Chickasaw vs Iroquois Poverty
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Iroquois
Poverty
Poverty Comparison
Chickasaw
Iroquois
14.7%
POVERTY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
272nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
14.5%
POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
267th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chickasaw vs Iroquois Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,672,043 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.009 and weighted average of 14.7%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 207,260,268 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Iroquois and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.624 and weighted average of 14.5%, a difference of 0.96%.

Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Chickasaw | Iroquois |
Minimum | 0.99% | 3.3% |
Maximum | 35.7% | 100.0% |
Range | 34.7% | 96.7% |
Mean | 16.2% | 21.2% |
Median | 15.3% | 15.1% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 13.3% | 12.3% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 18.7% | 22.6% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.4% | 10.3% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.4% | 18.5% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.4% | 18.3% |
Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Iroquois by Poverty
In terms of poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Shoshone (14.7%, a difference of 0.040%), Spanish American (14.7%, a difference of 0.53%), Central American (14.6%, a difference of 0.63%), Immigrants from Cuba (14.6%, a difference of 0.77%), and Subsaharan African (14.5%, a difference of 0.92%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Iroquois are Subsaharan African (14.5%, a difference of 0.040%), Immigrants from Cuba (14.6%, a difference of 0.19%), Guyanese (14.5%, a difference of 0.32%), Central American (14.6%, a difference of 0.33%), and Immigrants from Guyana (14.5%, a difference of 0.49%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Poverty |
Immigrants | Nicaragua | 0.1 /100 | #259 | Tragic 14.3% |
Cape Verdeans | 0.1 /100 | #260 | Tragic 14.4% |
Cherokee | 0.1 /100 | #261 | Tragic 14.4% |
Immigrants | Liberia | 0.1 /100 | #262 | Tragic 14.4% |
Jamaicans | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 14.4% |
Immigrants | Jamaica | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 14.4% |
Immigrants | Guyana | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 14.5% |
Guyanese | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 14.5% |
Iroquois | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 14.5% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 14.5% |
Immigrants | Cuba | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 14.6% |
Central Americans | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 14.6% |
Shoshone | 0.0 /100 | #271 | Tragic 14.7% |
Chickasaw | 0.0 /100 | #272 | Tragic 14.7% |
Spanish Americans | 0.0 /100 | #273 | Tragic 14.7% |
Barbadians | 0.0 /100 | #274 | Tragic 14.8% |
Immigrants | West Indies | 0.0 /100 | #275 | Tragic 14.8% |
Immigrants | Bahamas | 0.0 /100 | #276 | Tragic 14.8% |
Bangladeshis | 0.0 /100 | #277 | Tragic 14.8% |
Belizeans | 0.0 /100 | #278 | Tragic 14.8% |
Immigrants | St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 0.0 /100 | #279 | Tragic 14.9% |