Uruguayan vs Choctaw Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 95,195,023 people shows a strong negative correlation between the proportion of Choctaw within Uruguayan communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.761. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Uruguayans within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.041% in Choctaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Uruguayans corresponds to a decrease of 40.6 Choctaw.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($44,318 compared to $35,999, a difference of 23.1%), median household income ($84,691 compared to $69,947, a difference of 21.1%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($98,660 compared to $82,287, a difference of 19.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income over 65 years ($59,090 compared to $53,060, a difference of 11.4%), wage/income gap (25.2% compared to 28.1%, a difference of 11.9%), and median male earnings ($53,680 compared to $47,729, a difference of 12.5%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in single male poverty (11.9% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 42.2%), child poverty under the age of 5 (17.0% compared to 23.5%, a difference of 37.8%), and female poverty among 25-34 year olds (13.3% compared to 18.1%, a difference of 35.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.1% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 6.4%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (13.5% compared to 12.5%, a difference of 7.9%), and receiving food stamps (11.8% compared to 13.6%, a difference of 15.1%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (7.5% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 30.4%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.2% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 24.2%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.4% compared to 7.5%, a difference of 16.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female unemployment (5.4% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 0.12%), unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.9% compared to 5.9%, a difference of 0.18%), and unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.9% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 3.3%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (34.9% compared to 38.0%, a difference of 8.8%), in labor force | age > 16 (65.9% compared to 61.5%, a difference of 7.2%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.1% compared to 78.2%, a difference of 6.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.6% compared to 74.7%, a difference of 0.16%), in labor force | age 30-34 (84.9% compared to 81.4%, a difference of 4.2%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.9% compared to 81.0%, a difference of 4.9%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.4% compared to 2.7%, a difference of 14.3%), divorced or separated (12.4% compared to 14.1%, a difference of 13.9%), and births to unmarried women (33.1% compared to 36.9%, a difference of 11.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.23 compared to 3.21, a difference of 0.59%), family households (64.5% compared to 64.9%, a difference of 0.64%), and married-couple households (45.5% compared to 46.0%, a difference of 1.0%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.3% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 43.0%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.6% compared to 7.8%, a difference of 38.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.8% compared to 23.0%, a difference of 29.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.8% compared to 92.2%, a difference of 3.9%), 2 or more vehicles in household (52.7% compared to 59.3%, a difference of 12.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.8% compared to 23.0%, a difference of 29.1%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (4.6% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 43.4%), master's degree (15.3% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 38.4%), and bachelor's degree (38.4% compared to 29.4%, a difference of 30.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 11th grade (91.8% compared to 91.8%, a difference of 0.020%), high school diploma (88.2% compared to 87.8%, a difference of 0.43%), and nursery school (97.8% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.50%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Choctaw communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (2.8% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 64.0%), disability age 35 to 64 (10.2% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 60.3%), and disability age under 5 (1.2% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 53.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (16.8% compared to 18.4%, a difference of 9.5%), disability age over 75 (46.2% compared to 52.7%, a difference of 13.9%), and disability age 5 to 17 (5.6% compared to 6.9%, a difference of 23.4%).