Ute vs Burmese Community Comparison

COMPARE

Ute
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianCajunCambodianCanadianCape 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 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
Burmese
Race
Ancestry
AfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAustralianAustrianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanHaitianHonduranHopiHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)InupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMalaysianMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOsagePaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSerbianShoshoneSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSwedishSwissSyrianTaiwaneseThaiTlingit-HaidaTohono O'OdhamTonganTurkishUgandanUkrainianUruguayanVenezuelanWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfricaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBelarusBelgiumBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNigeriaNorth AmericaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaScotlandSerbiaSierra LeoneSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTurkeyUgandaUkraineUruguayVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeZaireZimbabweAzores
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Ute

Burmese

Fair
Exceptional
2,439
SOCIAL INDEX
21.9/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
258th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
10,002
SOCIAL INDEX
97.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
4th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Burmese Integration in Ute Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 54,465,408 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Burmese within Ute communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.046. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Ute within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.012% in Burmese. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Ute corresponds to a decrease of 12.3 Burmese.
Ute Integration in Burmese Communities

Ute vs Burmese Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Ute and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($83,937 compared to $121,444, a difference of 44.7%), median household income ($72,402 compared to $103,145, a difference of 42.5%), and per capita income ($36,651 compared to $52,005, a difference of 41.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.8% compared to 28.0%, a difference of 0.85%), householder income under 25 years ($49,997 compared to $54,800, a difference of 9.6%), and median female earnings ($34,960 compared to $44,911, a difference of 28.5%).
Ute vs Burmese Income
Income MetricUteBurmese
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$36,651
Exceptional
$52,005
Median Family Income
Tragic
$87,596
Exceptional
$123,369
Median Household Income
Tragic
$72,402
Exceptional
$103,145
Median Earnings
Tragic
$41,051
Exceptional
$54,559
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$48,899
Exceptional
$65,236
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$34,960
Exceptional
$44,911
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$49,997
Exceptional
$54,800
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$82,166
Exceptional
$113,701
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$83,937
Exceptional
$121,444
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$52,949
Exceptional
$71,139
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.8%
Tragic
28.0%

Ute vs Burmese Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Ute and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (23.5% compared to 13.2%, a difference of 78.0%), receiving food stamps (14.7% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 69.9%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (21.5% compared to 12.8%, a difference of 68.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.9% compared to 11.7%, a difference of 10.7%), single father poverty (18.5% compared to 15.5%, a difference of 19.7%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.2% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 20.7%).
Ute vs Burmese Poverty
Poverty MetricUteBurmese
Poverty
Tragic
16.9%
Exceptional
10.7%
Families
Tragic
12.1%
Exceptional
7.3%
Males
Tragic
16.2%
Exceptional
9.7%
Females
Tragic
17.5%
Exceptional
11.6%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
25.4%
Exceptional
18.9%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
17.9%
Exceptional
11.2%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
23.5%
Exceptional
13.2%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
21.5%
Exceptional
12.8%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
21.6%
Exceptional
13.0%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
21.8%
Exceptional
13.0%
Single Males
Tragic
15.7%
Exceptional
11.7%
Single Females
Tragic
28.4%
Exceptional
18.3%
Single Fathers
Tragic
18.5%
Exceptional
15.5%
Single Mothers
Tragic
35.7%
Exceptional
26.2%
Married Couples
Tragic
6.4%
Exceptional
4.3%
Seniors Over 65 years
Tragic
12.2%
Exceptional
10.1%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
12.9%
Excellent
11.7%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
14.7%
Exceptional
8.6%

Ute vs Burmese Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Ute and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (6.2% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 46.2%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (7.0% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 36.8%), and male unemployment (6.6% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 35.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.5% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 0.050%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.9% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 1.9%), and unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (11.2% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 10.4%).
Ute vs Burmese Unemployment
Unemployment MetricUteBurmese
Unemployment
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
4.9%
Males
Tragic
6.6%
Exceptional
4.9%
Females
Tragic
6.1%
Exceptional
5.0%
Youth < 25
Tragic
13.3%
Excellent
11.3%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Tragic
19.6%
Exceptional
17.0%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
11.2%
Excellent
10.2%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Poor
6.8%
Exceptional
6.2%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
7.0%
Exceptional
5.1%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
5.3%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
6.2%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
5.2%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Fair
4.9%
Excellent
4.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
6.5%
Exceptional
5.2%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
5.0%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
6.8%
Exceptional
8.2%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.5%
Exceptional
6.5%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
7.0%
Exceptional
8.0%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
5.9%
Exceptional
4.9%

