Tsimshian vs White/Caucasian Family Poverty
COMPARE
Tsimshian
White/Caucasian
Family Poverty
Family Poverty Comparison
Tsimshian
Whites/Caucasians
8.8%
FAMILY POVERTY
69.3/ 100
METRIC RATING
157th/ 347
METRIC RANK
8.8%
FAMILY POVERTY
69.1/ 100
METRIC RATING
158th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Tsimshian vs White/Caucasian Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 15,624,889 people shows a slight positive correlation between the proportion of Tsimshian and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.087 and weighted average of 8.8%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 578,762,373 people shows a very strong negative correlation between the proportion of Whites/Caucasians and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.883 and weighted average of 8.8%, a difference of 0.040%.
Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Tsimshian | White/Caucasian |
| Minimum | 3.9% | 6.3% |
| Maximum | 22.7% | 30.1% |
| Range | 18.9% | 23.8% |
| Mean | 9.9% | 12.0% |
| Median | 7.7% | 11.9% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 6.4% | 7.9% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 11.2% | 14.7% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.7% | 6.7% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.0% | 4.6% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.9% | 4.6% |
Demographics Similar to Tsimshian and Whites/Caucasians by Family Poverty
In terms of family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Tsimshian are Peruvian (8.8%, a difference of 0.20%), Immigrants from Oceania (8.7%, a difference of 0.30%), Hungarian (8.8%, a difference of 0.34%), Immigrants from Northern Africa (8.8%, a difference of 0.38%), and Ethiopian (8.8%, a difference of 0.46%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Whites/Caucasians are Peruvian (8.8%, a difference of 0.16%), Hungarian (8.8%, a difference of 0.30%), Immigrants from Northern Africa (8.8%, a difference of 0.33%), Immigrants from Oceania (8.7%, a difference of 0.34%), and Ethiopian (8.8%, a difference of 0.42%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Family Poverty |
| Immigrants | Jordan | 83.0 /100 | #147 | Excellent 8.5% |
| Scotch-Irish | 82.2 /100 | #148 | Excellent 8.6% |
| Mongolians | 80.4 /100 | #149 | Excellent 8.6% |
| Syrians | 80.3 /100 | #150 | Excellent 8.6% |
| Brazilians | 80.1 /100 | #151 | Excellent 8.6% |
| Samoans | 79.8 /100 | #152 | Good 8.6% |
| Immigrants | Spain | 79.1 /100 | #153 | Good 8.6% |
| Immigrants | Vietnam | 75.4 /100 | #154 | Good 8.7% |
| Immigrants | Kuwait | 73.6 /100 | #155 | Good 8.7% |
| Immigrants | Oceania | 71.2 /100 | #156 | Good 8.7% |
| Tsimshian | 69.3 /100 | #157 | Good 8.8% |
| Whites/Caucasians | 69.1 /100 | #158 | Good 8.8% |
| Peruvians | 68.0 /100 | #159 | Good 8.8% |
| Hungarians | 67.2 /100 | #160 | Good 8.8% |
| Immigrants | Northern Africa | 66.9 /100 | #161 | Good 8.8% |
| Ethiopians | 66.3 /100 | #162 | Good 8.8% |
| Pennsylvania Germans | 66.0 /100 | #163 | Good 8.8% |
| Celtics | 64.9 /100 | #164 | Good 8.8% |
| Guamanians/Chamorros | 64.7 /100 | #165 | Good 8.8% |
| Afghans | 63.5 /100 | #166 | Good 8.8% |
| Immigrants | Ethiopia | 62.5 /100 | #167 | Good 8.9% |