Immigrants from Peru vs Chickasaw Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 118,353,281 people shows a strong positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Immigrant from Peru communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.744. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Immigrants from Peru within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.070% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Immigrants from Peru corresponds to an increase of 70.4 Chickasaw.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Peru and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in median household income ($89,010 compared to $70,005, a difference of 27.2%), householder income under 25 years ($56,384 compared to $44,763, a difference of 26.0%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($103,173 compared to $82,193, a difference of 25.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.1% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 8.2%), median male earnings ($54,695 compared to $47,832, a difference of 14.3%), and householder income over 65 years ($61,988 compared to $53,732, a difference of 15.4%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Peru and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in female poverty among 18-24 year olds (16.9% compared to 24.5%, a difference of 45.1%), single male poverty (11.5% compared to 16.3%, a difference of 41.3%), and single female poverty (19.3% compared to 26.3%, a difference of 35.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple family poverty (5.4% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 7.0%), receiving food stamps (12.0% compared to 13.1%, a difference of 8.7%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.0% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 12.1%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Peru and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.4% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 21.7%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (8.9% compared to 7.3%, a difference of 20.9%), and unemployment among women with children under 6 years (7.5% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 19.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (4.8% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 1.1%), male unemployment (5.3% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 2.7%), and unemployment among ages 25 to 29 years (6.5% compared to 6.7%, a difference of 3.6%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Peru and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (34.2% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 12.2%), in labor force | age > 16 (66.3% compared to 62.3%, a difference of 6.4%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.5% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 5.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.5% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 0.010%), in labor force | age 30-34 (84.7% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 3.4%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.7% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 3.5%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Peru and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in divorced or separated (12.0% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 18.1%), single father households (2.4% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 14.7%), and births to unmarried women (31.8% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 14.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of currently married (46.4% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 0.48%), family households with children (28.9% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 2.5%), and married-couple households (47.3% compared to 45.9%, a difference of 3.0%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Peru and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.5% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 46.2%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.4% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 16.4%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.4% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 14.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.6% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 4.1%), 2 or more vehicles in household (54.4% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 8.5%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (19.4% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 14.6%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Peru and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no schooling completed (2.5% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 48.4%), professional degree (4.4% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 31.0%), and master's degree (14.9% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 30.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of ged/equivalency (84.2% compared to 83.8%, a difference of 0.44%), 12th grade, no diploma (89.7% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 0.70%), and nursery school (97.5% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.90%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Immigrants from Peru and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (2.7% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 66.0%), disability age 35 to 64 (9.8% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 64.5%), and disability age 18 to 34 (5.9% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 52.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (46.9% compared to 51.2%, a difference of 9.2%), cognitive disability (16.6% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 11.6%), and self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 18.2%).