Chippewa vs Laotian Community Comparison

COMPARE

Chippewa
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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
Laotian
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSenegaleseSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianThaiTlingit-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
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Chippewa

Laotians

Fair
Good
2,429
SOCIAL INDEX
21.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
259th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
8,033
SOCIAL INDEX
77.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
91st/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Laotian Integration in Chippewa Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 129,731,219 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Laotians within Chippewa communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.016. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chippewa within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.000% in Laotians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chippewa corresponds to an increase of 0.3 Laotians.
Chippewa Integration in Laotian Communities

Chippewa vs Laotian Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Laotian communities in the United States are seen in median household income ($70,539 compared to $94,990, a difference of 34.7%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($83,943 compared to $111,051, a difference of 32.3%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($80,005 compared to $104,993, a difference of 31.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.0% compared to 26.4%, a difference of 5.6%), householder income under 25 years ($47,015 compared to $54,369, a difference of 15.6%), and median female earnings ($35,003 compared to $42,133, a difference of 20.4%).
Chippewa vs Laotian Income
Income MetricChippewaLaotian
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$36,631
Exceptional
$47,041
Median Family Income
Tragic
$86,852
Exceptional
$112,859
Median Household Income
Tragic
$70,539
Exceptional
$94,990
Median Earnings
Tragic
$40,287
Exceptional
$50,343
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$46,368
Exceptional
$59,351
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$35,003
Exceptional
$42,133
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$47,015
Exceptional
$54,369
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$80,005
Exceptional
$104,993
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$83,943
Exceptional
$111,051
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$53,847
Exceptional
$66,306
Wage/Income Gap
Excellent
25.0%
Poor
26.4%

Chippewa vs Laotian Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Laotian communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (23.4% compared to 14.7%, a difference of 58.9%), female poverty among 25-34 year olds (18.0% compared to 12.2%, a difference of 47.9%), and receiving food stamps (14.7% compared to 10.0%, a difference of 47.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 75 (13.1% compared to 12.3%, a difference of 6.1%), seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.1% compared to 10.6%, a difference of 14.4%), and married-couple family poverty (5.4% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 15.4%).
Chippewa vs Laotian Poverty
Poverty MetricChippewaLaotian
Poverty
Tragic
15.7%
Exceptional
11.6%
Families
Tragic
11.2%
Exceptional
8.1%
Males
Tragic
14.6%
Exceptional
10.5%
Females
Tragic
16.7%
Exceptional
12.6%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
25.9%
Exceptional
19.2%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
18.0%
Exceptional
12.2%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
23.4%
Exceptional
14.7%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
20.5%
Exceptional
14.3%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
21.0%
Exceptional
14.3%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
20.6%
Exceptional
14.5%
Single Males
Tragic
16.4%
Exceptional
11.9%
Single Females
Tragic
26.8%
Exceptional
19.3%
Single Fathers
Tragic
18.8%
Exceptional
15.1%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.8%
Exceptional
27.0%
Married Couples
Poor
5.4%
Exceptional
4.7%
Seniors Over 65 years
Tragic
12.1%
Good
10.6%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
13.1%
Fair
12.3%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
14.7%
Exceptional
10.0%

Chippewa vs Laotian Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Laotian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (13.3% compared to 6.5%, a difference of 104.2%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (7.8% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 48.5%), and unemployment among women with children ages 6 to 17 years (11.1% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 40.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.9% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 2.0%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.4% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 3.8%), and unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (18.0% compared to 17.2%, a difference of 4.2%).
Chippewa vs Laotian Unemployment
Unemployment MetricChippewaLaotian
Unemployment
Tragic
6.2%
Good
5.2%
Males
Tragic
6.6%
Good
5.2%
Females
Tragic
6.1%
Average
5.3%
Youth < 25
Tragic
13.5%
Good
11.5%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Poor
18.0%
Excellent
17.2%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
12.3%
Exceptional
10.0%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
7.8%
Excellent
6.5%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
7.8%
Exceptional
5.2%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
6.2%
Excellent
4.6%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
5.5%
Excellent
4.4%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
5.9%
Good
4.8%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Poor
4.9%
Good
4.8%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
5.7%
Average
5.4%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
5.4%
Poor
5.2%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
10.1%
Exceptional
8.2%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
13.3%
Exceptional
6.5%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
11.1%
Exceptional
7.9%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
7.0%
Exceptional
5.2%

