Zimbabwean vs Carpatho Rusyn Married-Couple Family Poverty
COMPARE
Zimbabwean
Carpatho Rusyn
Married-Couple Family Poverty
Married-Couple Family Poverty Comparison
Zimbabweans
Carpatho Rusyns
4.1%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
99.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
21st/ 347
METRIC RANK
3.9%
MARRIED-COUPLE FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
10th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Zimbabwean vs Carpatho Rusyn Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 69,119,087 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Zimbabweans and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.075 and weighted average of 4.1%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 58,607,667 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Carpatho Rusyns and poverty level among married-couple families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.274 and weighted average of 3.9%, a difference of 3.6%.
Married-Couple Family Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Zimbabwean | Carpatho Rusyn |
Minimum | 1.0% | 0.39% |
Maximum | 6.9% | 8.8% |
Range | 5.9% | 8.4% |
Mean | 3.4% | 3.7% |
Median | 3.4% | 3.3% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 2.2% | 1.9% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 4.3% | 5.0% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 2.1% | 3.2% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 1.5% | 2.2% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 1.5% | 2.2% |
Demographics Similar to Zimbabweans and Carpatho Rusyns by Married-Couple Family Poverty
In terms of married-couple family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Zimbabweans are Maltese (4.1%, a difference of 0.030%), Immigrants from Ireland (4.1%, a difference of 0.27%), Immigrants from Singapore (4.1%, a difference of 0.37%), Bhutanese (4.1%, a difference of 0.39%), and Eastern European (4.1%, a difference of 0.62%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Carpatho Rusyns are Croatian (3.9%, a difference of 0.050%), Thai (3.9%, a difference of 0.49%), Lithuanian (4.0%, a difference of 0.51%), Latvian (3.9%, a difference of 1.0%), and Bulgarian (4.0%, a difference of 1.2%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Married-Couple Family Poverty |
Swedes | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 3.9% |
Luxembourgers | 100.0 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 3.9% |
Latvians | 100.0 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 3.9% |
Thais | 100.0 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 3.9% |
Croatians | 100.0 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 3.9% |
Carpatho Rusyns | 100.0 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 3.9% |
Lithuanians | 100.0 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 4.0% |
Bulgarians | 100.0 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 4.0% |
Czechs | 100.0 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 4.0% |
Slovaks | 100.0 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 4.0% |
Poles | 100.0 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 4.0% |
Germans | 100.0 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 4.0% |
Filipinos | 100.0 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 4.0% |
Italians | 100.0 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 4.0% |
Immigrants | Ireland | 99.9 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 4.1% |
Maltese | 99.9 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 4.1% |
Zimbabweans | 99.9 /100 | #21 | Exceptional 4.1% |
Immigrants | Singapore | 99.9 /100 | #22 | Exceptional 4.1% |
Bhutanese | 99.9 /100 | #23 | Exceptional 4.1% |
Eastern Europeans | 99.9 /100 | #24 | Exceptional 4.1% |
Immigrants | Taiwan | 99.9 /100 | #25 | Exceptional 4.1% |