Chinese vs Eastern European Poverty
COMPARE
Chinese
Eastern European
Poverty
Poverty Comparison
Chinese
Eastern Europeans
9.5%
POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
10.6%
POVERTY
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
22nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chinese vs Eastern European Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,802,428 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.156 and weighted average of 9.5%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 460,932,283 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Eastern Europeans and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.505 and weighted average of 10.6%, a difference of 11.0%.
Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Chinese | Eastern European |
Minimum | 3.4% | 1.7% |
Maximum | 26.1% | 39.9% |
Range | 22.7% | 38.2% |
Mean | 10.2% | 11.2% |
Median | 9.6% | 7.9% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.6% | 5.3% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 11.6% | 13.8% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.9% | 8.4% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.6% | 9.1% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.5% | 9.1% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese and Eastern Europeans by Poverty
In terms of poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Thai (9.6%, a difference of 0.45%), Immigrants from Taiwan (9.7%, a difference of 1.9%), Immigrants from Ireland (10.1%, a difference of 5.6%), Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac (10.1%, a difference of 5.8%), and Filipino (10.1%, a difference of 6.0%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Eastern Europeans are Luxembourger (10.6%, a difference of 0.16%), Immigrants from North Macedonia (10.6%, a difference of 0.24%), Immigrants from Scotland (10.6%, a difference of 0.35%), Latvian (10.5%, a difference of 0.74%), and Norwegian (10.5%, a difference of 0.84%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Poverty |
Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 9.5% |
Thais | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 9.6% |
Immigrants | Taiwan | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 9.7% |
Immigrants | Ireland | 99.9 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 10.1% |
Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs | 99.9 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 10.1% |
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% |