Laotian vs Chickasaw Community Comparison

COMPARE

Laotian
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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
Chickasaw
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch 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
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Laotians

Chickasaw

Good
Fair
8,033
SOCIAL INDEX
77.8/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
91st/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
3,663
SOCIAL INDEX
34.2/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
212th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Chickasaw Integration in Laotian Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 102,860,966 people shows a perfect positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Laotian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.950. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Laotians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.174% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Laotians corresponds to an increase of 173.7 Chickasaw.
Laotian Integration in Chickasaw Communities

Laotian vs Chickasaw Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Laotian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in median household income ($94,990 compared to $70,005, a difference of 35.7%), householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($111,051 compared to $82,193, a difference of 35.1%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($104,993 compared to $77,929, a difference of 34.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (26.4% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 3.0%), householder income under 25 years ($54,369 compared to $44,763, a difference of 21.5%), and median female earnings ($42,133 compared to $34,414, a difference of 22.4%).
Laotian vs Chickasaw Income
Income MetricLaotianChickasaw
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$47,041
Tragic
$36,475
Median Family Income
Exceptional
$112,859
Tragic
$85,356
Median Household Income
Exceptional
$94,990
Tragic
$70,005
Median Earnings
Exceptional
$50,343
Tragic
$40,672
Median Male Earnings
Exceptional
$59,351
Tragic
$47,832
Median Female Earnings
Exceptional
$42,133
Tragic
$34,414
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Exceptional
$54,369
Tragic
$44,763
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Exceptional
$104,993
Tragic
$77,929
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Exceptional
$111,051
Tragic
$82,193
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Exceptional
$66,306
Tragic
$53,732
Wage/Income Gap
Poor
26.4%
Tragic
27.2%

Laotian vs Chickasaw Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Laotian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in child poverty under the age of 5 (14.7% compared to 21.8%, a difference of 48.2%), female poverty among 25-34 year olds (12.2% compared to 17.0%, a difference of 39.6%), and child poverty among boys under 16 (14.3% compared to 19.8%, a difference of 38.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of seniors poverty over the age of 65 (10.6% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 0.81%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (12.3% compared to 11.6%, a difference of 5.8%), and married-couple family poverty (4.7% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 22.9%).
Laotian vs Chickasaw Poverty
Poverty MetricLaotianChickasaw
Poverty
Exceptional
11.6%
Tragic
14.7%
Families
Exceptional
8.1%
Tragic
10.8%
Males
Exceptional
10.5%
Tragic
13.5%
Females
Exceptional
12.6%
Tragic
15.9%
Females 18 to 24 years
Exceptional
19.2%
Tragic
24.5%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
12.2%
Tragic
17.0%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
14.7%
Tragic
21.8%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.3%
Tragic
19.5%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.3%
Tragic
19.8%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.5%
Tragic
19.6%
Single Males
Exceptional
11.9%
Tragic
16.3%
Single Females
Exceptional
19.3%
Tragic
26.3%
Single Fathers
Exceptional
15.1%
Tragic
19.0%
Single Mothers
Exceptional
27.0%
Tragic
34.4%
Married Couples
Exceptional
4.7%
Tragic
5.8%
Seniors Over 65 years
Good
10.6%
Good
10.7%
Seniors Over 75 years
Fair
12.3%
Exceptional
11.6%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
10.0%
Tragic
13.1%

Laotian vs Chickasaw Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Laotian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.5% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 37.2%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.2% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 18.7%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.2% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 18.2%). 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 0.14%), male unemployment (5.2% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 0.81%), and unemployment among ages 20 to 24 years (10.0% compared to 9.9%, a difference of 1.1%).
Laotian vs Chickasaw Unemployment
Unemployment MetricLaotianChickasaw
Unemployment
Good
5.2%
Exceptional
5.0%
Males
Good
5.2%
Excellent
5.2%
Females
Average
5.3%
Excellent
5.1%
Youth < 25
Good
11.5%
Exceptional
11.2%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Excellent
17.2%
Exceptional
16.7%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
10.0%
Exceptional
9.9%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Excellent
6.5%
Fair
6.7%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Exceptional
5.2%
Tragic
6.2%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Excellent
4.6%
Tragic
4.9%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Excellent
4.4%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Good
4.8%
Good
4.8%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Good
4.8%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Average
5.4%
Exceptional
4.7%
Seniors > 65
Poor
5.2%
Exceptional
4.4%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
8.2%
Exceptional
7.3%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.5%
Tragic
9.0%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
7.9%
Exceptional
8.6%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
5.2%
Good
5.4%

Laotian vs Chickasaw Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Laotian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (34.9% compared to 38.3%, a difference of 9.9%), in labor force | age > 16 (65.8% compared to 62.3%, a difference of 5.6%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (82.9% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 4.8%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.1% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 0.43%), in labor force | age 25-29 (84.4% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 3.1%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (84.7% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 3.4%).
Laotian vs Chickasaw Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricLaotianChickasaw
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Exceptional
65.8%
Tragic
62.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Average
79.6%
Tragic
76.2%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Tragic
34.9%
Exceptional
38.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Tragic
74.1%
Poor
74.5%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Poor
84.4%
Tragic
81.9%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Average
84.7%
Tragic
81.9%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Poor
84.2%
Tragic
80.9%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Good
82.9%
Tragic
79.0%

