Chinese vs Lithuanian Male Poverty
COMPARE
Chinese
Lithuanian
Male Poverty
Male Poverty Comparison
Chinese
Lithuanians
8.7%
MALE POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
9.5%
MALE POVERTY
99.8/ 100
METRIC RATING
18th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chinese vs Lithuanian Male Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,801,112 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.236 and weighted average of 8.7%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 421,480,494 people shows a substantial positive correlation between the proportion of Lithuanians and poverty level among males in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.503 and weighted average of 9.5%, a difference of 9.9%.
Male Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Chinese | Lithuanian |
| Minimum | 1.3% | 0.15% |
| Maximum | 29.4% | 53.0% |
| Range | 28.2% | 52.8% |
| Mean | 9.7% | 11.4% |
| Median | 8.9% | 8.5% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 4.8% | 6.9% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 12.4% | 13.0% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 7.6% | 6.0% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 6.4% | 8.6% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 6.4% | 8.6% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese and Lithuanians by Male Poverty
In terms of male poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Thai (8.7%, a difference of 0.080%), Immigrants from Taiwan (8.9%, a difference of 2.4%), Maltese (9.1%, a difference of 4.4%), Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac (9.1%, a difference of 5.1%), and Immigrants from Ireland (9.1%, a difference of 5.2%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Lithuanians are Norwegian (9.5%, a difference of 0.17%), Immigrants from Hong Kong (9.6%, a difference of 0.18%), Latvian (9.6%, a difference of 0.28%), Luxembourger (9.5%, a difference of 0.30%), and Bhutanese (9.5%, a difference of 0.82%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Male Poverty |
| Immigrants | India | 100.0 /100 | #1 | Exceptional 8.2% |
| Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 8.7% |
| Thais | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 8.7% |
| Immigrants | Taiwan | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 8.9% |
| Maltese | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 9.1% |
| Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs | 99.9 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 9.1% |
| Immigrants | Ireland | 99.9 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 9.1% |
| Filipinos | 99.9 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 9.2% |
| Immigrants | South Central Asia | 99.9 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 9.3% |
| Bulgarians | 99.9 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 9.3% |
| Bolivians | 99.9 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 9.4% |
| Immigrants | Bolivia | 99.9 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 9.4% |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.9 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 9.4% |
| Immigrants | North Macedonia | 99.8 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 9.4% |
| Bhutanese | 99.8 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 9.5% |
| Luxembourgers | 99.8 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 9.5% |
| Norwegians | 99.8 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 9.5% |
| Lithuanians | 99.8 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 9.5% |
| Immigrants | Hong Kong | 99.7 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 9.6% |
| Latvians | 99.7 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 9.6% |