Chinese vs Immigrants from South Central Asia Poverty
COMPARE
Chinese
Immigrants from South Central Asia
Poverty
Poverty Comparison
Chinese
Immigrants from South Central Asia
9.5%
POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
10.2%
POVERTY
99.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
9th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chinese vs Immigrants from South Central Asia 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 472,664,539 people shows a significant negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from South Central Asia and poverty level in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.610 and weighted average of 10.2%, a difference of 6.9%.
Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Chinese | Immigrants from South Central Asia |
Minimum | 3.4% | 0.44% |
Maximum | 26.1% | 18.0% |
Range | 22.7% | 17.6% |
Mean | 10.2% | 7.3% |
Median | 9.6% | 7.0% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 5.6% | 4.9% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 11.6% | 9.2% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.9% | 4.2% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.6% | 3.4% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.5% | 3.4% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese and Immigrants from South Central Asia 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%), Immigrants from India (9.0%, a difference of 5.6%), and Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac (10.1%, a difference of 5.8%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from South Central Asia are Bulgarian (10.2%, a difference of 0.41%), Maltese (10.2%, a difference of 0.45%), Filipino (10.1%, a difference of 0.87%), Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac (10.1%, a difference of 1.0%), and Immigrants from Ireland (10.1%, a difference of 1.2%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Poverty |
Immigrants | India | 100.0 /100 | #1 | Exceptional 9.0% |
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% |