Laotian vs Chickasaw Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Laotian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (28.5% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 27.5%), divorced or separated (11.2% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 26.8%), and single father households (2.2% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 23.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (28.5% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 0.92%), currently married (47.4% compared to 46.6%, a difference of 1.8%), and family households (65.8% compared to 64.4%, a difference of 2.1%).
Laotian vs Chickasaw Family Structure
Family Structure MetricLaotianChickasaw
Family Households
Exceptional
65.8%
Good
64.4%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.5%
Exceptional
28.2%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
48.4%
Fair
45.9%
Average Family Size
Excellent
3.26
Tragic
3.19
Single Father Households
Exceptional
2.2%
Tragic
2.8%
Single Mother Households
Exceptional
5.8%
Tragic
7.0%
Currently Married
Excellent
47.4%
Average
46.6%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
11.2%
Tragic
14.2%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
28.5%
Tragic
36.3%

Laotian vs Chickasaw Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Laotian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (9.1% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 15.3%), 3 or more vehicles in household (21.5% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 3.2%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (91.0% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 1.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 2 or more vehicles in household (58.6% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 0.71%), 4 or more vehicles in household (7.4% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 0.75%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (91.0% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 1.3%).
Laotian vs Chickasaw Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricLaotianChickasaw
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
9.1%
Exceptional
7.9%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
91.0%
Exceptional
92.3%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
58.6%
Exceptional
59.0%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
21.5%
Exceptional
22.2%
4+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
7.4%
Exceptional
7.4%

Laotian vs Chickasaw Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Laotian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (5.2% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 56.0%), doctorate degree (2.3% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 52.8%), and master's degree (17.0% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 49.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 11th grade (92.6% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 0.24%), 10th grade (93.6% compared to 94.1%, a difference of 0.52%), and nursery school (97.8% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.58%).
Laotian vs Chickasaw Education Level
Education Level MetricLaotianChickasaw
No Schooling Completed
Poor
2.2%
Exceptional
1.7%
Nursery School
Tragic
97.8%
Exceptional
98.4%
Kindergarten
Poor
97.8%
Exceptional
98.4%
1st Grade
Poor
97.8%
Exceptional
98.3%
2nd Grade
Tragic
97.7%
Exceptional
98.3%
3rd Grade
Tragic
97.6%
Exceptional
98.2%
4th Grade
Tragic
97.3%
Exceptional
98.0%
5th Grade
Poor
97.1%
Exceptional
97.9%
6th Grade
Poor
96.8%
Exceptional
97.6%
7th Grade
Tragic
95.7%
Exceptional
96.7%
8th Grade
Tragic
95.4%
Exceptional
96.4%
9th Grade
Fair
94.6%
Exceptional
95.5%
10th Grade
Fair
93.6%
Excellent
94.1%
11th Grade
Average
92.6%
Fair
92.3%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Good
91.3%
Tragic
90.3%
High School Diploma
Good
89.3%
Poor
88.4%
GED/Equivalency
Excellent
86.5%
Tragic
83.8%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
68.5%
Tragic
60.4%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
62.8%
Tragic
53.3%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
49.9%
Tragic
38.6%
Bachelor's Degree
Exceptional
42.0%
Tragic
30.4%
Master's Degree
Exceptional
17.0%
Tragic
11.4%
Professional Degree
Exceptional
5.2%
Tragic
3.4%
Doctorate Degree
Exceptional
2.3%
Tragic
1.5%

Laotian vs Chickasaw Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Laotian and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.1% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 59.3%), vision disability (2.0% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 59.2%), and hearing disability (2.9% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 54.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age over 75 (47.9% compared to 51.2%, a difference of 6.9%), cognitive disability (17.3% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 7.0%), and self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 18.7%).
Laotian vs Chickasaw Disability
Disability MetricLaotianChickasaw
Disability
Exceptional
11.0%
Tragic
15.2%
Males
Exceptional
10.6%
Tragic
15.1%
Females
Exceptional
11.4%
Tragic
15.2%
Age | Under 5 years
Good
1.2%
Tragic
1.7%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Exceptional
5.1%
Tragic
6.8%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Exceptional
6.2%
Tragic
9.0%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
10.1%
Tragic
16.1%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
22.3%
Tragic
30.2%
Age | Over 75 years
Poor
47.9%
Tragic
51.2%
Vision
Exceptional
2.0%
Tragic
3.2%
Hearing
Excellent
2.9%
Tragic
4.5%
Cognitive
Average
17.3%
Tragic
18.5%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.7%
Tragic
8.0%
Self-Care
Excellent
2.4%
Tragic
2.9%