Burmese vs Norwegian Female Poverty
COMPARE
Burmese
Norwegian
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Burmese
Norwegians
11.6%
FEMALE POVERTY
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
23rd/ 347
METRIC RANK
11.5%
FEMALE POVERTY
99.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
19th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Burmese vs Norwegian 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 532,481,223 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Norwegians and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.299 and weighted average of 11.5%, a difference of 0.90%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Burmese | Norwegian |
| Minimum | 1.7% | 0.92% |
| Maximum | 48.2% | 55.6% |
| Range | 46.5% | 54.6% |
| Mean | 11.4% | 12.7% |
| Median | 9.3% | 11.1% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 6.5% | 9.0% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 11.9% | 12.9% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.5% | 3.8% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 9.7% | 8.4% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 9.6% | 8.4% |
Demographics Similar to Burmese and Norwegians by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Burmese are Luxembourger (11.6%, a difference of 0.020%), 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%), and Croatian (11.6%, a difference of 0.29%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Norwegians are Immigrants from Scotland (11.5%, a difference of 0.040%), Bolivian (11.5%, a difference of 0.090%), Immigrants from Bolivia (11.5%, a difference of 0.16%), Eastern European (11.5%, a difference of 0.23%), and Latvian (11.4%, a difference of 0.64%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
| Maltese | 99.9 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 11.2% |
| Bhutanese | 99.9 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 11.3% |
| 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% |