Chippewa vs Romanian Community Comparison

COMPARE

Chippewa
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNepaleseNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOkinawanOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-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
Romanian
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

Romanians

Fair
Excellent
2,429
SOCIAL INDEX
21.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
259th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,022
SOCIAL INDEX
87.7/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
35th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Romanian Integration in Chippewa Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 179,366,627 people shows a mild negative correlation between the proportion of Romanians within Chippewa communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.304. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Chippewa within a typical geography, there is a decrease of 0.005% in Romanians. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Chippewa corresponds to a decrease of 4.8 Romanians.
Chippewa Integration in Romanian Communities

Chippewa vs Romanian Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($36,631 compared to $48,445, a difference of 32.3%), median household income ($70,539 compared to $91,994, a difference of 30.4%), and median male earnings ($46,368 compared to $60,063, a difference of 29.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.0% compared to 28.0%, a difference of 11.9%), householder income under 25 years ($47,015 compared to $53,632, a difference of 14.1%), and median female earnings ($35,003 compared to $41,663, a difference of 19.0%).
Chippewa vs Romanian Income
Income MetricChippewaRomanian
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$36,631
Exceptional
$48,445
Median Family Income
Tragic
$86,852
Exceptional
$111,243
Median Household Income
Tragic
$70,539
Exceptional
$91,994
Median Earnings
Tragic
$40,287
Exceptional
$50,244
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$46,368
Exceptional
$60,063
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$35,003
Exceptional
$41,663
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$47,015
Exceptional
$53,632
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$80,005
Exceptional
$102,544
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$83,943
Exceptional
$108,609
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$53,847
Exceptional
$64,142
Wage/Income Gap
Excellent
25.0%
Tragic
28.0%

Chippewa vs Romanian Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (23.4% compared to 16.0%, a difference of 46.4%), female poverty among 25-34 year olds (18.0% compared to 12.8%, a difference of 40.6%), and receiving food stamps (14.7% compared to 10.4%, a difference of 40.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple family poverty (5.4% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 12.4%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (13.1% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 12.8%), and single father poverty (18.8% compared to 16.5%, a difference of 13.7%).
Chippewa vs Romanian Poverty
Poverty MetricChippewaRomanian
Poverty
Tragic
15.7%
Exceptional
11.4%
Families
Tragic
11.2%
Exceptional
8.2%
Males
Tragic
14.6%
Exceptional
10.5%
Females
Tragic
16.7%
Exceptional
12.5%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
25.9%
Exceptional
19.0%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
18.0%
Exceptional
12.8%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
23.4%
Exceptional
16.0%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
20.5%
Exceptional
14.8%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
21.0%
Exceptional
15.0%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
20.6%
Exceptional
15.0%
Single Males
Tragic
16.4%
Excellent
12.5%
Single Females
Tragic
26.8%
Exceptional
19.6%
Single Fathers
Tragic
18.8%
Fair
16.5%
Single Mothers
Tragic
34.8%
Exceptional
27.8%
Married Couples
Poor
5.4%
Exceptional
4.8%
Seniors Over 65 years
Tragic
12.1%
Exceptional
10.1%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
13.1%
Exceptional
11.6%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
14.7%
Exceptional
10.4%

Chippewa vs Romanian Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (13.3% compared to 7.2%, a difference of 85.9%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (7.8% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 45.9%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (6.2% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 38.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 16 to 19 years (18.0% compared to 17.3%, a difference of 3.5%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (4.9% compared to 4.7%, a difference of 5.2%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.4% compared to 5.0%, a difference of 7.7%).
Chippewa vs Romanian Unemployment
Unemployment MetricChippewaRomanian
Unemployment
Tragic
6.2%
Exceptional
5.0%
Males
Tragic
6.6%
Excellent
5.1%
Females
Tragic
6.1%
Exceptional
5.0%
Youth < 25
Tragic
13.5%
Excellent
11.4%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Poor
18.0%
Good
17.3%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
12.3%
Excellent
10.2%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
7.8%
Good
6.6%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
7.8%
Excellent
5.3%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
6.2%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
5.5%
Exceptional
4.4%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
5.9%
Excellent
4.7%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Poor
4.9%
Exceptional
4.7%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
5.7%
Exceptional
5.2%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
5.4%
Exceptional
5.0%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
10.1%
Poor
9.0%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
13.3%
Exceptional
7.2%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
11.1%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
7.0%
Exceptional
5.2%

