Burmese vs Maltese Poverty
COMPARE
Burmese
Maltese
Poverty
Poverty Comparison
Burmese
Maltese
10.7%
POVERTY
99.6/ 100
METRIC RATING
26th/ 347
METRIC RANK
10.2%
POVERTY
99.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
8th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Burmese vs Maltese Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 464,896,901 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Burmese and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.173 and weighted average of 10.7%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 126,440,716 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Maltese and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.091 and weighted average of 10.2%, a difference of 5.0%.
Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Burmese | Maltese |
| Minimum | 1.6% | 1.2% |
| Maximum | 37.7% | 25.2% |
| Range | 36.2% | 24.1% |
| Mean | 9.3% | 8.4% |
| Median | 8.4% | 8.2% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.8% | 4.6% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 10.8% | 10.1% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.9% | 5.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 6.2% | 5.0% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 6.1% | 4.9% |
Demographics Similar to Burmese and Maltese by Poverty
In terms of poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Burmese are Croatian (10.6%, a difference of 0.31%), Immigrants from Northern Europe (10.7%, a difference of 0.36%), Italian (10.6%, a difference of 0.50%), Swedish (10.6%, a difference of 0.55%), and Eastern European (10.6%, a difference of 0.66%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Maltese are Filipino (10.1%, a difference of 0.42%), Immigrants from South Central Asia (10.2%, a difference of 0.45%), Bulgarian (10.2%, a difference of 0.86%), Immigrants from Lithuania (10.3%, a difference of 1.9%), and Bhutanese (10.4%, a difference of 2.2%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Poverty |
| Filipinos | 99.9 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 10.1% |
| Maltese | 99.9 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Immigrants | South Central Asia | 99.9 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Bulgarians | 99.9 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 10.2% |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.9 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 10.3% |
| Bhutanese | 99.8 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 10.4% |
| Immigrants | Hong Kong | 99.8 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 10.4% |
| Immigrants | Bolivia | 99.8 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 10.4% |
| Bolivians | 99.8 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 10.4% |
| Lithuanians | 99.8 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 10.5% |
| Norwegians | 99.8 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 10.5% |
| Latvians | 99.8 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 10.5% |
| Immigrants | Scotland | 99.7 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Immigrants | North Macedonia | 99.7 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Luxembourgers | 99.7 /100 | #21 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Eastern Europeans | 99.7 /100 | #22 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Swedes | 99.7 /100 | #23 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Italians | 99.7 /100 | #24 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Croatians | 99.6 /100 | #25 | Exceptional 10.6% |
| Burmese | 99.6 /100 | #26 | Exceptional 10.7% |
| Immigrants | Northern Europe | 99.6 /100 | #27 | Exceptional 10.7% |