Bangladeshi vs Chickasaw Female Poverty
COMPARE
Bangladeshi
Chickasaw
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Bangladeshis
Chickasaw
16.0%
FEMALE POVERTY
0.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
277th/ 347
METRIC RANK
15.9%
FEMALE POVERTY
0.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
270th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Bangladeshi vs Chickasaw Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 141,353,886 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Bangladeshis and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.034 and weighted average of 16.0%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 147,658,289 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chickasaw and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.004 and weighted average of 15.9%, a difference of 0.89%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Bangladeshi | Chickasaw |
Minimum | 2.7% | 1.9% |
Maximum | 31.7% | 38.6% |
Range | 29.0% | 36.7% |
Mean | 16.6% | 18.1% |
Median | 15.6% | 17.3% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 12.9% | 14.6% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 20.7% | 20.7% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 7.8% | 6.1% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 6.3% | 5.9% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 6.2% | 5.9% |
Demographics Similar to Bangladeshis and Chickasaw by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Bangladeshis are Central American (16.0%, a difference of 0.19%), Immigrants from Barbados (16.0%, a difference of 0.31%), Immigrants from West Indies (16.1%, a difference of 0.31%), Haitian (15.9%, a difference of 0.38%), and Barbadian (15.9%, a difference of 0.38%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Chickasaw are Iroquois (15.8%, a difference of 0.26%), Immigrants from St. Vincent and the Grenadines (15.9%, a difference of 0.28%), Belizean (15.9%, a difference of 0.50%), Haitian (15.9%, a difference of 0.51%), and Barbadian (15.9%, a difference of 0.51%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
Cherokee | 0.1 /100 | #263 | Tragic 15.6% |
Immigrants | Ecuador | 0.1 /100 | #264 | Tragic 15.6% |
Immigrants | Liberia | 0.1 /100 | #265 | Tragic 15.7% |
Immigrants | El Salvador | 0.1 /100 | #266 | Tragic 15.7% |
Sub-Saharan Africans | 0.1 /100 | #267 | Tragic 15.8% |
Immigrants | Nicaragua | 0.1 /100 | #268 | Tragic 15.8% |
Iroquois | 0.1 /100 | #269 | Tragic 15.8% |
Chickasaw | 0.1 /100 | #270 | Tragic 15.9% |
Immigrants | St. Vincent and the Grenadines | 0.0 /100 | #271 | Tragic 15.9% |
Belizeans | 0.0 /100 | #272 | Tragic 15.9% |
Haitians | 0.0 /100 | #273 | Tragic 15.9% |
Barbadians | 0.0 /100 | #274 | Tragic 15.9% |
Immigrants | Barbados | 0.0 /100 | #275 | Tragic 16.0% |
Central Americans | 0.0 /100 | #276 | Tragic 16.0% |
Bangladeshis | 0.0 /100 | #277 | Tragic 16.0% |
Immigrants | West Indies | 0.0 /100 | #278 | Tragic 16.1% |
Immigrants | Bahamas | 0.0 /100 | #279 | Tragic 16.1% |
Vietnamese | 0.0 /100 | #280 | Tragic 16.1% |
West Indians | 0.0 /100 | #281 | Tragic 16.1% |
Immigrants | Haiti | 0.0 /100 | #282 | Tragic 16.1% |
Immigrants | Cuba | 0.0 /100 | #283 | Tragic 16.1% |