Armenian vs Tsimshian Female Poverty
COMPARE
Armenian
Tsimshian
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Armenians
Tsimshian
13.2%
FEMALE POVERTY
70.4/ 100
METRIC RATING
154th/ 347
METRIC RANK
13.1%
FEMALE POVERTY
75.5/ 100
METRIC RATING
150th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Armenian vs Tsimshian Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 310,749,032 people shows a weak positive correlation between the proportion of Armenians and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.211 and weighted average of 13.2%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 15,626,462 people shows a slight negative correlation between the proportion of Tsimshian and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.062 and weighted average of 13.1%, a difference of 0.63%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Armenian | Tsimshian |
Minimum | 2.9% | 2.2% |
Maximum | 26.9% | 27.8% |
Range | 24.0% | 25.6% |
Mean | 12.6% | 14.0% |
Median | 12.1% | 13.1% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 8.0% | 10.4% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 16.2% | 17.6% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 8.1% | 7.2% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.6% | 7.2% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.5% | 6.9% |
Demographics Similar to Armenians and Tsimshian by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Armenians are Hungarian (13.2%, a difference of 0.040%), Immigrants from Fiji (13.2%, a difference of 0.070%), Immigrants from Bosnia and Herzegovina (13.2%, a difference of 0.090%), Immigrants from Northern Africa (13.2%, a difference of 0.19%), and Pennsylvania German (13.2%, a difference of 0.36%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Tsimshian are Taiwanese (13.1%, a difference of 0.030%), Immigrants from Germany (13.1%, a difference of 0.070%), Yugoslavian (13.1%, a difference of 0.19%), Samoan (13.1%, a difference of 0.24%), and Immigrants from Kazakhstan (13.0%, a difference of 0.44%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
Brazilians | 80.5 /100 | #142 | Excellent 13.0% |
Immigrants | Malaysia | 80.4 /100 | #143 | Excellent 13.0% |
Afghans | 79.8 /100 | #144 | Good 13.0% |
Syrians | 79.6 /100 | #145 | Good 13.0% |
Immigrants | Peru | 79.1 /100 | #146 | Good 13.0% |
Immigrants | Kazakhstan | 78.6 /100 | #147 | Good 13.0% |
Yugoslavians | 76.9 /100 | #148 | Good 13.1% |
Taiwanese | 75.7 /100 | #149 | Good 13.1% |
Tsimshian | 75.5 /100 | #150 | Good 13.1% |
Immigrants | Germany | 74.9 /100 | #151 | Good 13.1% |
Samoans | 73.6 /100 | #152 | Good 13.1% |
Immigrants | Fiji | 71.0 /100 | #153 | Good 13.2% |
Armenians | 70.4 /100 | #154 | Good 13.2% |
Hungarians | 70.1 /100 | #155 | Good 13.2% |
Immigrants | Bosnia and Herzegovina | 69.7 /100 | #156 | Good 13.2% |
Immigrants | Northern Africa | 68.8 /100 | #157 | Good 13.2% |
Pennsylvania Germans | 67.3 /100 | #158 | Good 13.2% |
Costa Ricans | 63.6 /100 | #159 | Good 13.3% |
Immigrants | Nepal | 62.7 /100 | #160 | Good 13.3% |
Immigrants | Ethiopia | 62.5 /100 | #161 | Good 13.3% |
Guamanians/Chamorros | 62.4 /100 | #162 | Good 13.3% |