Chickasaw vs Latvian Community Comparison
COMPARE
Chickasaw
Latvian
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Chickasaw
Latvians
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,576
SOCIAL INDEX
93.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
12th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
Latvian Integration in Chickasaw Communities
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 92,722,699 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Latvians within Chickasaw communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.079. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chickasaw within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.007% in Latvians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chickasaw corresponds to an increase of 6.8 Latvians.
Chickasaw vs Latvian Income
When considering income, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($36,475 compared to $52,649, a difference of 44.3%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($82,193 compared to $115,957, a difference of 41.1%), and median family income ($85,356 compared to $120,301, a difference of 40.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.2% compared to 27.9%, a difference of 2.6%), householder income under 25 years ($44,763 compared to $52,783, a difference of 17.9%), and householder income over 65 years ($53,732 compared to $67,326, a difference of 25.3%).
Income Metric | Chickasaw | Latvian |
Per Capita Income | Tragic $36,475 | Exceptional $52,649 |
Median Family Income | Tragic $85,356 | Exceptional $120,301 |
Median Household Income | Tragic $70,005 | Exceptional $97,311 |
Median Earnings | Tragic $40,672 | Exceptional $53,001 |
Median Male Earnings | Tragic $47,832 | Exceptional $63,498 |
Median Female Earnings | Tragic $34,414 | Exceptional $43,941 |
Householder Age | Under 25 years | Tragic $44,763 | Excellent $52,783 |
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years | Tragic $77,929 | Exceptional $108,926 |
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years | Tragic $82,193 | Exceptional $115,957 |
Householder Age | Over 65 years | Tragic $53,732 | Exceptional $67,326 |
Wage/Income Gap | Tragic 27.2% | Tragic 27.9% |
Chickasaw vs Latvian Poverty
When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (10.8% compared to 7.1%, a difference of 53.2%), child poverty under the age of 5 (21.8% compared to 14.5%, a difference of 50.5%), and married-couple family poverty (5.8% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 48.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (11.6% compared to 10.8%, a difference of 7.5%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.7% compared to 9.5%, a difference of 13.0%), and single father poverty (19.0% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 15.2%).
Poverty Metric | Chickasaw | Latvian |
Poverty | Tragic 14.7% | Exceptional 10.5% |
Families | Tragic 10.8% | Exceptional 7.1% |
Males | Tragic 13.5% | Exceptional 9.6% |
Females | Tragic 15.9% | Exceptional 11.4% |
Females 18 to 24 years | Tragic 24.5% | Exceptional 19.5% |
Females 25 to 34 years | Tragic 17.0% | Exceptional 11.8% |
Children Under 5 years | Tragic 21.8% | Exceptional 14.5% |
Children Under 16 years | Tragic 19.5% | Exceptional 13.2% |
Boys Under 16 years | Tragic 19.8% | Exceptional 13.4% |
Girls Under 16 years | Tragic 19.6% | Exceptional 13.5% |
Single Males | Tragic 16.3% | Good 12.7% |
Single Females | Tragic 26.3% | Exceptional 19.0% |
Single Fathers | Tragic 19.0% | Fair 16.5% |
Single Mothers | Tragic 34.4% | Exceptional 26.9% |
Married Couples | Tragic 5.8% | Exceptional 3.9% |
Seniors Over 65 years | Good 10.7% | Exceptional 9.5% |
Seniors Over 75 years | Exceptional 11.6% | Exceptional 10.8% |
Receiving Food Stamps | Tragic 13.1% | Exceptional 9.1% |
Chickasaw vs Latvian Unemployment
When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (9.0% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 32.4%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (6.2% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 24.1%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.9% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 17.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (8.6% compared to 8.6%, a difference of 0.090%), unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.2% compared to 4.2%, a difference of 0.12%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (16.7% compared to 16.7%, a difference of 0.20%).
