2.5% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 14.6%).