Ute vs Chickasaw Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 40,610,237 people shows a perfect positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Ute communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 1.000. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Ute within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.349% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Ute corresponds to an increase of 348.9 Chickasaw.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Ute and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in householder income under 25 years ($49,997 compared to $44,763, a difference of 11.7%), householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($82,166 compared to $77,929, a difference of 5.4%), and median household income ($72,402 compared to $70,005, a difference of 3.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of per capita income ($36,651 compared to $36,475, a difference of 0.48%), median earnings ($41,051 compared to $40,672, a difference of 0.93%), and householder income over 65 years ($52,949 compared to $53,732, a difference of 1.5%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Ute and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in male poverty (16.2% compared to 13.5%, a difference of 20.4%), poverty (16.9% compared to 14.7%, a difference of 15.3%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.2% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 13.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (18.5% compared to 19.0%, a difference of 2.4%), single mother poverty (35.7% compared to 34.4%, a difference of 3.7%), and female poverty among 18-24 year olds (25.4% compared to 24.5%, a difference of 3.8%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Ute and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (6.2% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 45.8%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (6.3% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 43.7%), and unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (6.5% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 38.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.8% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 1.5%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (6.8% compared to 7.3%, a difference of 7.9%), and unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (5.2% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 8.1%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Ute and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 30-34 (78.9% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 3.8%), in labor force | age 20-64 (73.7% compared to 76.2%, a difference of 3.4%), and in labor force | age 16-19 (37.1% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 3.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (73.8% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 0.90%), in labor force | age 25-29 (80.8% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 1.3%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (79.4% compared to 80.9%, a difference of 1.8%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Ute and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (12.6% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 12.4%), births to unmarried women (33.0% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 10.0%), and average family size (3.49 compared to 3.19, a difference of 9.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.3% compared to 64.4%, a difference of 0.090%), family households with children (28.2% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 0.25%), and single mother households (7.1% compared to 7.0%, a difference of 0.86%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Ute and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.6% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 47.6%), 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 17.7%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (56.6% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 4.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (22.7% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 2.1%), 1 or more vehicles in household (88.7% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 4.0%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (56.6% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 4.3%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Ute and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (2.0% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 33.5%), no schooling completed (2.3% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 33.4%), and professional degree (4.0% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 19.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of associate's degree (38.6% compared to 38.6%, a difference of 0.040%), nursery school (98.2% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.17%), and kindergarten (98.2% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.17%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Ute and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (0.86% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 102.1%), ambulatory disability (6.0% compared to 8.0%, a difference of 34.6%), and vision disability (2.4% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 32.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (52.6% compared to 51.2%, a difference of 2.7%), cognitive disability (17.3% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 7.0%), and disability age 65 to 74 (27.3% compared to 30.2%, a difference of 10.6%).