Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Community Comparison

COMPARE

Tohono O'odham
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCypriotCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHmongHonduranHopiHoumaHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMarshalleseMenomineeMexicanMexican 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
Luxembourger
Race
Ancestry
AfghanAfricanAlaska NativeAlaskan AthabascanAlbanianAleutAlsatianAmericanApacheArabArapahoArgentineanArmenianAssyrian/Chaldean/SyriacAustralianAustrianBahamianBangladeshiBarbadianBasqueBelgianBelizeanBermudanBhutaneseBlackfeetBolivianBrazilianBritishBritish West IndianBulgarianBurmeseCajunCambodianCanadianCape VerdeanCarpatho RusynCelticCentral AmericanCentral American IndianCherokeeCheyenneChickasawChileanChineseChippewaChoctawColombianColvilleComancheCosta RicanCreeCreekCroatianCrowCubanCzechCzechoslovakianDanishDelawareDominicanDutchDutch West IndianEastern EuropeanEcuadorianEgyptianEnglishEstonianEthiopianEuropeanFijianFilipinoFinnishFrenchFrench American IndianFrench CanadianGermanGerman RussianGhanaianGreekGuamanian/ChamorroGuatemalanGuyaneseHaitianHonduranHopiHungarianIcelanderIndian (Asian)IndonesianInupiatIranianIraqiIrishIroquoisIsraeliItalianJamaicanJapaneseJordanianKenyanKiowaKoreanLaotianLatvianLebaneseLiberianLithuanianLumbeeLuxembourgerMacedonianMalaysianMalteseMenomineeMexicanMexican American IndianMongolianMoroccanNative HawaiianNavajoNew ZealanderNicaraguanNigerianNorthern EuropeanNorwegianOsageOttawaPaiutePakistaniPalestinianPanamanianParaguayanPennsylvania GermanPeruvianPimaPolishPortuguesePotawatomiPuebloPuerto RicanPuget Sound SalishRomanianRussianSalvadoranSamoanScandinavianScotch-IrishScottishSeminoleSerbianShoshoneSierra LeoneanSiouxSlavicSlovakSloveneSomaliSouth AfricanSouth AmericanSouth American IndianSoviet UnionSpaniardSpanishSpanish AmericanSpanish American IndianSri LankanSubsaharan AfricanSudaneseSwedishSwissSyrianThaiTlingit-HaidaTonganTrinidadian and TobagonianTsimshianTurkishU.S. Virgin IslanderUgandanUkrainianUruguayanUteVenezuelanVietnameseWelshWest IndianYakamaYaquiYugoslavianYumanYup'ikZimbabwean
Immigration
NonimmigrantsImmigrantsAfghanistanAfricaArgentinaArmeniaAsiaAustraliaAustriaBahamasBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBoliviaBosnia and HerzegovinaBrazilBulgariaBurma/MyanmarCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCaribbeanCentral AmericaChileChinaColombiaCongoCosta RicaCroatiaCubaCzechoslovakiaDenmarkDominican RepublicEastern AfricaEastern AsiaEastern EuropeEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEnglandEritreaEthiopiaEuropeFijiFranceGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaitiHondurasHong KongHungaryIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKoreaKuwaitLaosLatin AmericaLebanonLiberiaLithuaniaMalaysiaMexicoMicronesiaMiddle AfricaMoldovaMoroccoNepalNetherlandsNicaraguaNigeriaNorth AmericaNorth MacedoniaNorthern AfricaNorthern EuropeNorwayOceaniaPakistanPanamaPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaSaudi ArabiaScotlandSenegalSerbiaSierra LeoneSingaporeSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth AmericaSouth Central AsiaSouth Eastern AsiaSouthern EuropeSpainSri LankaSudanSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTaiwanThailandTrinidad and TobagoTurkeyUgandaUkraineUzbekistanVenezuelaVietnamWest IndiesWestern AfricaWestern AsiaWestern EuropeYemenZaireZimbabwe
Social Comparison
Social Comparison
Income
Poverty
Unemployment
Labor Participation
Family Structure
Vehicle Availability
Education Level
Disability

Social Comparison

Tohono O'odham

Luxembourgers

Tragic
Excellent
686
SOCIAL INDEX
4.4/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
339th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK
9,215
SOCIAL INDEX
89.6/ 100
SOCIAL RATING
27th/ 347
SOCIAL RANK

