Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Chinese Female Poverty
COMPARE
Immigrants from Hong Kong
Chinese
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Immigrants from Hong Kong
Chinese
11.2%
FEMALE POVERTY
99.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
10th/ 347
METRIC RANK
10.4%
FEMALE POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Immigrants from Hong Kong vs Chinese Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 253,845,930 people shows a weak negative correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Hong Kong and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.289 and weighted average of 11.2%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,802,428 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Chinese and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.064 and weighted average of 10.4%, a difference of 8.0%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Immigrants from Hong Kong | Chinese |
| Minimum | 1.3% | 3.4% |
| Maximum | 18.6% | 25.9% |
| Range | 17.3% | 22.5% |
| Mean | 9.4% | 10.8% |
| Median | 9.5% | 10.4% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 7.2% | 6.6% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 10.9% | 13.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 3.7% | 6.7% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 3.4% | 5.2% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 3.4% | 5.1% |
Demographics Similar to Immigrants from Hong Kong and Chinese by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Hong Kong are Maltese (11.2%, a difference of 0.11%), Bhutanese (11.3%, a difference of 0.57%), Immigrants from Lithuania (11.3%, a difference of 0.58%), Bulgarian (11.1%, a difference of 0.80%), and Immigrants from South Central Asia (11.1%, a difference of 0.99%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Thai (10.5%, a difference of 0.65%), Immigrants from Taiwan (10.5%, a difference of 1.4%), Immigrants from India (9.9%, a difference of 5.2%), Filipino (10.9%, a difference of 5.4%), and Immigrants from Ireland (11.0%, a difference of 5.8%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
| Immigrants | India | 100.0 /100 | #1 | Exceptional 9.9% |
| Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 10.4% |
| Thais | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 10.5% |
| Immigrants | Taiwan | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 10.5% |
| Filipinos | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 10.9% |
| Immigrants | Ireland | 99.9 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 11.0% |
| Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs | 99.9 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 11.0% |
| Immigrants | South Central Asia | 99.9 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 11.1% |
| Bulgarians | 99.9 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 11.1% |
| Immigrants | Hong Kong | 99.9 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 11.2% |
| Maltese | 99.9 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 11.2% |
| Bhutanese | 99.9 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 11.3% |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.9 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 11.3% |
| Lithuanians | 99.8 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Latvians | 99.8 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 11.4% |
| Immigrants | Bolivia | 99.8 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Bolivians | 99.8 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Immigrants | Scotland | 99.8 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Norwegians | 99.8 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 11.5% |
| Eastern Europeans | 99.7 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 11.5% |