Luxembourger vs Cherokee Community Comparison

COMPARE

Luxembourger
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)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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

Luxembourgers

Cherokee

Excellent
Fair
9,215
SOCIAL INDEX
89.6/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
27th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
2,697
SOCIAL INDEX
24.5/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
243rd/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Cherokee Integration in Luxembourger Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 137,154,496 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Cherokee within Luxembourger communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.294. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Luxembourgers within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.139% in Cherokee. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Luxembourgers corresponds to an increase of 138.8 Cherokee.
Luxembourger Integration in Cherokee Communities

Luxembourger vs Cherokee Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($45,663 compared to $37,203, a difference of 22.7%), median family income ($106,183 compared to $88,209, a difference of 20.4%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($97,237 compared to $80,843, a difference of 20.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (27.4% compared to 27.4%, a difference of 0.050%), householder income under 25 years ($50,379 compared to $47,848, a difference of 5.3%), and householder income over 65 years ($60,967 compared to $54,133, a difference of 12.6%).
Luxembourger vs Cherokee Income
Income MetricLuxembourgerCherokee
Per Capita Income
Exceptional
$45,663
Tragic
$37,203
Median Family Income
Excellent
$106,183
Tragic
$88,209
Median Household Income
Good
$86,418
Tragic
$72,682
Median Earnings
Excellent
$47,640
Tragic
$41,252
Median Male Earnings
Excellent
$56,300
Tragic
$48,669
Median Female Earnings
Average
$39,891
Tragic
$34,742
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$50,379
Tragic
$47,848
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Excellent
$97,237
Tragic
$80,843
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Excellent
$103,536
Tragic
$86,125
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Average
$60,967
Tragic
$54,133
Wage/Income Gap
Tragic
27.4%
Tragic
27.4%

Luxembourger vs Cherokee Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (3.9% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 48.6%), family poverty (7.2% compared to 10.6%, a difference of 46.8%), and child poverty under the age of 5 (14.9% compared to 21.7%, a difference of 45.5%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of female poverty among 18-24 year olds (20.9% compared to 22.7%, a difference of 8.7%), seniors poverty over the age of 75 (10.8% compared to 12.0%, a difference of 11.4%), and single father poverty (17.1% compared to 19.6%, a difference of 14.8%).
Luxembourger vs Cherokee Poverty
Poverty MetricLuxembourgerCherokee
Poverty
Exceptional
10.6%
Tragic
14.4%
Families
Exceptional
7.2%
Tragic
10.6%
Males
Exceptional
9.5%
Tragic
13.1%
Females
Exceptional
11.6%
Tragic
15.6%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
20.9%
Tragic
22.7%
Females 25 to 34 years
Exceptional
12.1%
Tragic
17.2%
Children Under 5 years
Exceptional
14.9%
Tragic
21.7%
Children Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.6%
Tragic
19.5%
Boys Under 16 years
Exceptional
13.8%
Tragic
19.7%
Girls Under 16 years
Exceptional
14.3%
Tragic
19.9%
Single Males
Tragic
13.4%
Tragic
16.1%
Single Females
Excellent
20.4%
Tragic
25.7%
Single Fathers
Tragic
17.1%
Tragic
19.6%
Single Mothers
Excellent
28.5%
Tragic
34.5%
Married Couples
Exceptional
3.9%
Tragic
5.8%
Seniors Over 65 years
Exceptional
9.2%
Average
11.0%
Seniors Over 75 years
Exceptional
10.8%
Good
12.0%
Receiving Food Stamps
Exceptional
9.1%
Tragic
13.2%

Luxembourger vs Cherokee Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among women with children under 6 years (6.6% compared to 9.3%, a difference of 40.7%), unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (4.8% compared to 6.4%, a difference of 32.4%), and unemployment among seniors over 75 years (7.7% compared to 9.8%, a difference of 28.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (5.2% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 4.1%), unemployment among seniors over 65 years (4.8% compared to 5.1%, a difference of 4.9%), and unemployment among ages 45 to 54 years (4.2% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 9.7%).
Luxembourger vs Cherokee Unemployment
Unemployment MetricLuxembourgerCherokee
Unemployment
Exceptional
4.3%
Fair
5.3%
Males
Exceptional
4.5%
Tragic
5.6%
Females
Exceptional
4.4%
Fair
5.3%
Youth < 25
Exceptional
10.0%
Fair
11.8%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Exceptional
15.1%
Poor
17.9%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Exceptional
9.1%
Tragic
10.5%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Exceptional
6.2%
Tragic
7.6%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Exceptional
4.8%
Tragic
6.4%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Tragic
5.2%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Exceptional
4.2%
Poor
4.6%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Exceptional
4.5%
Tragic
5.0%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Exceptional
4.3%
Poor
4.9%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
5.2%
Fair
5.4%
Seniors > 65
Exceptional
4.8%
Excellent
5.1%
Seniors > 75
Exceptional
7.7%
Tragic
9.8%
Women w/ Children < 6
Exceptional
6.6%
Tragic
9.3%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Exceptional
8.3%
Tragic
10.0%
Women w/ Children < 18
Exceptional
5.0%
Tragic
5.7%

Luxembourger vs Cherokee Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (45.3% compared to 40.2%, a difference of 12.5%), in labor force | age > 16 (66.7% compared to 61.9%, a difference of 7.7%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (85.0% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 7.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (79.0% compared to 75.9%, a difference of 4.0%), in labor force | age 25-29 (86.9% compared to 82.1%, a difference of 5.8%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (86.4% compared to 81.4%, a difference of 6.1%).
Luxembourger vs Cherokee Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricLuxembourgerCherokee
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Exceptional
66.7%
Tragic
61.9%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Exceptional
81.9%
Tragic
76.2%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Exceptional
45.3%
Exceptional
40.2%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Exceptional
79.0%
Exceptional
75.9%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Exceptional
86.9%
Tragic
82.1%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Exceptional
86.6%
Tragic
81.6%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Exceptional
86.4%
Tragic
81.4%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Exceptional
85.0%
Tragic
79.0%

