Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Community Comparison

COMPARE

Taiwanese
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
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 AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianThaiTlingit-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

Taiwanese

Chickasaw

Good
Fair
6,532
SOCIAL INDEX
62.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
151st/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Chickasaw Integration in Taiwanese Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 25,341,244 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Taiwanese communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.580. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Taiwanese within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.508% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Taiwanese corresponds to an increase of 507.5 Chickasaw.
Taiwanese Integration in Chickasaw Communities

Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Taiwanese and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($101,492 compared to $77,929, a difference of 30.2%), median household income ($89,900 compared to $70,005, a difference of 28.4%), and per capita income ($46,455 compared to $36,475, a difference of 27.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.1% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 8.0%), householder income under 25 years ($49,804 compared to $44,763, a difference of 11.3%), and median male earnings ($55,556 compared to $47,832, a difference of 16.2%).
Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Income
Income MetricTaiwaneseChickasaw
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$46,455
Tragic
$36,475
Median Family Income
Exceptional
$107,295
Tragic
$85,356
Median Household Income
Exceptional
$89,900
Tragic
$70,005
Median Earnings
Excellent
$47,902
Tragic
$40,672
Median Male Earnings
Good
$55,556
Tragic
$47,832
Median Female Earnings
Excellent
$40,576
Tragic
$34,414
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$49,804
Tragic
$44,763
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Exceptional
$101,492
Tragic
$77,929
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Excellent
$104,180
Tragic
$82,193
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Excellent
$62,894
Tragic
$53,732
Wage/Income Gap
Excellent
25.1%
Tragic
27.2%

Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Taiwanese and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (14.5% compared to 21.8%, a difference of 50.6%), single male poverty (10.9% compared to 16.3%, a difference of 49.8%), and female poverty among 25-34 year olds (11.8% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 44.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 65 (11.2% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 4.3%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.6% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 8.0%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (21.2% compared to 24.5%, a difference of 15.2%).
Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Poverty
Poverty MetricTaiwaneseChickasaw
Poverty
Good
12.2%
Tragic
14.7%
Families
Exceptional
8.2%
Tragic
10.8%
Males
Good
11.0%
Tragic
13.5%
Females
Good
13.1%
Tragic
15.9%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
21.2%
Tragic
24.5%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
11.8%
Tragic
17.0%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
14.5%
Tragic
21.8%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.5%
Tragic
19.5%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.8%
Tragic
19.8%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.6%
Tragic
19.6%
Single Males
Exceptional
10.9%
Tragic
16.3%
Single Females
Exceptional
19.4%
Tragic
26.3%
Single Fathers
Exceptional
14.3%
Tragic
19.0%
Single Mothers
Exceptional
27.5%
Tragic
34.4%
Married Couples
Exceptional
4.8%
Tragic
5.8%
Seniors Over 65 years
Fair
11.2%
Good
10.7%
Seniors Over 75 years
Poor
12.6%
Exceptional
11.6%
Receiving Food Stamps
Excellent
11.0%
Tragic
13.1%

Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Taiwanese and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.1% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 47.4%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (6.0% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 35.5%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (6.3% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 33.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female unemployment (5.3% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 2.9%), male unemployment (5.3% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 3.1%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.6% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 3.4%).
Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Unemployment
Unemployment MetricTaiwaneseChickasaw
Unemployment
Average
5.3%
Exceptional
5.0%
Males
Fair
5.3%
Excellent
5.2%
Females
Average
5.3%
Excellent
5.1%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
10.8%
Exceptional
11.2%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
15.5%
Exceptional
16.7%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.4%
Exceptional
9.9%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Exceptional
6.1%
Fair
6.7%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Good
5.3%
Tragic
6.2%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Exceptional
4.4%
Tragic
4.9%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Good
4.5%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Exceptional
4.6%
Good
4.8%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Tragic
5.3%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
4.7%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
6.0%
Exceptional
4.4%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
6.6%
Exceptional
7.3%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.1%
Tragic
9.0%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
6.5%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
4.8%
Good
5.4%

Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Taiwanese and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (33.8% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 13.3%), in labor force | age > 16 (66.2% compared to 62.3%, a difference of 6.2%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.4% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 5.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.7% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 0.36%), in labor force | age 30-34 (84.6% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 3.2%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (85.4% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 4.4%).
Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricTaiwaneseChickasaw
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Exceptional
66.2%
Tragic
62.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Exceptional
80.2%
Tragic
76.2%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Tragic
33.8%
Exceptional
38.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Fair
74.7%
Poor
74.5%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Exceptional
85.4%
Tragic
81.9%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Fair
84.6%
Tragic
81.9%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Exceptional
85.1%
Tragic
80.9%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Exceptional
83.4%
Tragic
79.0%

Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Taiwanese and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (29.0% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 25.2%), single father households (2.2% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 25.2%), and divorced or separated (11.5% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 23.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple households (45.9% compared to 45.9%, a difference of 0.040%), average family size (3.23 compared to 3.19, a difference of 1.3%), and family households (63.3% compared to 64.4%, a difference of 1.7%).
Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Family Structure
Family Structure MetricTaiwaneseChickasaw
Family Households
Tragic
63.3%
Good
64.4%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
26.7%
Exceptional
28.2%
Married-couple Households
Fair
45.9%
Fair
45.9%
Average Family Size
Average
3.23
Tragic
3.19
Single Father Households
Exceptional
2.2%
Tragic
2.8%
Single Mother Households
Exceptional
5.8%
Tragic
7.0%
Currently Married
Poor
45.8%
Average
46.6%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
11.5%
Tragic
14.2%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
29.0%
Tragic
36.3%

Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Taiwanese and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.7% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 48.3%), 3 or more vehicles in household (20.0% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 10.9%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (53.9% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 9.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.4% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 4.3%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.0% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 5.9%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (53.9% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 9.5%).
Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricTaiwaneseChickasaw
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
11.7%
Exceptional
7.9%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
88.4%
Exceptional
92.3%
2+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
53.9%
Exceptional
59.0%
3+ Vehicles Available
Excellent
20.0%
Exceptional
22.2%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.0%
Exceptional
7.4%

Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Taiwanese and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (5.0% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 48.1%), no schooling completed (2.5% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 47.0%), and master's degree (16.1% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 40.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (90.0% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 0.36%), high school diploma (87.9% compared to 88.4%, a difference of 0.55%), and nursery school (97.6% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.84%).
Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Education Level
Education Level MetricTaiwaneseChickasaw
No Schooling Completed
Tragic
2.5%
Exceptional
1.7%
Nursery School
Tragic
97.6%
Exceptional
98.4%
Kindergarten
Tragic
97.5%
Exceptional
98.4%
1st Grade
Tragic
97.5%
Exceptional
98.3%
2nd Grade
Tragic
97.4%
Exceptional
98.3%
3rd Grade
Tragic
97.3%
Exceptional
98.2%
4th Grade
Tragic
97.0%
Exceptional
98.0%
5th Grade
Tragic
96.7%
Exceptional
97.9%
6th Grade
Tragic
96.5%
Exceptional
97.6%
7th Grade
Tragic
94.8%
Exceptional
96.7%
8th Grade
Tragic
94.7%
Exceptional
96.4%
9th Grade
Tragic
93.6%
Exceptional
95.5%
10th Grade
Tragic
92.5%
Excellent
94.1%
11th Grade
Tragic
91.3%
Fair
92.3%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
90.0%
Tragic
90.3%
High School Diploma
Tragic
87.9%
Poor
88.4%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
84.7%
Tragic
83.8%
College, Under 1 year
Good
66.4%
Tragic
60.4%
College, 1 year or more
Excellent
60.7%
Tragic
53.3%
Associate's Degree
Excellent
47.7%
Tragic
38.6%
Bachelor's Degree
Exceptional
40.0%
Tragic
30.4%
Master's Degree
Exceptional
16.1%
Tragic
11.4%
Professional Degree
Exceptional
5.0%
Tragic
3.4%
Doctorate Degree
Exceptional
2.1%
Tragic
1.5%

Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Taiwanese and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (1.9% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 64.9%), disability age 35 to 64 (9.8% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 63.6%), and hearing disability (2.8% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 60.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (17.6% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 5.2%), disability age over 75 (48.2% compared to 51.2%, a difference of 6.3%), and self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 19.5%).
Taiwanese vs Chickasaw Disability
Disability MetricTaiwaneseChickasaw
Disability
Exceptional
10.8%
Tragic
15.2%
Males
Exceptional
10.3%
Tragic
15.1%
Females
Exceptional
11.4%
Tragic
15.2%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.3%
Tragic
1.7%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Exceptional
4.9%
Tragic
6.8%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Exceptional
6.0%
Tragic
9.0%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
9.8%
Tragic
16.1%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Excellent
22.7%
Tragic
30.2%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
48.2%
Tragic
51.2%
Vision
Exceptional
1.9%
Tragic
3.2%
Hearing
Exceptional
2.8%
Tragic
4.5%
Cognitive
Tragic
17.6%
Tragic
18.5%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.6%
Tragic
8.0%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.4%
Tragic
2.9%