Chinese vs Immigrants from Iran Single Female Poverty
COMPARE
Chinese
Immigrants from Iran
Single Female Poverty
Single Female Poverty Comparison
Chinese
Immigrants from Iran
16.1%
SINGLE FEMALE POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
1st/ 347
METRIC RANK
17.5%
SINGLE FEMALE POVERTY
100.0/ 100
METRIC RATING
8th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Chinese vs Immigrants from Iran Single Female Poverty Correlation Chart
The statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 64,651,041 people shows a weak negative correlation between the proportion of Chinese and poverty level among single females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.244 and weighted average of 16.1%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 276,267,918 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Immigrants from Iran and poverty level among single females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of 0.036 and weighted average of 17.5%, a difference of 8.1%.
Single Female Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Chinese | Immigrants from Iran |
| Minimum | 1.3% | 1.9% |
| Maximum | 43.0% | 30.4% |
| Range | 41.7% | 28.5% |
| Mean | 16.1% | 15.7% |
| Median | 16.1% | 15.3% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 9.3% | 12.3% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 20.3% | 19.3% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 10.9% | 6.9% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 9.1% | 5.6% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 9.1% | 5.5% |
Demographics Similar to Chinese and Immigrants from Iran by Single Female Poverty
In terms of single female poverty, the demographic groups most similar to Chinese are Immigrants from Taiwan (16.4%, a difference of 1.3%), Immigrants from Hong Kong (16.5%, a difference of 2.4%), Immigrants from India (16.8%, a difference of 4.2%), Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac (17.0%, a difference of 5.0%), and Filipino (17.0%, a difference of 5.2%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Immigrants from Iran are Thai (17.3%, a difference of 0.99%), Bhutanese (17.7%, a difference of 1.4%), Immigrants from Ireland (17.8%, a difference of 1.8%), Immigrants from Lithuania (17.8%, a difference of 1.9%), and Immigrants from South Central Asia (17.8%, a difference of 2.0%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Single Female Poverty |
| Chinese | 100.0 /100 | #1 | Exceptional 16.1% |
| Immigrants | Taiwan | 100.0 /100 | #2 | Exceptional 16.4% |
| Immigrants | Hong Kong | 100.0 /100 | #3 | Exceptional 16.5% |
| Immigrants | India | 100.0 /100 | #4 | Exceptional 16.8% |
| Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs | 100.0 /100 | #5 | Exceptional 17.0% |
| Filipinos | 100.0 /100 | #6 | Exceptional 17.0% |
| Thais | 100.0 /100 | #7 | Exceptional 17.3% |
| Immigrants | Iran | 100.0 /100 | #8 | Exceptional 17.5% |
| Bhutanese | 100.0 /100 | #9 | Exceptional 17.7% |
| Immigrants | Ireland | 100.0 /100 | #10 | Exceptional 17.8% |
| Immigrants | Lithuania | 100.0 /100 | #11 | Exceptional 17.8% |
| Immigrants | South Central Asia | 100.0 /100 | #12 | Exceptional 17.8% |
| Immigrants | Bolivia | 100.0 /100 | #13 | Exceptional 17.8% |
| Bolivians | 100.0 /100 | #14 | Exceptional 17.9% |
| Indians (Asian) | 100.0 /100 | #15 | Exceptional 17.9% |
| Iranians | 100.0 /100 | #16 | Exceptional 18.0% |
| Immigrants | Korea | 100.0 /100 | #17 | Exceptional 18.1% |
| Immigrants | Eastern Asia | 100.0 /100 | #18 | Exceptional 18.1% |
| Immigrants | China | 100.0 /100 | #19 | Exceptional 18.1% |
| Immigrants | Greece | 100.0 /100 | #20 | Exceptional 18.3% |