Chippewa vs Laotian Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Laotian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (43.8% compared to 34.9%, a difference of 25.6%), in labor force | age > 16 (63.1% compared to 65.8%, a difference of 4.2%), and in labor force | age 20-24 (77.1% compared to 74.1%, a difference of 4.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 35-44 (82.9% compared to 84.2%, a difference of 1.5%), in labor force | age 25-29 (82.9% compared to 84.4%, a difference of 1.8%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (81.3% compared to 82.9%, a difference of 2.0%).
Chippewa vs Laotian Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricChippewaLaotian
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
63.1%
Exceptional
65.8%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
77.3%
Average
79.6%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
43.8%
Tragic
34.9%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
77.1%
Tragic
74.1%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
82.9%
Poor
84.4%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
82.6%
Average
84.7%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
82.9%
Poor
84.2%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
81.3%
Good
82.9%

Chippewa vs Laotian Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Laotian communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (42.6% compared to 28.5%, a difference of 49.7%), single father households (3.1% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 38.6%), and single mother households (8.0% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 36.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.20 compared to 3.26, a difference of 1.8%), family households (62.1% compared to 65.8%, a difference of 5.9%), and family households with children (26.7% compared to 28.5%, a difference of 6.5%).
Chippewa vs Laotian Family Structure
Family Structure MetricChippewaLaotian
Family Households
Tragic
62.1%
Exceptional
65.8%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
26.7%
Exceptional
28.5%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
42.1%
Exceptional
48.4%
Average Family Size
Poor
3.20
Excellent
3.26
Single Father Households
Tragic
3.1%
Exceptional
2.2%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
8.0%
Exceptional
5.8%
Currently Married
Tragic
43.2%
Excellent
47.4%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
13.2%
Exceptional
11.2%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
42.6%
Exceptional
28.5%

Chippewa vs Laotian Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Laotian communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.4% compared to 9.1%, a difference of 4.3%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.6% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 2.6%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (57.2% compared to 58.6%, a difference of 2.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 3 or more vehicles in household (21.5% compared to 21.5%, a difference of 0.070%), 1 or more vehicles in household (90.7% compared to 91.0%, a difference of 0.42%), and 2 or more vehicles in household (57.2% compared to 58.6%, a difference of 2.4%).
Chippewa vs Laotian Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricChippewaLaotian
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
9.4%
Exceptional
9.1%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
90.7%
Exceptional
91.0%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
57.2%
Exceptional
58.6%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
21.5%
Exceptional
21.5%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.6%
Exceptional
7.4%

Chippewa vs Laotian Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Laotian communities in the United States are seen in doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 2.3%, a difference of 51.3%), professional degree (3.5% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 51.2%), and master's degree (11.4% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 49.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (91.5% compared to 91.3%, a difference of 0.22%), high school diploma (89.7% compared to 89.3%, a difference of 0.49%), and nursery school (98.5% compared to 97.8%, a difference of 0.72%).
Chippewa vs Laotian Education Level
Education Level MetricChippewaLaotian
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.6%
Poor
2.2%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.5%
Tragic
97.8%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.5%
Poor
97.8%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.5%
Poor
97.8%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.4%
Tragic
97.7%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.4%
Tragic
97.6%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Tragic
97.3%
5th Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Poor
97.1%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Poor
96.8%
7th Grade
Exceptional
97.3%
Tragic
95.7%
8th Grade
Exceptional
97.1%
Tragic
95.4%
9th Grade
Exceptional
96.1%
Fair
94.6%
10th Grade
Exceptional
95.0%
Fair
93.6%
11th Grade
Exceptional
93.5%
Average
92.6%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Good
91.5%
Good
91.3%
High School Diploma
Excellent
89.7%
Good
89.3%
GED/Equivalency
Fair
85.2%
Excellent
86.5%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
62.6%
Exceptional
68.5%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
55.7%
Exceptional
62.8%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
40.7%
Exceptional
49.9%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.6%
Exceptional
42.0%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.4%
Exceptional
17.0%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.5%
Exceptional
5.2%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Exceptional
2.3%

Chippewa vs Laotian Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Laotian communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.9% compared to 1.2%, a difference of 53.4%), disability age 35 to 64 (15.0% compared to 10.1%, a difference of 48.0%), and disability age 18 to 34 (9.0% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 44.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (48.4% compared to 47.9%, a difference of 1.1%), cognitive disability (18.1% compared to 17.3%, a difference of 4.7%), and self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 9.8%).
Chippewa vs Laotian Disability
Disability MetricChippewaLaotian
Disability
Tragic
14.1%
Exceptional
11.0%
Males
Tragic
14.3%
Exceptional
10.6%
Females
Tragic
14.0%
Exceptional
11.4%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.9%
Good
1.2%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
7.1%
Exceptional
5.1%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.0%
Exceptional
6.2%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
15.0%
Exceptional
10.1%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
27.8%
Exceptional
22.3%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
48.4%
Poor
47.9%
Vision
Tragic
2.4%
Exceptional
2.0%
Hearing
Tragic
4.0%
Excellent
2.9%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.1%
Average
17.3%
Ambulatory
Tragic
7.1%
Exceptional
5.7%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.6%
Excellent
2.4%