Bhutanese vs Chinese Family Poverty
COMPARE
Bhutanese
Chinese
Family Poverty
Family Poverty Comparison
Bhutanese
Chinese
7.0%
FAMILY POVERTY
99.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
8th/ 347
METRIC RANK
6.5%
FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Bhutanese vs Chinese Family Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 453,917,990 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Bhutanese and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.160 and weighted average of 7.0%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,784,795 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Chinese and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.039 and weighted average of 6.5%, a difference of 8.3%.
Family Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Bhutanese | Chinese |
| Minimum | 1.3% | 1.3% |
| Maximum | 49.5% | 19.1% |
| Range | 48.2% | 17.8% |
| Mean | 7.3% | 6.8% |
| Median | 5.9% | 6.3% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 4.1% | 3.5% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 8.9% | 9.0% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 4.9% | 5.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 5.9% | 4.1% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 5.8% | 4.1% |
Demographics Similar to Bhutanese and Chinese by Family Poverty
In terms of family poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Bhutanese are Latvian (7.1%, a difference of 0.44%), Bulgarian (7.1%, a difference of 0.70%), Immigrants from Singapore (7.1%, a difference of 0.71%), Immigrants from Ireland (7.0%, a difference of 0.91%), and Maltese (7.1%, a difference of 1.0%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Immigrants from Taiwan (6.6%, a difference of 1.6%), Filipino (6.6%, a difference of 2.2%), Thai (6.7%, a difference of 2.8%), Immigrants from India (6.2%, a difference of 4.3%), and Norwegian (6.9%, a difference of 5.9%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Family Poverty |
| Immigrants | India | 100.0 /100 | #1 | Exceptional 6.2% |
| Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 6.5% |
| Immigrants | Taiwan | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 6.6% |
| Filipinos | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 6.6% |
| Thais | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 6.7% |
| Norwegians | 99.9 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 6.9% |
| Immigrants | Ireland | 99.9 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 7.0% |
| Bhutanese | 99.9 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 7.0% |
| Latvians | 99.9 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 7.1% |
| Bulgarians | 99.8 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 7.1% |
| Immigrants | Singapore | 99.8 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 7.1% |
| Maltese | 99.8 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 7.1% |
| Swedes | 99.8 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 7.1% |
| Iranians | 99.8 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 7.1% |
| Lithuanians | 99.8 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 7.2% |
| Immigrants | South Central Asia | 99.8 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 7.2% |
| Luxembourgers | 99.8 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 7.2% |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 99.8 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 7.2% |
| Eastern Europeans | 99.7 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 7.2% |
| Immigrants | Hong Kong | 99.7 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 7.3% |