Unemployment Metric | Chickasaw | Latvian |
Unemployment | Exceptional 5.0% | Exceptional 4.7% |
Males | Excellent 5.2% | Exceptional 4.8% |
Females | Excellent 5.1% | Exceptional 4.7% |
Youth < 25 | Exceptional 11.2% | Exceptional 11.0% |
Age | 16 to 19 years | Exceptional 16.7% | Exceptional 16.7% |
Age | 20 to 24 years | Exceptional 9.9% | Exceptional 9.9% |
Age | 25 to 29 years | Fair 6.7% | Exceptional 6.2% |
Age | 30 to 34 years | Tragic 6.2% | Exceptional 5.0% |
Age | 35 to 44 years | Tragic 4.9% | Exceptional 4.2% |
Age | 45 to 54 years | Exceptional 4.2% | Exceptional 4.2% |
Age | 55 to 59 years | Good 4.8% | Exceptional 4.6% |
Age | 60 to 64 years | Exceptional 4.3% | Good 4.8% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Exceptional 4.7% | Exceptional 5.1% |
Seniors > 65 | Exceptional 4.4% | Exceptional 4.9% |
Seniors > 75 | Exceptional 7.3% | Excellent 8.6% |
Women w/ Children < 6 | Tragic 9.0% | Exceptional 6.8% |
Women w/ Children 6 to 17 | Exceptional 8.6% | Exceptional 8.6% |
Women w/ Children < 18 | Good 5.4% | Exceptional 4.9% |
Chickasaw vs Latvian Labor Participation
When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (79.0% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 6.0%), in labor force | age 20-64 (76.2% compared to 80.5%, a difference of 5.7%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (80.9% compared to 85.4%, a difference of 5.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (38.3% compared to 38.9%, a difference of 1.5%), in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 76.1%, a difference of 2.2%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (81.9% compared to 86.0%, a difference of 5.0%).
Labor Participation Metric | Chickasaw | Latvian |
In Labor Force | Age > 16 | Tragic 62.3% | Excellent 65.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-64 | Tragic 76.2% | Exceptional 80.5% |
In Labor Force | Age 16-19 | Exceptional 38.3% | Exceptional 38.9% |
In Labor Force | Age 20-24 | Poor 74.5% | Exceptional 76.1% |
In Labor Force | Age 25-29 | Tragic 81.9% | Exceptional 86.1% |
In Labor Force | Age 30-34 | Tragic 81.9% | Exceptional 86.0% |
In Labor Force | Age 35-44 | Tragic 80.9% | Exceptional 85.4% |
In Labor Force | Age 45-54 | Tragic 79.0% | Exceptional 83.8% |
Chickasaw vs Latvian Family Structure
When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.8% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 37.2%), single mother households (7.0% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 33.3%), and births to unmarried women (36.3% compared to 27.7%, a difference of 30.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.4% compared to 62.8%, a difference of 2.6%), average family size (3.19 compared to 3.11, a difference of 2.7%), and currently married (46.6% compared to 48.5%, a difference of 4.0%).
Family Structure Metric | Chickasaw | Latvian |
Family Households | Good 64.4% | Tragic 62.8% |
Family Households with Children | Exceptional 28.2% | Tragic 26.4% |
Married-couple Households | Fair 45.9% | Exceptional 47.9% |
Average Family Size | Tragic 3.19 | Tragic 3.11 |
Single Father Households | Tragic 2.8% | Exceptional 2.0% |
Single Mother Households | Tragic 7.0% | Exceptional 5.3% |
Currently Married | Average 46.6% | Exceptional 48.5% |
Divorced or Separated | Tragic 14.2% | Exceptional 11.6% |
Births to Unmarried Women | Tragic 36.3% | Exceptional 27.7% |
Chickasaw vs Latvian Vehicle Availability
When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (7.9% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 24.6%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 6.1%, a difference of 21.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 15.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (92.3% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 2.1%), 2 or more vehicles in household (59.0% compared to 56.2%, a difference of 4.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (22.2% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 15.1%).
