Chinese vs Filipino Family Poverty
COMPARE
Chinese
Filipino
Family Poverty
Family Poverty Comparison
Chinese
Filipinos
6.5%
FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
2nd/ 347
METRIC RANK
6.6%
FAMILY POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
4th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chinese vs Filipino 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 253,803,740 people shows a poor positive correlation between the proportion of Filipinos and poverty level among families in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.148 and weighted average of 6.6%, a difference of 2.2%.
Family Poverty Correlation Summary
Measurement | Chinese | Filipino |
Minimum | 1.3% | 1.8% |
Maximum | 19.1% | 12.3% |
Range | 17.8% | 10.4% |
Mean | 6.8% | 5.6% |
Median | 6.3% | 5.3% |
Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 3.5% | 3.7% |
Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 9.0% | 6.4% |
Interquartile Range (IQR) | 5.5% | 2.7% |
Standard Deviation (Sample) | 4.1% | 2.2% |
Standard Deviation (Population) | 4.1% | 2.2% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese and Filipinos 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%), Thai (6.7%, a difference of 2.8%), Immigrants from India (6.2%, a difference of 4.3%), 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 Filipinos are Thai (6.7%, a difference of 0.57%), Immigrants from Taiwan (6.6%, a difference of 0.61%), Norwegian (6.9%, a difference of 3.6%), Immigrants from Ireland (7.0%, a difference of 5.0%), and Bhutanese (7.0%, a difference of 6.0%).
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% |