Ute vs Iroquois Community Comparison

COMPARE

Ute
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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
Iroquois
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

Iroquois

Fair
Fair
2,439
SOCIAL INDEX
21.9/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
258th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
2,526
SOCIAL INDEX
22.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
253rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Iroquois Integration in Ute Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 42,259,989 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Iroquois within Ute communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.221. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Ute within a typical geography, there is an increase of 1.766% in Iroquois. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Ute corresponds to an increase of 1,765.5 Iroquois.
Ute Integration in Iroquois Communities

Ute vs Iroquois Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Ute and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in wage/income gap (27.8% compared to 25.1%, a difference of 10.8%), per capita income ($36,651 compared to $39,104, a difference of 6.7%), and householder income under 25 years ($49,997 compared to $47,380, a difference of 5.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of median male earnings ($48,899 compared to $49,374, a difference of 0.97%), householder income over 65 years ($52,949 compared to $53,737, a difference of 1.5%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($82,166 compared to $83,682, a difference of 1.8%).
Ute vs Iroquois Income
Income MetricUteIroquois
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$36,651
Tragic
$39,104
Median Family Income
Tragic
$87,596
Tragic
$90,543
Median Household Income
Tragic
$72,402
Tragic
$74,279
Median Earnings
Tragic
$41,051
Tragic
$42,430
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$48,899
Tragic
$49,374
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$34,960
Tragic
$36,408
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$49,997
Tragic
$47,380
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$82,166
Tragic
$83,682
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$83,937
Tragic
$87,255
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$52,949
Tragic
$53,737
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.8%
Excellent
25.1%

Ute vs Iroquois Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Ute and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in male poverty (16.2% compared to 13.2%, a difference of 22.9%), married-couple family poverty (6.4% compared to 5.5%, a difference of 16.9%), and poverty (16.9% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 16.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.2% compared to 11.9%, a difference of 2.1%), female poverty among 25-34 year olds (17.9% compared to 17.5%, a difference of 2.4%), and single mother poverty (35.7% compared to 34.8%, a difference of 2.5%).
Ute vs Iroquois Poverty
Poverty MetricUteIroquois
Poverty
Tragic
16.9%
Tragic
14.5%
Families
Tragic
12.1%
Tragic
10.7%
Males
Tragic
16.2%
Tragic
13.2%
Females
Tragic
17.5%
Tragic
15.8%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
25.4%
Tragic
22.9%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
17.9%
Tragic
17.5%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
23.5%
Tragic
22.0%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
21.5%
Tragic
19.9%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
21.6%
Tragic
19.6%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
21.8%
Tragic
20.4%
Single Males
Tragic
15.7%
Tragic
14.5%
Single Females
Tragic
28.4%
Tragic
25.7%
Single Fathers
Tragic
18.5%
Tragic
17.7%
Single Mothers
Tragic
35.7%
Tragic
34.8%
Married Couples
Tragic
6.4%
Poor
5.5%
Seniors Over 65 years
Tragic
12.2%
Tragic
11.9%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
12.9%
Tragic
14.0%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
14.7%
Tragic
13.5%

Ute vs Iroquois Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Ute and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 75 years (6.8% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 37.1%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.5% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 34.9%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (7.0% compared to 9.2%, a difference of 31.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children under 18 years (5.9% compared to 5.7%, a difference of 3.8%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.9% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 4.8%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (5.3% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 5.7%).
Ute vs Iroquois Unemployment
Unemployment MetricUteIroquois
Unemployment
Tragic
6.3%
Poor
5.4%
Males
Tragic
6.6%
Tragic
5.7%
Females
Tragic
6.1%
Fair
5.4%
Youth < 25
Tragic
13.3%
Exceptional
11.3%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Tragic
19.6%
Average
17.6%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
11.2%
Exceptional
10.1%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Poor
6.8%
Tragic
7.5%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
7.0%
Tragic
5.9%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
5.3%
Tragic
5.1%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
6.2%
Tragic
5.1%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
5.2%
Fair
4.9%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Fair
4.9%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
6.5%
Exceptional
5.1%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
4.9%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
6.8%
Tragic
9.3%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.5%
Tragic
8.7%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
7.0%
Tragic
9.2%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
5.9%
Tragic
5.7%

Ute vs Iroquois Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Ute and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (37.1% compared to 39.9%, a difference of 7.7%), in labor force | age 45-54 (76.6% compared to 80.6%, a difference of 5.2%), and in labor force | age 20-64 (73.7% compared to 77.5%, a difference of 5.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (73.8% compared to 75.6%, a difference of 2.5%), in labor force | age 25-29 (80.8% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 3.7%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (78.9% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 3.7%).
Ute vs Iroquois Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricUteIroquois
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
60.9%
Tragic
63.2%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
73.7%
Tragic
77.5%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Good
37.1%
Exceptional
39.9%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Tragic
73.8%
Excellent
75.6%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
80.8%
Tragic
83.8%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
78.9%
Tragic
81.9%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
79.4%
Tragic
83.5%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
76.6%
Tragic
80.6%

