Chinese vs Danish Family Poverty
COMPARE
Chinese
Danish
Family Poverty
Family Poverty Comparison
Chinese
Danes
6.5%
FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
7.3%
FAMILY POVERTY
99.7/ 100
METRIC RATING
22nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chinese vs Danish Family Poverty Correlation Chart
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%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 471,902,124 people shows a mild positive correlation between the proportion of Danes and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.386 and weighted average of 7.3%, a difference of 12.2%.
![Chinese vs Danish Family Poverty](/correlation-charts/metric-comparison/family-poverty/chinese-vs-danes-family-poverty-chart.webp)
Family Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Chinese | Danish |
Minimum | 1.3% | 2.7% |
Maximum | 19.1% | 36.6% |
Range | 17.8% | 33.8% |
Mean | 6.8% | 8.5% |
Median | 6.3% | 6.8% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 3.5% | 5.9% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 9.0% | 9.6% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.5% | 3.7% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.1% | 5.3% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.1% | 5.2% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese and Danes by Family Poverty
In terms of family poverty, 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%), Norwegian (6.9%, a difference of 5.9%), and Immigrants from Ireland (7.0%, a difference of 7.3%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Danes are Immigrants from Iran (7.3%, a difference of 0.44%), Immigrants from Hong Kong (7.3%, a difference of 0.64%), Eastern European (7.2%, a difference of 0.80%), Immigrants from Lithuania (7.2%, a difference of 1.1%), and Luxembourger (7.2%, a difference of 1.1%).
Demographics | Rating | Rank | Family Poverty |
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% |
Immigrants | Iran | 99.7 /100 | #21 | Exceptional 7.3% |
Danes | 99.7 /100 | #22 | Exceptional 7.3% |