Burmese vs Luxembourger Female Poverty
COMPARE
Burmese
Luxembourger
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Burmese
Luxembourgers
11.6%
FEMALE POVERTY
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
23rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
11.6%
FEMALE POVERTY
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
24th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Burmese vs Luxembourger Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 464,783,365 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Burmese and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.276 and weighted average of 11.6%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 144,645,818 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Luxembourgers and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.074 and weighted average of 11.6%, a difference of 0.020%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Burmese | Luxembourger |
Minimum | 1.7% | 1.8% |
Maximum | 48.2% | 19.8% |
Range | 46.5% | 18.1% |
Mean | 11.4% | 7.9% |
Median | 9.3% | 7.7% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 6.5% | 5.5% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 11.9% | 9.5% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.5% | 4.0% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 9.7% | 3.8% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 9.6% | 3.7% |
Demographics Similar to Burmese and Luxembourgers by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Burmese are Swedish (11.6%, a difference of 0.14%), Italian (11.6%, a difference of 0.17%), Immigrants from Northern Europe (11.6%, a difference of 0.28%), Croatian (11.6%, a difference of 0.29%), and Iranian (11.7%, a difference of 0.40%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Luxembourgers are Swedish (11.6%, a difference of 0.16%), Italian (11.6%, a difference of 0.19%), Immigrants from Northern Europe (11.6%, a difference of 0.26%), Croatian (11.6%, a difference of 0.27%), and Iranian (11.7%, a difference of 0.38%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.9 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 11.3% |
Lithuanians | 99.8 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 11.4% |
Latvians | 99.8 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 11.4% |
Immigrants | Bolivia | 99.8 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 11.5% |
Bolivians | 99.8 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 11.5% |
Immigrants | Scotland | 99.8 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 11.5% |
Norwegians | 99.8 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 11.5% |
Eastern Europeans | 99.7 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 11.5% |
Italians | 99.7 /100 | #21 | Exceptional 11.6% |
Swedes | 99.7 /100 | #22 | Exceptional 11.6% |
Burmese | 99.7 /100 | #23 | Exceptional 11.6% |
Luxembourgers | 99.7 /100 | #24 | Exceptional 11.6% |
Immigrants | Northern Europe | 99.6 /100 | #25 | Exceptional 11.6% |
Croatians | 99.6 /100 | #26 | Exceptional 11.6% |
Iranians | 99.6 /100 | #27 | Exceptional 11.7% |
Immigrants | Korea | 99.6 /100 | #28 | Exceptional 11.7% |
Immigrants | North Macedonia | 99.6 /100 | #29 | Exceptional 11.7% |
Greeks | 99.5 /100 | #30 | Exceptional 11.7% |
Poles | 99.5 /100 | #31 | Exceptional 11.7% |
Danes | 99.5 /100 | #32 | Exceptional 11.7% |
Cypriots | 99.5 /100 | #33 | Exceptional 11.8% |