Lithuanian vs Cherokee Community Comparison

COMPARE

Lithuanian
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta 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
Cherokee
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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

Lithuanians

Cherokee

Excellent
Fair
8,827
SOCIAL INDEX
85.7/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
46th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
2,697
SOCIAL INDEX
24.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
243rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Cherokee Integration in Lithuanian Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 378,759,043 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Cherokee within Lithuanian communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.263. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Lithuanians within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.029% in Cherokee. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Lithuanians corresponds to an increase of 29.0 Cherokee.
Lithuanian Integration in Cherokee Communities

Lithuanian vs Cherokee Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Lithuanian and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($49,448 compared to $37,203, a difference of 32.9%), median family income ($115,395 compared to $88,209, a difference of 30.8%), and householder income ages 45 - 64 years ($112,484 compared to $86,125, a difference of 30.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (28.7% compared to 27.4%, a difference of 4.8%), householder income under 25 years ($53,552 compared to $47,848, a difference of 11.9%), and householder income over 65 years ($65,209 compared to $54,133, a difference of 20.5%).
Lithuanian vs Cherokee Income
Income MetricLithuanianCherokee
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$49,448
Tragic
$37,203
Median Family Income
Exceptional
$115,395
Tragic
$88,209
Median Household Income
Exceptional
$93,852
Tragic
$72,682
Median Earnings
Exceptional
$50,991
Tragic
$41,252
Median Male Earnings
Exceptional
$61,228
Tragic
$48,669
Median Female Earnings
Exceptional
$42,108
Tragic
$34,742
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Exceptional
$53,552
Tragic
$47,848
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Exceptional
$105,223
Tragic
$80,843
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Exceptional
$112,484
Tragic
$86,125
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Exceptional
$65,209
Tragic
$54,133
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
28.7%
Tragic
27.4%

Lithuanian vs Cherokee Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Lithuanian and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in family poverty (7.2% compared to 10.6%, a difference of 47.5%), married-couple family poverty (4.0% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 45.6%), and child poverty under the age of 16 (13.5% compared to 19.5%, a difference of 44.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (17.3% compared to 19.6%, a difference of 13.6%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.6% compared to 12.0%, a difference of 13.6%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (9.1% compared to 11.0%, a difference of 20.9%).
Lithuanian vs Cherokee Poverty
Poverty MetricLithuanianCherokee
Poverty
Exceptional
10.5%
Tragic
14.4%
Families
Exceptional
7.2%
Tragic
10.6%
Males
Exceptional
9.5%
Tragic
13.1%
Females
Exceptional
11.4%
Tragic
15.6%
Females 18 to 24 years
Exceptional
18.7%
Tragic
22.7%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
12.2%
Tragic
17.2%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
15.2%
Tragic
21.7%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.5%
Tragic
19.5%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.0%
Tragic
19.7%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.9%
Tragic
19.9%
Single Males
Fair
13.0%
Tragic
16.1%
Single Females
Exceptional
19.2%
Tragic
25.7%
Single Fathers
Tragic
17.3%
Tragic
19.6%
Single Mothers
Exceptional
27.4%
Tragic
34.5%
Married Couples
Exceptional
4.0%
Tragic
5.8%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
9.1%
Average
11.0%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
10.6%
Good
12.0%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
9.7%
Tragic
13.2%

Lithuanian vs Cherokee Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Lithuanian and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (7.8% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 20.3%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.4% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 18.6%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.4% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 18.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.4% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 0.27%), unemployment among seniors over 75 years (9.9% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 0.38%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.1% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 0.94%).
Lithuanian vs Cherokee Unemployment
Unemployment MetricLithuanianCherokee
Unemployment
Exceptional
4.8%
Fair
5.3%
Males
Exceptional
5.0%
Tragic
5.6%
Females
Exceptional
4.7%
Fair
5.3%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
11.3%
Fair
11.8%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
16.7%
Poor
17.9%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Good
10.2%
Tragic
10.5%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Good
6.5%
Tragic
7.6%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Good
5.4%
Tragic
6.4%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Exceptional
4.4%
Tragic
5.2%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Poor
4.6%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Excellent
4.7%
Tragic
5.0%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Excellent
4.8%
Poor
4.9%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Fair
5.4%
Fair
5.4%
Seniors > 65
Average
5.1%
Excellent
5.1%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
9.9%
Tragic
9.8%
Women w/ Children < 6
Fair
7.8%
Tragic
9.3%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
9.4%
Tragic
10.0%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
5.0%
Tragic
5.7%

Lithuanian vs Cherokee Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Lithuanian and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 45-54 (83.6% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 5.9%), in labor force | age 20-64 (80.2% compared to 76.2%, a difference of 5.3%), and in labor force | age 30-34 (85.6% compared to 81.6%, a difference of 4.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 16-19 (40.4% compared to 40.2%, a difference of 0.48%), in labor force | age 20-24 (77.0% compared to 75.9%, a difference of 1.4%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (85.8% compared to 82.1%, a difference of 4.5%).
Lithuanian vs Cherokee Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricLithuanianCherokee
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Poor
64.8%
Tragic
61.9%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Exceptional
80.2%
Tragic
76.2%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
40.4%
Exceptional
40.2%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
77.0%
Exceptional
75.9%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Exceptional
85.8%
Tragic
82.1%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Exceptional
85.6%
Tragic
81.6%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Exceptional
85.2%
Tragic
81.4%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Exceptional
83.6%
Tragic
79.0%