Ute vs Burmese Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Ute and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (76.6% compared to 83.6%, a difference of 9.1%), in labor force | age 20-64 (73.7% compared to 80.3%, a difference of 9.0%), and in labor force | age > 16 (60.9% compared to 66.2%, a difference of 8.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (73.8% compared to 73.6%, a difference of 0.29%), in labor force | age 25-29 (80.8% compared to 85.1%, a difference of 5.4%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (79.4% compared to 84.7%, a difference of 6.6%).
Ute vs Burmese Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricUteBurmese
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
60.9%
Exceptional
66.2%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
73.7%
Exceptional
80.3%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Good
37.1%
Tragic
34.5%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Tragic
73.8%
Tragic
73.6%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
80.8%
Exceptional
85.1%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
78.9%
Exceptional
85.3%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
79.4%
Exceptional
84.7%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
76.6%
Exceptional
83.6%

Ute vs Burmese Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Ute and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in single father households (3.0% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 45.7%), single mother households (7.1% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 34.4%), and births to unmarried women (33.0% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 25.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (28.2% compared to 28.5%, a difference of 1.2%), family households (64.3% compared to 65.7%, a difference of 2.2%), and average family size (3.49 compared to 3.22, a difference of 8.5%).
Ute vs Burmese Family Structure
Family Structure MetricUteBurmese
Family Households
Average
64.3%
Exceptional
65.7%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.2%
Exceptional
28.5%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
44.4%
Exceptional
49.8%
Average Family Size
Exceptional
3.49
Fair
3.22
Single Father Households
Tragic
3.0%
Exceptional
2.0%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.1%
Exceptional
5.3%
Currently Married
Tragic
43.9%
Exceptional
48.9%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
12.6%
Exceptional
10.7%
Births to Unmarried Women
Poor
33.0%
Exceptional
26.4%

Ute vs Burmese Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Ute and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 28.3%), no vehicles in household (11.6% compared to 9.7%, a difference of 19.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.7% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 9.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.7% compared to 90.4%, a difference of 1.9%), 2 or more vehicles in household (56.6% compared to 57.8%, a difference of 2.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.7% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 9.8%).
Ute vs Burmese Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricUteBurmese
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
11.6%
Excellent
9.7%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
88.7%
Excellent
90.4%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
56.6%
Exceptional
57.8%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
22.7%
Exceptional
20.6%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
8.8%
Exceptional
6.8%

Ute vs Burmese Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Ute and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in master's degree (11.7% compared to 19.7%, a difference of 68.1%), professional degree (4.0% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 52.8%), and bachelor's degree (30.9% compared to 46.9%, a difference of 51.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4th grade (97.7% compared to 97.7%, a difference of 0.010%), 5th grade (97.4% compared to 97.5%, a difference of 0.080%), and 3rd grade (98.0% compared to 97.9%, a difference of 0.11%).
Ute vs Burmese Education Level
Education Level MetricUteBurmese
No Schooling Completed
Tragic
2.3%
Excellent
1.9%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.2%
Excellent
98.1%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.2%
Excellent
98.1%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Excellent
98.0%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Excellent
98.0%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Good
97.9%
4th Grade
Excellent
97.7%
Excellent
97.7%
5th Grade
Good
97.4%
Excellent
97.5%
6th Grade
Good
97.1%
Excellent
97.3%
7th Grade
Average
96.1%
Excellent
96.3%
8th Grade
Average
95.8%
Exceptional
96.1%
9th Grade
Good
95.0%
Exceptional
95.4%
10th Grade
Fair
93.4%
Exceptional
94.5%
11th Grade
Tragic
91.1%
Exceptional
93.6%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
89.0%
Exceptional
92.6%
High School Diploma
Tragic
86.2%
Exceptional
90.8%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
81.8%
Exceptional
88.3%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
60.2%
Exceptional
71.9%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.8%
Exceptional
66.7%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
38.6%
Exceptional
54.6%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.9%
Exceptional
46.9%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.7%
Exceptional
19.7%
Professional Degree
Tragic
4.0%
Exceptional
6.1%
Doctorate Degree
Exceptional
2.0%
Exceptional
2.6%

Ute vs Burmese Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Ute and Burmese communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (13.4% compared to 9.2%, a difference of 45.3%), disability age 65 to 74 (27.3% compared to 20.6%, a difference of 32.4%), and disability age under 5 (0.86% compared to 1.1%, a difference of 30.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (17.3% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 3.7%), self-care disability (2.5% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 8.8%), and ambulatory disability (6.0% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 12.9%).
Ute vs Burmese Disability
Disability MetricUteBurmese
Disability
Poor
11.9%
Exceptional
10.4%
Males
Tragic
11.6%
Exceptional
10.0%
Females
Poor
12.4%
Exceptional
10.7%
Age | Under 5 years
Exceptional
0.86%
Exceptional
1.1%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Excellent
5.5%
Exceptional
4.8%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
7.0%
Exceptional
6.0%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
13.4%
Exceptional
9.2%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
27.3%
Exceptional
20.6%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
52.6%
Exceptional
45.9%
Vision
Tragic
2.4%
Exceptional
1.8%
Hearing
Tragic
3.5%
Exceptional
2.8%
Cognitive
Average
17.3%
Exceptional
16.7%
Ambulatory
Excellent
6.0%
Exceptional
5.3%
Self-Care
Average
2.5%
Exceptional
2.3%