Vehicle Availability Metric | Chickasaw | Latvian |
No Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.9% | Excellent 9.8% |
1+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 92.3% | Excellent 90.3% |
2+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 59.0% | Excellent 56.2% |
3+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 22.2% | Fair 19.3% |
4+ Vehicles Available | Exceptional 7.4% | Fair 6.1% |
Chickasaw vs Latvian Education Level
When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.4% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 85.8%), master's degree (11.4% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 73.5%), and doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 70.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of kindergarten (98.4% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.13%), 1st grade (98.3% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.13%), and nursery school (98.4% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.14%).
Education Level Metric | Chickasaw | Latvian |
No Schooling Completed | Exceptional 1.7% | Exceptional 1.5% |
Nursery School | Exceptional 98.4% | Exceptional 98.5% |
Kindergarten | Exceptional 98.4% | Exceptional 98.5% |
1st Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Exceptional 98.5% |
2nd Grade | Exceptional 98.3% | Exceptional 98.4% |
3rd Grade | Exceptional 98.2% | Exceptional 98.4% |
4th Grade | Exceptional 98.0% | Exceptional 98.2% |
5th Grade | Exceptional 97.9% | Exceptional 98.1% |
6th Grade | Exceptional 97.6% | Exceptional 97.9% |
7th Grade | Exceptional 96.7% | Exceptional 97.2% |
8th Grade | Exceptional 96.4% | Exceptional 97.0% |
9th Grade | Exceptional 95.5% | Exceptional 96.4% |
10th Grade | Excellent 94.1% | Exceptional 95.6% |
11th Grade | Fair 92.3% | Exceptional 94.7% |
12th Grade, No Diploma | Tragic 90.3% | Exceptional 93.6% |
High School Diploma | Poor 88.4% | Exceptional 92.0% |
GED/Equivalency | Tragic 83.8% | Exceptional 89.2% |
College, Under 1 year | Tragic 60.4% | Exceptional 71.6% |
College, 1 year or more | Tragic 53.3% | Exceptional 66.1% |
Associate's Degree | Tragic 38.6% | Exceptional 53.9% |
Bachelor's Degree | Tragic 30.4% | Exceptional 46.1% |
Master's Degree | Tragic 11.4% | Exceptional 19.8% |
Professional Degree | Tragic 3.4% | Exceptional 6.2% |
Doctorate Degree | Tragic 1.5% | Exceptional 2.6% |
Chickasaw vs Latvian Disability
When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chickasaw and Latvian communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (3.2% compared to 2.0%, a difference of 60.3%), disability age 35 to 64 (16.1% compared to 10.2%, a difference of 58.4%), and disability age 65 to 74 (30.2% compared to 21.2%, a difference of 42.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (18.5% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 11.2%), disability age over 75 (51.2% compared to 45.1%, a difference of 13.5%), and self-care disability (2.9% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 24.5%).
Disability Metric | Chickasaw | Latvian |
Disability | Tragic 15.2% | Excellent 11.4% |
Males | Tragic 15.1% | Good 11.1% |
Females | Tragic 15.2% | Exceptional 11.7% |
Age | Under 5 years | Tragic 1.7% | Tragic 1.3% |
Age | 5 to 17 years | Tragic 6.8% | Exceptional 5.4% |
Age | 18 to 34 years | Tragic 9.0% | Poor 6.8% |
Age | 35 to 64 years | Tragic 16.1% | Exceptional 10.2% |
Age | 65 to 74 years | Tragic 30.2% | Exceptional 21.2% |
Age | Over 75 years | Tragic 51.2% | Exceptional 45.1% |
Vision | Tragic 3.2% | Exceptional 2.0% |
Hearing | Tragic 4.5% | Tragic 3.2% |
Cognitive | Tragic 18.5% | Exceptional 16.6% |
Ambulatory | Tragic 8.0% | Exceptional 5.7% |
Self-Care | Tragic 2.9% | Exceptional 2.3% |