Luxembourger Integration in Tohono O'odham Communities

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 41,078,554 people shows a significant positive correlation between the proportion of Luxembourgers within Tohono O'odham communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.672. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Tohono O'odham within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.011% in Luxembourgers. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Tohono O'odham corresponds to an increase of 11.0 Luxembourgers.
Tohono O'odham Integration in Luxembourger Communities

Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Income

When considering income, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($30,256 compared to $45,663, a difference of 50.9%), median family income ($72,193 compared to $106,183, a difference of 47.1%), and median male earnings ($39,543 compared to $56,300, a difference of 42.4%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of householder income under 25 years ($45,248 compared to $50,379, a difference of 11.3%), median female earnings ($33,205 compared to $39,891, a difference of 20.1%), and wage/income gap (22.1% compared to 27.4%, a difference of 23.9%).
Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Income
Income MetricTohono O'odhamLuxembourger
Per Capita Income
Tragic
$30,256
Exceptional
$45,663
Median Family Income
Tragic
$72,193
Excellent
$106,183
Median Household Income
Tragic
$61,663
Good
$86,418
Median Earnings
Tragic
$36,349
Excellent
$47,640
Median Male Earnings
Tragic
$39,543
Excellent
$56,300
Median Female Earnings
Tragic
$33,205
Average
$39,891
Householder Age | Under 25 years
Tragic
$45,248
Tragic
$50,379
Householder Age | 25 - 44 years
Tragic
$69,068
Excellent
$97,237
Householder Age | 45 - 64 years
Tragic
$73,774
Excellent
$103,536
Householder Age | Over 65 years
Tragic
$49,121
Average
$60,967
Wage/Income Gap
Exceptional
22.1%
Tragic
27.4%

Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Poverty

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in married-couple family poverty (11.2% compared to 3.9%, a difference of 189.3%), family poverty (20.4% compared to 7.2%, a difference of 182.5%), and male poverty (22.9% compared to 9.5%, a difference of 140.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of single father poverty (22.0% compared to 17.1%, a difference of 28.7%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (31.0% compared to 20.9%, a difference of 48.6%), and single mother poverty (43.0% compared to 28.5%, a difference of 50.9%).
Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Poverty
Poverty MetricTohono O'odhamLuxembourger
Poverty
Tragic
24.4%
Exceptional
10.6%
Families
Tragic
20.4%
Exceptional
7.2%
Males
Tragic
22.9%
Exceptional
9.5%
Females
Tragic
25.9%
Exceptional
11.6%
Females 18 to 24 years
Tragic
31.0%
Tragic
20.9%
Females 25 to 34 years
Tragic
24.7%
Exceptional
12.1%
Children Under 5 years
Tragic
29.5%
Exceptional
14.9%
Children Under 16 years
Tragic
31.7%
Exceptional
13.6%
Boys Under 16 years
Tragic
31.6%
Exceptional
13.8%
Girls Under 16 years
Tragic
31.6%
Exceptional
14.3%
Single Males
Tragic
21.6%
Tragic
13.4%
Single Females
Tragic
34.2%
Excellent
20.4%
Single Fathers
Tragic
22.0%
Tragic
17.1%
Single Mothers
Tragic
43.0%
Excellent
28.5%
Married Couples
Tragic
11.2%
Exceptional
3.9%
Seniors Over 65 years
Tragic
20.8%
Exceptional
9.2%
Seniors Over 75 years
Tragic
19.1%
Exceptional
10.8%
Receiving Food Stamps
Tragic
21.5%
Exceptional
9.1%

Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Unemployment

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in male unemployment (10.2% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 124.1%), unemployment among ages 55 to 59 years (9.3% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 106.5%), and unemployment (8.9% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 104.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of unemployment among ages 65 to 74 years (6.0% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 15.8%), unemployment among ages 60 to 64 years (5.0% compared to 4.3%, a difference of 16.3%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (6.1% compared to 4.8%, a difference of 26.6%).
Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Unemployment
Unemployment MetricTohono O'odhamLuxembourger
Unemployment
Tragic
8.9%
Exceptional
4.3%
Males
Tragic
10.2%
Exceptional
4.5%
Females
Tragic
7.7%
Exceptional
4.4%
Youth < 25
Tragic
13.8%
Exceptional
10.0%
Age | 16 to 19 years
Tragic
22.1%
Exceptional
15.1%
Age | 20 to 24 years
Tragic
12.5%
Exceptional
9.1%
Age | 25 to 29 years
Tragic
12.1%
Exceptional
6.2%
Age | 30 to 34 years
Tragic
9.8%
Exceptional
4.8%
Age | 35 to 44 years
Tragic
8.4%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 45 to 54 years
Tragic
6.3%
Exceptional
4.2%
Age | 55 to 59 years
Tragic
9.3%
Exceptional
4.5%
Age | 60 to 64 years
Tragic
5.0%
Exceptional
4.3%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
6.0%
Exceptional
5.2%
Seniors > 65
Tragic
6.1%
Exceptional
4.8%
Seniors > 75
Tragic
10.8%
Exceptional
7.7%
Women w/ Children < 6
Tragic
10.2%
Exceptional
6.6%
Women w/ Children 6 to 17
Tragic
10.7%
Exceptional
8.3%
Women w/ Children < 18
Tragic
8.9%
Exceptional
5.0%

Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Labor Participation

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in in labor force | age 16-19 (31.3% compared to 45.3%, a difference of 44.8%), in labor force | age > 16 (57.2% compared to 66.7%, a difference of 16.6%), and in labor force | age 35-44 (74.1% compared to 86.4%, a difference of 16.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 30-34 (77.7% compared to 86.6%, a difference of 11.4%), in labor force | age 25-29 (77.5% compared to 86.9%, a difference of 12.1%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (75.1% compared to 85.0%, a difference of 13.1%).
Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Labor Participation
Labor Participation MetricTohono O'odhamLuxembourger
In Labor Force | Age > 16
Tragic
57.2%
Exceptional
66.7%
In Labor Force | Age 20-64
Tragic
70.4%
Exceptional
81.9%
In Labor Force | Age 16-19
Tragic
31.3%
Exceptional
45.3%
In Labor Force | Age 20-24
Tragic
68.6%
Exceptional
79.0%
In Labor Force | Age 25-29
Tragic
77.5%
Exceptional
86.9%
In Labor Force | Age 30-34
Tragic
77.7%
Exceptional
86.6%
In Labor Force | Age 35-44
Tragic
74.1%
Exceptional
86.4%
In Labor Force | Age 45-54
Tragic
75.1%
Exceptional
85.0%

Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Family Structure

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in single father households (3.8% compared to 2.2%, a difference of 71.4%), births to unmarried women (49.8% compared to 29.4%, a difference of 69.4%), and single mother households (9.1% compared to 5.6%, a difference of 64.3%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households with children (28.0% compared to 27.0%, a difference of 3.7%), divorced or separated (12.0% compared to 11.3%, a difference of 5.9%), and family households (67.1% compared to 63.3%, a difference of 6.1%).
Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Family Structure
Family Structure MetricTohono O'odhamLuxembourger
Family Households
Exceptional
67.1%
Tragic
63.3%
Family Households with Children
Exceptional
28.0%
Tragic
27.0%
Married-couple Households
Tragic
37.9%
Exceptional
48.5%
Average Family Size
Exceptional
3.53
Tragic
3.10
Single Father Households
Tragic
3.8%
Exceptional
2.2%
Single Mother Households
Tragic
9.1%
Exceptional
5.6%
Currently Married
Tragic
36.8%
Exceptional
49.3%
Divorced or Separated
Good
12.0%
Exceptional
11.3%
Births to Unmarried Women
Tragic
49.8%
Exceptional
29.4%

Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Vehicle Availability

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (15.6% compared to 5.4%, a difference of 191.7%), 2 or more vehicles in household (50.0% compared to 59.1%, a difference of 18.1%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (84.7% compared to 94.8%, a difference of 11.9%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 4 or more vehicles in household (6.6% compared to 6.6%, a difference of 0.070%), 3 or more vehicles in household (18.9% compared to 20.9%, a difference of 10.7%), and 1 or more vehicles in household (84.7% compared to 94.8%, a difference of 11.9%).
Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Vehicle Availability
Vehicle Availability MetricTohono O'odhamLuxembourger
No Vehicles Available
Tragic
15.6%
Exceptional
5.4%
1+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
84.7%
Exceptional
94.8%
2+ Vehicles Available
Tragic
50.0%
Exceptional
59.1%
3+ Vehicles Available
Poor
18.9%
Exceptional
20.9%
4+ Vehicles Available
Excellent
6.6%
Excellent
6.6%

Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Education Level

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in bachelor's degree (24.4% compared to 39.8%, a difference of 62.8%), professional degree (2.8% compared to 4.6%, a difference of 62.2%), and master's degree (9.7% compared to 15.3%, a difference of 58.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of nursery school (97.9% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.64%), kindergarten (97.9% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.64%), and 1st grade (97.8% compared to 98.5%, a difference of 0.65%).
Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Education Level
Education Level MetricTohono O'odhamLuxembourger
No Schooling Completed
Tragic
2.3%
Exceptional
1.6%
Nursery School
Fair
97.9%
Exceptional
98.5%
Kindergarten
Fair
97.9%
Exceptional
98.5%
1st Grade
Fair
97.8%
Exceptional
98.5%
2nd Grade
Fair
97.8%
Exceptional
98.4%
3rd Grade
Poor
97.6%
Exceptional
98.3%
4th Grade
Tragic
97.3%
Exceptional
98.2%
5th Grade
Tragic
97.0%
Exceptional
98.1%
6th Grade
Tragic
96.5%
Exceptional
97.9%
7th Grade
Tragic
95.0%
Exceptional
97.2%
8th Grade
Tragic
94.5%
Exceptional
97.0%
9th Grade
Tragic
92.6%
Exceptional
96.3%
10th Grade
Tragic
90.1%
Exceptional
95.4%
11th Grade
Tragic
87.6%
Exceptional
94.5%
12th Grade, No Diploma
Tragic
84.7%
Exceptional
93.3%
High School Diploma
Tragic
82.1%
Exceptional
91.7%
GED/Equivalency
Tragic
77.5%
Exceptional
88.6%
College, Under 1 year
Tragic
52.8%
Exceptional
68.2%
College, 1 year or more
Tragic
47.1%
Exceptional
62.1%
Associate's Degree
Tragic
31.8%
Exceptional
48.9%
Bachelor's Degree
Tragic
24.4%
Excellent
39.8%
Master's Degree
Tragic
9.7%
Good
15.3%
Professional Degree
Tragic
2.8%
Good
4.6%
Doctorate Degree
Tragic
1.5%
Excellent
1.9%

Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Disability

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Tohono O'odham and Luxembourger communities in the United States are seen in disability age 65 to 74 (36.0% compared to 21.4%, a difference of 68.5%), disability age under 5 (2.2% compared to 1.3%, a difference of 66.1%), and disability age 35 to 64 (16.7% compared to 10.6%, a difference of 58.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of disability age 18 to 34 (7.3% compared to 6.9%, a difference of 6.3%), cognitive disability (19.3% compared to 16.4%, a difference of 17.6%), and disability age 5 to 17 (6.5% compared to 5.3%, a difference of 23.7%).
Tohono O'odham vs Luxembourger Disability
Disability MetricTohono O'odhamLuxembourger
Disability
Tragic
14.8%
Exceptional
11.3%
Males
Tragic
14.6%
Good
11.1%
Females
Tragic
15.0%
Exceptional
11.6%
Age | Under 5 years
Tragic
2.2%
Tragic
1.3%
Age | 5 to 17 years
Tragic
6.5%
Exceptional
5.3%
Age | 18 to 34 years
Tragic
7.3%
Tragic
6.9%
Age | 35 to 64 years
Tragic
16.7%
Exceptional
10.6%
Age | 65 to 74 years
Tragic
36.0%
Exceptional
21.4%
Age | Over 75 years
Tragic
56.7%
Exceptional
44.8%
Vision
Tragic
2.8%
Exceptional
1.9%
Hearing
Tragic
4.2%
Tragic
3.2%
Cognitive
Tragic
19.3%
Exceptional
16.4%
Ambulatory
Tragic
8.7%
Exceptional
5.6%
Self-Care
Tragic
3.1%
Exceptional
2.2%