Immigrants from Bosnia and Herzegovina vs Sudanese Unemployment Among Ages 60 to 64 years

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 149,200,832 people shows a poor negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Bosnia and Herzegovina and unemployment rate among population between the ages 60 and 64 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.175 and weighted average of 4.2%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 105,864,294 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Sudanese and unemployment rate among population between the ages 60 and 64 in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.550 and weighted average of 4.3%, a difference of 2.4%.

Unemployment Among Ages 60 to 64 years Correlation Summary

Measurement	Immigrants from Bosnia and Herzegovina	Sudanese
Minimum	0.90%	0.70%
Maximum	13.7%	18.5%
Range	12.8%	17.8%
Mean	4.3%	5.3%
Median	4.0%	4.3%
Interquartile 25% (IQ1)	2.4%	3.3%
Interquartile 75% (IQ3)	4.7%	7.2%
Interquartile Range (IQR)	2.4%	3.9%
Standard Deviation (Sample)	2.9%	3.1%
Standard Deviation (Population)	2.8%	3.1%

Demographics Similar to Immigrants from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sudanese by Unemployment Among Ages 60 to 64 years

In terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Bosnia and Herzegovina are Indonesian (4.2%, a difference of 0.36%), Luxembourger (4.3%, a difference of 0.74%), Immigrants from Micronesia (4.2%, a difference of 0.87%), Immigrants from Cuba (4.3%, a difference of 1.8%), and Chickasaw (4.3%, a difference of 1.8%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Sudanese are Danish (4.4%, a difference of 0.26%), Immigrants from Afghanistan (4.4%, a difference of 0.42%), Norwegian (4.3%, a difference of 0.50%), Chickasaw (4.3%, a difference of 0.55%), and Immigrants from Cuba (4.3%, a difference of 0.60%).

Demographics	Rating \| Rank	Unemployment Among Ages 60 to 64 years
Fijians	100.0 /100 \| #2	Exceptional 3.9%
Chinese	100.0 /100 \| #3	Exceptional 4.0%
Hmong	100.0 /100 \| #4	Exceptional 4.0%
Immigrants \| Azores	100.0 /100 \| #5	Exceptional 4.0%
Immigrants \| Congo	100.0 /100 \| #6	Exceptional 4.1%
Lumbee	100.0 /100 \| #7	Exceptional 4.2%
Immigrants \| Micronesia	100.0 /100 \| #8	Exceptional 4.2%
Indonesians	100.0 /100 \| #9	Exceptional 4.2%
Immigrants \| Bosnia and Herzegovina	100.0 /100 \| #10	Exceptional 4.2%
Luxembourgers	100.0 /100 \| #11	Exceptional 4.3%
Immigrants \| Cuba	100.0 /100 \| #12	Exceptional 4.3%
Chickasaw	100.0 /100 \| #13	Exceptional 4.3%
Norwegians	100.0 /100 \| #14	Exceptional 4.3%
Sudanese	100.0 /100 \| #15	Exceptional 4.3%
Danes	100.0 /100 \| #16	Exceptional 4.4%
Immigrants \| Afghanistan	100.0 /100 \| #17	Exceptional 4.4%
Slovenes	100.0 /100 \| #18	Exceptional 4.4%
Tsimshian	100.0 /100 \| #19	Exceptional 4.4%
Afghans	100.0 /100 \| #20	Exceptional 4.4%
Immigrants \| Cabo Verde	100.0 /100 \| #21	Exceptional 4.4%
Cape Verdeans	100.0 /100 \| #22	Exceptional 4.4%