Chickasaw vs Immigrants from Israel Unemployment Among Seniors over 75 years

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 100,989,035 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and unemployment rate among seniors over the age of 75 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.236 and weighted average of 7.3%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 139,484,072 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Israel and unemployment rate among seniors over the age of 75 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.142 and weighted average of 7.6%, a difference of 3.1%.

Unemployment Among Seniors over 75 years Correlation Summary

Measurement	Chickasaw	Immigrants from Israel
Minimum	4.7%	1.9%
Maximum	54.5%	16.3%
Range	49.8%	14.4%
Mean	17.4%	7.7%
Median	10.7%	6.8%
Interquartile 25% (IQ1)	7.7%	4.6%
Interquartile 75% (IQ3)	22.2%	10.7%
Interquartile Range (IQR)	14.5%	6.0%
Standard Deviation (Sample)	15.8%	3.9%
Standard Deviation (Population)	15.1%	3.9%

Demographics Similar to Chickasaw and Immigrants from Israel by Unemployment Among Seniors over 75 years

In terms of unemployment among seniors over 75 years, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Cypriot (7.4%, a difference of 0.76%), Israeli (7.4%, a difference of 1.1%), Immigrants from Cuba (7.4%, a difference of 1.2%), Armenian (7.2%, a difference of 1.4%), and Immigrants from Zaire (7.2%, a difference of 1.7%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Israel are Immigrants from Iran (7.6%, a difference of 0.040%), Immigrants from Barbados (7.6%, a difference of 0.11%), Immigrants from Sweden (7.6%, a difference of 0.15%), Guyanese (7.6%, a difference of 0.53%), and South African (7.5%, a difference of 0.55%).

Demographics	Rating \| Rank	Unemployment Among Seniors over 75 years
Ute	100.0 /100 \| #14	Exceptional 6.8%
Icelanders	100.0 /100 \| #15	Exceptional 7.0%
Seminole	100.0 /100 \| #16	Exceptional 7.1%
Immigrants \| Switzerland	100.0 /100 \| #17	Exceptional 7.2%
Immigrants \| Uzbekistan	100.0 /100 \| #18	Exceptional 7.2%
Immigrants \| Zaire	100.0 /100 \| #19	Exceptional 7.2%
Armenians	100.0 /100 \| #20	Exceptional 7.2%
Chickasaw	100.0 /100 \| #21	Exceptional 7.3%
Cypriots	100.0 /100 \| #22	Exceptional 7.4%
Israelis	100.0 /100 \| #23	Exceptional 7.4%
Immigrants \| Cuba	100.0 /100 \| #24	Exceptional 7.4%
Immigrants \| Uruguay	100.0 /100 \| #25	Exceptional 7.5%
South Africans	100.0 /100 \| #26	Exceptional 7.5%
Immigrants \| Barbados	100.0 /100 \| #27	Exceptional 7.6%
Immigrants \| Israel	100.0 /100 \| #28	Exceptional 7.6%
Immigrants \| Iran	100.0 /100 \| #29	Exceptional 7.6%
Immigrants \| Sweden	100.0 /100 \| #30	Exceptional 7.6%
Guyanese	100.0 /100 \| #31	Exceptional 7.6%
Immigrants \| Hong Kong	100.0 /100 \| #32	Exceptional 7.6%
Cambodians	100.0 /100 \| #33	Exceptional 7.6%
Immigrants \| Eritrea	100.0 /100 \| #34	Exceptional 7.7%