Chinese vs Lithuanian Family Poverty
COMPARE
Chinese
Lithuanian
Family Poverty
Family Poverty Comparison
Chinese
Lithuanians
6.5%
FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
7.2%
FAMILY POVERTY
99.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
15th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chinese vs Lithuanian 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 420,202,329 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Lithuanians and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.502 and weighted average of 7.2%, a difference of 10.4%.
Family Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Chinese | Lithuanian |
Minimum | 1.3% | 2.0% |
Maximum | 19.1% | 31.6% |
Range | 17.8% | 29.6% |
Mean | 6.8% | 8.3% |
Median | 6.3% | 6.4% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 3.5% | 5.2% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 9.0% | 10.5% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.5% | 5.3% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.1% | 4.8% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.1% | 4.8% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese and Lithuanians 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 Lithuanians are Immigrants from South Central Asia (7.2%, a difference of 0.27%), Luxembourger (7.2%, a difference of 0.50%), Immigrants from Lithuania (7.2%, a difference of 0.51%), Eastern European (7.2%, a difference of 0.81%), and Swedish (7.1%, a difference of 0.88%).
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% |