Tsimshian vs Yugoslavian Female Poverty
COMPARE
Tsimshian
Yugoslavian
Female Poverty
Female Poverty Comparison
Tsimshian
Yugoslavians
13.1%
FEMALE POVERTY
75.5/ 100
METRIC RATING
150th/ 347
METRIC RANK
13.1%
FEMALE POVERTY
76.9/ 100
METRIC RATING
148th/ 347
METRIC RANK
Tsimshian vs Yugoslavian Female Poverty Correlation Chart
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%. Similarly, the statistical analysis conducted on geographies consisting of 285,591,967 people shows no correlation between the proportion of Yugoslavians and poverty level among females in the United States with a correlation coefficient (R) of -0.048 and weighted average of 13.1%, a difference of 0.19%.
Female Poverty Correlation Summary
| Measurement | Tsimshian | Yugoslavian |
| Minimum | 2.2% | 2.0% |
| Maximum | 27.8% | 30.2% |
| Range | 25.6% | 28.2% |
| Mean | 14.0% | 12.4% |
| Median | 13.1% | 12.1% |
| Interquartile 25% (IQ1) | 10.4% | 9.7% |
| Interquartile 75% (IQ3) | 17.6% | 14.5% |
| Interquartile Range (IQR) | 7.2% | 4.8% |
| Standard Deviation (Sample) | 7.2% | 5.5% |
| Standard Deviation (Population) | 6.9% | 5.5% |
Demographics Similar to Tsimshian and Yugoslavians by Female Poverty
In terms of female poverty, 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%), Samoan (13.1%, a difference of 0.24%), Immigrants from Kazakhstan (13.0%, a difference of 0.44%), and Immigrants from Peru (13.0%, a difference of 0.52%). Similarly, the demographic groups most similar to Yugoslavians are Taiwanese (13.1%, a difference of 0.16%), Immigrants from Kazakhstan (13.0%, a difference of 0.25%), Immigrants from Germany (13.1%, a difference of 0.26%), Immigrants from Peru (13.0%, a difference of 0.33%), and Syrian (13.0%, a difference of 0.40%).
| Demographics | Rating | Rank | Female Poverty |
| Basques | 83.1 /100 | #139 | Excellent 12.9% |
| Pakistanis | 83.0 /100 | #140 | Excellent 12.9% |
| Icelanders | 81.1 /100 | #141 | Excellent 13.0% |
| 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% |