Chinese vs Immigrants from Lithuania Family Poverty
COMPARE
Chinese
Immigrants from Lithuania
Family Poverty
Family Poverty Comparison
Chinese
Immigrants from Lithuania
6.5%
FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
7.2%
FAMILY POVERTY
99.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
18th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chinese vs Immigrants from Lithuania Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,784,795 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chinese and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.039 and weighted average of 6.5%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 117,605,958 people shows a weak negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Lithuania and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.235 and weighted average of 7.2%, a difference of 11.0%.
Family Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Chinese | Immigrants from Lithuania |
Minimum | 1.3% | 1.9% |
Maximum | 19.1% | 9.7% |
Range | 17.8% | 7.8% |
Mean | 6.8% | 5.5% |
Median | 6.3% | 5.5% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 3.5% | 4.1% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 9.0% | 6.7% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.5% | 2.5% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.1% | 2.2% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.1% | 2.1% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese and Immigrants from Lithuania by Family Poverty
In terms of family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Immigrants from Taiwan (6.6%, a difference of 1.6%), Filipino (6.6%, a difference of 2.2%), Thai (6.7%, a difference of 2.8%), Immigrants from India (6.2%, a difference of 4.3%), and Norwegian (6.9%, a difference of 5.9%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Lithuania are Luxembourger (7.2%, a difference of 0.010%), Immigrants from South Central Asia (7.2%, a difference of 0.24%), Eastern European (7.2%, a difference of 0.30%), Immigrants from Hong Kong (7.3%, a difference of 0.46%), and Lithuanian (7.2%, a difference of 0.51%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Family Poverty |
Immigrants | India | 100.0 /100 | #1 | Exceptional 6.2% |
Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 6.5% |
Immigrants | Taiwan | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 6.6% |
Filipinos | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 6.6% |
Thais | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 6.7% |
Norwegians | 99.9 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 6.9% |
Immigrants | Ireland | 99.9 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 7.0% |
Bhutanese | 99.9 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 7.0% |
Latvians | 99.9 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 7.1% |
Bulgarians | 99.8 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 7.1% |
Immigrants | Singapore | 99.8 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 7.1% |
Maltese | 99.8 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 7.1% |
Swedes | 99.8 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 7.1% |
Iranians | 99.8 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 7.1% |
Lithuanians | 99.8 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 7.2% |
Immigrants | South Central Asia | 99.8 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 7.2% |
Luxembourgers | 99.8 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 7.2% |
Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.8 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 7.2% |
Eastern Europeans | 99.7 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 7.2% |
Immigrants | Hong Kong | 99.7 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 7.3% |