Chippewa vs Romanian Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (43.8% compared to 37.5%, a difference of 17.0%), in labor force | age 20-64 (77.3% compared to 79.8%, a difference of 3.2%), and in labor force | age > 16 (63.1% compared to 65.0%, a difference of 3.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 35-44 (82.9% compared to 84.5%, a difference of 1.9%), in labor force | age 20-24 (77.1% compared to 75.5%, a difference of 2.1%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (81.3% compared to 83.0%, a difference of 2.1%).
Chippewa vs Romanian Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricChippewaRomanian
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
63.1%
Fair
65.0%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
77.3%
Good
79.8%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
43.8%
Excellent
37.5%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
77.1%
Excellent
75.5%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
82.9%
Good
84.8%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
82.6%
Good
84.8%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
82.9%
Good
84.5%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
81.3%
Good
83.0%

Chippewa vs Romanian Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (42.6% compared to 28.7%, a difference of 48.3%), single father households (3.1% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 45.7%), and single mother households (8.0% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 41.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of average family size (3.20 compared to 3.18, a difference of 0.63%), family households with children (26.7% compared to 27.6%, a difference of 3.2%), and family households (62.1% compared to 64.5%, a difference of 4.0%).
Chippewa vs Romanian Family Structure
Family Structure MetricChippewaRomanian
Family Households
Tragic
62.1%
Good
64.5%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
26.7%
Good
27.6%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
42.1%
Exceptional
48.4%
Average Family Size
Poor
3.20
Tragic
3.18
Single Father Households
Tragic
3.1%
Exceptional
2.1%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
8.0%
Exceptional
5.6%
Currently Married
Tragic
43.2%
Exceptional
48.4%
Divorced or Separated
Tragic
13.2%
Exceptional
11.8%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
42.6%
Exceptional
28.7%

Chippewa vs Romanian Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (7.6% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 22.2%), no vehicles in household (9.4% compared to 10.9%, a difference of 15.8%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.5% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 11.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (90.7% compared to 89.2%, a difference of 1.7%), 2 or more vehicles in household (57.2% compared to 55.5%, a difference of 3.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (21.5% compared to 19.3%, a difference of 11.5%).
Chippewa vs Romanian Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricChippewaRomanian
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
9.4%
Poor
10.9%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
90.7%
Poor
89.2%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
57.2%
Average
55.5%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
21.5%
Fair
19.3%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.6%
Fair
6.2%

Chippewa vs Romanian Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (3.5% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 52.3%), master's degree (11.4% compared to 17.2%, a difference of 50.4%), and doctorate degree (1.5% compared to 2.1%, a difference of 38.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 10th grade (95.0% compared to 94.8%, a difference of 0.17%), nursery school (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.26%), and kindergarten (98.5% compared to 98.2%, a difference of 0.26%).
Chippewa vs Romanian Education Level
Education Level MetricChippewaRomanian
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.6%
Exceptional
1.8%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.3%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.2%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.2%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.2%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.1%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
97.9%
5th Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
97.8%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Exceptional
97.5%
7th Grade
Exceptional
97.3%
Exceptional
96.7%
8th Grade
Exceptional
97.1%
Exceptional
96.5%
9th Grade
Exceptional
96.1%
Exceptional
95.7%
10th Grade
Exceptional
95.0%
Exceptional
94.8%
11th Grade
Exceptional
93.5%
Exceptional
93.8%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Good
91.5%
Exceptional
92.6%
High School Diploma
Excellent
89.7%
Exceptional
90.7%
GED/Equivalency
Fair
85.2%
Exceptional
87.5%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
62.6%
Exceptional
68.2%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
55.7%
Exceptional
62.4%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
40.7%
Exceptional
49.7%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
30.6%
Exceptional
41.6%
Master's Degree
Tragic
11.4%
Exceptional
17.2%
Professional Degree
Tragic
3.5%
Exceptional
5.3%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Exceptional
2.1%

Chippewa vs Romanian Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Chippewa and Romanian communities in the United States are seen in disability age under 5 (1.9% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 47.5%), disability age 35 to 64 (15.0% compared to 10.6%, a difference of 41.1%), and disability age 18 to 34 (9.0% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 35.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (48.4% compared to 46.2%, a difference of 4.8%), self-care disability (2.6% compared to 2.4%, a difference of 8.7%), and cognitive disability (18.1% compared to 16.6%, a difference of 9.1%).
Chippewa vs Romanian Disability
Disability MetricChippewaRomanian
Disability
Tragic
14.1%
Good
11.6%
Males
Tragic
14.3%
Average
11.2%
Females
Tragic
14.0%
Exceptional
11.9%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.9%
Fair
1.3%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
7.1%
Exceptional
5.4%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
9.0%
Fair
6.6%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
15.0%
Exceptional
10.6%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
27.8%
Exceptional
22.1%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
48.4%
Exceptional
46.2%
Vision
Tragic
2.4%
Exceptional
2.1%
Hearing
Tragic
4.0%
Poor
3.1%
Cognitive
Tragic
18.1%
Exceptional
16.6%
Ambulatory
Tragic
7.1%
Excellent
6.0%
Self-Care
Tragic
2.6%
Good
2.4%