Uruguayan vs Chickasaw Community Comparison

The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 71,253,248 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw within Uruguayan communities in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.534. On average, for every 1% (one percent) increase in Uruguayans within a typical geography, there is an increase of 0.400% in Chickasaw. To illustrate, in a geography comprising of 100,000 individuals, a rise of 1,000 Uruguayans corresponds to an increase of 399.6 Chickasaw.

When considering income, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in per capita income ($44,318 compared to $36,475, a difference of 21.5%), median household income ($84,691 compared to $70,005, a difference of 21.0%), and householder income ages 25 - 44 years ($93,631 compared to $77,929, a difference of 20.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of wage/income gap (25.2% compared to 27.2%, a difference of 8.0%), householder income over 65 years ($59,090 compared to $53,732, a difference of 10.0%), and median male earnings ($53,680 compared to $47,832, a difference of 12.2%).

When considering poverty, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in single male poverty (11.9% compared to 16.3%, a difference of 36.6%), female poverty among 18-24 year olds (18.8% compared to 24.5%, a difference of 30.2%), and single female poverty (20.2% compared to 26.3%, a difference of 30.0%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of married-couple family poverty (5.4% compared to 5.8%, a difference of 7.5%), receiving food stamps (11.8% compared to 13.1%, a difference of 10.7%), and seniors poverty over the age of 65 (12.1% compared to 10.7%, a difference of 13.2%).

When considering unemployment, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in unemployment among ages 30 to 34 years (5.2% compared to 6.2%, a difference of 19.9%), unemployment among women with children under 6 years (7.5% compared to 9.0%, a difference of 19.4%), and unemployment among seniors over 65 years (5.2% compared to 4.4%, a difference of 18.6%). 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 0.41%), male unemployment (5.1% compared to 5.2%, a difference of 1.5%), and unemployment among ages 35 to 44 years (4.8% compared to 4.9%, a difference of 2.5%).

When considering labor participation, the most significant differences between Uruguayan 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 9.8%), in labor force | age > 16 (65.9% compared to 62.3%, a difference of 5.8%), and in labor force | age 45-54 (83.1% compared to 79.0%, a difference of 5.2%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of in labor force | age 20-24 (74.6% compared to 74.5%, a difference of 0.16%), in labor force | age 30-34 (84.9% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 3.6%), and in labor force | age 25-29 (84.9% compared to 81.9%, a difference of 3.7%).

When considering family structure, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in single father households (2.4% compared to 2.8%, a difference of 15.9%), divorced or separated (12.4% compared to 14.2%, a difference of 14.5%), and births to unmarried women (33.1% compared to 36.3%, a difference of 9.6%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of family households (64.5% compared to 64.4%, a difference of 0.090%), married-couple households (45.5% compared to 45.9%, a difference of 0.89%), and average family size (3.23 compared to 3.19, a difference of 1.4%).

When considering vehicle availability, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in no vehicles in household (11.3% compared to 7.9%, a difference of 43.5%), 4 or more vehicles in household (5.6% compared to 7.4%, a difference of 32.1%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.8% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 24.7%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 1 or more vehicles in household (88.8% compared to 92.3%, a difference of 3.9%), 2 or more vehicles in household (52.7% compared to 59.0%, a difference of 12.0%), and 3 or more vehicles in household (17.8% compared to 22.2%, a difference of 24.7%).

When considering education level, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in professional degree (4.6% compared to 3.4%, a difference of 37.8%), master's degree (15.3% compared to 11.4%, a difference of 33.6%), and no schooling completed (2.2% compared to 1.7%, a difference of 32.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of 12th grade, no diploma (90.4% compared to 90.3%, a difference of 0.13%), high school diploma (88.2% compared to 88.4%, a difference of 0.26%), and nursery school (97.8% compared to 98.4%, a difference of 0.61%).

When considering disability, the most significant differences between Uruguayan and Chickasaw communities in the United States are seen in hearing disability (2.8% compared to 4.5%, a difference of 61.4%), disability age 35 to 64 (10.2% compared to 16.1%, a difference of 57.3%), and vision disability (2.2% compared to 3.2%, a difference of 46.1%). Conversely, both communities are more comparable in terms of cognitive disability (16.8% compared to 18.5%, a difference of 9.8%), disability age over 75 (46.2% compared to 51.2%, a difference of 10.7%), and self-care disability (2.4% compared to 2.9%, a difference of 19.3%).