Luxembourger vs Cherokee Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in births to unmarried women (29.4% compared to 36.7%, a difference of 24.6%), single mother households (5.6% compared to 6.8%, a difference of 22.6%), and divorced or separated (11.3% compared to 13.7%, a difference of 21.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (27.0% compared to 27.5%, a difference of 1.7%), average family size (3.10 compared to 3.18, a difference of 2.6%), and family households (63.3% compared to 65.0%, a difference of 2.6%).
Luxembourger vs Cherokee Family Structure
Family Structure MetricLuxembourgerCherokee
Family Households
Tragic
63.3%
Exceptional
65.0%
Family Households with Children
Tragic
27.0%
Average
27.5%
Married-couple Households
Exceptional
48.5%
Good
46.7%
Average Family Size
Tragic
3.10
Tragic
3.18
Single Father Households
Exceptional
2.2%
Tragic
2.6%
Single Mother Households
Exceptional
5.6%
Tragic
6.8%
Currently Married
Exceptional
49.3%
Good
46.9%
Divorced or Separated
Exceptional
11.3%
Tragic
13.7%
Births to Unmarried Women
Exceptional
29.4%
Tragic
36.7%

Luxembourger vs Cherokee Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (5.4% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 44.5%), 4 or more vehicles in household (6.6% compared to 7.7%, a difference of 16.9%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (20.9% compared to 23.0%, a difference of 10.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 2 or more vehicles in household (59.1% compared to 59.9%, a difference of 1.4%), 1 or more vehicles in household (94.8% compared to 92.4%, a difference of 2.6%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (20.9% compared to 23.0%, a difference of 10.1%).
Luxembourger vs Cherokee Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricLuxembourgerCherokee
No Vehicles Available
Exceptional
5.4%
Exceptional
7.7%
1+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
94.8%
Exceptional
92.4%
2+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
59.1%
Exceptional
59.9%
3+ Vehicles Available
Exceptional
20.9%
Exceptional
23.0%
4+ Vehicles Available
Excellent
6.6%
Exceptional
7.7%

Luxembourger vs Cherokee Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (4.6% compared to 3.3%, a difference of 40.2%), master's degree (15.3% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 35.0%), and doctorate degree (1.9% compared to 1.5%, a difference of 33.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.17%), kindergarten (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.17%), and 1st grade (98.5% compared to 98.3%, a difference of 0.17%).
Luxembourger vs Cherokee Education Level
Education Level MetricLuxembourgerCherokee
No Schooling Completed
Exceptional
1.6%
Exceptional
1.7%
Nursery School
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.3%
Kindergarten
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.3%
1st Grade
Exceptional
98.5%
Exceptional
98.3%
2nd Grade
Exceptional
98.4%
Exceptional
98.3%
3rd Grade
Exceptional
98.3%
Exceptional
98.2%
4th Grade
Exceptional
98.2%
Exceptional
98.0%
5th Grade
Exceptional
98.1%
Exceptional
97.8%
6th Grade
Exceptional
97.9%
Exceptional
97.6%
7th Grade
Exceptional
97.2%
Exceptional
96.8%
8th Grade
Exceptional
97.0%
Exceptional
96.5%
9th Grade
Exceptional
96.3%
Exceptional
95.4%
10th Grade
Exceptional
95.4%
Excellent
94.1%
11th Grade
Exceptional
94.5%
Average
92.4%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Exceptional
93.3%
Tragic
90.5%
High School Diploma
Exceptional
91.7%
Poor
88.5%
GED/Equivalency
Exceptional
88.6%
Tragic
83.9%
College, Under 1 year
Exceptional
68.2%
Tragic
60.1%
College, 1 year or more
Exceptional
62.1%
Tragic
53.2%
Associate's Degree
Exceptional
48.9%
Tragic
38.9%
Bachelor's Degree
Excellent
39.8%
Tragic
30.2%
Master's Degree
Good
15.3%
Tragic
11.4%
Professional Degree
Good
4.6%
Tragic
3.3%
Doctorate Degree
Excellent
1.9%
Tragic
1.5%

Luxembourger vs Cherokee Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Luxembourger and Cherokee communities in the United States are seen in vision disability (1.9% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 50.2%), disability age 35 to 64 (10.6% compared to 15.5%, a difference of 46.1%), and ambulatory disability (5.6% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 40.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (16.4% compared to 18.0%, a difference of 9.8%), disability age over 75 (44.8% compared to 50.2%, a difference of 12.0%), and disability age 18 to 34 (6.9% compared to 8.7%, a difference of 27.0%).
Luxembourger vs Cherokee Disability
Disability MetricLuxembourgerCherokee
Disability
Exceptional
11.3%
Tragic
14.8%
Males
Good
11.1%
Tragic
14.8%
Females
Exceptional
11.6%
Tragic
14.9%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
1.3%
Tragic
1.8%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Exceptional
5.3%
Tragic
6.9%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
6.9%
Tragic
8.7%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Exceptional
10.6%
Tragic
15.5%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Exceptional
21.4%
Tragic
28.2%
Age | Over 75 years
Exceptional
44.8%
Tragic
50.2%
Vision
Exceptional
1.9%
Tragic
2.9%
Hearing
Tragic
3.2%
Tragic
4.2%
Cognitive
Exceptional
16.4%
Tragic
18.0%
Ambulatory
Exceptional
5.6%
Tragic
7.9%
Self-Care
Exceptional
2.2%
Tragic
2.9%