Lithuanian vs Cherokee Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Lithuanian and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in single mother households (5.4% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 25.4%), single father households (2.1% compared to 2.6%, a difference of 24.3%), and births to unmarried women (29.6% compared to 36.7%, a difference of 24.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.0% compared to 65.0%, a difference of 1.4%), average family size (3.10 compared to 3.18, a difference of 2.6%), and family households with children (26.6% compared to 27.5%, a difference of 3.4%).
Lithuanian vs Cherokee Family Structure
Family Structure MetricLithuanianCherokee
Family Households
Fair
64.0%
Exceptional
65.0%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
26.6%
Average
27.5%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
48.9%
Good
46.7%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.10
Tragic
3.18
Single Father Households
Exceptional
2.1%
Tragic
2.6%
Single Mother Households
Exceptional
5.4%
Tragic
6.8%
Currently Married
Exceptional
49.0%
Good
46.9%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
11.7%
Tragic
13.7%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
29.6%
Tragic
36.7%

Lithuanian vs Cherokee Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Lithuanian and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in 4 or more vehicles in household (6.3% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 22.4%), 3 or more vehicles in household (20.1% compared to 23.0%, a difference of 14.3%), and no vehicles in household (8.4% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 9.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (91.7% compared to 92.4%, a difference of 0.75%), 2 or more vehicles in household (58.2% compared to 59.9%, a difference of 2.8%), and no vehicles in household (8.4% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 9.0%).
Lithuanian vs Cherokee Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricLithuanianCherokee
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
8.4%
Exceptional
7.7%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
91.7%
Exceptional
92.4%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
58.2%
Exceptional
59.9%
3+ Vehicles Available
Excellent
20.1%
Exceptional
23.0%
4+ Vehicles Available
Average
6.3%
Exceptional
7.7%

Lithuanian vs Cherokee Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Lithuanian and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (5.4% compared to 3.3%, a difference of 63.4%), master's degree (17.7% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 56.1%), and doctorate degree (2.3% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 55.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.6% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.28%), kindergarten (98.6% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.28%), and 1st grade (98.6% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.29%).
Lithuanian vs Cherokee Education Level
Education Level MetricLithuanianCherokee
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.4%
Exceptional
1.7%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.6%
Exceptional
98.3%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.6%
Exceptional
98.3%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.6%
Exceptional
98.3%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.3%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.2%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.0%
5th Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
97.8%
6th Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
97.6%
7th Grade
Exceptional
97.5%
Exceptional
96.8%
8th Grade
Exceptional
97.3%
Exceptional
96.5%
9th Grade
Exceptional
96.6%
Exceptional
95.4%
10th Grade
Exceptional
95.8%
Excellent
94.1%
11th Grade
Exceptional
94.8%
Average
92.4%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
93.6%
Tragic
90.5%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
92.0%
Poor
88.5%
GED/Equivalency
Exceptional
88.9%
Tragic
83.9%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
68.8%
Tragic
60.1%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
62.9%
Tragic
53.2%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
50.6%
Tragic
38.9%
Bachelor's Degree
Exceptional
42.2%
Tragic
30.2%
Master's Degree
Exceptional
17.7%
Tragic
11.4%
Professional Degree
Exceptional
5.4%
Tragic
3.3%
Doctorate Degree
Exceptional
2.3%
Tragic
1.5%

Lithuanian vs Cherokee Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Lithuanian and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in disability age 35 to 64 (10.8% compared to 15.5%, a difference of 43.0%), vision disability (2.0% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 42.8%), and disability age 65 to 74 (21.4% compared to 28.2%, a difference of 31.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (16.3% compared to 18.0%, a difference of 10.6%), disability age over 75 (45.1% compared to 50.2%, a difference of 11.4%), and disability age under 5 (1.6% compared to 1.8%, a difference of 13.5%).
Lithuanian vs Cherokee Disability
Disability MetricLithuanianCherokee
Disability
Poor
11.9%
Tragic
14.8%
Males
Tragic
11.6%
Tragic
14.8%
Females
Average
12.2%
Tragic
14.9%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.6%
Tragic
1.8%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
5.8%
Tragic
6.9%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
7.0%
Tragic
8.7%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Excellent
10.8%
Tragic
15.5%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
21.4%
Tragic
28.2%
Age | Over 75 years
Exceptional
45.1%
Tragic
50.2%
Vision
Exceptional
2.0%
Tragic
2.9%
Hearing
Tragic
3.4%
Tragic
4.2%
Cognitive
Exceptional
16.3%
Tragic
18.0%
Ambulatory
Excellent
6.0%
Tragic
7.9%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.4%
Tragic
2.9%