Ute vs Iroquois Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Ute and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (33.0% compared to 38.2%, a difference of 15.8%), single father households (3.0% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 13.8%), and average family size (3.49 compared to 3.16, a difference of 10.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple households (44.4% compared to 43.7%, a difference of 1.6%), divorced or separated (12.6% compared to 12.9%, a difference of 1.7%), and currently married (43.9% compared to 44.7%, a difference of 1.9%).
Ute vs Iroquois Family Structure
Family Structure MetricUteIroquois
Family Households
Average
64.3%
Tragic
62.2%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.2%
Tragic
26.1%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
44.4%
Tragic
43.7%
Average Family Size
Exceptional
3.49
Tragic
3.16
Single Father Households
Tragic
3.0%
Tragic
2.6%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
7.1%
Tragic
7.0%
Currently Married
Tragic
43.9%
Tragic
44.7%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
12.6%
Tragic
12.9%
Births to Unmarried Women
Poor
33.0%
Tragic
38.2%

Ute vs Iroquois Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Ute and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (8.8% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 35.4%), 3 or more vehicles in household (22.7% compared to 19.4%, a difference of 16.6%), and no vehicles in household (11.6% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 5.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.7% compared to 89.2%, a difference of 0.56%), 2 or more vehicles in household (56.6% compared to 54.7%, a difference of 3.5%), and no vehicles in household (11.6% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 5.9%).
Ute vs Iroquois Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricUteIroquois
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
11.6%
Poor
10.9%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
88.7%
Poor
89.2%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
56.6%
Fair
54.7%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
22.7%
Average
19.4%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
8.8%
Good
6.5%

Ute vs Iroquois Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Ute and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (2.0% compared to 1.6%, a difference of 26.2%), no schooling completed (2.3% compared to 1.9%, a difference of 20.1%), and associate's degree (38.6% compared to 42.8%, a difference of 10.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3rd grade (98.0% compared to 98.0%, a difference of 0.010%), 2nd grade (98.1% compared to 98.1%, a difference of 0.030%), and nursery school (98.2% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.040%).
Ute vs Iroquois Education Level
Education Level MetricUteIroquois
No Schooling Completed
Tragic
2.3%
Exceptional
1.9%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.2%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.2%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.1%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
98.1%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.0%
Exceptional
98.0%
4th Grade
Excellent
97.7%
Exceptional
97.8%
5th Grade
Good
97.4%
Exceptional
97.7%
6th Grade
Good
97.1%
Exceptional
97.4%
7th Grade
Average
96.1%
Exceptional
96.6%
8th Grade
Average
95.8%
Exceptional
96.3%
9th Grade
Good
95.0%
Exceptional
95.4%
10th Grade
Fair
93.4%
Exceptional
94.3%
11th Grade
Tragic
91.1%
Good
92.8%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
89.0%
Average
91.1%
High School Diploma
Tragic
86.2%
Average
89.2%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
81.8%
Tragic
84.6%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
60.2%
Tragic
62.6%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
53.8%
Tragic
56.2%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
38.6%
Tragic
42.8%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.9%
Tragic
33.2%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.7%
Tragic
12.9%
Professional Degree
Tragic
4.0%
Tragic
3.7%
Doctorate Degree
Exceptional
2.0%
Tragic
1.6%

Ute vs Iroquois Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Ute and Iroquois communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (0.86% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 69.0%), disability age 5 to 17 (5.5% compared to 6.9%, a difference of 25.2%), and ambulatory disability (6.0% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 18.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (17.3% compared to 18.2%, a difference of 5.2%), hearing disability (3.5% compared to 3.7%, a difference of 5.7%), and disability age 35 to 64 (13.4% compared to 14.4%, a difference of 7.2%).
Ute vs Iroquois Disability
Disability MetricUteIroquois
Disability
Poor
11.9%
Tragic
13.8%
Males
Tragic
11.6%
Tragic
13.6%
Females
Poor
12.4%
Tragic
14.0%
Age | Under 5 years
Exceptional
0.86%
Tragic
1.5%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Excellent
5.5%
Tragic
6.9%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
7.0%
Tragic
7.9%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
13.4%
Tragic
14.4%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
27.3%
Tragic
25.4%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
52.6%
Tragic
48.4%
Vision
Tragic
2.4%
Tragic
2.6%
Hearing
Tragic
3.5%
Tragic
3.7%
Cognitive
Average
17.3%
Tragic
18.2%
Ambulatory
Excellent
6.0%
Tragic
7.1%
Self-Care
Average
2.5%
Tragic
2.7%